text:
# Variations of Mixed Hodge Structures of Multiple Polylogarithms11footnote 12000 Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary: 14D07, 14D05; Secondary: 33B30.

## 1 Introduction

In early 1980s Deligne  discovers that the dilogarithm gives rise to a good variation of mixed Hodge-Tate structures. This has been generalized to polylogarithms (cf. ) following Ramakrishnan’s computation of the monodromy of the polylogarithms. The monodromy computation also yields the single-valued variant $`_n(z)`$ of the polylogarithms (cf. ). These functions in turn have significant applications in arithmetic such as Zagier’s conjecture \[16, p.622\]. On the other hand, as pointed out in , “higher cyclotomy theory” should study the multiple polylogarithm motives at roots of unity, not only those of the polylogarithms. For this reason we want to look at the variations of mixed Hodge structures associated with the multiple polylogarithms and see how far we can generalize the classical results. In theory such variations of mixed Hodge structures are well known to the experts. The purpose of our explicit construction is to give some important applications.

For any positive integer $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_n`$, the multiple polylogarithm is defined as follows:

$$Li_{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=\underset{0<k_1<k_2<\mathrm{}<k_n}{}\frac{x_1^{k_1}x_2^{k_2}\mathrm{}x_n^{k_n}}{k_1^{m_1}k_2^{m_2}\mathrm{}k_n^{m_n}},|x_i|<1.$$
(1)
We call $`n`$ the depth and $`K:=m_1+\mathrm{}+m_n`$ the weight. When the depth $`n=1`$ the function is nothing but the classical polylogarithm. More than a century ago H. Poincaré  already knew that hyperlogarithms

$$F_n\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a_1,\mathrm{},a_n}{b_1,\mathrm{},b_n}|z\right)=_{b_n}^z\mathrm{}_{b_2}^{t_3}_{b_1}^{t_2}\frac{dt_1}{t_1a_1}\frac{dt_2}{t_2a_2}\mathrm{}\frac{dt_n}{t_na_n}$$

are important for solving differential equations. We observe that although the multiple polylogarithm can be represented by the iterated path integral in the sense of Chen

$$Li_{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=(1)^nF_K\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a_1,\stackrel{m_11\text{ times}}{\stackrel{}{0,\mathrm{},0}},\mathrm{},a_n,\stackrel{m_n1\text{ times}}{\stackrel{}{0,\mathrm{},0}}}{0,0,\mathrm{},0,\mathrm{},0,0,\mathrm{},0}|1\right),$$
(2)
where $`a_i=1/(x_i\mathrm{}x_n)`$ for $`1in`$, it is not obvious that this actually yields a genuine analytic continuation in the usual sense when $`n2`$.

According to the theory of framed mixed Hodge-Tate structures the multiple polylogarithms are period functions of some variations of mixed Hodge-Tate structures (see , \[7, §12\] and \[7, §3.5\]). Wojtkowiak  studies mixed Hodge structures of iterated integrals over $`P^1\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$ and investigates functional equations arising from there. In this paper we adopt a different approach and compute explicitly the variations of mixed Hodge-Tate structures related to the multiple logarithms

$$𝔏_n(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n):=Li_{\underset{n\text{ times}}{\underset{}{1,\mathrm{},1}}}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n).$$

This work relies on our new definition of analytic continuation of the multiple polylogarithms given in another paper , by using Chen’s iterated path integrals over $`P^nD_n`$ with some non-normal crossing divisor $`D_n`$. In order to have reasonable variations we should be able to control their behavior at “infinity”. This requires us to deal with the natural extension of the variations to the infinity using the classical result of Deligne \[6, Proposition 5.2\]. By the same idea we are able to treat all the weight three multiple polylogarithms and present a result for the double polylogarithms. From the examples we make the following

###### Conjecture 1.1.

The variations of mixed Hodge-Tate structures related to any multiple polylogarithm can be produced as the variations of some limit mixed Hodge-Tate structures related to some suitable choice of multiple logarithm.

We point out that the old form (2) of multiple polylogarithms is not suitable for the investigation of the MHS at the infinity because it is even not obvious from this form what the “infinity” is exactly.

As another important application of the our explicit computation, in the last section of this paper we describe an approach to computing the single-valued real analytic version of the multiple polylogarithms following an idea of Beilinson and Deligne . We find some some interesting identities relating single-valued multiple polylogarithms of the same weight $`k`$ when $`k=2`$ and 3. For example, we find the single-valued real analytic double logarithm (see Eqs. (24) and (25))

$`_{1,1}(x,y)=`$ $`\mathrm{Im}\left(Li_{1,1}(x,y)\right)\mathrm{arg}(1y)\mathrm{log}|1x|\mathrm{arg}(1xy)\mathrm{log}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{x(1y)}{x1}}\right|`$
$`=`$ $`_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{xyy}{1y}}\right)_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{y}{y1}}\right)_2(xy)`$
where $`_2(z)`$ is the famous single-valued dilogarithm.

The motivation of this paper comes from \[8, §2,3\] where the Hodge-Tate structures associated with the double logarithms are discussed, and from  where an elegant construction of the single-valued real analytic version of classical polylogarithms are given. The author wishes to thank R. Hain for answering some of my (perhaps silly) questions concerning the good unipotent variations of mixed Hodge structures. H. Gangl kindly informed the author of the preprint  of Wojtkowiak in which conjectures generalizing Zagier’s are also considered.

As usual HS stands for “Hodge structure” and MHS for “mixed Hodge structure(s)”.

## 2 Multiple logarithms

We follow the notation in  in this paper. Recall that we have an index set

$$𝔖_n=\{𝐢=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n):0i_t1\text{ for }t=1,\mathrm{},n\}$$

equipped with a weight function

$$|(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)|=i_1+\mathrm{}+i_n$$

and two different orderings: a complete ordering $`<`$ and a partial $``$. If $`|𝐢|<|𝐣|`$ then $`𝐢<𝐣`$ (or, equivalently, $`𝐣>𝐢`$). If $`|𝐢|=|𝐣|`$ then the usual lexicographic order from left to right is in force with $`0<1<\mathrm{}`$. The partial ordering is defined as follows. Let $`𝐢=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)`$ and $`𝐣=(j_1,\mathrm{},j_n)`$. We set $`𝐣𝐢`$ (or, equivalently, $`𝐢𝐣`$) if $`j_ti_t`$ for every $`1tn`$. For example $`(0,0,1,0)(0,1,1,0)`$ in $`𝔖(1,1,1,1)`$ but $`(1,0,0,0)(0,1,1,0)`$ and $`(1,0,0,0)(0,1,1,0)`$. Clearly $`𝐣𝐢`$ implies $`𝐣<𝐢`$ but not vice versa.

For any $`𝐢=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)𝔖_n`$ with $`i_s=0`$ we define

$$\text{pos}(𝐢,𝐢+𝐮_s)=s$$

as the position where the component is increased by 1. For example $`\text{pos}((1,0),(1,1))=2`$. We define the position functions $`f_n^1,\mathrm{},f_n^n`$ on $`\stackrel{}{\mathit{ȷ}}𝔖_n^n`$ as follows:

$$f_n^1(\stackrel{}{\mathit{ȷ}})=1,f_n^t(\stackrel{}{\mathit{ȷ}})=\text{pos}(𝐣_{t1},𝐣_t),\text{ for }2tn.$$

These functions tell us the places where the increments occur in the queue of $`\stackrel{}{\mathit{ȷ}}`$. Set

$$w_1(𝐱):=d\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{1}{1x_1}\right);w_t(𝐱):=d\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{1x_{t1}^1}{1x_t}\right),\text{ for }2tn.$$

The analytic

###### Proposition 2.1.

(\[18, Proposition 5.1\]) The multiple logarithm $`𝔏_n(𝐱)`$ is a multi-valued holomorphic function on

$$\underset{1jn}{}(1x_j)\underset{1j<kn}{}\left(1x_j\mathrm{}x_k\right)=0.$$

and can be expressed by

$$𝔏_n(𝐱)=\underset{\stackrel{}{\mathit{ȷ}}=(𝐣_1,\mathrm{},𝐣_n)𝔖_n^n}{}_\mathrm{𝟎}^𝐱w_{f_n^1(\stackrel{}{\mathit{ȷ}})}(𝐱(𝐣_1))w_{f_n^2(\stackrel{}{\mathit{ȷ}})}(𝐱(𝐣_2))\mathrm{}w_{f_n^n(\stackrel{}{\mathit{ȷ}})}(𝐱(𝐣_n)),$$
(3)
where the path from $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ to $`𝐱`$ lies in $`S_n^{}`$.

## 3 Multiple logarithm variations of MHS

In this section we will define the variation matrix $`_{[n]}(𝐱)`$ coming from the multiple logarithms of depths up to $`n`$. We will show that it is a $`2^n\times 2^n`$ multi-valued matrix which defines a good variation of a MHS over $`S_n=^nD_n`$ where $`D_n`$ is the divisor defined by

$$\underset{1jn}{}x_j(1x_j)\underset{1j<kn}{}\left(1x_j\mathrm{}x_k\right)=0.$$

###### Remark 3.1.

In fact, the irreducible component $`x_n=0`$ in $`D_n`$ is not needed in the case of multiple logarithms. But the variation matrix corresponding to general multiple polylogarithms may have singularities along this component, for example, $`_{1,2}(x_1,x_2)`$ of the double polylogarithm $`Li_{1,2}(x_1,x_2)`$. See chapter 5.

### 3.1 Definition of variations of MHS: a review

In this section we briefly review the theory of variations of MHS.

A pure ($``$-)HS of weight $`k`$ consists of a finitely generated abelian group $`H()`$ and a decreasing Hodge filtration $`^{}`$ on $`H():=H()_{}`$ such that $`H()=^p\overline{^{kp+1}}`$ for all integers $`p`$. Here the “bar” is the complex conjugation on the second factor of the tensor product. A special example is the Tate structure $`(k)`$ of weight $`2k`$ consists of $`H()=`$ and the filtration $`^p=0`$ for $`p>k`$ and $`^p=H()`$ for $`pk`$.

A MHS consists of a finitely generated abelian group $`H()`$ and two filtrations: an increasing weight filtration $`W_{}`$ on $`H():=H()_{}`$ and a decreasing filtration $`^{}`$ on $`H()`$, which are compatible in the following sense. On each graded piece of the weight filtration $`\mathrm{gr}_k^W=W_k/W_{k1}`$ the induced Hodge filtration determined by

$$^p(\mathrm{gr}_k^W)()=(^pW_k()+W_{k1}())/W_{k1}()$$

is a pure Hodge structure of weight $`k`$ where $`W_k():=W_k_Z`$. If all the pure Hodge structures induced as above are direct sums of Tate structures then we say the MHS is a Tate structure. For a mixed Hodge-Tate structure we can put a framing as in \[2, §1.3.4, §1.4\].

Following Steenbrink and Zucker \[14, Definitions 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4\] we have

###### Definition 3.2.

A variation of HS of weight $`k`$ defined over $``$ and a complex manifold $`S`$ is a collection of data $`(𝕍_{},^{})`$ where

(a) $`𝕍_{}`$ is a locally constant sheaf (local system) of $``$-vector spaces on $`S`$,

(b) $`^{}`$ is a decreasing filtration by holomorphic subbundles of the locally free sheaf $`𝒱=𝒪_S_{}𝕍_{}`$.

(c) At each $`sS`$, $`^{}`$ induces the Hodge filtration $`_s^{}`$ of a Hodge structure of weight $`k`$ on the fiber $`𝒱_s`$ of $`𝒱`$ such that

> (i) whenever $`p+q=k`$ one has $`𝒱_s=_s^p\overline{_s^{q+1}},`$ where the “bar” denotes the complex conjugation,
>
> (ii) equivalently, one has $`𝒱_s=_{p+q=k}H_s^{p,q}`$ where $`H_s^{p,q}=_s^p\overline{_s^q}.`$

(d) (Griffiths transversality) Under the connection $``$ in $`𝒱`$,

$$^p\mathrm{\Omega }_S^1_{𝒪_S}^{p1}\text{ for all }p.$$

###### Definition 3.3.

A polarization over $``$ of a variation of Hodge structure of weight $`k`$ over $``$ is a non-degenerated and flat bilinear pairing:

$$\beta :𝕍_{}\times 𝕍_{},$$

such that $`\beta `$ is $`(1)^k`$-symmetric, and the Hermitian form $`\beta _s(C_sv,\overline{w})`$ is positive on each fiber. Here $`C_s`$ denotes the Weil operator with respect to $`_s`$, namely the direct sum of multiplication by $`i^{p1}`$ on $`H_s^{p,q}`$. A variation is called polarizable (over $``$) if it admits a polarization (over $``$).

###### Definition 3.4.

A variation of MHS defined over $``$ and a complex manifold $`S`$ is a collection of data $`(𝕍_{},W_{},^{})`$ where

(a) $`𝕍_{}`$ is a local system of $``$-vector spaces on $`S`$,

(b) $`W_{}`$ is an increasing filtration of the $`𝕍_{}`$ by local subsystems,

(c) $`^{}`$ is a decreasing filtration by holomorphic subbundles of $`𝒱=𝒪_S_{}𝕍_{}`$.

(d) $`^p\mathrm{\Omega }_S^1_{𝒪_S}^{p1}`$ for all $`p`$.

(e) The data

$$(\mathrm{gr}_k^W𝕍_{},^{}\left(𝒪_S_EW_k/𝒪_S_EW_{k1}\right))$$
(4)
is a variation of HS of weight $`k`$ defined over $``$; or equivalently, on the fiber over $`sS`$, $`(V_s,W_s,_s)`$ is a MHS defined over $``$.

(f) If the induced collection of variations of HS (4) are all polarizable then the MHS is called graded-polarizable.

###### Remark 3.5.

By extension of scalars in $`𝕍_{}`$ one can define $`𝕍_𝔽`$ for any field $`𝔽`$ such that $`𝔽`$.

Giving a local system $`𝕍_{}`$ is equivalent to specifying its monodromy representation

$$\rho _x:\pi _1(S,x)\mathrm{Aut}_{}𝒱_x.$$

A variation is called unipotent if this representation is unipotent. From Proposition 1.3 of  we know that a variation of MHS $`(𝕍_{},W_{},^{})`$ is unipotent if and only if each of the variations of Hodge structure $`\mathrm{gr}_k^W𝕍_{}`$ is constant.

In general, the behavior of a variation of MHS over a non-compact base $`S`$ at “infinity” is very hard to control. Steenbrink and Zucker  consider the case when $`S`$ is a curve and define the admissibility condition at infinity. For higher dimensional $`S`$, Kashiwara, M. Saito, and others define a variation over $`S`$ to be admissible if its restriction to every curve is admissible in the sense of Steenbrink-Zucker.

However, the behavior of unipotent variations of MHS at infinity can be controlled rather easily. We have the classical result of Deligne \[6, Proposition 5.2\] which defines the canonical extension $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}`$ of $`𝒱`$.

###### Theorem 3.6.

(Deligne) Let $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ be a normalization of $`S`$. Let $`(𝕍_{},W_{},^{})`$ be a unipotent variation of MHS over $`S`$ whose associated connection in $`𝒱`$ is integrable. Then

(a) There is a unique extension $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}`$ of $`𝒱`$ over $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ satisfying the following equivalent conditions:

> (i) Inside every section of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}`$, every flat section of $`𝒱`$ increases at most at the rate of $`O(\mathrm{log}^kx)`$ ($`k`$ large enough) on every compact set of $`D=\stackrel{~}{S}S`$.
>
> (ii) Similarly, every flat section of $`𝒱^{}`$ (the dual) increases at most at the rate of $`O(\mathrm{log}^kx)`$ ($`k`$ large enough).

(b) The combination of the two conditions (i) and (ii) is equivalent to the combination of the following two conditions:

> (iii) In terms of any local basis of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}`$ the connection matrix $`𝝎`$ of $`𝒱`$ has at most logarithmic singularities along $`D`$.
>
> (iv) The residue of $`𝝎`$ along any irreducible component of $`D`$ is nilpotent.

We will verify conditions (iii) and (iv) by Proposition 3.14 for the multiple logarithm variations of MHS. They are unipotent variations by Theorem 3.16.

###### Definition 3.7.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ be a compactification of $`S`$. Then a unipotent variation of MHS $`(𝕍_{},W_{},^{})`$ over $`S`$ is said to be good if it satisfies the following conditions at infinity

> (1) the Hodge filtration bundles $`^{}`$ extend over $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ to sub-bundles $`\stackrel{~}{}^{}`$ of the canonical extension $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}`$ of $`𝒱`$ such that they induce the corresponding thing for each pure subquotient $`\mathrm{gr}_k^W𝕍_{}`$,
>
> (2) for the nilpotent logarithm $`N_j`$ of a local monodromy transformation about a component $`D_j`$ of $`D`$, the weight filtration of $`N_j`$ relative to $`W_{}`$ exists.

A slightly different definition first appeared in  with the extra assumption that $`D=\stackrel{~}{S}S`$ is a normal crossing divisor. In these papers Hain and Zucker classified good unipotent variations of MHS on algebraic manifolds. With constant pure weight subquotients these variations behave well at infinity.

### 3.2 The variation matrix

The double logarithm was treated in \[8, §2\] by Goncharov. We noticed an apparent typo that the term $`2\pi i\mathrm{log}x`$ in the matrix $`A_{1,1}(x,y)`$ on page 620 should be replaced by $`2\pi i\mathrm{log}(1x)`$. We first rewrite $`A_{1,1}(x,y)`$ as $`_{1,1}(x,y)`$ below because we will use induction starting from this form of double logarithm variation of MHS in several proofs later.

$$_{1,1}(x,y)=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 𝔏_1(y)& 2\pi i& 0& 0\\ 𝔏_1(xy)& 0& 2\pi i& 0\\ 𝔏_2(x,y)& 2\pi i𝔏_1(x)& 2\pi i𝔏_1\left(\frac{1xy}{1x}\right)& (2\pi i)^2\end{array}\right].$$
(5)
This is essentially the same as defined in  up to signs.

We now begin to define the variation matrix $`_{[n]}(𝐱)`$ for every $`𝐱S_n`$.

###### Definition 3.8.

For $`1sn`$ write as before

$$\theta _s=\theta _s(𝐱)=\frac{dt}{ta_s(𝐱)}=\frac{dt}{ta_s}.$$

Suppose $`|𝐢|=k`$ and $`i_{\tau _1}=\mathrm{}=i_{\tau _k}=1`$. Suppose $`|𝐣|=l`$ and $`j_{t_1}=\mathrm{}=j_{t_l}=1`$.

If $`𝐣𝐢`$, we define the $`(𝐢,𝐣)`$-th entry of $`_{[n]}(𝐱)`$ to be $`0`$.

If $`𝐣𝐢`$ then we let $`t_r=\tau _{\alpha _r}`$ for $`1rl`$ and

$$𝐱(𝐢)=𝐲=(y_1,\mathrm{},y_k),y_m=\underset{\alpha =\tau _m}{\overset{\tau _{m+1}1}{}}x_\alpha =\frac{a_{\tau _{m+1}}(𝐱)}{a_{\tau _m}(𝐱)},1mk.$$
(6)
with $`\tau _{k+1}=n+1`$ and $`a_{n+1}=1`$. Set $`t_0=\alpha _0=0`$, $`t_{l+1}=n+1`$, $`\alpha _{l+1}=k+1`$, $`a_0(𝐱)=a_0(𝐲)=0`$ and $`a_{n+1}(𝐱)=a_{k+1}(𝐲)=1`$. Define the $`(𝐢,𝐣)`$-th entry of $`_{[n]}(𝐱)`$ as $`(2\pi i)^lE_{𝐢,𝐣}(𝐱)`$ where

$`E_{𝐢,𝐣}(𝐱)=\gamma _{\rho _𝐢(𝐣)}^k(𝐲):=`$ $`(1)^{kl}{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{l}{}}}{\displaystyle _{a_{\alpha _r}(𝐲)}^{a_{\alpha _{r+1}}(𝐲)}}\theta _{\alpha _r+1}(𝐲)\mathrm{}\theta _{\alpha _{r+1}1}(𝐲)`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`(1)^{kl}{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{l}{}}}{\displaystyle _{p_r}}\theta _{\tau _{\alpha _r+1}}(𝐱)\mathrm{}\theta _{\tau _{\alpha _{r+1}1}}(𝐱)`$
Here the $`l+1`$ paths $`p_0,\mathrm{},p_l`$ for the $`l+1`$ integrals are independent of  $`𝐢`$ where $`p_r`$ is any fixed contractible path from $`a_{t_r}`$ to $`a_{t_{r+1}}`$ in the punctured complex plane $`_{t_r<s<t_{r+1}}\{a_s\}`$, and the integral $`_{p_r}=1`$ if $`\alpha _r+1=\alpha _{r+1}.`$ We get the second equality by observing that

$$a_m(𝐲)=(y_m\mathrm{}y_k)^1=a_{\tau _m}(𝐱)a_{\alpha _r}(𝐲)=a_{\tau _{\alpha _r}}(𝐱)=a_{t_r}(𝐱).$$

###### Proposition 3.9.

Suppose $`𝐢`$ and $`𝐣`$ are given as in Definition 3.8(2). As multi-valued functions

$`E_{𝐢,𝐣}(𝐱)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{l}{}}}𝔏_{\alpha _{r+1}\alpha _r1}({\displaystyle \frac{a_{\tau _{\alpha _r+2}}(𝐱)a_{t_r}(𝐱)}{a_{\tau _{\alpha _r+1}}(𝐱)a_{t_r}(𝐱)}},\mathrm{},{\displaystyle \frac{a_{t_{r+1}}(𝐱)a_{t_r}(𝐱)}{a_{\tau _{\alpha _{r+1}1}}(𝐱)a_{t_r}(𝐱)}})`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`𝔏_{\alpha _11}(x_{\tau _1}\mathrm{}x_{\tau _21},x_{\tau _2}\mathrm{}x_{\tau _31},\mathrm{},x_{\tau _{\alpha _11}}\mathrm{}x_{t_11})`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{l}{}}}𝔏_{\alpha _{r+1}\alpha _r1}({\displaystyle \frac{1x_{t_r}\mathrm{}x_{\tau _{\alpha _r+2}1}}{1x_{t_r}\mathrm{}x_{\tau _{\alpha _r+1}1}}},\mathrm{},{\displaystyle \frac{1x_{t_r}\mathrm{}x_{t_{r+1}1}}{1x_{t_r}\mathrm{}x_{\tau _{\alpha _{r+1}1}1}}}).`$ (9)
Here $`𝔏_0=1`$ and $`a_0=0`$.

###### Proof.

By direct and simple calculation we get

$$\begin{array}{c}(1)^{\alpha _{r+1}\alpha _r1}_{p_r}\theta _{\tau _{\alpha _r+1}}(𝐱)\mathrm{}\theta _{\tau _{\alpha _{r+1}1}}(𝐱)\hfill \\ \hfill =𝔏_{\alpha _{r+1}\alpha _r1}(\frac{a_{\tau _{\alpha _r+2}}(𝐱)a_{t_r}(𝐱)}{a_{\tau _{\alpha _r+1}}(𝐱)a_{t_r}(𝐱)},\frac{a_{\tau _{\alpha _r+3}}(𝐱)a_{t_r}(𝐱)}{a_{\tau _{\alpha _r+2}}(𝐱)a_{t_r}(𝐱)},\mathrm{},\frac{a_{t_{r+1}}(𝐱)a_{t_r}(𝐱)}{a_{\tau _{\alpha _{r+1}1}}(𝐱)a_{t_r}(𝐱)}).\end{array}$$

The proposition follows immediately. ∎

###### Example 3.10.

On the last row of $`_{[n]}(𝐱)`$ one has

$`E_{\mathrm{𝟏},𝐣}(𝐱)=`$ $`\gamma _𝐣^n(𝐱)={\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{l}{}}}𝔏_{t_{r+1}t_r1}({\displaystyle \frac{a_{t_r+2}a_{t_r}}{a_{t_r+1}a_{t_r}}},\mathrm{},{\displaystyle \frac{a_{t_{r+1}}a_{t_r}}{a_{t_{r+1}1}a_{t_r}}})`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{l}{}}}𝔏_{t_{r+1}t_r1}({\displaystyle \frac{1x_{t_r}x_{t_r+1}}{1x_{t_r}}},\mathrm{},{\displaystyle \frac{1x_{t_r}\mathrm{}x_{t_{r+1}1}}{1x_{t_r}\mathrm{}x_{t_{r+1}2}}})`$
where $`𝔏_0=1`$ and $`x_0=\mathrm{}`$. In particular, $`E_{\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟎}}=\gamma _\mathrm{𝟎}^n(𝐱)=𝔏_n(𝐱)`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏}}=\gamma _\mathrm{𝟏}^n(𝐱)=1`$.

We now fix a standard basis $`\{e_𝐢:𝐢𝔖_n\}`$ of $`^{2^n}`$ consisting of column vectors. Suppose $`|𝐢|=k`$. It follows from definition that the $`𝐢`$-th row is

$$R_𝐢:=\underset{𝐣𝐢}{}(2\pi i)^{|𝐣|}\gamma _{\rho _𝐢(𝐣)}^k\left(𝐱(𝐢)\right)e_𝐣^T=(2\pi i)^ke_𝐢^T+\underset{𝐣𝐢}{}(2\pi i)^{|𝐣|}\gamma _{\rho _𝐢(𝐣)}^k\left(𝐱(𝐢)\right)e_𝐣^T$$
(11)
where $`e_𝐣^T`$ are now row vectors. Note that $`\gamma _{\rho _𝐢(𝐢)}^k=\gamma _{\mathrm{𝟏}_k}^k=1`$ by definition. It is clear that the first entry (i.e. $`𝐣=\mathrm{𝟎}`$) of this row is $`𝔏_k\left(𝐱(𝐢)\right)`$.

Let us call the minor of $`_{[n]}(𝐱)`$ consisting of rows beginning with $`k`$-tuple logarithms the $`k`$-th block. It has $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)`$ rows with row indices $`|𝐢|=k`$.

###### Lemma 3.11.

The matrix $`_{[n]}(𝐱)`$ is a lower triangular matrix. Moreover, the columns with $`|𝐣|=k`$ of the $`k`$-th block of $`_{[n]}(𝐱)`$ is $`(2\pi i)^k`$ times the identity matrix of rank $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)`$.

###### Proof.

The lemma follows directly from equation (11) because if $`𝐣𝐢`$ then $`𝐣<𝐢`$. ∎

###### Lemma 3.12.

The $`𝐣`$-th column of $`_{[n]}(𝐱)`$ is

$$(2\pi i)^{|𝐣|}C_𝐣=(2\pi i)^{|𝐣|}\underset{𝐢𝐣}{}\gamma _{\rho _𝐢(𝐣)}^{|𝐢|}\left(𝐱(𝐢)\right)e_𝐢$$

where $`𝐱(𝐢)`$ are defined by equation (6) depending on $`𝐢`$.

###### Proof.

Use equation (11). ∎

###### Example 3.13.

By definition or the above proposition the first column

$$C_\mathrm{𝟎}(𝐱)=[𝔏_{|𝐢|}(𝐱(𝐢)):𝐢𝔖_n]^T$$

where $`𝔏_0=1`$.

###### Proposition 3.14.

The columns of $`_{[n]}(𝐱)`$ form the set of the fundamental solutions of the following system of differential equations

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill dX_\mathrm{𝟎}=& 0,\hfill \\ \hfill dX_𝐢=& \underset{|𝐤|=|𝐢|1,𝐤𝐢}{}X_𝐤d\gamma _{\rho _𝐢(𝐤)}^{|𝐢|}\left(𝐱(𝐢)\right)\text{for all }1|𝐢|n\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
where $`𝐱(𝐢)`$ is determined as in equation (6).

###### Proof.

We prove the proposition by induction on $`n`$. It is easy to see the proposition is valid for $`n=1`$ and $`n=2`$. We assume that $`n3`$ and the proposition is true for $`n1`$. Let us now look at the $`𝐣`$-th column as expressed in Lemma 3.12. The cases $`|𝐢|=1`$ or $`𝐣>𝐢`$ are obvious. Suppose

(1) $`1<|𝐢|<n`$ and $`𝐣𝐢`$. There are two cases. (i) $`𝐣𝐢`$. This is trivial because each term of both sides is zero. (ii) $`𝐣𝐢`$. Then there is a $`t`$ such that $`i_t=j_t=0`$. We denote $`𝐢^{}𝔖_{n1}`$ the corresponding index after deleting the $`i_t`$-th component. By induction

$$\underset{|𝐤^{}|=|𝐢^{}|1,𝐣^{}𝐤^{}𝐢^{}}{}\gamma _{\rho _𝐤^{}(𝐣^{})}^{|𝐤^{}|}\left(𝐱^{}(𝐤^{})\right)d\gamma _{\rho _𝐢^{}(𝐤^{})}^{|𝐢^{}|}\left(𝐱^{}(𝐢^{})\right)=d\gamma _{\rho _𝐢^{}(𝐣^{})}^{|𝐢^{}|}\left(𝐱^{}(𝐢^{})\right)$$

where we set $`𝐱^{}=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i_t1},x_{i_t}x_{i_t+1},x_{i_t+2},\mathrm{},x_n)`$. Since $`|𝐢^{}|=|𝐢|`$ and $`|𝐤^{}|=|𝐤|`$ we can get the desired equation by inserting $`0`$ before the $`i_t`$-th components of $`𝐢^{}`$, $`𝐣^{}`$ and $`𝐤^{}`$, i.e., using the embedding $`\iota _{i_t}`$.

(2) $`𝐢=\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`|𝐣|=l`$. We need to show

$$d\gamma _𝐣^n(𝐱)=\underset{|𝐤|=n1,𝐣𝐤}{}\gamma _{\rho _𝐤(𝐣)}^{n1}\left(𝐱(𝐤)\right)d\gamma _𝐤^n(𝐱).$$
(13)
This is trivial when $`l=n`$. The case $`l=0`$ follows from

$$d𝔏_n(𝐱)=\underset{t=1}{\overset{n}{}}𝔏_{n1}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{t2},x_{t1}x_t,x_{t+1},\mathrm{},x_n)d\mathrm{log}\frac{1x_{t1}^1}{1x_t}.$$

So we may assume $`0<l<n`$, $`j_{t_1}=\mathrm{}=j_{t_l}=1`$ and $`j_t=0`$ for all other indices $`t`$. By definition (10) we have

$$\gamma _𝐣^n(𝐱)=\underset{r=0}{\overset{l}{}}\underset{t_r<s<t_{r+1}}{}\gamma _{\rho _{𝐯_s}(𝐣)}^{n1}\left(𝐱(𝐯_s)\right)d\gamma _{𝐯_s}^n(𝐱)$$

where $`t_0=0`$, $`t_{l+1}=n+1`$ and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝐯_s=& (1,\mathrm{},1,\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{},1,0,1,\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{},1,\mathrm{},1).\hfill \\ & \hfill \\ & t_r\text{-th place}s\text{-th place}t_{r+1}\text{-th place}\hfill \end{array}$$

Under the retraction map $`\rho _{𝐯_s}`$ the numbering of the indices changes as follows: $`tt`$ if $`t<s`$ and $`tt1`$ if $`t>s`$. We also have

$$a_t\left(𝐱(𝐯_s)\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}a_t(𝐱)\hfill & \text{if }t<s,\hfill \\ a_{t+1}(𝐱)\hfill & \text{if }t>s.\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence for each $`s`$ such that $`t_r<s<t_{r+1}`$ the integral expression of $`\gamma _{\rho _𝐤(𝐣)}^{n1}\left(𝐱(𝐤)\right)`$ is unchanged under $`\rho _𝐤`$ ($`𝐣𝐤`$) except the $`𝐯_s`$-term. Equation (13) now follows immediately from Leibniz rule and so the proposition is proved. ∎

### 3.3 Monodromy of $`_{[n]}(𝐱)`$

Fix an embedding $`^nP^n`$. Let $`𝒟_n=D_n(P^n^n)`$. Let $`M_r()`$ be the set of $`r\times r`$ matrices over $``$. Put

$$𝝎=\left(c_{𝐢,𝐣}\right)_{𝐢,𝐣𝔖_n}H^0(P^n,\mathrm{\Omega }_{P^n}^1(\mathrm{log}(𝒟_n)))M_{2^n}()$$
(14)
where

$$c_{𝐢,𝐣}=\{\begin{array}{cc}d\gamma _{\rho _𝐢(𝐣)}^{|𝐢|}\left(𝐱(𝐢)\right)\hfill & \text{if }|𝐣|=|𝐢|1,𝐣𝐢,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

All of the 1-forms in $`𝝎`$ have logarithmic singularity on $`𝒟_n`$ because of the following. Let $`|𝐢|=l`$ and $`i_{t_1}=\mathrm{}=i_{t_l}=1`$. Let $`j_{t_s}=0`$ so that $`|𝐣|=l1`$ and $`𝐣𝐢`$. Let $`𝐱(𝐢)=𝐲=(y_1,\mathrm{},y_l)`$. By definition (7)

$`\gamma _{\rho _𝐢(𝐣)}^{|𝐢|}\left(𝐱(𝐢)\right)`$ $`={\displaystyle _{a_{s1}(𝐲)}^{a_{s+1}(𝐲)}}\theta _s(𝐲)=\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_{s+1}(𝐲)a_s(𝐲)}{a_{s1}(𝐲)a_s(𝐲)}}\right)`$
$`\begin{array}{cc}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{log}(1y_1)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{log}\left(\frac{y_{s1}\left(y_s1\right)}{1y_{s1}}\right)\hfill & \end{array}\hfill & \begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{if }& s=1\hfill \\ \hfill \text{if }& s2\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ =\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{log}(1x_1\mathrm{}x_{t_1})\hfill & \\ \mathrm{log}\left(\frac{x_{t_{s1}}\mathrm{}x_{t_s1}\left(x_{t_s}\mathrm{}x_{t_{s+1}1}1\right)}{1x_{t_{s1}}\mathrm{}x_{t_s1}}\right)\hfill & \end{array}\hfill & \begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{if }& s=1\hfill \\ \hfill \text{if }& s2.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}`$
###### Example 3.15.

When $`n=2`$ we have

$$𝝎=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& \\ d\mathrm{log}(1y)& 0\\ d\mathrm{log}(1xy)& & 0\\ 0& d\mathrm{log}(1x)& d\mathrm{log}\frac{x(1y)}{x1}& 0\end{array}\right]$$

We proved in Proposition 3.14 that $`_{[n]}(𝐱)`$ is a fundamental solution of first order linear partial differential equation

$$d\mathrm{\Lambda }=𝝎\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(15)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a possibly multi-valued function $`SM_{2^n}()`$. Moreover $`_{[n]}(𝐱)`$ is a unipotent matrix for very $`𝐱S`$. Applying $`d`$ on equation (15) and plugging in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=_{[n]}(𝐱)`$ we get

$$0=d𝝎_{[n]}(𝐱)𝝎d_{[n]}(𝐱)=(d𝝎𝝎𝝎)._{[n]}(𝐱)$$

Because $`_{[n]}(𝐱)`$ is invertible and $`𝝎`$ is closed we get

$$d𝝎=0,𝝎𝝎=0.$$
(16)
This shows that $`𝝎`$ is integrable.

The main goal of this chapter is to show that if we analytically continue every integral entry of $`_{[n]}(𝐱)`$ along a same loop $`q\pi _1(S_n,𝐱)`$, the resulting matrix will still be a fundamental solution $`_{[n]}(𝐱)M(q)`$ of (15) where $`M(q)\mathrm{GL}_{2^n}()`$. In the following we also denote this action of $`q`$ by $`\mathrm{\Theta }(q)`$ operating on the left. We then define the monodromy representation

$`\rho _𝐱:\pi _1(S_n,𝐱)`$ $`\mathrm{GL}_{2^n}()`$
$`q`$ $`M(q)^T.`$
Here we take the transpose to ensure $`\rho _𝐱`$ to be a homomorphism because $`M(pq)=M(q)M(p)`$ by our convention. From the explicit computation in Theorem 3.16 we will see that $`\rho _𝐱`$ is a unipotent representation.

###### Theorem 3.16.

Let $`_{[n]}(𝐱)=\left[E_{𝐢,𝐣}(𝐱)\right]_{𝐢,𝐣𝔖_n}`$ where $`E_{𝐢,𝐣}(𝐱)`$ are defined by Proposition 3.9. Let $`1ijn`$ and $`q_{ij}\pi _1(S_n,𝐱)`$ (resp. $`1j<n`$ and $`q_{j0}`$) enclose $`𝒟_{ij}=\{x_i\mathrm{}x_j=1\}`$, (resp. $`𝒟_{j0}=\{x_j=0\}`$) only once but no other irreducible component of $`D_n`$ such that $`_{q_{ij}}d\mathrm{log}(1x_i\mathrm{}x_j)=2\pi i`$ (resp. $`_{q_{j0}}d\mathrm{log}x_j=2\pi i`$). Then

$$M(q_{j0})=I+\left[n_{𝐢,𝐣}\right]_{𝐢,𝐣𝔖_n},M(q_{ij})=I+\left[m_{𝐢,𝐣}\right]_{𝐢,𝐣𝔖_n}$$

where $`I`$ is the identity matrix of rank $`2^n`$,

$$n_{𝐢,𝐣}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }t_rjt_{r+1}2,r1,𝐢=𝐣+𝐮_{s+1}\text{ and }jst_{r+1}2\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
and

$$m_{𝐢,𝐣}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }t_r=ijt_{r+1}2,r1\text{}𝐢=𝐣+𝐮_{j+1}\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{if }t_r+1ij=t_{r+1}1,r0\text{}𝐢=𝐣+𝐮_i\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
Here $`𝐢`$ and $`𝐣`$ in the case of $`m_{𝐢,𝐣}=\pm 1`$ and $`n_{𝐢,𝐣}=1`$ satisfy the condition in Definition 3.8(2).

###### Proof.

. By definition it is clear that if $`𝐢𝐣`$ then $`\mathrm{\Theta }(q)E_{𝐢,𝐣}(𝐱)=E_{𝐢,𝐣}(𝐱)`$ which is either 0 or 1. Thus we are only concerned with $`E_{𝐢,𝐣}`$ with $`𝐢𝐣`$.

We now fix some $`𝐣`$. If $`|𝐣|=n`$ then clearly $`(\mathrm{\Theta }(q)I)C_\mathrm{𝟏}=[0,\mathrm{},0]^T`$ for any loop $`q`$. This proves the proposition for $`|𝐣|=n`$. We now assume $`|𝐣|<n`$. Let $`𝐢`$ and $`𝐣`$ be given as in Definition 3.8(2). By equation (8)

$$\begin{array}{c}E_{𝐢,𝐣}(𝐱)=𝔏_{\alpha _11}(x_{\tau _1}\mathrm{}x_{\tau _21},x_{\tau _2}\mathrm{}x_{\tau _31},\mathrm{},x_{\tau _{\alpha _11}}\mathrm{}x_{t_11})\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{r=1}{\overset{l}{}}𝔏_{\alpha _{r+1}\alpha _r1}(\frac{1x_{t_r}\mathrm{}x_{\tau _{\alpha _r+2}1}}{1x_{t_r}\mathrm{}x_{\tau _{\alpha _r+1}1}},\mathrm{},\frac{1x_{t_r}\mathrm{}x_{t_{r+1}1}}{1x_{t_r}\mathrm{}x_{\tau _{\alpha _{r+1}1}1}}).\end{array}$$

By Theorem 4.4 and Proposition 5.5 of  $`E_{𝐢,𝐣}(𝐱)`$ has monodromy along $`𝒟_{j0}`$ if and only if $`t_rjt_{r+1}2`$ for some $`r1`$. According to the computation in Proposition 5.5 we further have that

$$(\mathrm{\Theta }(q_{j0})\mathrm{id})E_{𝐢,𝐣}(𝐱)=2\pi i\underset{s=j+1}{\overset{t_{r+1}1}{}}E_{𝐢,𝐣+𝐮_s}(𝐱)$$

which involves only the entries on the $`𝐢`$-th row. Hence

$$(\mathrm{\Theta }(q_{j0})\mathrm{id})C_𝐣(𝐱)=\underset{s=j}{\overset{t_{r+1}1}{}}C_{𝐣+𝐮_s}(𝐱).$$

By similar argument using Proposition 5.4 and 5.5 of  we see that if $`t_r=ijt_{r+1}2`$, $`r1`$, then

$$(\mathrm{\Theta }(q_{ij})\mathrm{id})E_{𝐢,𝐣}(𝐱)=2\pi iE_{𝐢,𝐣+𝐮_{j+1}}(𝐱)$$

and therefore

$$(\mathrm{\Theta }(q_{ij})\mathrm{id})C_𝐣(𝐱)=C_{𝐣+𝐮_{j+1}}(𝐱).$$

Similarly, thanks to Theorem 5.3 and Proposition 5.5 of  if $`t_r+1ij=t_{r+1}1,r0`$, then

$$(\mathrm{\Theta }(q_{ij})\mathrm{id})E_{𝐢,𝐣}(𝐱)=2\pi iE_{𝐢,𝐣+𝐮_i}(𝐱).$$

Hence

$$(\mathrm{\Theta }(q_{ij})\mathrm{id})C_𝐣=C_{𝐣+𝐮_i}(𝐱).$$

This completes the proof of the proposition. ∎

###### Corollary 3.17.

The monodromy representation of $`_{[n]}(𝐱)`$

$$\rho _𝐱:\pi _1(S_n,𝐱)\mathrm{GL}_{2^n}()$$

is unipotent.

###### Proof.

Clear. ∎

### 3.4 MHS of multiple logarithms

Define a meromorphic connection $``$ on the trivial bundle

$$P^n\times ^{2^n}P^n$$
(19)
by

$$f=df𝝎f$$

where $`f:S_n^{2^n}`$ is a section. This connection has regular singularities along $`𝒟_n`$ because $`𝝎`$ is integrable by (16) and all the 1-forms in $`𝝎`$ are logarithmic in any compactification of $`S_n`$. By the explicit construction of $`𝝎`$ we see immediately that the conditions (iii) and (iv) of Theorem 3.6 are satisfied. Proposition 3.14 further implies that the columns $`(2\pi i)^{|𝐣|}C_𝐣(𝐱)`$ of $`_{[n]}(𝐱)`$ satisfy $`f=0`$ and are therefore flat sections of (19). Even though they are multi-valued, their $``$\- linear span is well defined thanks to Theorem 3.16. Hence $`V_{[n]}(𝐱)`$ forms a local system over $`S_n`$.

###### Definition 3.18.

The local system $`V_{[n]}(𝐱)`$ is called the $`n`$-tuple logarithm local system.

To define the MHS on $`V_{[n]}`$ we can define the weight filtration by putting $`W_{2k+1}=W_{2k}`$ and

$$W_{2k}V_{[n]}(𝐱)=(2\pi i)^{|𝐢|}C_𝐢:|𝐢|k_{}$$

which is the $``$ vector space with basis $`\{(2\pi i)^{|𝐢|}C_𝐢:|𝐢|k\}`$. In particular, $`W_{2k}V_{[n]}(𝐱)=0`$ if $`k>n`$ and $`W_{2k}V_{[n]}(𝐱)=V_{[n]}(𝐱)`$ if $`k0`$. By regarding $`e_𝐢`$’s as column vectors one can define the Hodge filtration on $`V_{[n]}(𝐱)=V_{[n],}`$ as follows:

$$^kV_{[n],}:=e_𝐢:|𝐢|k_{}.$$

So in particular, $`^kV_{[n],}=0`$ for $`k<0`$ and $`^kV_{[n],}=V_{[n],}`$ for $`kn`$.

By induction on $`n`$ and using Lemma 3.11 it is easy to show that

$$^pW_{2k}V_{[n],}=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }pk1\hfill \\ (2\pi i)^{|𝐢|}e_𝐢:k|𝐢|p\hfill & \text{if }kpn\hfill \\ (2\pi i)^{|𝐢|}e_𝐢:k|𝐢|n\hfill & \text{if }pn\hfill \end{array}.$$

This implies that

$$^p\mathrm{gr}_{2k}^WV_{[n],}=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }pk1\hfill \\ W_{2k}V_{[n],}/W_{2k1}V_{[n],}\hfill & \text{if }pk.\hfill \end{array}$$

In other words, $`^q\mathrm{gr}_{2k}^WV_{[n],}=0`$ for $`qk+1`$ and $`^q\mathrm{gr}_{2k}^WV_{[n],}=\mathrm{gr}_{2k}^WV_{[n],}`$ for $`qk`$. This means that the Hodge filtration induces a pure HS of weight $`2k`$ on each weight graded piece. Furthermore, it is not hard to see by checking the powers of $`2\pi i`$ appearing on the diagonal of $`_{[n]}(𝐱)`$ that this induced structure on $`\mathrm{gr}_{2k}^WV_{[n],}`$ is isomorphic to the direct sum of $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)`$ copies of the Tate structure $`(k)`$ by Lemma 3.11.

## 4 Limit MHS of multiple logarithms

Let the monodromy of $`_{[n]}(𝐱)`$ at any subvariety $`𝒟`$ of $`P^n`$ be given by the matrix $`T_𝒟`$ and the local monodromy logarithm by $`N_𝒟=\mathrm{log}T_𝒟/2\pi i`$. Note that $`T_𝒟`$ is unipotent so $`N_𝒟`$ is well-defined.

Now let us recall the construction of the unipotent variations of limit MHS at the “infinity” with normal crossing. Let $`S`$ be a complex manifold of dimension $`d`$. Suppose that $`S`$ is embedded in $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$, via the mapping $`j`$, such that $`D=\stackrel{~}{S}S`$ is a divisor with normal crossings. Let $`𝕍`$ be any local system of complex vector spaces on $`S`$, and $`𝒱`$ the corresponding vector bundle. According to Theorem 3.6 by Deligne there is a canonical extension $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}`$ of $`𝒱`$ over $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$. Moreover, when the local monodromy is nilpotent $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}`$ is a subsheaf of $`j_{}𝒱`$. The local picture of $`S\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})^r\times \mathrm{\Delta }^{dr}\mathrm{\Delta }^d`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the unit disk and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ is the punctured one. We let $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_r`$ denote the variables on $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})^r`$, and $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_r`$ the (commuting) local nilpotent logarithms of the associated monodromy transformations of the fibre. For $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_r`$ in the upper half-plane, the universal covering mapping for $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})^r`$ is given by

$$t_j=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi iz_j),j=1,\mathrm{},r.$$

Let $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_m`$ be a basis of the multi-valued sections of $`𝕍`$ over $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})^r\times \mathrm{\Delta }^{dr}`$, the formula

$$[\stackrel{~}{v}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{v}_m]=[v_1,\mathrm{},v_m]\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}2\pi iz_jN_j\right)=[v_1,\mathrm{},v_m]\underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}t_j^{N_j}$$

determines a basis of the sections of $`𝒱`$ over $`\mathrm{\Delta }^d`$ and these provide, by definition, the generators of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}`$ over $`\mathrm{\Delta }^d`$.

In our situation, although the divisor $`D_n`$ is not normal crossing Theorem 3.6 is still valid. We further notice that the image of the global holomorphic logarithmic forms in the complex of smooth forms on $`S`$ is independent of the normal crossings compactification (see \[10, Prop. (3.2)\]). In fact, the forms we are considering lie in the subcomplex generated by 1-forms of the type $`df/f`$ where $`f`$ is a rational function. Such forms are automatically logarithmic in any compactification and therefore our connection is automatically regular. Hence the admissibility and the existence of the limit MHS is an automatic consequence of the admissibility of our variations restricted to every curve in $`S_n`$. Moreover, the pullback of our trivial bundle (19) restricted to $`S_n`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{S}_n`$ is exactly Deligne’s canonical extension of (19), and the pullbacks of the subbundles $`^{}`$ and $`W_{}`$ are the correct extended Hodge and weight subbundles. Therefore we have

###### Theorem 4.1.

The $`n`$-tuple logarithm underlies a good unipotent graded-polarizable variation of mixed Hodge-Tate structures $`(V_{[n]},W_{},^{})`$ over

$$S_n=^n\left\{\underset{1jn}{}x_j(1x_j)\underset{1i<jn}{}\left(1x_i\mathrm{}x_j\right)=0\right\}.$$

with the weight-graded quotients $`\mathrm{gr}_{2k}^W`$ being given by $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)`$ copies of the Tate structure $`(k)`$.

###### Proof.

It is clearly that all the odd graded weight quotients are zero so that we can let the polarizations on the weight graded quotients $`\mathrm{gr}_{2k}^W`$ be the ones that give each vector $`2\pi ie_𝐣`$ ($`|𝐣|=k`$) length 1. Then everything is clear except the Griffiths transversality condition. But this condition is also satisfied because $`dC_𝐣=𝝎C_𝐣`$ for every $`𝐣𝔖_n`$ by Proposition 3.14. ∎

If we want to determine the limit MHS of multiple logarithms explicitly we can still apply the techniques used in the normal crossing case. We will carry this out only for the depth two and three cases. The general picture is similar but much more complicated.

### 4.1 Limit MHS of double logarithm

First we look at the double logarithm variation of MHS. We have

$$_{1,1}(x,y)=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& & & \\ 𝔏_1(y)& 2\pi i& & \\ 𝔏_1(xy)& 0& 2\pi i& \\ 𝔏_2(x,y)& 2\pi i𝔏_1(x)& 2\pi iH(x,y)& (2\pi i)^2\end{array}\right]$$

where $`H(x,y)=𝔏_1(y)𝔏_1(x)\mathrm{log}x`$.

(i) Let us first try to extend the MHS to the divisor $`𝒟_{10}=\{x=0\}`$ along the tangent vector $`/x`$. We have

$$T_{\{x=0\}}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& & & \\ 0& 1& & \\ 0& 0& 1& \\ 0& 0& 1& 1\end{array}\right],N_{\{x=0\}}=\frac{\mathrm{log}T_{\{x=0\}}}{2\pi i}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& & & \\ 0& 0& & \\ 0& 0& 0& \\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{2\pi i}& 0\end{array}\right].$$

Let $`_{1,1}(x,y)=[C_0(x,y)\mathrm{}C_3(x,y)]`$. Define

$`[s_0s_1s_2s_3]=`$ $`\underset{t0}{lim}_{1,1}(t,y)\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& & & \\ 0& 1& & \\ 0& 0& 1& \\ 0& 0& \mathrm{log}t/(2\pi i)& 1\end{array}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& & & \\ 𝔏_1(y)& 2\pi i& & \\ 0& 0& 2\pi i& \\ 0& 0& 2\pi i𝔏_1(y)& (2\pi i)^2\end{array}\right].`$
Let $`V_{,\{x=0\}}`$ be the $``$-linear span of $`s_0,s_1,s_2,s_3`$, and $`V_{,\{x=0\}}=V_{,\{x=0\}}`$. Let $`\{e_j:j=0,\mathrm{},3\}`$ be the standard basis of $`^4`$ where the only nonzero entry of $`e_j`$ is at the $`(j+1)`$st component. Then the limit MHS on $`\{(x,y):x=0,y1\}`$ along $`/x`$ are given by

$$((V_{,\{x=0\}},W_{}),(V_{,\{x=0\}},F^{}))$$

where for $`k=0,\mathrm{},3`$

$$W_{2k}V_{,\{x=0\}}=s_k,\mathrm{},s_3,W_{2k}=W_{2k+1}$$
(20)
and

$$F^kV_{,\{x=0\}}=e_0,\mathrm{},e_k.$$
(21)
(ii) A similar calculation shows that along the tangent vector $`/x`$ the limit MHS on the divisor $`𝒟_{11}=\{(1,y):y1\}`$ is the $``$-linear span of $`s_0,\mathrm{},s_3`$ where

$$[s_0s_1s_2s_3]=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& & & \\ 𝔏_1(y)& 2\pi i& & \\ 𝔏_1(y)& 0& 2\pi i& \\ 𝔏_2(1,y)& 0& 2\pi i𝔏_1(y)& (2\pi i)^2\end{array}\right].$$

It is easy to see by differentiation that $`𝔏_2(1,y)=\left(𝔏_1(y)\right)^2/2.`$

(iii) The extension of MHS to $`𝒟_{22}=\{(x,1):x0,1\}`$ along the tangent vector $`/y`$ is given by the $``$-linear span of $`s_0,\mathrm{},s_3`$ where

$$[s_0s_1s_2s_3]=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& & & \\ 0& 2\pi i& & \\ Li_1(\frac{x}{x1})& 0& 2\pi i& \\ Li_2(\frac{x}{x1})& 2\pi iLi_1(x)& 2\pi i\mathrm{log}\frac{x}{x1}& (2\pi i)^2\end{array}\right].$$

(iv) Limit MHS on $`𝒟_{12}=\{(1/y,y):y0,1\}`$ along the tangent vector $`/x`$ is given by the $``$-linear span of $`s_0,\mathrm{},s_3`$ where

$$[s_0s_1s_2s_3]=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& & & \\ Li_1(\frac{y}{y1})& 2\pi i& & \\ 0& 0& 2\pi i& \\ Li_2(\frac{y}{y1})& 2\pi i\mathrm{log}\frac{y}{y1}& 0& (2\pi i)^2\end{array}\right].$$

(v) $`𝒟_{10}𝒟_{22}=(0,1)`$. From (i) we see that there are limit MHS on the open set $`𝒟_{10}\{(0,1)\}`$ of $`𝒟_{10}`$. We now can easily extend these MHS to $`(0,1)`$ along the vector $`/y`$ and find the limit MHS at $`(0,1)`$ to be the $``$-linear span of $`s_0,\mathrm{},s_3`$ where

$$[s_0s_1s_2s_3]=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& & & \\ 0& 2\pi i& & \\ 0& 0& 2\pi i& \\ 0& 0& 0& (2\pi i)^2\end{array}\right].$$

If we start from (iii) and then extend the MHS to $`(0,1)`$ along tangent vector $`/x`$ we will get the same limit MHS.

(vi) $`𝒟_{11}𝒟_{12}=𝒟_{12}𝒟_{22}=𝒟_{11}𝒟_{22}=(1,1)`$. We can start from either case (ii) or (iii) or (iv). Extending the limit MHS of case (ii) we see immediately that the along the tangent vector $`/y`$ the limit MHS at $`(1,1)`$ is given by the $``$-linear span of

$$[s_0s_1s_2s_3]=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& & & \\ 0& 2\pi i& & \\ 0& 0& 2\pi i& \\ E_{4,1}& 0& 0& (2\pi i)^2\end{array}\right].$$
(22)
If we extend the limit MHS of case (iii) to $`(1,1)`$ along tangent vector $`/x`$ we find that only the lower left corner entry is different from the above. Instead of $`0`$ it is

$$E_{4,1}=\underset{x1}{lim}Li_2(\frac{x}{x1})+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}^2(1x)\mathrm{log}x\mathrm{log}(1x)=Li_2(1)=\frac{\pi ^2}{12},$$

since

$$Li_2(1t)+Li_2(11/t)+\mathrm{log}^2t/2=0t0.$$
(23)
But if we take $`s_0^{}=s_0s_3/48`$ we get the same basis as in (22). The same phenomenon occurs if we start from case (iv) and then use tangent vector $`/y`$.

If we extend the limit MHS of (iv) to the point $`(1,1)`$ along the tangent vector $`/y`$ then we find that

$$E_{4,1}=\underset{y1}{lim}Li_2(\frac{y}{y1})\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}^2(1y)=Li_2(1)=\frac{\pi ^2}{12}$$

by taking $`t=1y`$ in (23). Now if we let $`s_0^{}=s_0+\frac{1}{48}s_3`$ then we get the same basis as in (22). This phenomenon happens in higher logarithm cases too.

### 4.2 Limit MHS of triple logarithm

The triple logarithm function $`𝔏_3(x,y,z)`$ is defined by (\[18, Example 5.2\])

$`Li_{1,1,1}(x,y,z)=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{(0,0,0)}^{(x,y,z)}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{1z}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{1y}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{1x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d(yz)}{1yz}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dz}{1z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y(y1)}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{dx}{1x}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d(yz)}{1yz}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{1x}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dz}{1z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y(y1)}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{1z}}{\displaystyle \frac{d(xy)}{1xy}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy}{1y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x(x1)}}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d(xyz)}{1xyz}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dz}{1z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d(xy)}{xy(xy1)}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy}{1y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x(x1)}}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d(xyz)}{1xyz}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d(yz)}{1yz}}+{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x(x1)}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{dz}{1z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y(y1)}}\right).`$
Set

$$\tau _{[3]}(2\pi i)=\text{diag}[1,2\pi i,2\pi i,2\pi i,(2\pi i)^2,(2\pi i)^2,(2\pi i)^2,(2\pi i)^3],$$

and define the matrix $`_{[3]}(x,y,z)\tau _{[3]}(2\pi i)^1`$ by

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}1& & & & & & & \\ 𝔏_1(z)& 1& & & & & & \\ 𝔏_1(yz)& 0& 1& & & & & \\ 𝔏_1(xyz)& 0& 0& 1& & & & \\ 𝔏_2(y,z)& 𝔏_1(y)& H(y,z)& 0& 1& & & \\ 𝔏_2(xy,z)& 𝔏_1(xy)& 0& H(xy,z)& 0& 1& & \\ 𝔏_2(x,yz)& 0& 𝔏_1(x)& H(x,yz)& 0& 0& 1& \\ 𝔏_3(x,y,z)& 𝔏_2(x,y)& H(y,z)𝔏_1(x)& E_{8,4}& 𝔏_1(x)& H(x,y)& H(y,z)& 1\end{array}\right),$$

where

$$E_{8,4}=𝔏_2(\frac{1xy}{1x},\frac{1xyz}{1xy})=𝔏_2(y^1,x^1)𝔏_2(y^1,yz)+\mathrm{log}\frac{x1}{x(1yz)}𝔏_1(z).$$

(i) Extension to an open set of $`𝒟_{10}=\{x=0\}`$ along the vector $`/x`$. By Theorem 3.16 or direct computation $`T_{\{x=0\}}=I_8e_{64}e_{74}e_{86}`$ so

$$t^{N_{\{x=0\}}}=I_8+\frac{\mathrm{log}t}{2\pi i}(e_{64}+e_{74}+e_{86})+\mathrm{log}^2t/2(2\pi i)^2e_{84}.$$

To determine the limit MHS along $`\{x=0\}`$ we need to find $`g(y,z)=lim_{t0}I(t)`$ where

$$I(t)=𝔏_2(\frac{1ty}{1t},\frac{1tyz}{1ty})\mathrm{log}t\mathrm{log}\left(ty(z1)\right)+\frac{\mathrm{log}^2t}{2}$$

because $`lim_{t0}\mathrm{log}t\mathrm{log}(1t)=0.`$ We see that $`I^{}(t)=f^{}(t)`$ where

$$f(t)=Li_2(1t)\mathrm{log}(1t)\mathrm{log}\frac{y(1z)}{y1}Li_2\left(\frac{(1t)y}{y1}\right)+Li_2(ty).$$

Thus

$$\begin{array}{c}g(y,z)=I(1/yz)+f(0)f(1/yz)=Li_2(1yz)+Li_2(1)+\mathrm{log}\frac{y(1z)}{y1}\mathrm{log}(1yz)\hfill \\ \hfill Li_2\left(\frac{y}{y1}\right)+Li_2\left(\frac{1yz}{z(1y)}\right)Li_2\left(\frac{1}{z}\right)+\mathrm{log}(1y)\mathrm{log}(yz).\end{array}$$

It is easy to see by differentiation with respect to $`y`$ and $`g(0,z)=2Li_2(1)`$ that

$$g(y,z)=Li_{1,1}(y,z)Li_2(1y)+3Li_2(1).$$

Hence the local system $`V_{,\{x=0\}}`$ of the limit MHS over $`\{(0,y,z):y(1y)(1z)(1yz)0\}`$ is the $``$-linear span of $`s_0,\mathrm{},s_7`$ where $`[s_0\mathrm{}s_7]`$ is given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}1& & & & & & & \\ 𝔏_1(z)& 1& & & & & & \\ 𝔏_1(yz)& 0& 1& & & & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 1& & & & \\ 𝔏_2(y,z)& 𝔏_1(y)& H(y,z)& 0& 1& & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 𝔏_1(z)\mathrm{log}y& 0& 1& & \\ 0& 0& 0& 𝔏_1(yz)& 0& 0& 1& \\ 0& 0& 0& g(y,z)& 0& 𝔏_1(y)& H(y,z)& 1\end{array}\right)\tau _{[3]}(2\pi i).$$

(ii) On $`𝒟_{20}=\{y=0\}`$. Similar computation as above shows that the local system $`V_{,\{y=0\}}`$ of the limit MHS over $`\{(x,0,z):x(1x)(1z)0\}`$ along the vector $`/y`$ is the $``$-linear span of $`s_0,\mathrm{},s_7`$ where $`[s_0\mathrm{}s_7]`$ is given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}1& & & & & & & \\ 𝔏_1(z)& 1& & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 1& & & & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 1& & & & \\ 0& 0& 𝔏_1(z)& 0& 1& & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 𝔏_1(z)\mathrm{log}x& 0& 1& & \\ 0& 0& 𝔏_1(x)& 𝔏_1(x)\mathrm{log}x& 0& 0& 1& \\ 0& 0& 𝔏_1(z)𝔏_1(x)& g(x,z)& 𝔏_1(x)& 𝔏_1(x)\mathrm{log}x& 𝔏_1(z)& 1\end{array}\right)\tau _{[3]}(2\pi i),$$

where

$$g(x,z)=Li_2(1)Li_1(z)(Li_1(x)+\mathrm{log}x)Li_2(1x^1).$$

(iii) On $`𝒟_{11}=\{x=1\}`$. Then the local system $`V_{,\{x=1\}}`$ of the limit MHS over $`\{(1,y,z):y(1y)(1z)(1yz)0\}`$ along the vector $`/x`$ is the $``$-linear span of $`s_0,\mathrm{},s_7`$ where $`[s_0\mathrm{}s_7]`$ is given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}1& & & & & & & \\ 𝔏_1(z)& 1& & & & & & \\ 𝔏_1(yz)& 0& 1& & & & & \\ 𝔏_1(yz)& 0& 0& 1& & & & \\ 𝔏_2(y,z)& 𝔏_1(y)& H(y,z)& 0& 1& & & \\ 𝔏_2(y,z)& 𝔏_1(y)& 0& H(y,z)& 0& 1& & \\ 𝔏_2(1,yz)& 0& 0& 𝔏_1(yz)& 0& 0& 1& \\ 𝔏_3(1,y,z)& 𝔏_2(1,y)& 0& g(y,z)& 0& 𝔏_1(y)& H(y,z)& 1\end{array}\right)\tau _{[3]}(2\pi i),$$

where

$$g(y,z)=𝔏_2(y,z)+Li_2\left(1/(1y)\right).$$

(iv) On $`𝒟_{22}=\{y=1\}`$. The local system $`V_{,\{y=1\}}`$ of the limit MHS over $`\{(x,1,z):x(1x)(1z)(1xz)0\}`$ along the vector $`/y`$ is the $``$-linear span of $`s_0,\mathrm{},s_7`$ where $`[s_0\mathrm{}s_7]`$ is given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}1& & & & & & & \\ 𝔏_1(z)& 1& & & & & & \\ 𝔏_1(z)& 0& 1& & & & & \\ 𝔏_1(xz)& 0& 0& 1& & & & \\ 𝔏_2(1,z)& 0& 𝔏_1(z)& 0& 1& & & \\ 𝔏_2(x,z)& 𝔏_1(x)& 0& H(x,z)& 0& 1& & \\ 𝔏_2(x,z)& 0& 𝔏_1(x)& H(x,z)& 0& 0& 1& \\ 𝔏_3(x,1,z)& 𝔏_2(\frac{x}{x1})& 𝔏_1(x)𝔏_1(z)& 𝔏_2(1,\frac{1xz}{1x})& 𝔏_1(x)& 𝔏_1(x)\mathrm{log}x& 𝔏_1(z)& 1\end{array}\right)\tau _{[3]}(2\pi i).$$

(v) On $`𝒟_{33}=\{z=1\}`$. This case is the most interesting because the variation of MHS for $`Li_{2,1}`$ appears implicitly.

The local system $`V_{,\{z=1\}}`$ of the limit MHS over $`\{(x,y,1):xy(1x)(1y)(1xy)0\}`$ along the vector $`/z`$ is the $``$-linear span of $`s_0,\mathrm{},s_7`$ where $`[s_0\mathrm{}s_7]`$ is given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}1& & & & & & & \\ 0& 1& & & & & & \\ 𝔏_1(y)& 0& 1& & & & & \\ 𝔏_1(xy)& 0& 0& 1& & & & \\ Li_2(\frac{y}{y1})& 𝔏_1(y)& \mathrm{log}\frac{y1}{y}& 0& 1& & & \\ Li_2(\frac{xy}{xy1})& 𝔏_1(xy)& 0& \mathrm{log}\frac{xy1}{xy}& 0& 1& & \\ 𝔏_2(x,y)& 0& 𝔏_1(x)& H(x,y)& 0& 0& 1& \\ g(x,y)& 𝔏_2(x,y)& \mathrm{log}\frac{y1}{y}𝔏_1(x)& h(x,y)& 𝔏_1(x)& H(x,y)& \mathrm{log}\frac{y1}{y}& 1\end{array}\right)\tau _{[3]}(2\pi i),$$

where

$$g(x,y)=Li_{1,2}(\frac{x(y1)}{xy1},\frac{y}{y1})+\mathrm{log}(1xy)Li_2\left(\frac{y}{y1}\right)$$

and

$$h(x,y)=Li_2\left(\frac{1xy}{x(1y)}\right)+H(x,y)\mathrm{log}\frac{xy1}{xy}.$$

We observe that this is essentially the variation matrix $`_{1,2}(\frac{x(y1)}{xy1},\frac{y}{y1})`$.

We omit the following similar cases:

(vi) On $`𝒟_{12}=\{xy=1\}`$. Extend along the vector $`/x`$ or $`/y`$,

(vii) On $`𝒟_{23}=\{yz=1\}`$. Extend along the vector $`/y`$ or $`/z`$,

(viii) On $`𝒟_{13}=\{xyz=1\}`$. Extend along the vector $`/x`$, or $`/y`$, or $`/z`$.

(ix). $`𝒟_{10}𝒟_{20}.`$ We may start from either case (i) or case (ii). Straightforward calculation starting from case (i) shows that the extension of the MHS on $`𝒟_{10}`$ to $`𝒟_{10}𝒟_{20}`$ along the vector $`/y`$ is the $``$-linear span of $`[s_0\mathrm{}s_7]`$ given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}1& & & & & & & \\ 𝔏_1(z)& 1& & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 1& & & & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 1& & & & \\ 0& 0& 𝔏_1(z)& 0& 1& & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 𝔏_1(z)& 0& 1& & \\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& \\ 0& 0& 0& 2Li_2(1)& 0& 0& 𝔏_1(z)& 1\end{array}\right)\tau _{[3]}(2\pi i).$$

If we start from case (ii) and take the vector $`/x`$ then we will get the same result.

(x) $`𝒟_{11}𝒟_{22}.`$ We may start from either case (iii) or case (iv). Straightforward calculation starting from case (iii) shows that along the vector $`/y`$ the limit MHS on $`𝒟_{11}𝒟_{22}`$ is the $``$-linear span of $`[s_0\mathrm{}s_7]`$ given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 𝔏_1(z)& 1& & & & & & & \\ 𝔏_1(z)& 0& 1& & & & & & \\ 𝔏_1(z)& 0& 0& 1& & & & & \\ 𝔏_2(1,z)& 0& 𝔏_1(z)& 0& 1& & & \\ 𝔏_2(1,z)& 0& 0& 𝔏_1(z)& 0& 1& & \\ 𝔏_2(1,z)& 0& 0& 𝔏_1(z)& 0& 0& 1& \\ 𝔏_3(1,1,z)& 0& 0& E_{8,4}& 0& 0& 𝔏_1(z)& 1\end{array}\right)\tau _{[3]}(2\pi i),$$

where $`E_{8,4}=𝔏_2(z)+2Li_2(1).`$ If we start from case (iv) then we find that $`E_{8,4}=𝔏_2(z)`$ and therefore we get the same limit MHS on $`𝒟_{11}𝒟_{22}`$ along vector $`/x`$.

By similar computation we can determine the limit MHS on the intersections of any two of the irreducible components $`𝒟_{ij}`$ along any vector. Finally, at all the of the following four points: $`(0,0,1)`$, $`(1,0,1)`$, $`(0,1,1)`$ and $`(1,1,1)`$ we find without much difficulty that the columns of the matrix $`\tau _{[3]}(2\pi i)`$ provide us $`s_0,\mathrm{},s_7`$ for the limit MHS along vectors $`/x`$, or $`/y`$, or $`/z`$.

From all the above examples we want to make the following

###### Conjecture 4.2.

The variations of mixed Hodge-Tate structures related to any multiple polylogarithm can be produced as the variations of some limit mixed Hodge-Tate structures related to some suitable choice of multiple logarithm.

## 5 Double polylogarithm variations of MHS

One can similarly generalize the above theory to multiple polylogarithms. One knows that on $`^\times \{1\}`$ the matrix $`_n(x)`$

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}1\\ Li_1(x)& 1& \\ Li_2(x)& \mathrm{log}x& 1& \\ Li_3(x)& \frac{\mathrm{log}^2x}{2}& \mathrm{log}x& 1\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ Li_{n1}(x)& \frac{\mathrm{log}^{n2}x}{(n2)!}& \frac{\mathrm{log}^{n3}x}{(n3)!}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{log}x& 1\\ Li_n(x)& \frac{\mathrm{log}^{n1}x}{(n1)!}& \frac{\mathrm{log}^{n2}x}{(n2)!}& \mathrm{}& \frac{\mathrm{log}^2x}{2}& \mathrm{log}x& 1\end{array}\right]\text{diag}[1,2\pi i,\mathrm{},(2\pi i)^n]$$

provides a variation of mixed Hodge-Tate structures related to the classical $`n`$-logarithm (cf. ). To be more precise, in the definition of $`Li_m(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{log}^m(x)/m!`$ above we actually fixed a path $`p`$ from $`0`$ to $`x`$ and a path $`q`$ from 1 to $`x`$ (both independent of $`m`$) and set

$$Li_m(x)=_p\frac{dt}{1t}\underset{m1\text{ times}}{\underset{}{\frac{dt}{t}\mathrm{}\frac{dt}{t}}},\frac{\mathrm{log}^m(x)}{m!}=_q\underset{m\text{ times}}{\underset{}{\frac{dt}{t}\mathrm{}\frac{dt}{t}}}.$$

### 5.1 Double polylogarithms of weight 3

There are only four multiple polylogarithms of weight 3. Having dealt with $`Li_3`$ and $`Li_{1,1,1}`$ we now turn to $`Li_{1,2}`$ and $`Li_{2,1}`$.

###### Theorem 5.1.

Each of the weight three depth two multiple polylogarithms underlies a good variation of mixed Hodge-Tate structures over $`S_2=^2\{xy(1x)(1y)(1xy)=0\}`$. For $`Li_{2,1}`$ the graded weight quotients are $`(0)`$, $`(1)(1)`$, $`(2)(2)`$, and $`(3)`$. For $`Li_{1,2}`$ they are $`(0)`$, $`(1)(1)`$, $`(2)(2)(2)`$, and $`(3)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\tau _{2,1}(\lambda )=\text{diag}[1,\lambda ,\lambda ,\lambda ^2,\lambda ^2,\lambda ^3]`$. We define the multi-valued matrix function over $`S_2`$

$$_{2,1}(x,y)=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ Li_1(y)& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ Li_1(xy)& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ Li_{1,1}(x,y)& Li_1(x)& Li_1\left(\frac{1xy}{1x}\right)& 1& 0& 0\\ Li_2(xy)& 0& \mathrm{log}(xy)& 0& 1& 0\\ Li_{2,1}(x,y)& Li_2(x)& f(x,y)& \mathrm{log}x& Li_1(y)& 1\end{array}\right]\tau _{2,1}(2\pi i)$$

where

$$f(x,y)=_{a_1}^1\frac{dt}{t}\frac{dt}{ta_2}=Li_2(x^1)Li_2(y)+\mathrm{log}(xy)Li_1(y).$$

The columns of $`_{2,1}(x,y)`$ form the fundamental solutions of the differential equation over $`S_2`$

$$d\lambda =\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ dLi_1(y)& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ dLi_1(xy)& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& dLi_1(x)& dLi_1\left(\frac{1xy}{1x}\right)& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& d\mathrm{log}(xy)& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& d\mathrm{log}x& dLi_1(y)& 0\end{array}\right]\lambda $$

Let $`1ij2`$ and $`q_{ij}\pi _1(S_2,𝐱)`$ (resp. $`1j2`$ and $`q_{j0}`$) be a loop in $`S_2`$ turning around the irreducible component $`𝒟_{ij}`$ counterclockwise only once such that $`_{q_{ij}}d\mathrm{log}(1x_i\mathrm{}x_j)=2\pi \sqrt{1}`$ (resp. $`_{q_{j0}}d\mathrm{log}x_j=2\pi i`$). Let $`e_{st}`$ be the matrix with 1 at $`(s,t)`$-th entry and 0 elsewhere. Observe that if $`q_i\mathrm{}`$ is a a loop in $`S_2`$ turning around $`x_i=\mathrm{}`$ only once then $`q_i\mathrm{}=q_{i0}+q_{ii}`$. By simple computation we see that the monodromy representation $`\rho :\pi _1(S_2,𝐱)\mathrm{GL}_6()`$ is given as follows:

$`M(q_{10})=`$ $`Ie_{43}+e_{53}+e_{64}`$
$`M(q_{20})=`$ $`I+e_{63}`$
$`M(q_{11})=`$ $`I+e_{42}e_{43}`$
$`M(q_{22})=`$ $`I+e_{21}+e_{43}+e_{65}`$
$`M(q_{12})=`$ $`I+e_{31}`$
We can now easily define the weight and Hodge filtrations, determine the MHS over $`S_2`$ and compute the limit MHS at the “infinity”. This proves the theorem for $`Li_{2,1}`$.

To deal with the multiple polylogarithm $`Li_{1,2}(x,y)`$ we set

$$\tau _{1,2}(\lambda )=\text{diag}[1,\lambda ,\lambda ,\lambda ^2,\lambda ^2,\lambda ^2,\lambda ^3]$$

and define the multi-valued matrix function $`_{1,2}(x,y)`$ over $`S_2`$ as

$$\left[\begin{array}{ccccccc}1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ Li_1(y)& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ Li_1(xy)& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ Li_{1,1}(x,y)& Li_1(x)& Li_1\left(\frac{1xy}{1x}\right)& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ Li_2(y)& \mathrm{log}(y)& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ Li_2(xy)& 0& \mathrm{log}(xy)& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ Li_{1,2}(x,y)& Li_1(x)\mathrm{log}(y)& g(x,y)& \mathrm{log}y& Li_1(x)& Li_1(x^1)& 1\end{array}\right]\tau _{1,2}(2\pi i)$$

where

$$g(x,y)=_{a_1}^1\frac{dt}{ta_2}\frac{dt}{t}=Li_2(y)Li_2(x^1)\mathrm{log}(xy)Li_1(x^1).$$

The columns of $`_{2,1}(x,y)`$ form the fundamental solutions of the differential equation over $`S`$

$$d\lambda =\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ dLi_1(y)& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ dLi_1(xy)& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& dLi_1(x)& dLi_1\left(\frac{1xy}{1x}\right)& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& d\mathrm{log}(y)& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& d\mathrm{log}(xy)& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& d\mathrm{log}(y)& dLi_1(x)& dLi_1(x^1)& 0\end{array}\right]\lambda $$

The monodromy representation $`\rho :\pi _1(S_2,𝐱)\mathrm{GL}_7()`$ is given as follows:

$`M(q_{10})=`$ $`Ie_{43}+e_{63}e_{76}`$
$`M(q_{20})=`$ $`I+e_{52}+e_{63}+e_{74}`$
$`M(q_{11})=`$ $`I+e_{42}e_{43}+e_{75}e_{76}`$
$`M(q_{22})=`$ $`I+e_{21}+e_{43}`$
$`M(q_{12})=`$ $`I+e_{31}`$
We can now determine the MHS over $`S_2`$ and compute the limit MHS at the “infinity” as before. This proves the theorem for $`Li_{2,1}`$. ∎

### 5.2 Some open problems

It seems very difficult to write down explicitly the variation matrix associated with the general multiple polylogarithm $`Li_{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n}(𝐱)`$. However, the following general result must be true:

> The multiple polylogarithm $`Li_{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n}(𝐱)`$ underlies a good unipotent graded-polarizable variation of mixed Hodge-Tate structures $`(V_{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n},W_{},^{})`$ over
>
> $$S_n=^n\left\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_i(1x_i)\underset{1i<jn}{}\left(1x_i\mathrm{}x_j\right)=0\right\}$$
>
> with the weight-graded quotients $`\mathrm{gr}_{2k}^W`$ being given by $`c_k`$ copies of the Tate structure $`(k)`$ which are nonzero only for $`0kK`$.

Here $`c_k`$ is the number of different ways to pick ordered $`(k+2)`$-tuples $`(b_{\alpha _0},\mathrm{},b_{\alpha _{k+1}})`$ from the ordered numbers $`(b_0,\mathrm{},b_{K+1})`$ in the following tableau where $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_n`$ are nonzero

$$\left|b_0\right|\mathrm{}\left|b_{K+1}\right|=\left|0\right|a_1\left|\underset{a_11\text{ times}}{\underset{}{0\left|\mathrm{}\right|0}}\right|a_2\left|\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\right|a_n\left|\underset{a_n1\text{ times}}{\underset{}{0\left|\mathrm{}\right|0}}\right|1|$$
($``$)
such that all of the following conditions are satisfied:

> (i) $`\alpha _0=0`$,
>
> (ii) $`\alpha _{k+1}=K+1`$,
>
> (iii) For all $`0ik`$, either $`\alpha _{i+1}=\alpha _i+1`$ or at least one of $`b_{\alpha _i}`$ and $`b_{\alpha _{i+1}}`$ is nonzero,

It is apparent that

$$c_kd_k(m_1,\mathrm{},m_n)=\underset{\begin{array}{c}k_1+\mathrm{}+k_n=k\\ 0k_im_i\end{array}}{}1.$$

Each term in the sum corresponds to the following choice: for every $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, choose $`k_i`$ $`0`$’s immediately after $`a_i`$.

###### Example 5.2.

By the definition, we always have $`c_0=c_K=1`$. When $`m_1=\mathrm{}=m_n=1`$ tableau ($``$5.2) becomes

$$\left|b_0\right|\mathrm{}\left|b_{n+1}\right|=\left|0\right|\underset{n+1\text{ times}}{\underset{}{1\left|\mathrm{}\right|1}}|$$

Because $`b_0`$ and the last $`b_{n+1}`$ is always picked, $`c_k`$ is the number of ways to choose $`k`$ elements from the set $`\{b_1,\mathrm{},b_n\}`$, i.e., $`c_k=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)`$.

For ease of statement let us put a box $`\overline{)}`$ on a number whenever we choose it.

###### Example 5.3.

Let’s look at $`Li_{1,2}`$. We have the following six nontrivial ways to put boxes on $`\left|0\right|a_1\left|a_2\right|0\left|1\right|`$:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& \text{(1) }\left|\overline{)0}\right|\overline{)}a_1\left|a_2\right|0\left|\overline{)1}\right|\hfill & \text{(2) }\left|\overline{)0}\right|a_1\left|\overline{)}a_2\right|0\left|\overline{)1}\right|\hfill & \text{(3) }\left|\overline{)0}\right|\overline{)}a_1\left|\overline{)}a_2\right|0\left|\overline{)1}\right|\hfill \\ & & & \\ & \text{(4) }\left|\overline{)0}\right|\overline{)}a_1\left|a_2\right|\overline{)0}\left|\overline{)1}\right|\hfill & \text{(5) }\left|\overline{)0}\right|a_1\left|\overline{)}a_2\right|\overline{)0}\left|\overline{)1}\right|\hfill & \text{(6) }\left|\overline{)0}\right|\overline{)}a_1\left|\overline{)}a_2\right|\overline{)0}\left|\overline{)1}\right|\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus $`c_0=c_3=1`$, $`c_1=2`$ and $`c_2=3`$.

However, for $`Li_{2,1}`$ we have altogether only six ways to do this:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& \text{(1) }\left|\overline{)0}\right|a_1\left|0\right|a_2\left|\overline{)1}\right|\hfill & \text{(2) }\left|\overline{)0}\right|\overline{)}a_1\left|0\right|a_2\left|\overline{)1}\right|\hfill & \text{(3) }\left|\overline{)0}\right|a_1\left|0\right|\overline{)}a_2\left|\overline{)1}\right|\hfill \\ & & & \\ & \text{(4) }\left|\overline{)0}\right|\overline{)}a_1\left|\overline{)0}\right|a_2\left|\overline{)1}\right|\hfill & \text{(5) }\left|\overline{)0}\right|\overline{)}a_1\left|0\right|\overline{)}a_2\left|\overline{)1}\right|\hfill & \text{(6) }\left|\overline{)0}\right|\overline{)}a_1\left|\overline{)0}\right|\overline{)}a_2\left|\overline{)1}\right|\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus $`c_0=c_3=1`$, $`c_1=c_2=2`$.

We now can generalize Theorem 5.1 to

###### Theorem 5.4.

The double polylogarithm $`Li_{r,s}`$ underlies a good unipotent graded-polarizable variation of a mixed Hodge-Tate structure with the graded weight piece $`\mathrm{gr}_{2k}^W`$ being direct sums of $`c_k`$ copies of $`(k)`$ where

$$c_k=\{\begin{array}{cc}d_k(r,s)+1\hfill & \text{if }rk=s,\hfill \\ d_k(r,s)\hfill & \text{otherwise},\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$d_k(r,s)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }k<0\text{ or }k>r+s,\hfill \\ k+1\hfill & \text{if }0k\mathrm{min}\{r,s\},\hfill \\ \mathrm{min}\{r,s\}+1\hfill & \text{if }\mathrm{min}\{r,s\}k\mathrm{max}\{r,s\},\hfill \\ r+s+1k\hfill & \text{if }\mathrm{max}\{r,s\}kr+s.\hfill \end{array}$$

Among all the double polylogarithms the homogeneous one $`Li_{r,r}(x,y)`$ behaves most regularly. It satisfies $`c_0=c_{2r}=1,c_1=c_{2r1}=2,\mathrm{},c_{r1}=c_{r+1}=r,c_r=r+1.`$

In general, as we remarked at the beginning of this section, the multiple polylogarithm $`Li_{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n}(𝐱)`$ underlies a good variation of mixed Hodge-Tate structures with the graded weight piece $`\mathrm{gr}_{2k}^W`$ being direct sums of $`c_k`$ copies of $`(k)`$ for some positive integer $`c_k`$. It is clear that $`c_kd_k(m_1,\mathrm{},m_n)`$ and $`c_k(1,\mathrm{},1,m_n)=d_k(m_1,\mathrm{},m_n)`$. It would be very interesting to solve the following

###### Problem 5.5.

(1) Find a closed formula for $`c_k`$ depending only on $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_n`$ and $`k`$.

(2) Determine the variation matrix $`_{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n}(𝐱)`$ explicitly.

(3) Determine the connection matrix $`𝝎`$ explicitly.

(4) Determine the monodromy actions explicitly.

## 6 Single-valued version of multiple polylogarithms

If part (2) of Problem 5.5 is solved then following an idea of Beilinson and Deligne  as given in  one can easily discover the single-valued version of $`Li_{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ which we denote by $`_{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ which should be a real analytic function. In what follows we outline the procedure for multiple logarithms only.

### 6.1 General procedure for producing single-valued <br>multiple logarithms

For any $`n2`$ let $`L_{[n]}=L_{[n]}(𝐱)=[C_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{}C_\mathrm{𝟏}]`$ be the matrix with $`2^n`$ columns $`C_𝐣`$ ($`𝐣𝒮_n`$) as before and $`_{[n]}=_{[n]}(𝐱)=L_{[n]}(𝐱)\tau _{[n]}(2\pi i)`$ where

$$\tau _{[n]}(\lambda )=\text{diag}\left[\lambda ^{|𝐣|}\right]_{𝐣𝒮_n}.$$

Define the matrix

$$B_{[n]}=\tau _{[n]}(i)_{[n]}\overline{}_{[n]}^1\tau _{[n]}(i)$$

where $`\overline{}_{[n]}`$ is the complex conjugation of $`_{[n]}`$. From our calculation of the monodromy we see that $`B`$ is a single-valued matrix function defined over $`S_n`$. Moreover

$$\overline{B}_{[n]}^{}=B_{[n]}^1$$

since $`\overline{\tau _{[n]}(i)}=\tau _{[n]}(i)^1`$. Now that $`B_{[n]}=I+N`$ with $`I`$ the identity matrix and $`N`$ a nilpotent matrix we see that $`\mathrm{log}B`$ is well defined and satisfies

$$\overline{\mathrm{log}B_{[n]}}=\mathrm{log}B_{[n]},$$

namely, $`\mathrm{log}B_{[n]}`$ is a pure imaginary matrix. Then we define $`1/(2i)`$ times the lower left corner entry of $`\mathrm{log}B`$ to be $`_{[n]}(𝐱)`$ which is a single-valued real analytic version of the multiple logarithm $`𝔏_n(𝐱)`$.

###### Remark 6.1.

Our method is slightly different from that in . In fact when we are in the polylogarithm case the matrix $`B`$ constructed as above is the conjugate of the one in  by $`\tau (i)`$.

### 6.2 Single-valued double logarithms

We have seen that

$$L_{1,1}(x,y)=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& & & \\ Li_1(y)& 1& & \\ Li_1(xy)& & 1& \\ Li_{1,1}(x,y)& Li_1(x)& \mathrm{log}\frac{x1}{x(1y)}& 1\end{array}\right]\text{ and }\tau _{1,1}(\lambda )=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& & & \\ & \lambda & & \\ & & \lambda & \\ & & & \lambda ^2\end{array}\right].$$

Let $`B_{1,1}(x,y)=\tau _{1,1}(i)L_{1,1}(x,y)\tau _{1,1}(1)\overline{L_{1,1}(x,y)}^1\tau _{1,1}(i)`$. Then $`B_{1,1}(x,y)`$ is unipotent and single-valued. An easy calculation shows

$$\mathrm{log}B_{1,1}(x,y)=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& & & \\ 2i\mathrm{log}|1y|& 0& & \\ 2i\mathrm{log}|1xy|& & 0& \\ 2i_{1,1}(x,y)& 2i\mathrm{log}|1x|& 2i\mathrm{log}\left|\frac{x1}{x(1y)}\right|& 0\end{array}\right]$$

where

$$_{1,1}(x,y)=\mathrm{Im}\left(Li_{1,1}(x,y)\right)\mathrm{arg}(1y)\mathrm{log}|1x|+\mathrm{arg}(1xy)\mathrm{log}\left|\frac{x1}{x(1y)}\right|$$
(24)
is the single-valued real analytic version of $`Li_{1,1}(x,y)`$.

By differentiation it is easy to check that

$$Li_{1,1}(x,y)=Li_2\left(\frac{xyy}{1y}\right)Li_2\left(\frac{y}{y1}\right)Li_2(xy).$$

So by using the single-valued dilogarithm function $`_2(z)=\mathrm{Im}\left(Li_2(z)\right)+\mathrm{arg}(1z)\mathrm{log}|z|`$ we can also recover (24) as

$$_{1,1}(x,y)=_2\left(\frac{xyy}{1y}\right)_2\left(\frac{y}{y1}\right)_2(xy).$$
(25)
This function satisfies the functional equations

$$_{1,1}(x,y)=_{1,1}(1x,\frac{y}{y1})$$

by the functional equations $`_2(x)=_2(1x)=_2(1/x).`$

### 6.3 Single-valued double polylogarithms $`_{1,2}`$ and $`_{2,1}`$

By  a single-valued version of $`Li_3(x)`$ can be defined as

$$_3(z)=\mathrm{Re}\left(Li_3(z)\right)\mathrm{log}|z|\mathrm{Re}\left(Li_2(z)\right)\frac{1}{3}(\mathrm{log}|z|)^2\mathrm{log}|1z|.$$
(26)
We now look at $`Li_{2,1}(x,y)`$ and $`Li_{1,2}(x,y)`$. By the procedure outlined in the first section of this chapter we find that the single-valued version of $`Li_{1,2}(x,y)`$ is

$$\begin{array}{c}_{1,2}(x,y)=\mathrm{Re}Li_{1,2}(x,y)\mathrm{arg}(1xy)\left[_2(x)+_2(y)\right]+\mathrm{log}|1x|\mathrm{Re}Li_2(y)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{log}|y|\mathrm{Re}Li_{1,1}(x,y)\mathrm{log}|1x^1|\mathrm{Re}Li_2(xy)\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{log}|xy^2|\mathrm{log}|1xy|\mathrm{log}\left|1x^1\right|\\ \hfill +\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{log}|y|\left(2\mathrm{log}|1y|\mathrm{log}|1x|+\mathrm{log}|1xy|\mathrm{log}|x(1y)|\right).\end{array}$$

The single-valued version of $`Li_{2,1}(x,y)`$ is

$$\begin{array}{c}_{2,1}(x,y)=\mathrm{Re}Li_{2,1}(x,y)+\mathrm{arg}(1xy)\left[_2(x)+_2(y)\right]\mathrm{arg}(1y)_2(x)\hfill \\ \hfill +\mathrm{log}|1y|\mathrm{Re}Li_2(xy)\mathrm{log}|x|\mathrm{Re}Li_{1,1}(x,y)+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{log}|1y|\mathrm{log}|xy|\mathrm{log}|1xy|\\ \hfill +\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{log}|x|\left[\mathrm{log}|1y|\mathrm{log}|1x|+\mathrm{log}|1xy|\mathrm{log}\left|\frac{x(1y)}{1x}\right|\right].\end{array}$$

Using the single-valued versions of dilogarithm $`_2(z)`$ and trilogarithm $`_3(z)`$ we can express $`_{2,1}(y,x)`$ by the trilogarithms

$$\begin{array}{c}_{2,1}(y,x)=_3(1xy)+_3(1x)_3\left(\frac{1x}{1xy}\right)_3(y)+_3\left(\frac{yxy}{1xy}\right)_3(1),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`_3`$ is the single-valued trilogarithm given by (26). This follows from the relation (see ) first discovered by Zagier after Goncharov’s conviction that such identity should exist:

$$\begin{array}{c}Li_{2,1}(y,x)=Li_3(1xy)+Li_3(1x)Li_3\left(\frac{1x}{1xy}\right)Li_3(y)+Li_3\left(\frac{yxy}{1xy}\right)Li_3(1)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{log}(1xy)\left(Li_2(1)+Li_2(1x)\right)\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{1x}{1xy}\right)Li_2(y)+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}(y)\mathrm{log}^2(1xy).\end{array}$$

By straightforward computation we further discover the following interesting formula:

$$_{1,2}(x,y)+_{2,1}(y,x)+_3(xy)=0.$$

One should compare this with

$$Li_{1,2}(x,y)+Li_{2,1}(y,x)+Li_3(xy)=\mathrm{log}(1x)Li_2(y).$$

Finally we find the interesting identity

$`_{1,1,1}(x,y,z)=`$ $`_3\left({\displaystyle \frac{(y1)(1xyz)}{y(1x)(1z)}}\right)+_3\left({\displaystyle \frac{y}{y1}}\right)+_3(xy)_3\left({\displaystyle \frac{1xyz}{1x}}\right)`$
$`_3\left({\displaystyle \frac{1xyz}{xy(1z)}}\right)_3\left({\displaystyle \frac{yyz}{y1}}\right)_3\left({\displaystyle \frac{yxy}{y1}}\right)+_3(1x).`$
We remind the readers that such identities in higher weight cases do not exist in general. For example, $`_{2,2}(x,y)`$ cannot be expressed by only tetralogarithms $`_4`$.

### 6.4 A problem of multiple Dedekind zeta values

In general there should exist single-valued real analytic version of the multiple polylogarithm $`Li_{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n}(𝐱)`$ which we denote by $`_{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n}(𝐱)`$. For $`m_n2`$ the value of this function when $`|x_i|1`$ is given by the power series expansion (1). We end our paper by stating a generalized Zagier conjecture about special values of Dedekind zeta function over number fields.

Denote by $`O_F`$ the ring of integers of a number field $`F`$ and $`I_F`$ the set of integral ideals of $`O_F`$. Let $`N`$ be the norm from $`F`$ to $`Q`$. Then we define the multiple Dedekind zeta function of depth $`d`$ over $`F`$ as

$$\zeta _F(s_1,\mathrm{},s_d)=\underset{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝔫_1,\mathrm{},𝔫_d& O_F\hfill \\ \hfill N\left(𝔫_1\right)<\mathrm{}<& N\left(𝔫_d\right)\hfill \end{array}}{}N(𝔫_1)^{s_1}\mathrm{}N(𝔫_d)^{s_d}.$$

This function is well defined for $`\mathrm{Re}(s_1)>0,\mathrm{},\mathrm{Re}(s_{d1})>0,\mathrm{Re}(s_d)>1`$.

###### Problem 6.2.

For any integers $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_{d1}1`$ and $`m_d2`$, is there an expression of $`\zeta _F(m_1,\mathrm{},m_d)`$ in terms of a determinant of $`_{m_1,\mathrm{},m_d}`$ evaluated at $`F`$ rational points up to some factors determined only by the number field $`F`$ (such as the discriminant, the number of real and complex embeddings, etc.)?

When $`F=`$ the problem has an easy answer:

$$\zeta _{}(m_1,\mathrm{},m_d)=_{m_1,\mathrm{},m_d}(1,\mathrm{},1).$$

###### Remark 6.3.

H. Gangl kindly informed the author of the preprint  of Wojtkowiak in which conjectures generalizing Zagier’s are also considered.

Address: Department of Mathematics, University of Pennsylvania, PA 19104, USA

Email: jqz@math.upenn.edu


format: text

text:
# Consistency in NLO analyses of inclusive and semi-inclusive polarized DIS data.

## I Introduction

Ever since the renewed burst of interest in the spin structure of the nucleon, triggered fifteen years ago by the measurement of the proton spin dependent deep inelastic scattering structure function $`g_1^p`$ by the EMC experiment EMC , polarized deep inelastic scattering has evolved into a very prolific field for combined theoretical and experimental efforts review . As result of this activity, an increasingly precise QCD improved partonic description of polarized nucleons has emerged, phrased in terms of more refined and exhaustive extractions of polarized parton distributions.

Indeed, the number of QCD analyses of polarized inclusive deep inelastic scattering (DIS) data at next to leading order (NLO) accuracy has rapidly grown in the few last years fits . In some cases these studies also take into account polarized semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering (SIDIS) data DSS ; DS ; SW . The usual outcome from these analyses are different sets of parton distributions which reproduce fairly well most data sets within the quoted errors, with overall $`\chi ^2`$ values pretty close to the number $`N`$ of degrees of freedom (d.o.f) as required by the familiar ‘hypothesis-testing criterion’.

Although the apparent fulfillment of this requirement, the resulting parton distributions not only suffer from large uncertainties, but in some cases small subsets of inclusive data are badly fitted. This facts point to the need of a more stringent criterion for assessing the goodness of a particular fit, and also the compatibility between data sets.

In the case of polarized semi-inclusive data, the motivation for a more careful analysis is twofold. For one side, inclusive data do not provide enough information for a complete separation of the quark and antiquark distributions of different flavors, so the analyses must rely either on SIDIS data or on some external assumption.

From another side, the standard procedure used to analyze semi-inclusive data, in terms of polarized parton densities and unpolarized fragmentation functions, has been criticized questioning, in first place, the accuracy of the present generation of fragmentation functions ELLIOT , suggesting that the usual assumptions about spin independence of fragmentation process may not hold GR , and also addressing the issue of target fragmentation contributions Kos .

Regarding the first issue, recently there has been an increasing amount activity around the issue of the polarization of sea quarks in the proton mod . This interest has been driven in part by the confirmation of the isospin symmetry breaking at sea quark level in unpolarized DIS unpol , by the level of refinement attained in QCD global analysis of spin dependent data fits , and by the expected precision of forthcoming polarized semi-inclusive measurements, polarized Drell Yan dilepton production, and prompt photon production future .

Moreover, in spite of the encouraging achievements in polarized semi-inclusive measurements in the few last years SMC ; HERMES , which have shown to be in good agreement with inclusive data DSS , the available data fail to constrain unambiguously the polarization of sea quarks in the proton when included in global QCD fits performed following just the hypothesis testing criterion DS .

In face of this situation, it is worthwhile assessing the goodness of global fits to polarized data, involving both inclusive semi-inclusive measurements, with more stringent criteria, in the line of what has been proposed in reference COLLINS , and applied to LO unpolarized sets of data in IJ . The main point of this approach is to apply the parameter fitting criterion to subsets of data in the global fit, assessing in this way features as the degree of compatibility between subsets of data, the impact of specific data in certain parameters of the fit, and the overall consistency of the global fit. The occurrence of such an inconsistency may hint, besides an unexpected error source in the experiment, the non validity of assumptions or other inputs of the theoretical calculation.

In the following, after defining our conventions and sketching the computation of the relevant observables, we present a global fit of polarized inclusive and semi-inclusive data exploring the dependence of the overall $`\chi _{tot}^2`$ of the fit on the respective $`\chi _i^2`$ for each particular experiment by means of the Lagrange multiplier method LM . The analysis is performed in two stages. In the first one we restrict the analysis to inclusive data, and to those parton densities which can be extracted there. In the second stage we add semi-inclusive observables and discriminate between valence and sea quark densities of different flavors, but at variance with reference DS , where semi-inclusive data was only allowed to fix the sea quark polarization, here we leave all the distributions free.

In order to circumvent the extremely time-consuming convolutions integrals characteristic of the semi-inclusive observables at NLO, we apply the double Mellin transform approach, developed recently in SW . This new approach has produced results in complete agreement with those obtained with the convolution method, but obtained considerably faster.

As result of our analysis, we find that the parameter fitting criterion shows a reasonably good level of internal consistency between the inclusive measurements. The addition of SIDIS data sets leads to global fits with $`\chi ^2/d.o.f.`$ values fairly close to unity, however the increase of the statistical weight of this data in the fits shows rather different consequences when either positively ($`\sigma ^{h+}`$) or negatively ($`\sigma ^h`$) charged final state hadron data is considered. For $`\sigma ^h`$ data, the increase in weight does not modify significantly those parton distributions coming from inclusive sets, suggesting consistency between the different data sets and also between data and the theoretical framework. However, the analysis of $`\sigma ^{h+}`$ data shows a sizable degree of conflict with the rest of the fit.

## II  Framework.

Throughout the present analysis, we follow the same conventions and definitions for the polarized inclusive asymmetries and parton densities as in reference DS . In the totally inclusive case, the spin dependent asymmetries are given by review

$`A_1^N(x,Q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{g_1^N(x,Q^2)}{F_1^N(x,Q^2)}}={\displaystyle \frac{g_1^N(x,Q^2)}{F_2^N(x,Q^2)/2x[1+R^N(x,Q^2)]}},`$ (1)
where the inclusive spin-dependent nucleon structure function $`g_1^N(x,Q^2)`$ can be written at NLO as a convolution between polarized parton densities for quarks and gluons, $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_i(x,Q^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }g(x,Q^2)`$, respectively, and coefficient functions $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_i(x)`$inclusiva

$`g_1^N(x,Q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{q,\overline{q}}{}}e_q^2[\mathrm{\Delta }q(x,Q^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{z}}\{\mathrm{\Delta }C_q(z)\mathrm{\Delta }q({\displaystyle \frac{x}{z}},Q^2)`$
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }C_g(z)\mathrm{\Delta }g({\displaystyle \frac{x}{z}},Q^2)\}].`$ (2)
A more detailed discussion about these coefficient functions and their factorization scheme dependence can be found in Ref.newgr . $`F_1^N(x,Q^2)`$ is the unpolarized nucleon structure function that can be written in terms of $`F_2^N(x,Q^2)`$ and R, the ratio of the longitudinal to transverse cross section review .

Analogously, for the semi-inclusive asymmetries we have:

$`A_1^{Nh}(x,Q^2)_Z{\displaystyle \frac{_Z𝑑zg_1^{Nh}(x,z,Q^2)}{_Z𝑑zF_1^{Nh}(x,z,Q^2)}},`$ (3)
bf where the superscript $`h`$ denotes the hadron detected in the final state, and the variable $`z`$ is given by the ratio between the hadron energy and that of the spectators in the target. The region $`Z`$, over which $`z`$ is integrated, is determined by kinematical cuts applied when measuring the asymmetries.

For the spin dependent structure function $`g_1^N(x,Q^2)`$, we use the NLO expression NPB

$`g_1^{Nh}(x,z,Q)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{q,\overline{q}}{}}e_q^2[\mathrm{\Delta }q(x,Q^2)D_q^H(z,Q^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{x}}{\widehat{x}}}{\displaystyle _z^1}{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{z}}{\widehat{z}}}\{\mathrm{\Delta }q({\displaystyle \frac{x}{\widehat{x}}},Q^2)`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{qq}^{(1)}(\widehat{x},\widehat{z},Q^2)D_q^H({\displaystyle \frac{z}{\widehat{z}}},Q^2)+\mathrm{\Delta }q({\displaystyle \frac{x}{\widehat{x}}},Q^2)\mathrm{\Delta }C_{gq}^{(1)}(\widehat{x},\widehat{z},Q^2)`$
$`D_g^H({\displaystyle \frac{z}{\widehat{z}}},Q^2)+\mathrm{\Delta }g({\displaystyle \frac{x}{\widehat{x}}},Q^2)\mathrm{\Delta }C_{qg}^{(1)}(\widehat{x},\widehat{z},Q^2)D_q^H({\displaystyle \frac{z}{\widehat{z}}},Q^2)\}],`$ (4)
and in order to avoid the convolution integrals in $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{z}`$ we switch to moment space in both variables as suggested in SW . In moment space, the convolution integrals reduce products of the Mellin moments of the parton densities

$$\mathrm{\Delta }f_i^n(Q^2)_0^1𝑑xx^{n1}\mathrm{\Delta }f_i(x,Q^2),$$
(5)
fragmentation functions

$$\mathrm{\Delta }D_i^{hm}(Q^2)_0^1𝑑xx^{m1}\mathrm{\Delta }D_i^h(z,Q^2),$$
(6)
and the double Mellin transform of the coefficient functions $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{ij}^{(1)}(x,z,Q^2)`$, defined by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }C_{ij}^{(1),nm}(Q^2)_0^1𝑑xx^{n1}_0^1𝑑zz^{m1}\mathrm{\Delta }C_{ij}^{(1)}(x,z,Q^2).$$
(7)
These coefficients can be written as DSV

$`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{qq}^{(1),nm}(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`C_F[8{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(m+1)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1+m+n)^21}{m(m+1)n(n+1)}}`$ (8)
$`+\left[S_1(m)+S_1(n)\right]\left\{S_1(m)+S_1(n){\displaystyle \frac{1}{m(m+1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n(n+1)}}\right\}`$
$`+3S_2(m)S_2(n)]`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{gq}^{(1),nm}(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`C_F[{\displaystyle \frac{22m9m^2+m^3m^4+m^5}{m^2(m1)^2(m+1)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{n(m+1)(m1)}}`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2m+m^2}{m(m+1)(m1)(n+1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{2+m+m^2}{m(m+1)(m1)}}\left[S_1(m)+S_1(n)\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(m+1)n(n+1)}}]`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{qg}^{(1),nm}(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`T_R{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{n(n+1)}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}S_1(m)S_1(n)\right],`$ (10)
where we have set the factorization and renormalization scales to $`Q^2`$. As usual, $`C_F=4/3`$, $`T_R=1/2`$, and

$$S_i(n)\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{j^i}.$$
(11)
For $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks plus antiquarks densities at the initial scale $`Q_0^2=0.5`$ GeV2 we propose

$`x(\mathrm{\Delta }q+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{q})=N_q{\displaystyle \frac{x^{\alpha _q}(1x)^{\beta _q}(1+\gamma _qx^{\delta _q})}{B(\alpha _q+1,\beta _q+1)+\gamma _qB(\alpha _q+\delta _q+1,\beta _q+1)}},`$
where $`B(\alpha ,\beta )`$ is the standard beta function, while for strange quarks plus antiquarks we use

$$x(\mathrm{\Delta }s+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{s})=2N_s\frac{x^{\alpha _s}(1x)^{\beta _s}}{B(\alpha _s+1,\beta _s+1)},$$
(12)
with a similar parametric form for gluons

$$x\mathrm{\Delta }g=N_g\frac{x^{\alpha _g}(1x)^{\beta _g}}{B(\alpha _g+1,\beta _g+1)}.$$
(13)
The first moments of the quark densities $`\delta q`$ ($`N_q`$) are often related to the hyperon beta decay constants $`F`$ and $`D`$ through the SU(3) symmetry relations

$`\delta u+\delta \overline{u}\delta d\delta \overline{d}`$ $``$ $`N_uN_d`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`F+D=1.2573`$
$`\delta u+\delta \overline{u}+\delta d+\delta \overline{d}2(\delta s+\delta \overline{s})`$ $``$ $`N_u+N_d4N_s`$
$`=3FD`$ $`=`$ $`0.579.`$ (15)
Under such an assumption, the previous equations would strongly constrain the normalization of the quark densities. However, as we are not interested in forcing flavor symmetry, we leave aside that strong assumption and relax the symmetry relations introducing two parameters, $`ϵ_{Bj}`$ and $`ϵ_{SU(3)}`$ respectively. These parameters account quantitatively for eventual departures from flavor symmetry considerations, including also some uncertainties on the low-$`x`$ behavior, and higher order corrections,

$$N_uN_d=(F+D)(1+ϵ_{Bj})$$
(16)
$$N_u+N_d4N_s=(3FD)(1+ϵ_{SU(3)}),$$
(17)
and we take them as a measure of the degree of fulfillment of the Bjorken sum rule BJ  and the $`SU(3)`$ symmetry.

Equations (16) and (17) allow to write the normalization of the three quark flavors in terms of $`N_s`$, $`ϵ_{Bj}`$, and $`ϵ_{SU(3)}`$. Notice that no constraints have been imposed on the breaking parameters since we expect them to be fixed by data. The remaining parameters are constrained in such a way that positivity with respect to GRV98 parton distributions is fulfilled. These last parameterizations are used in order to compute the denominators of equations (1) and (3). This is particularly relevant at large $`x`$, and since no polarized data is available in that kinematical region, we directly fix the parameters $`\beta _u=3.2`$, $`\beta _d=4.05`$ and $`\beta _g=6`$ for the NLO sets in agreement with GRV98. Consistently with the choice for the unpolarized parton distributions, we use the values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ given in Ref.GRV98  to compute $`\alpha _s`$ at NLO.

As antiquark densities we take

$$x\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{q}=N_{\overline{q}}\frac{x^{\alpha _{\overline{q}}}(1x)^{\beta _{\overline{q}}}}{B(\alpha _{\overline{q}}+1,\beta _{\overline{q}}+1)},$$
(18)
for $`\overline{u}`$ and $`\overline{d}`$ quarks, and we assume $`\overline{s}=s`$ since the possibility of discrimination in the $`s`$ sector is beyond the precision of the data (as in the unpolarized case).

Fragmentation functions are taken from KRETZER  and we also use the flavor separation criterion proposed there, which have shown to be in agreement with most recent analysis KE .

The data sets analyzed include only points with $`Q^2>1`$ GeV2 listed in Table 1, and totaling 137, 118, and 34 points, from proton, deuteron, and helium targets respectively, in the inclusive stage, plus 42, 24, and 18, from proton, deuteron, and helium targets respectively, in the second stage.

Regarding the fitting procedure, this is done minimizing a function $`f(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)`$ defined as

$$f(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)=\underset{i}{}\lambda _i\chi _i^2,$$
(19)
where the sum runs over the data sets or experiments $`i`$ included in the fit. The parameters $`\lambda _i`$ are the Lagrange multipliers defined for each data set and which can be varied in order to produce different fits where the relative weight of a given set of data has been modified. $`\chi _i^2`$ is the contribution to the overall $`\chi ^2`$ coming from the data set $`i`$.

As it is well known, there are various alternatives for calculating these last contributions thornea . The most simple and commonly used in fits to polarized data is adding the reported statistical and systematic errors in quadrature. This ignores the correlations between data points from the same measurements, but in many cases the full correlation matrices are not available.

As inclusive and semi-inclusive data are strongly correlated, and the correlation matrices are available, we have taken into account them, analyzing only the inclusive data for SMC and Hermes corresponding to ‘averaged’ bins, for which the correlation matrices are defined. In the semi-inclusive case we only consider in the fit the most precise data concerning the production of charged $`\pm `$ hadrons (without identifying pions, kaons, or other particles individually).

Regarding the normalization uncertainties, in reference DS  it was found that Hermes data was systematically below the best global fits, but allowing a floating normalization factor to it in order to account for the relative normalization uncertainties, the $`\chi ^2`$ values were considerably improved. In the following we set allow this factor to be fixed by the global fit, finding the best fits for $`12\%`$ correction.

## III  Inclusive data

In this section we present results from the first stage of our analysis, which only deals with inclusive data. It is customary in NLO fits to inclusive data to present several sets of parton distributions with different alternatives for the features that are poorly constrained by the data, such as the gluon or strange sea quark polarization. As we are mainly concerned in assessing the goodness of the fit between theory and data and the degree of internal consistency of the data, rather than covering the different scenarios for parton densities, we just explore the more favored scenario of reference DS , which was labeled as ‘set i’ and has moderate gluon polarization.

In Figure 1 we show the outcome of different global fits to all the available inclusive data. The plot give the variation of the $`\chi _i^2`$ value of each experiment against the total $`\chi ^2`$ value of the fit ($`\chi _{Inclusive}^2`$). The first point to the left of each curve ($`\lambda _i=1`$) correspond to standard fits where no extra weight was given to none of the data sets. The parameters for this fit are presented in Table A1 in the appendix. Along the curves, the subsequent points come from fits where, following the Lagrange multiplier method explained in the previous section, increasing values of $`\lambda _i`$ have been given to a specific set of data, while keeping the others parameters $`\lambda _j`$ equal to 1.

The normal expectation in a good fit to data sets that individually only determine a small fraction of the parameters, is a monotonic decrease of a few units in the $`\chi _i^2`$ of the subset which has been subject to the increase in weight while $`\chi _{Inclusive}^2`$ varies in the range $`N\pm \sqrt{2N}`$. One would also expect $`\chi _i^2`$ to approach a saturation point within an increase of $`\chi _{Inclusive}^2`$ smaller than $`\sqrt{2N}`$.

As it can be seen in Figure 1, in all the cases, the curves show the features expected for consistent subsets of data, each one able to fix a limited number of parameters. The $`\chi _i^2(\lambda )`$ values of each experiment $`i`$ are shown in Table 2.

Notice that the initial fall in the $`\chi _i^2(\lambda )`$ values with a very mild variation in $`\chi _{Inclusive}^2`$ illustrates the situation where a subset of data would be able to effectively fix some parameters in the fit, in general agreement with the remaining data, if it statistical significance were increased. This is clearly the situation of neutron and deuteron target data.

The standard $`\lambda _i=1`$ fit (solid line) can be seen in Figure 2 together with the Hermes-p driven fit for $`\lambda _{Hermes}=100`$ (dashes) and that for E155 with $`\lambda _{E155}=100`$ (dots) for comparison. As it can be noticed, the changes in the asymmetries due to the extra weight in these subsets of data are almost negligible, as it can be expected from the moderate variations they produce in $`\chi _{Inclusive}^2(\lambda )`$. For these reasons we conclude that inclusive data is internally consistent and in excellent agreement with theory.

## IV Semi-Inclusive data

In this section we focus on the consequences of including SIDIS data in the global fits. These data allow in principle to discriminate between light sea quark flavors, so the corresponding parton distributions are now parameterized and fitted. As we have anticipated, the inclusion of SIDIS data leads to acceptable fits according to the hypothesis testing criterion DS , however the small statistical impact of SIDIS data relative to DIS data hinders definite conclusions on sea quark distributions.

A closer examination allowing for example increased weights in the different SIDIS data subsets, as we did for inclusive sets reveals some interesting features, as shown in Figure 3. Again, we have applied a 12 % normalization factor to Hermes data, and in order to simplify the analysis, we consider SMC and Hermes proton target data together. Identical results are obtained if the data is discriminated for each experiment.

Although for most SIDIS data sets, $`\chi _i^2(\lambda )`$ reach their respective saturation values within a $`\sqrt{2N}`$ shift in $`\chi _{tot}^2`$ as required for overall consistency, data coming from positively charged hadroproduction on proton targets ($`\sigma _p^{h+}`$) seems to lay in the borderline, with a fall of several units and a saturation value outside de $`\sqrt{2N}`$ range. SIDIS data is mainly dominated by proton target data but while $`\sigma _p^h`$ driven fits lead to asymmetries in agreement with other data sets, those driven by $`\sigma _p^{h+}`$ show an increasing disagreement with them, as can be seen in Figure 4.

The inconsistency between these two data sets can also be seen in the parton distributions they produce, as shown in Figure 5 (a) and (b) , for $`\sigma _p^h`$ and $`\sigma _p^{h+}`$ driven fits at $`Q^2=5.0`$ GeV2, respectively. Notice that ($`\mathrm{\Delta }u+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}`$) and ($`\mathrm{\Delta }d+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}`$) distributions, that should be fixed mainly by inclusive data, have minor, although not negligible, changes in the fits driven by either data sets, showing the degree of consistency between inclusive and semi-inclusive data. However, sea quark distributions depend strongly on which data set has received additional weight. The discrepancy is particularly strong for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}`$, which even change sign.

An interesting feature of SIDIS data is that for all subsets, the SIDIS-driven fits exceeds the $`\sqrt{2N}`$ range for $`\chi _{tot}^2`$ with values of $`\lambda `$ considerably smaller than the ones typical of inclusive data, as Figure 3 shows. While inclusive data sets allows $`\lambda _i`$ values of 100 or more with a few units change in $`\chi _{tot}^2`$, SIDIS data exceeds the allowed range for $`\lambda >20`$ or even less in the case of $`\sigma ^{h+}`$. In other words, at variance with what happens to DIS data, fits forced to reproduce SIDIS data lead to considerably poor global fits. This can be interpreted as a weaker level of consistency in the analysis of SIDIS data than in the inclusive case. In Table 3 we present $`\chi _i^2`$ values obtained for each data set in the standard fit ($`\lambda _i=1`$) and increasing the weights.

In addition to the issue of the accuracy of the data, the analysis of SIDIS experiments relay also in our knowledge of unpolarized fragmentation functions. Although most of the uncertainties coming from these functions cancel out when computing asymmetries, the weaker degree of consistency, and odd behavior of $`\sigma ^{h+}`$ regardless one uses proton or deuterium targets, and in different experiments, may hint a failure in the extraction of fragmentation functions, particularly in the more troublesome discrimination between those for positive and negative final state hadrons.

## V Conclusions

We have assessed the internal consistency in a NLO analysis of different sets of polarized DIS and SIDIS data. For the inclusive data, the agreement shown between theory and data from the stand point of the hypothesis testing criterion, is confirmed when a detailed analysis using a variant of the parameter fitting criterion is performed. For SIDIS data the level of consistency is considerably weaker, particularly in the case of positively charged final state hadron data. Even though this kind of analysis can not establish whereas either data or some particular ingredient in the theoretical approach is responsible for the discrepancy, the unexpected features found in the analysis of $`\sigma ^{h+}`$ data, for different targets and coming from different experiments, hint an inaccuracy in the separation between positively and negatively charged hadron fragmentation functions.

### Acknowledgments

We warmly acknowledge D. de Florian, A. Daleo and C. A. García Canal for helpful comments and discussions.

## VI Appendix: Parameters of the fit

We present here the parameters of the fit with $`\lambda =1`$, for the first stage where we only deal with the inclusive data ($`DISFit`$) and the second stage, where the semi-inclusive data were included ($`SIDISFit`$).