format: text

text:
# Rohlin’s invariant and gauge theory, I. Homology 3-tori.

## 1. Introduction

Casson’s introduction of his invariant for homology 3–spheres  has had many profound consequences in low-dimensional topology. One of the most important is the vanishing of the Rohlin invariant of a homotopy sphere, which follows from Casson’s identification of his invariant, modulo $`2`$, with the Rohlin invariant of an arbitrary homology sphere. The proof of this identification proceeds via a surgery argument, in which a series of invariants is defined for knots and links of several components. Ultimately, these invariants are related to classical knot invariants, such as the Alexander polynomial, and the theorem follows. This surgery point of view, further developed in , finds its ultimate expression in the theory of finite-type invariants of $`3`$-manifolds .

In this paper we give a proof of the equality of Rohlin’s and Casson’s invariants (modulo $`2`$) in terms of the gauge theoretic framework introduced by Taubes . Many of the ingredients for this proof are already in place, namely Taubes’ original work, and the surgery sequence of Floer  relating Casson-type invariants of manifolds obtained by surgery on a knot. Our main contribution is to identify a Casson-type invariant of a homology $`3`$-torus, $`Y`$, with a Rohlin-type invariant. This is accomplished by relating the action of the group $`H^1(Y;_2)`$ on the moduli space of (projectively) flat connections to the cup product in cohomology. The techniques we develop to deal with equivariant aspects of non-smooth moduli spaces should be of independent interest in the study of instanton Floer homology (compare \[7, §5.6\]).

Let us briefly describe the invariants in question; more details will be given in the next section. By *homology $`3`$-torus* we mean a closed oriented $`3`$-manifold $`Y`$ having the integral homology of the $`3`$-torus $`T^3=S^1\times S^1\times S^1`$. For any non–trivial $`wH^2(Y;_2)`$, we consider projectively flat connections on a principal $`U(2)`$ bundle $`PY`$ whose associated $`SO(3)=PU(2)`$ bundle has second Stiefel–Whitney class equal to $`w`$. We define a Casson-type invariant $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y,w)`$ to be one-half of the signed count of such connections, modulo an appropriate gauge group. This invariant is one-half of the Euler characteristic of the Floer homology studied in  and  and is not, *a priori*, an integer.

A pair consisting of an oriented $`3`$-manifold $`X`$ and a spin structure $`\sigma `$ has a Rohlin invariant $`\rho (X,\sigma )/2`$. By definition,

$$\rho (X,\sigma )=\frac{1}{8}\mathrm{sign}(V)$$

for any spin $`4`$-manifold $`V`$ with (spin) boundary $`(X,\sigma )`$. By the Rohlin invariant $`\rho ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y)`$ of a homology $`3`$-torus $`Y`$ we mean the sum, over the eight spin structures on $`Y`$, of their Rohlin invariants. It is easy to see that, as for a homology sphere, this invariant actually takes values in $`/2`$.

###### Theorem 1.1.

For any choice of non-trivial $`wH^2(Y;_2)`$, the Casson invariant $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y,w)`$ is an integer. If $`\{a_1,a_2,a_3\}`$ is a basis in $`H^1(Y;)`$ then

$$\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y,w)=(a_1a_2a_3)[Y](mod2).$$

Note that this implies that $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y,w)(mod2)`$ is independent of $`w`$, so long as $`w`$ is non-trivial. It is a theorem of V. Turaev , based on S. Kaplan \[11, Lemma 6.3\] that the above triple cup product also evaluates the Rohlin invariant. Hence we obtain the following result.

###### Corollary 1.2.

If $`Y`$ is a homology $`3`$-torus, then $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y,w)\rho ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y)(mod2)`$.

At the end of the paper, we will explain how this implies Casson’s original result about the Rohlin invariant of homology spheres.

We should point out that the congruence in Theorem 1.1 actually holds over the integers (with appropriate sign conventions). A proof of this stronger statement is implicit in Casson’s original work  and a closely related formula is given by Lescop . To establish the integral version of Theorem 1.1, one would have to show the equality of the count of flat connections on a homology $`3`$-torus with either Lescop’s invariant or Casson’s invariant for 3-component links (of trivial linking numbers). This equality is closely related to Casson’s formula for his knot invariant in terms of the Alexander polynomial; a purely gauge-theoretic proof of the latter has been given by Donaldson . The techniques in the present paper are rather different, and moreover have the advantage of extending to the $`4`$-dimensional situation  where the integral version does not hold.

The idea of the proof of Theorem 1.1 is to take advantage of a natural $`H^1(Y;_2)=(_2)^3`$ action on the moduli space of projectively flat connections. We identify this moduli space with the space of projective representations of $`\pi _1(Y)`$ in $`SU(2)`$, and use this identification to show that the orbits with two elements are always non–degenerate and that the number of such orbits equals $`(a_1a_2a_3)[Y](mod2)`$. In the non–degenerate situation, this completes the proof because there are no orbits with just one element, and the orbits with four and eight elements do not contribute to $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y)(mod2)`$. The general case reduces to the non–degenerate one after one finds a generic perturbation which commutes with the $`H^1(Y;_2)`$–action. As mentioned above, this equivariance is rather delicate.

The authors are thankful to Christopher Herald for sharing his expertise.

## 2. The invariant $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }`$

In this section we introduce the invariant $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ of a homology 3-torus $`Y`$ by counting projectively flat connections in a $`U(2)`$–bundle over $`Y`$. The ‘derivative’ notation comes from Casson’s original approach, in which $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ appears as the third difference quotient of his homology sphere invariant.

### 2.1. The bundles

Let $`Y`$ be a homology 3–torus, $`P`$ a principal $`U(2)`$ bundle over $`Y`$, and $`\overline{P}`$ its associated $`SO(3)=PU(2)`$ bundle. Topologically, the bundles $`P`$ and $`\overline{P}`$ are determined by their characteristic classes $`c_1(P)`$ and $`w_2(\overline{P})`$, which are related by the formula $`w_2(\overline{P})=c_1(P)(mod2)`$. Since $`H^3(Y;)`$ is torsion free, every $`SO(3)`$ bundle over $`Y`$ arises as $`\overline{P}`$ for some $`U(2)`$ bundle $`P`$, and $`SO(3)`$ bundles with non-trivial $`w_2`$ correspond to $`U(2)`$ bundles whose $`c_1`$ is an odd element in $`H^2(Y;)`$.

Every connection $`A`$ on $`P`$ induces connections on $`\overline{P}`$ and on the line bundle $`detP`$, via the splitting $`𝔲(2)=𝔰𝔲(2)𝔲(1)`$. In a local trivialization, this corresponds to the decomposition

$$A=\left(A\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}A\mathrm{Id}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}A\mathrm{Id}.$$
(1)
The induced connection on $`\overline{P}`$ is the image of the first summand under the isomorphism $`\mathrm{ad}:𝔰𝔲(2)𝔰𝔬(3)`$ given by $`\mathrm{ad}(\xi )(\eta )=[\xi ,\eta ]`$, and the induced connection on $`detP`$ is $`\mathrm{tr}A`$. Conversely, any two connections on $`\overline{P}`$ and $`detP`$ determine a unique connection on $`P`$.

Fix a connection $`C`$ on $`detP`$, and let $`𝒜(P)`$ be the space of connections on $`P`$ compatible with $`C`$. The connection $`C`$ plays no real geometric role – different choices will give equivalent theories. The gauge group $`𝒢(P)`$ consisting of unitary automorphisms of $`P`$ of determinant one preserves $`C`$ and hence acts on $`𝒜(P)`$ with the quotient space $`(P)=𝒜(P)/𝒢(P)`$. Let $`𝒜(\overline{P})`$ be the affine space of connections on $`\overline{P}`$ and $`𝒢(\overline{P})`$ the $`SO(3)`$ gauge group. Denote $`(\overline{P})=𝒜(\overline{P})/𝒢(\overline{P})`$. The projection $`\pi :𝒜(P)𝒜(\overline{P})`$ induced by the splitting (1) commutes with the above gauge group actions and hence defines a projection

$$\pi :(P)(\overline{P}).$$
(2)
The group $`H^1(Y;_2)`$ acts on $`(P)`$ as follows. Let us view $`\chi H^1(Y;_2)`$ as a homomorphism from $`\pi _1(Y)`$ to $`_2=\{\pm 1\}`$. As such, it defines a complex line bundle $`L_\chi `$. For any $`A𝒜(P)`$, let $`A\chi `$ be the connection on $`PL_\chi `$ induced by $`A`$ and $`\chi `$. In a local trivialization, $`A\chi `$ is given by $`A+\omega `$ where $`\omega `$ is an $`𝔰𝔲(2)`$-valued 1-form. In particular, we easily see that both $`A`$ and $`A\chi `$ define the same connection $`C`$ on $`det(P)=det(PL_\chi )`$. Since the bundles $`PL_\chi `$ and $`P`$ are isomorphic, the action is well defined on gauge-equivalence classes by the formula $`AA\chi `$.

###### Proposition 2.1.

The map $`\pi `$ defined in (2) is the quotient map of the $`H^1(Y;_2)`$ action described above.

###### Proof.

The connections on $`\overline{P}`$ induced by $`A`$ and $`A\chi `$ are $`SO(3)`$ gauge equivalent because they have the same holonomy. Every connection on $`\overline{P}`$ arises from a connection on $`P`$ which is unique up to the action in question. ∎

### 2.2. Projectively flat connections

Let $`A`$ be a connection on $`P`$ compatible with the connection $`C`$ on $`detP`$ and let $`\overline{A}=\pi (A)`$. The projection $`\pi :𝒜(P)𝒜(\overline{P})`$ identifies the tangent spaces of $`𝒜(P)`$ and $`𝒜(\overline{P})`$ at $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$, respectively. The latter tangent space is known to be isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}\overline{P})`$ where $`\mathrm{ad}\overline{P}=\overline{P}\times _{\mathrm{ad}}𝔰𝔬(3)`$. A straightforward calculation shows that the curvatures of $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$ are related by

$$F_A=\pi _{}^1(F_{\overline{A}})+\frac{1}{2}F_C\mathrm{Id}.$$

We say that $`A`$ is a *projectively flat connection* compatible with $`C`$ if $`F_{\overline{A}}=0`$. The property of a connection being projectively flat is preserved by the actions of both $`𝒢(P)`$ and $`H^1(Y;_2)`$. The moduli space of projectively flat connections will be denoted by $`(P)`$.

Fix a projectively flat connection $`A_0`$ compatible with $`C`$. Define the *Chern–Simons function* $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐬}_{A_0}:𝒜(P)/`$ by the formula

$$\mathrm{𝐜𝐬}_{A_0}(A)=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}_Y\mathrm{tr}\left(BdB+\frac{2}{3}BBB\right),$$

where $`B=AA_0`$ and $`\mathrm{tr}:𝔰𝔲(2)`$ is the trace function. This function is invariant with respect to the $`H^1(Y;_2)`$ action and defines the Chern–Simons function $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐬}_{A_0}:(\overline{P})/4`$ on the quotient, so that we have the following commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(P)& \stackrel{\mathrm{𝐜𝐬}_{A_0}}{}& /\\ \pi & & \times 4& & \\ (\overline{P})& \stackrel{\mathrm{𝐜𝐬}_{A_0}}{}& /4\end{array}$$

The critical point set of $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐬}_{A_0}:(P)/`$ can be identified with the moduli space $`(P)`$ of projectively flat connections on $`P`$, which is independent of the choice of $`A_0`$. For this reason, we will generally omit the $`A_0`$ subscript in what follows. The group $`H^1(Y;_2)`$ acts on $`(P)`$. The quotient of this action is the flat moduli space $`(\overline{P})`$, which is the critical point set of $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐬}:(\overline{P})/4`$. If $`w_2(\overline{P})0`$ then all flat connections in $`(\overline{P})`$ are irreducible.

### 2.3. Definition of $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }`$

Let $`A`$ be a projectively flat connection on $`P`$. The point $`[A](P)`$ is said to be *non–degenerate* if $`H^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}A)=0`$. Here, $`H^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}A)`$ stands for the cohomology with coefficients in the flat bundle $`\mathrm{ad}\overline{P}`$ endowed with the flat connection $`\overline{A}`$. The moduli space $`(P)`$ is called *non–degenerate* if all of its points are non-degenerate.

Let $`w`$ be a non-zero class in $`H^2(Y;_2)`$, and $`P`$ a $`U(2)`$ bundle over $`Y`$ with $`c_1(P)=w(mod2)`$. If $`(P)`$ is non-degenerate then it is finite and we define the *Casson invariant* $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y,w)`$ as

$$\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y,w)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{A(P)}{}(1)^{\mu (A)},$$

where $`\mu (A)`$ is the mod 2 Floer index of $`A`$ defined as in \[7, page 150\]. Note that the usual Floer index defined modulo 8 is relative; for any pair of projectively flat connections $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$, the modulo 2 reduction of this relative index equals $`\mu (A_1)\mu (A_2)(mod2)`$.

If $`(P)`$ happens to be degenerate then it will need to be perturbed as described in Section 5, and then $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y)`$ will be defined essentially as above. That $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y)`$ is well defined follows from \[7, pages 148–149\].

###### Proposition 2.2.

The action of $`H^1(Y;_2)`$ preserves the mod 2 Floer index.

###### Proof.

This follows from \[3, pages 239–240\]. ∎

###### Remark 2.3.

According to Proposition 2.2, the points in the $`H^1(Y;_2)`$–orbit of a projectively flat connection $`A`$ are counted in $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y,w)`$ with the same sign. Hence we could as well define $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y,w)`$ by counting points in $`(\overline{P})`$, where $`w_2(\overline{P})=w`$, with weights given by the order of the orbits of their respective lifts to $`(P)`$.

## 3. Projective representations

The holonomy map gives a homeomorphism between the moduli space $`(\overline{P})`$ of flat connections on $`\overline{P}`$ and the $`SO(3)`$–character variety of $`\pi _1(Y)`$. Similarly, there is an algebraic interpretation (again using holonomy) of projectively flat connections in terms of *projective* representations. This section describes this concept in some detail; good general references for these ideas are the classic paper of Atiyah-Bott  and the book of Brown .

### 3.1. Algebraic background

Let $`G`$ be a finitely presented group and view $`_2=\{\pm 1\}`$ as the center of $`SU(2)`$. A map $`\rho :GSU(2)`$ is called a *projective representation* if $`\rho (gh)\rho (h)^1\rho (g)^1_2`$ for all $`g,hG`$. Given a projective representation $`\rho `$, the function $`c:G\times G_2`$ defined as $`c(g,h)=\rho (gh)\rho (h)^1\rho (g)^1`$ is a 2–cocycle, that is, $`c(gh,k)c(g,h)=c(g,hk)c(h,k)`$. We will refer to $`c`$ as the *cocycle associated with $`\rho `$*.

Let us fix a cocycle $`c:G\times G_2`$ and denote by $`\mathrm{PR}_c(G;SU(2))`$ the set of all projective representations $`\rho :GSU(2)`$ whose associated 2–cocycle is $`c`$.

###### Lemma 3.1.

If $`c`$ and $`c^{}:G\times G_2`$ are cocycles such that $`[c]=[c^{}]H^2(G;_2)`$ then there is a bijection between $`\mathrm{PR}_c(G;SU(2))`$ and $`\mathrm{PR}_c^{}(G;SU(2))`$.

###### Proof.

The fact that $`[c]=[c^{}]`$ means that there exists a function $`\mu :G_2`$ such that $`\mu (gh)c(g,h)=\mu (g)\mu (h)c^{}(g,h)`$ for all $`g,hG`$. Define a map $`\phi :\mathrm{PR}_c(G;SU(2))\mathrm{PR}_c^{}(G;SU(2))`$ by the formula $`\phi (\rho )(g)=\mu (g)\rho (g)`$. One can easily check that $`\phi (\rho )\mathrm{PR}_c^{}(G;SU(2))`$ and that $`\phi `$ is a bijection : its inverse $`\psi :\mathrm{PR}_c^{}(G;SU(2))\mathrm{PR}_c(G;SU(2))`$ is given by the formula $`\psi (\rho ^{})(g)=\mu (g)\rho ^{}(g)`$. ∎

Let $`c:G\times G_2`$ be a 2–cocycle and $`\rho _1,\rho _2\mathrm{PR}_c(G;SU(2))`$. We say that $`\rho _1\rho _2`$ if there exists a function $`\mu :G_2`$ and an element $`\sigma SU(2)`$ such that $`\rho _2(g)=\mu (g)\sigma \rho _1(g)\sigma ^1`$ for all $`gG`$.

###### Lemma 3.2.

The map $`\mu :G_2`$ is a homomorphism.

###### Proof.

For any elements $`g,hG`$ we have $`\rho _2(gh)=c(g,h)\rho _2(g)\rho _2(h)`$. This implies that $`\mu (gh)\sigma \rho _1(gh)\sigma ^1=c(g,h)\mu (g)\sigma \rho _1(g)\sigma ^1\mu (h)\sigma \rho _1(h)\sigma ^1`$, and, after simplification, $`\mu (gh)\rho _1(gh)=\mu (g)\mu (h)c(g,h)\rho _1(g)\rho _1(h)`$. Since $`\rho _1(gh)=c(g,h)\rho _1(g)\rho _1(h)`$, we conclude that $`\mu (gh)=\mu (g)\mu (h)`$. ∎

Let $`𝒫_c(G;SU(2))`$ be the set of conjugacy classes of projective representations of $`G`$ viewed as $`SU(2)`$ valued functions. One can easily see that $``$ descends to equivalence relation on $`𝒫_c(G;SU(2))`$, and hence there is a natural projection map

$$𝒫_c(G;SU(2))𝒫_c(G;SU(2))/=\mathrm{PR}_c(G;SU(2))/.$$
(3)
For any choice of cocycle $`c:G\times G_2`$, the set $`\mathrm{PR}_c(G;SU(2))`$ is acted upon by the group $`H^1(G;_2)=\mathrm{Hom}(G;_2)`$. Every $`\chi \mathrm{Hom}(G;_2)`$ acts by the formula $`\rho \rho ^\chi `$ where $`\rho ^\chi (g)=\chi (g)\rho (g)`$, $`gG`$ (one can easily see that the cocycle associated with $`\rho ^\chi `$ is again $`c`$). This action preserves conjugacy, and hence defines an action on $`𝒫_c(G;SU(2))`$.

###### Proposition 3.3.

The quotient of $`𝒫_c(G;SU(2))`$ by the $`H^1(G;_2)`$ action equals $`𝒫_c(G;SU(2))/`$.

###### Proof.

If $`\rho _1\rho _2`$ then there exists a map $`\mu :G_2`$ and an element $`\sigma SU(2)`$ such that $`\rho _2(g)=\mu (g)\sigma \rho _1(g)\sigma ^1`$. Since $`\mu `$ is necessarily a homomorphism by Lemma 3.2, the above equality means that $`\rho _2`$ is conjugate to $`\rho _1^\mu `$. The same formula shows that if $`\rho _2`$ is conjugate to $`\rho _1^\chi `$ for $`\chi H^1(Y;_2)`$, then $`\rho _1\rho _2`$. ∎

We now want to relate the projective $`SU(2)`$ representations studied above to the ordinary $`SO(3)`$–representations of $`G`$. Let $`\alpha :GSO(3)`$ be a representation. Denoting by $`SO(3)^\delta `$ the group $`SO(3)`$ with the discrete topology, we have maps

$$GSO(3)^\delta SO(3)$$

induced by $`\alpha `$ and the identity map respectively. This yields maps of classifying spaces

$$BGBSO(3)^\delta BSO(3).$$

Since $`G`$ is a discrete group, we can identify $`H^2(BG;_2)`$ with the group cohomology $`H^2(G;_2)`$. Thus we obtain a homomorphism

$$H^2(BSO(3);_2)H^2(BSO(3)^\delta ;_2)H^2(G;_2).$$

Let $`w_2(\alpha )`$ be the image in $`H^2(G;_2)`$ of the universal Stiefel–Whitney class $`w_2H^2(BSO(3);_2)`$.

###### Proposition 3.4.

Let $`\mathrm{ad}\rho :GSO(3)`$ be the composition of $`\rho \mathrm{PR}_c(G;SU(2))`$ and $`\mathrm{ad}:SU(2)SO(3)`$. Then $`\mathrm{ad}\rho `$ is a representation, and $`w_2(\mathrm{ad}\rho )=[c]H^2(G;_2)`$.

###### Proof.

This follows from the description of $`w_2(\mathrm{ad}\rho )`$ as the obstruction to lifting $`\mathrm{ad}\rho `$ to an $`SU(2)`$ representation. ∎

###### Corollary 3.5.

Let $`\rho :GSU(2)`$ be a projective representation with associated 2–cocycle $`c`$. Suppose that there is a non–central element $`uSU(2)`$ such that $`u\rho (g)=\rho (g)u`$ for all $`gG`$. Then $`[c]=0`$ in $`H^2(G;_2)`$.

###### Proof.

The image of $`\rho `$ is contained in a circle in $`SU(2)`$ hence $`\mathrm{ad}\rho `$ is conjugate to an $`SO(2)`$ representation and hence admits an $`SU(2)`$ lift. This implies that $`[c]=w_2(\mathrm{ad}\rho )=0`$. ∎

A projective representation $`\rho :GSU(2)`$ is called *irreducible* if the centralizer of its image equals the center of $`SU(2)`$. According to the above corollary, any projective representation whose 2–cocycle is not cohomologous to zero is irreducible.

Let $`wH^2(G;_2)`$ and denote by $`_w(G;SO(3))`$ the set of the conjugacy classes of $`SO(3)`$ representations of $`G`$ whose second Stiefel–Whitney class equals $`w`$. This is a compact real algebraic variety. The correspondence $`\rho \mathrm{ad}\rho `$ defines a map

$$\mathrm{PR}_c(G;SU(2))/_{[c]}(G;SO(3)).$$
(4)
###### Proposition 3.6.

The map (4) is a bijection.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`\rho _1,\rho _2\mathrm{PR}_c(G;SU(2))`$ are such that $`\mathrm{ad}\rho _1`$ and $`\mathrm{ad}\rho _2`$ are conjugate as $`SO(3)`$ representations. Then there exists a function $`\mu :G_2`$ and and element $`\sigma SU(2)`$ such that $`\rho _2(g)=\mu (g)\sigma \rho _1(g)\sigma ^1`$ for all $`gG`$. This means that $`\rho _1\rho _2`$ and the map (4) is injective.

Given a representation $`\mathrm{ad}\rho :GSO(3)`$, we can always lift it to a projective representation $`\rho ^{}\mathrm{PR}_c^{}(G;SU(2))`$ for some $`c^{}`$ such that $`[c^{}]=[c]`$. But then we can also find a lift $`\rho \mathrm{PR}_c(G;SU(2))`$ because $`\mathrm{PR}_c^{}(G;SU(2))=\mathrm{PR}_c(G;SU(2))`$ by Lemma 3.1. ∎

### 3.2. The holonomy correspondence

In this section we establish a correspondence between projectively flat connections over a manifold $`Y`$ (which is not necessarily a homology $`3`$-torus) and projective representations of its fundamental group. The correspondence is, in rough terms, given by taking the holonomy of a projectively flat connection. In principle, this is well-known, but we could not find a reference. Moreover, some subtle points arise in establishing the continuity of the correspondence.

In what follows, we will use the principle that connections pull back under smooth maps. More precisely, let $`j:MW`$ be a smooth map and suppose that $`QW`$ is a principal $`G`$–bundle with connection, determined by a $`1`$-form $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^1(Q;𝔤)`$, where $`𝔤`$ is the Lie algebra of $`G`$. There is a bundle map $`\overline{j}:j^{}QQ`$ which commutes with the $`G`$ actions and which is an isomorphism on the fibers. Then $`\overline{j}^{}\omega `$ gives a connection on the bundle $`j^{}Q`$, whose holonomy has the following property: If $`\gamma :IM`$ is a loop, then

$$\mathrm{hol}_{j^{}\omega }(\gamma )=\mathrm{hol}_\omega (j_{}\gamma ).$$

The natural map $`YB(\pi _1Y)`$ induces a monomorphism $`\iota :H^2(\pi _1Y;_2)H^2(Y;_2)`$, see . We first deal with the discrepancy arising from the fact that $`\iota `$ need not be surjective.

###### Lemma 3.7.

Let $`P`$ be a $`U(2)`$–bundle over a manifold $`Y`$ such that $`w_2(\overline{P})`$ is not in the image of $`\iota :H^2(\pi _1Y;_2)H^2(Y;_2)`$. Then the moduli space $`(P)`$ is empty.

###### Proof.

The Hopf exact sequence $`\pi _2YH_2(Y;)H_2(\pi _1Y;)0`$, see , implies that, if $`w_2(\overline{P})`$ does not belong to the image of $`\iota `$, it evaluates non-trivially on a 2-sphere in $`Y`$. Such a bundle $`\overline{P}`$ cannot support any flat connections, for a flat connection on $`\overline{P}`$ would pull back to a flat connection on the $`2`$–sphere, whose holonomy would trivialize the bundle. ∎

From now on, we will concentrate on bundles $`P`$ such that $`w_2(\overline{P})`$ is in the image of $`H^2(\pi _1Y;_2)`$, and will identify $`H^2(\pi _1Y;_2)`$ with its (monomorphic) image in $`H^2(Y;Z/2)`$.

It is a well known fact that the holonomy defines a bijection $`\overline{\phi }:(\overline{P})_w(Y;SO(3))`$ where $`w_2(\overline{P})=w(mod2)`$. Given a $`U(2)`$–bundle $`P`$ with $`c_1(P)=w(mod2)`$, our immediate goal will be to define an $`H^1(Y;_2)`$-equivariant map $`\phi :(P)𝒫_c(Y;SU(2))`$, where $`[c]=w`$, which makes the following diagram commute

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(P)& \stackrel{\phi }{}& 𝒫_c(Y;SU(2))\\ \pi & & \pi & & \\ (\overline{P})& \stackrel{\overline{\phi }}{}& _w(Y;SO(3))\end{array}$$

Here, $`\pi :𝒫_c(Y;SU(2))_w(Y;SO(3))`$ is the map (3) followed by the bijection (4), see Section 3. It is straightforward to define a map $`A\phi (A)`$ by lifting $`\overline{\phi }(\overline{A})`$ to a projective representation. However, such an assignment might not be continuous, because the choice of lifting is not canonical.

Let $`A`$ be a projectively flat connection on $`P`$ whose central part is a fixed connection $`C`$ on the linear bundle $`detP`$. For any based loop $`\gamma `$ in $`Y`$, we let

$$\phi (A)(\gamma )=\mathrm{hol}_A(\gamma )\mathrm{hol}_C(\gamma )^{1/2}SU(2)$$
(5)
where the square root of $`\mathrm{hol}_C(\gamma )U(1)`$ in the second factor is defined as follows. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }(Y)`$ be the monoid of based loops in $`Y`$, and fix a representative $`\gamma `$ in each connected component $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{[\gamma ]}`$ so that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(Y)=\underset{[\gamma ]\pi _1(Y)}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{[\gamma ]}.$$

Choose a square root $`\mathrm{hol}_C(\gamma )^{1/2}U(1)`$ for each of the $`\gamma `$ and define a (based) map

$$h:(\mathrm{\Omega }_{[\gamma ]},\gamma )(U(1),1)$$

by the formula $`h(\alpha )=\mathrm{hol}_C(\alpha )\mathrm{hol}_C(\gamma )^1`$. If $`\pi :U(1)U(1)`$ is the squaring map then we want to lift $`h`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ such that $`h=\pi \stackrel{~}{h}`$ (given such a lift, we get a square root of $`\mathrm{hol}_C(\alpha )`$ by the formula $`\stackrel{~}{h}(\alpha )\mathrm{hol}_C(\gamma )^{1/2}`$). The obstruction to the above lifting problem is given by

$`𝒪`$ $`H^1(\mathrm{\Omega }_{[\gamma ]},\gamma ;_2)`$
$`=\mathrm{Hom}(H_1(\mathrm{\Omega }_{[\gamma ]},\gamma ;);_2)`$
$`=\mathrm{Hom}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Omega }_{[\gamma ]},\gamma );_2)`$
$`=\mathrm{Hom}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Omega }_{},);_2),`$ where $``$ is the trivial loop,
$`=\mathrm{Hom}(\pi _2(Y,);_2).`$
In particular, we immediately see that this obstruction vanishes as long as $`\pi _2(Y)=0`$.

###### Lemma 3.8.

For any $`U(2)`$ bundle $`P`$ such that $`c_1(P)=w0(mod2)`$, the obstruction $`𝒪`$ is zero.

###### Proof.

Without loss of generality we may assume that $`\gamma =`$, the trivial loop. The obstruction $`𝒪`$ can be described as follows. Given a homotopy $`\alpha _t`$, $`0t1`$, such that $`\alpha _0=\alpha _1=`$ define $`\stackrel{~}{h}(\alpha _0)=1`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{h}(\alpha _t)`$ by path lifting. Then $`𝒪(\sigma )=\stackrel{~}{h}(\alpha _1)_2`$. The image of $`𝒪`$ in $`\mathrm{Hom}(\pi _2(Y,);_2)`$ is gotten by viewing a $`2`$-sphere $`\sigma `$ in $`Y`$ as such a path.

Now, given a class $`\sigma \pi _2(Y)`$, the obstruction to extracting a root of the bundle $`detP`$ is given by evaluation of $`\sigma ^{}(w_2(detP))`$ on $`S^2`$. Since $`w_2(detP)=w_2(\overline{P})`$ and $`\overline{P}`$ admits a flat connection, the latter evaluation has to be zero. Thus the bundle $`detP`$ admits a square root over every 2-sphere, and the holonomy of this square root along the loops $`\alpha _t`$ gives a lift $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ which necessarily satisfies $`\stackrel{~}{h}(\alpha _0)=\stackrel{~}{h}(\alpha _1)`$. In particular, $`𝒪`$ vanishes. ∎

With the above definition of $`\mathrm{hol}_C(\gamma )^{1/2}`$ in place, the map $`\phi `$ is defined by the formula (5). For any projectively flat connection $`A`$ in $`P`$, composition of $`\phi `$ with the natural projection $`SU(2)SO(3)`$ gives a representation $`\overline{\phi }(A):\pi _1(Y)SO(3)`$. In particular, if $`[\gamma _1]=[\gamma _2]`$ then $`\phi (A)(\gamma _1)=\pm \phi (A)(\gamma _2)`$. Together with continuity of $`\phi (A)`$ this implies that $`\phi (A)(\gamma _1)=\phi (A)(\gamma _2)`$ and hence $`\phi (A):\pi _1(Y)SU(2)`$ is a well defined projective representation.

###### Proposition 3.9.

Let $`P`$ be a $`U(2)`$ bundle over $`Y`$ such that $`c_1(P)=w0(mod2)`$. Then $`\phi `$ is well defined as a map $`\phi :(P)𝒫_c(Y;SU(2))`$ with $`[c]=w`$, and it is an $`H^1(Y;_2)`$–equivariant bijection.

###### Proof.

The connection $`C`$ on $`detP`$ does not change when $`A`$ is replaced by a gauge equivalent connection. Therefore, the second factor in (5) remains unchanged and the first one changes by conjugation. Since $`\mathrm{hol}_C(\gamma )^{1/2}`$ is central, the entire $`\phi (A)`$ changes by conjugation. Therefore, the map $`\phi :(P)𝒫_c(Y;SU(2))`$ is well defined. The cocycle $`c`$ is determined by the choice of $`\mathrm{hol}_C(\gamma )^{1/2}`$ for the representative loops $`\gamma `$, different choices leading to cohomologous cocycles. That $`[c]=w`$ can be read off the definition of $`\phi `$.

Let $`\chi H^1(Y;_2)`$ and replace $`A`$ by $`A\chi `$ then $`A`$ and $`A\chi `$ induce the same connection $`C`$ on $`detP`$ so that the second factor in (5) stays the same. The first factor becomes $`\mathrm{hol}_{A\chi }(\gamma )=\mathrm{hol}_A(\gamma )\chi (\gamma )`$ with $`\chi (\gamma )=\pm 1`$. Hence $`\phi `$ is $`H^1(Y;_2)`$–equivariant. Since its quotient map $`\overline{\phi }`$ is a bijection, so is $`\phi `$. ∎

An argument similar to that for representation varieties shows that Zariski tangent space to $`𝒫_c(Y;SU(2))`$ at a projective representation $`\rho :\pi _1(Y)SU(2)`$ equals $`H^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}\rho )`$ where $`\mathrm{ad}\rho :\pi _1(Y)SU(2)SO(3)`$ is a representation. It is identified as usual with the tangent space to $`(P)`$ at the corresponding projectively flat connection.

### 3.3. Application to homology $`3`$-tori

A homology torus $`Y`$ is called *odd* if there exist vectors $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$, and $`a_3`$ in $`H^1(Y;_2)`$ such that $`(a_1a_2a_3)[Y]=1(mod2)`$. Note that such $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$, and $`a_3`$ form a basis of $`H^1(Y;_2)`$ because they are distinguished by cup-products with $`a_1a_2`$, $`a_2a_3`$, and $`a_1a_3`$ and hence are linearly independent. Also note that if $`(a_1a_2a_3)[Y]=1(mod2)`$ for some basis $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$, $`a_3H^1(Y;_2)`$ then the same is true for any other basis. A homology torus $`Y`$ is called *even* if $`(a_1a_2a_3)[Y]=0(mod2)`$ for any three vectors $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$, $`a_3H^1(Y;_2)`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2H^1(Y;_2)`$ be the second exterior power of $`H^1(Y;_2)`$ and consider the cup–product map

$$:\mathrm{\Lambda }^2H^1(Y;_2)H^2(Y;_2).$$
(6)
###### Lemma 3.10.

The map (6) is an isomorphism if $`Y`$ is odd, and is zero if $`Y`$ is even.

###### Proof.

Let $`Y`$ be an odd homology torus and choose a basis $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$, $`a_3H^1(Y;_2)`$. The vectors $`a_1a_2`$, $`a_2a_3`$, and $`a_1a_3H^2(Y;_2)`$ are linearly independent because they are distinguished by the homomorphisms $`H^2(Y;_2)H^3(Y;_2)`$ given by cup-products with $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$, and $`a_3`$. Suppose now that $`Y`$ is even and that there are vectors $`a`$, $`bH^1(Y;_2)`$ such that $`ab0(mod2)`$. By Poincaré duality, there exists $`cH^1(Y;_2)`$ such that $`abc=1(mod2)`$, a contradiction. ∎

###### Corollary 3.11.

If $`Y`$ is odd then the map $`\iota :H^2(\pi _1Y;_2)H^2(Y;_2)`$ is an isomorphism.

###### Proof.

This follows from the commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2H^1(\pi _1Y;_2)& \stackrel{}{}& \mathrm{\Lambda }^2H^1(Y;_2)\\ & & & & \\ H^2(\pi _1Y;_2)& \stackrel{\iota }{}& H^2(Y;_2)\end{array}$$

whose upper arrow is an isomorphism because $`H^1(\pi _1Y;_2)=H^1(Y;_2)`$, and whose right arrow is an isomorphism by Lemma 3.10. Since $`\iota `$ is injective, the remaining two arrows in the diagram are also isomorphisms. ∎

Note that if $`Y`$ is an even homology torus, the conclusion of Corollary 3.11 need no longer hold : take for example $`Y=(S^1\times S^2)\mathrm{\#}(S^1\times S^2)\mathrm{\#}(S^1\times S^2)`$.

###### Corollary 3.12.

Theorem 1.1 holds for all $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y,w)`$ such that $`w`$ is not in the image of $`\iota :H^2(\pi _1Y;_2)H^2(Y;_2)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`P`$ be a bundle with $`w_2(\overline{P})=w`$ not in the image of $`\iota `$. Then, according to Lemma 3.7, the moduli space $`(P)`$ is empty so that $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y,w)=0`$. On the other hand, this situation is only possible if $`Y`$ is an even homology torus, see Corollary 3.11. ∎

We will assume from now on that $`w=w_2(\overline{P})`$ is in the image of $`\iota `$ and will not make distinction between $`H^2(\pi _1Y;_2)`$ and its image in $`H^2(Y;_2)`$. Because of the identification of Proposition 3.9, the Casson invariant $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y,w)`$ can be defined by counting points in the space $`𝒫_c(Y;SU(2))`$ with $`[c]=w`$, perhaps after perturbation.

## 4. The two–orbits

According to the action of $`H^1(Y;_2)=(_2)^3`$ the space $`𝒫_c(Y;SU(2))`$ splits into orbits of possible orders one, two, four, and eight. In this section we study the *two–orbits* (orbits with two elements, or those with stabilizer $`_2_2`$).

### 4.1. The two-orbits and invariant $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }`$

Consider a subgroup of $`SO(3)`$ that is isomorphic to $`_2_2`$. Such a subgroup is generated by $`180^{}`$ rotations about two perpendicular axes in $`^3`$, and any two such subgroups are conjugate to each other in $`SO(3)`$. Hence the following definition makes sense. Define $`_w(Y;_2_2)`$ to be the subspace of $`_w(Y;SO(3))`$ consisting of the $`SO(3)`$ conjugacy classes of representations $`\alpha :\pi _1(Y)SO(3)`$ which factor through $`_2_2SO(3)`$.

###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $`[c]=w`$ be a non–trivial class in $`H^2(Y;_2)`$. Then the map $`\pi :𝒫_c(Y;SU(2))_w(Y;SO(3))`$ establishes a bijective correspondence between the set of two–orbits in $`𝒫_c(Y;SU(2))`$ and the set $`_w(Y;_2_2)`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose that the conjugacy class of a projective representation $`\rho :\pi _1(Y)SU(2)`$ is fixed by a subgroup $`_2_2`$ of $`H^1(Y;_2)`$ generated by homomorphisms $`\alpha `$, $`\beta :\pi _1(Y)_2`$. Then there exists a $`uSU(2)`$ such that $`\alpha (x)\rho (x)=u\rho (x)u^1`$ for all $`x\pi _1(Y)`$. Observe that $`\rho (x)=u^2\rho (x)u^2`$ and, since $`\rho `$ is irreducible, $`u^2=\pm 1`$. The case $`u^2=1`$ should be excluded because $`u^2=1`$ would imply that $`u=\pm 1`$ so that $`\rho (x)=\rho (x)`$ at least for some $`x`$, which is impossible in $`SU(2)`$. Therefore $`u^2=1`$ and, after conjugation if necessary, we may assume that $`u=i`$. Then, for every $`x\pi _1(Y)`$, we have $`\pm \rho (x)=i\rho (x)i^1`$ so that $`\mathrm{im}(\rho )S_ijS_i`$. Here, $`S_i`$ is the complex circle in $`SU(2)`$ (and $`SU(2)`$ is viewed as the group of unit quaternions).

Similarly, there exists a $`vSU(2)`$ such that $`\beta (x)\rho (x)=v\rho (x)v^1`$ and $`v^2=1`$. After conjugation by a complex number, we may assume that $`v=ia+bj`$ where $`a,b`$ and $`b0`$. Next, $`\alpha (x)\beta (x)\rho (x)=(iv)\rho (x)(iv)^1`$ so that $`(iv)^2=1`$. An easy calculation with quaternions shows that $`v=j`$ (and then $`iv=k`$). Thus $`\rho `$ has the property that $`\pm \rho (x)=i\rho (x)i^1`$ and $`\rho (x)=j\rho (x)j^1`$ for all $`x\pi _1(Y)`$. Therefore,

$$\mathrm{im}(\rho )(S_ijS_i)(S_jiS_j)$$

where $`S_j`$ is the circle of quaternions of the form $`\mathrm{exp}(j\phi )`$. One can easily see that the latter intersection is the group $`Q=\{\pm 1,\pm i,\pm j,\pm k\}`$.

The above argument shows that any projective representation $`\rho :\pi _1(Y)SU(2)`$ stabilized by $`_2_2`$ factors through $`Q`$ and therefore its associated $`SO(3)`$ representation $`\mathrm{ad}\rho `$ factors through a copy of $`_2_2SO(3)`$.

To complete the proof, we only need to show that the orbit of $`\rho `$ consists of exactly two points. Let $`\gamma `$ be a vector in $`H^1(Y;_2)`$ completing $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ to a basis. Then $`\rho `$ and $`\rho ^\gamma `$ lie in the same $`H^1(Y;_2)`$–orbit but are not conjugate. The latter can be seen as follows: if there exists a $`wSU(2)`$ such that $`\gamma (x)\rho (x)=w\rho w^1`$ then $`w=\pm k`$ and $`\alpha (x)\beta (x)\gamma (x)\rho (x)=(ijk)\rho (x)(ijk)^1=\rho (x)`$ for all $`x`$, a contradiction. ∎

###### Remark 4.2.

The above proof shows in particular that no point of $`𝒫_c(Y;SU(2))`$ with $`[c]0`$ is fixed by the entire group $`H^1(Y;_2)`$ so that $`𝒫_c(Y;SU(2))`$ has no orbits of order one.

### 4.2. The number of two-orbits

Our next goal is to find a formula for the number of points in $`_w(Y;_2_2)`$ modulo 2.

###### Proposition 4.3.

Let $`0wH^2(Y;_2)`$ then $`\mathrm{\#}_w(Y;_2_2)=(a_1a_2a_3)[Y](mod2)`$.

###### Proof.

We begin by observing that any two subgroups of $`SO(3)`$ that are isomorphic to $`_2_2`$ are conjugate, and that moreover any automorphism of such a subgroup is realized by conjugation by an element of $`SO(3)`$. Let us fix a subgroup $`_2_2`$ and a basis in it.

Since $`_2_2`$ is abelian, every $`\alpha _w(Y;_2_2)`$ factors through a homomorphism $`H_1(Y;)_2_2`$. The two components of this homomorphism determine elements $`\beta ,\gamma \mathrm{Hom}(H_1(Y);_2)H^1(Y;_2)`$. It is straightforward to see that the $`SO(3)`$ representation $`\alpha `$ may be recovered from $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ via the formula $`\alpha \beta \gamma det(\beta \gamma )`$. Since any element of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2H^1(Y;_2)`$ can be represented in the form $`\beta \gamma `$, this establishes a one-to-one correspondence

$$(Y;_2_2)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2H^1(Y;_2),$$
(7)
where $`(Y;_2_2)`$ is union of $`_w(Y;_2_2)`$ over all possible $`w`$. Since $`H_1(Y;)`$ is torsion free, any element in $`H^1(Y;_2)`$ is the mod 2 reduction of a class in $`H^1(Y;)`$. It follows that the cup product of any element $`aH^1(Y;_2)`$ with itself is $`0`$. We compute

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill w_2(\alpha )& =w_1(\beta )w_1(\gamma )+w_1(\beta )w_1(det(\beta \gamma ))+w_1(\gamma )w_1(det(\beta \gamma ))\hfill \\ & =w_1(\beta )w_1(\gamma )+w_1(\beta )(w_1(\beta )+w_1(\gamma ))+w_1(\gamma )(w_1(\beta )+w_1(\gamma ))\hfill \\ & =w_1(\beta )w_1(\gamma ).\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
Since $`w_1(\beta )=\beta `$ and $`w_1(\gamma )=\gamma `$, this shows that $`w_2(\alpha )`$ is the image of $`\beta \gamma `$ under the map (6).

The result now follows by composing (6) and (7) : if the triple cup product on $`H^1(Y;_2)`$ vanishes mod 2 then the map (6) is identically zero, hence $`_w(Y;_2_2)`$ is empty for $`w0`$. If the triple cup product is nontrivial mod 2 then the map (6) is an isomorphism and $`_w(Y;_2_2)`$ consists of exactly one element for every choice of $`0wH^2(Y;_2)`$. ∎

### 4.3. Non–degeneracy of the two–orbits

We wish to use Proposition 4.3 to calculate the contribution of the two–orbits to $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y)(mod2)`$. In order to do that, we need to check the non–degeneracy condition for such orbits in the case when the triple cup product on $`Y`$ is non–trivial.

###### Proposition 4.4.

Let $`Y`$ be an odd homology torus then $`H^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}\rho )=0`$ for any projective representation $`\rho :\pi _1(Y)SU(2)`$ such that $`\mathrm{ad}\rho _w(Y;_2_2)`$ with $`w0`$.

To prove this proposition we notice that any $`\mathrm{ad}\rho _w(Y;_2_2)`$ splits as $`\mathrm{ad}\rho =\alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _3`$ where each $`\alpha _i:\pi _1(Y)_2`$ is a non–trivial representation, and

$$H^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}\rho )=H^1(Y;\alpha _1)H^1(Y;\alpha _2)H^1(Y;\alpha _3),$$

compare with the proof of Proposition 4.3. Let $`\alpha :\pi _1(Y)_2=\mathrm{O}(1)`$ be a non–trivial representation, and $`Y_\alpha `$ the regular double covering of $`Y`$ with $`\pi _1(Y_\alpha )=\mathrm{ker}(\alpha )`$.

###### Lemma 4.5.

The group $`H^1(Y;\alpha )=H^1(Y;_\alpha )`$ is isomorphic to the $`(1)`$–eigenspace of $`_2`$ acting on $`H^1(Y_\alpha ;)`$.

###### Proof.

This is immediate from the definition of $`H^1(Y;_\alpha )`$. ∎

###### Lemma 4.6.

The cup product map $`a:H^1(Y;_2)H^2(Y;_2)`$ is non-trivial for some $`aH^1(Y;_2)`$ if and only if $`Y`$ is an odd homology torus.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`ab0`$. By Poincaré duality, there is $`cH^1(Y;_2)`$ with $`abc0`$. Conversely, note that the cup product of any three basis elements is the same as the cup product of any other three basis elements. So if there is a non-zero cup product, extend $`\{a\}`$ to a basis $`\{a,b,c\}`$ with $`abc0`$. In particular $`ab0`$ (and also $`ac0`$.) ∎

###### Remark 4.7.

Note that we in fact proved that, if $`Y`$ is an odd homology torus, the rank of $`x:H^1(Y;_2)H^2(Y;_2)`$ equals two for any nonzero $`xH^1(Y;_2)`$.

###### Lemma 4.8.

If $`(a_1a_2a_3)[Y]=1`$ mod 2, then $`H^1(Y_\alpha ;)=^3`$.

###### Proof.

Let us consider the Gysin exact sequence for the double covering $`\pi :Y_\alpha Y`$ (with coefficients in $`_2`$)

$$\begin{array}{c}H^0(Y)\stackrel{𝛼}{}H^1(Y)\stackrel{\pi ^{}}{}H^1(Y_\alpha )\hfill \\ \hfill H^1(Y)\stackrel{𝛼}{}H^2(Y)\stackrel{\pi ^{}}{}H^2(Y_\alpha )H^2(Y)\stackrel{𝛼}{}H^3(Y)\end{array}$$
(9)
where the arrows marked $`\alpha `$ stand for the homomorphisms given by the cup product with $`w_1(\alpha )H^1(Y;_2)`$. This sequence works out to

$$\begin{array}{c}0_2\stackrel{𝛼}{}(_2)^3\stackrel{\pi ^{}}{}H^1(Y_\alpha )\hfill \\ \hfill (_2)^3\stackrel{𝛼}{}(_2)^3\stackrel{\pi ^{}}{}H^2(Y_\alpha )(_2)^3\stackrel{𝛼}{}_20\end{array}$$
(10)
The first and the last zeroes are because $`w_1(\alpha )0`$. According to Remark 4.7, the image of $`w_1(\alpha ):(_2)^3(_2)^3`$ has rank two. Counting ranks we get that $`H^1(Y_\alpha ;_2)=H^2(Y_\alpha ;_2)=(_2)^3`$. The result now follows by the universal coefficient theorem. ∎

###### Proof of Proposition 4.4.

Let us fix an isomorphism between integral homology of $`Y`$ and that of the $`3`$-torus $`T`$, and choose a map $`f:YT`$ that induces this isomorphism. Let $`T_\alpha `$ be the double covering of $`T`$ corresponding to the homomorphism $`\alpha :H_1(T;)_2`$ which makes the following diagram commute

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\pi _1(Y)& \stackrel{\alpha }{}& _2\\ & & & & \\ H_1(T;)& \stackrel{\alpha }{}& _2\end{array}$$

The map $`\pi _1(Y)H_1(T;)`$ in this diagram is obtained by composing the abelianization $`\pi _1(Y)H_1(Y;)`$ with the isomorphism $`H_1(Y;)=H_1(T;)`$ induced by $`f`$.

Let $`f_\alpha :Y_\alpha T_\alpha `$ be a lift of $`f`$. Comparing Gysin exact sequences of $`\pi :Y_\alpha Y`$ and $`\pi :T_\alpha T`$ using the five–lemma, we conclude that the map $`f_\alpha ^{}:H^1(T_\alpha ;)H^1(Y_\alpha ;)`$ is an isomorphism when tensored with $`_2`$. Since $`H^1(Y_\alpha ;)=^3`$ by Lemma 4.8, we also conclude that $`f_\alpha ^{}:H^1(T_\alpha ;)H^1(Y_\alpha ;)`$ is an isomorphism.

This implies that $`\pi ^{}:H^1(Y;)H^1(Y_\alpha ;)`$ is an isomorphism, for this is true for $`Y=T`$, and we just observed the isomorphism in the upper line of the following commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H^1(T_\alpha ;)& \stackrel{=}{}& H^1(Y_\alpha ;)\\ \pi ^{}=& & \pi ^{}& & \\ H^1(T;)& \stackrel{=}{}& H^1(Y;)\end{array}$$

On the other hand, the image of $`\pi ^{}`$ equals the $`(+1)`$–eigenspace of the $`_2`$–action on $`H^1(Y_\alpha ;)`$. Together with Lemma 4.5, this implies that $`H^1(Y;\alpha )=H^1(Y;_\alpha )=0`$. ∎

## 5. Perturbations

In this section we deal with the situation when the critical point set $`(P)`$ of $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐬}:(P)/`$ is degenerate. We describe a class of equivariant admissible perturbations $`h:(P)`$ and prove that, for a small generic $`h`$, the critical point set of $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐬}+h`$ is non-degenerate. This set is acted upon by $`H^1(Y;_2)`$ in such a manner that an argument similar to that used in the non–degenerate case completes the proof of Theorem 1.1. Following the approach originated by Taubes, Floer and Donaldson , we use holonomy around loops to define a perturbation of the function $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐬}`$. The main issue is to choose loops so that the perturbation is $`H^1(Y;_2)`$-equivariant; this is done by imposing a simple homological restriction on the loops. We largely employ the notation of C. Herald .

### 5.1. Equivariant admissible perturbations

Let $`\gamma _k:S^1\times D^2Y`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$, be a collection of embeddings of solid tori in $`Y`$ with disjoint images. We will use the same notation for the loops $`\gamma _k(S^1\times \{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\})`$ in $`Y`$, and call $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{\gamma _k\}`$ a *link*. A link $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is called *mod–$`2`$ trivial* if $`0=[\gamma _k]H_1(Y;_2)`$ for all $`k`$. Let $`\eta (z)`$ be a smooth rotationally symmetric bump function on the unit disc $`D^2`$ with support away from the boundary of $`D^2`$ and with integral one. Finally, let $`f_k:SU(2)`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$, be $`C^3`$–functions invariant with respect to conjugation.

Following the construction in Section 3.2, choose a lifting of the holonomy to $`SU(2)`$. It is uniquely determined by a choice of square roots of $`\mathrm{hol}_C`$ on a set of representative loops, different choices leading to equivalent theories. For each based loop $`\gamma `$, we obtain a well defined map $`𝒜(P)SU(2)`$. Define

$$h(A)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}_{D^2}f_k(\mathrm{hol}_A(\gamma _k(S^1\times \{z\})))\eta (z)d^2z,$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{hol}_A(\gamma _k(S^1\times \{z\}))`$ stands for holonomy of $`A`$ around the loop $`\gamma _k(S^1\times \{z\})`$, $`zD^2`$. A basepoint must be chosen in order for this holonomy to be well defined; however, the conjugation invariance of $`f_k`$ ensures that the function $`h`$ does not depend on such choices. The action of $`𝒢(P)`$ only changes holonomies around $`\gamma _k(S^1\times \{z\})`$ within their $`SU(2)`$ conjugacy class. Thus we have a well defined function

$$h:(P)$$
(12)
which we call an *admissible perturbation relative to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$*. For any link $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, denote by $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the space of admissible perturbations relative to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with the $`C^3`$–topology given by the correspondence $`h(f_1,\mathrm{},f_n)`$.

###### Lemma 5.1.

If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is mod–$`2`$ trivial then the function $`h`$ defined in (12) is $`H^1(Y;_2)`$–invariant.

###### Proof.

We need to prove that $`h(A\chi )=h(A)`$ for all $`A𝒜(P)`$ and $`\chi H^1(Y;_2)`$. This follows easily from the formula

$$\mathrm{hol}_{A\chi }(\gamma _k(S^1\times \{z\}))=\mathrm{hol}_A(\gamma _k(S^1\times \{z\}))\chi (\gamma _k)$$

after we notice that $`\chi (\gamma _k)=1`$ because $`\chi :\pi _1(Y)_2`$ factors through $`H_1(Y;_2)`$. ∎

Any admissible perturbation $`h_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a mod–$`2`$ trivial link will be called an *equivariant admissible perturbation*.

### 5.2. Perturbed projectively flat connections

Let $`h:𝒜(P)`$ be an admissible perturbation relative to a link $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The projection map $`\pi :𝒜(P)𝒜(\overline{P})`$ identifies the tangent space of $`𝒜(P)`$ with that of $`𝒜(\overline{P})`$. Identify the latter with $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}\overline{P})`$ and define $`\zeta _h:𝒜(P)\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}\overline{P})`$ by the formula

$$\zeta _h(A)=F_{\overline{A}}4\pi ^2h(A),$$

where $`h`$ is the $`L^2`$–gradient of $`h`$. A straightforward calculation shows that, up to the identification of the tangent spaces, $`\zeta _h`$ is just $`4\pi ^2`$ times the $`L^2`$–gradient of the function $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐬}+h`$.

A connection $`A𝒜(P)`$ is called *$`h`$–perturbed projectively flat* if $`\zeta _h(A)=0`$. The moduli space of $`h`$–perturbed projectively flat connections is denoted by $`_h(P)`$ so that $`_h(P)=\zeta _h^1(0)/𝒢(P)`$. If $`h=0`$ then $`_h(P)`$ coincides with the moduli space $`(P)`$ of projectively flat connections, see Section 2.2.

Next we wish to describe the local structure of $`_h(P)`$ near a point $`[A]_h(P)`$. The slice through $`A`$ to the $`𝒢(P)`$–action on $`𝒜(P)`$ is the affine subspace

$$X_A=\{A+\pi _{}^1(a)|a\mathrm{ker}d_{\overline{A}}^{}\}𝒜(P)$$

where $`d_{\overline{A}}^{}:\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}\overline{P})\mathrm{\Omega }^0(Y;\mathrm{ad}\overline{P})`$. Since $`c_1(P)`$ is an odd element in $`H^2(Y;)`$, the stabilizer of $`A`$ in $`𝒢(P)`$ coincides with the center of $`SU(2)`$, and a small neighborhood of $`A`$ in $`X_A`$ gives a local model for $`(P)`$ near $`[A]`$. Therefore, the moduli space $`_h(P)`$ near $`[A]_h(P)`$ is the zero set of $`\zeta _h`$ restricted to the slice $`X_A`$. The linearization of $`\zeta _h:𝒜(P)\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}\overline{P})`$ at $`A𝒜(P)`$ is the operator

$$d_{A,h}=d_{\overline{A}}4\pi ^2\mathrm{Hess}h(A):\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}\overline{P})\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}\overline{P}),$$

hence the tangent space to $`_h(P)`$ at $`A_h(P)`$ can be identified with

$$H_h^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}A)=\mathrm{ker}d_{A,h}/\mathrm{im}\{d_{\overline{A}}:\mathrm{\Omega }^0(Y;\mathrm{ad}\overline{P})\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}\overline{P})\}.$$

We call $`_h(P)`$ *non–degenerate* at $`[A]_h(P)`$ if $`H_h^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}A)=0`$; we call it *non–degenerate* if it is non–degenerate at all $`[A]_h(P)`$. If $`_h(P)`$ is non–degenerate, it consists of finitely many points, and their signed count gives $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y,w)`$ where $`c_1(P)=w(mod2)`$.

If $`h`$ is an equivariant admissible perturbation then according to Lemma 5.1, $`_h(P)`$ is acted upon by $`H^1(Y;_2)`$.

### 5.3. Abundance of equivariant admissible perturbations

Our main goal in the next few sections will be to show that one can always find an equivariant admissible perturbation $`h`$ such that $`_h(P)`$ is non–degenerate. We begin by choosing a mod–$`2`$ trivial link $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ satisfying certain necessary conditions. Such links are called abundant; the definition of abundance at $`A`$ depends on the size of the stabilizer of $`A`$ in $`H^1(Y;_2)`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{\gamma _k\}`$ be a mod–$`2`$ trivial link and $`A`$ a projectively flat connection whose stabilizer in $`H^1(Y;_2)`$ is trivial. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is called *abundant* at $`A`$ if there exist admissible perturbations $`h_i_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$, such that the map from $`^m`$ to $`\mathrm{Hom}(H^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}A),)`$ given by

$$(x_1,\mathrm{},x_m)x_iDh_i(A)$$
(13)
is surjective.

Now, let $`A`$ be a projectively flat connection whose stabilizer in $`H^1(Y;_2)`$ equals $`_2`$. Let $`\tau `$ be a generator in $`_2`$ and denote by $`V^\pm (A)`$ respectively the $`(\pm 1)`$–eigenspaces of $`\tau _{}:H^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}A)H^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}A)`$. Denote by $`\mathrm{Sym}(V)`$ the set of symmetric bilinear forms on a vector space $`V`$. A mod–$`2`$ trivial link $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is called *abundant* at $`A`$ if there exist admissible perturbations $`h_i_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$, such that the map from $`^m`$ to $`\mathrm{Hom}(V^+(A),)\mathrm{Sym}(V^{}(A))`$ given by

$$(x_1,\mathrm{},x_m)(x_iDh_i(A),x_i\mathrm{Hess}h_i(A))$$

is surjective (this definition makes sense because $`h`$ is $`H^1(Y;_2)`$–equivariant).

Due to the fact (cf. Section 4.3) that $`H^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}A)=0`$ for any projectively flat connection $`A`$ whose stabilizer is bigger than $`_2`$, we do not need to perturb $`A`$ and hence do not need the concept of abundancy at such a connection.

A useful remark is that if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is abundant at $`A`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ is another link whose components are close to those of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ is also abundant at $`A`$. Moreover, the perturbation functions $`h_i`$ can be taken to be the same as for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. These facts come from the homotopy invariance of parallel transport. Note also that if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is abundant at $`A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is also abundant at $`A`$. The following result will be proved in Section 5.5 below.

###### Proposition 5.2.

There exists a mod–$`2`$ trivial link $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which is abundant at all $`A(P)`$ whose stabilizer is at most $`_2`$.

### 5.4. Non–degeneracy results

In this section, we will make use of Proposition 5.2 to prove existence of equivariant admissible perturbation functions making $`_h(P)`$ non–degenerate.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be an abundant mod–$`2`$ trivial link as in Proposition 5.2. Let $`^{}`$ be the subset of $`(P)`$ consisting of connections whose stabilizer in $`H^1(Y;_2)`$ is trivial, and consider the universal zero set

$$𝒵^{}=\{([A],h)^{}\times _\mathrm{\Gamma }|\zeta _h(A)=0\}.$$

The moduli space $`^{}=(P)^{}`$ will be viewed as a subset of $`𝒵^{}`$ by assigning $`([A],0)`$ to $`[A]^{}`$. The following proposition roughly states that $`^{}`$ can be “thickened” inside $`𝒵^{}`$ to become a manifold.

###### Proposition 5.3.

The moduli space $`^{}`$ has an open neighborhood $`𝒰^{}𝒵^{}`$ which is a submanifold of $`^{}\times _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

###### Proof.

Fix a point $`[A_0]^{}`$ and consider the map

$$P:X_{A_0}\times _\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{ker}d_{\overline{A}_0}^{}$$

given by $`P(A,h)=\mathrm{\Pi }_{A_0}\zeta _h(A)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{A_0}:\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}\overline{P})\mathrm{ker}d_{\overline{A}_0}^{}`$ is the $`L^2`$–orthogonal projection. The first partial derivative of this map is Fredholm with cokernel $`H^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}A_0)`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is abundant at $`A_0`$, the image of the partial derivative $`P/h`$ is a subspace which orthogonally projects onto this cokernel. Therefore, $`P`$ is a submersion at $`[A_0]`$. The implicit function theorem now implies that $`P^1(0)X_{A_0}\times _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is smooth near $`(A_0,0)`$. Moreover, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{A_0}\zeta _h(A)=0`$ if and only if $`\zeta _h(A)=0`$, at least in a small neighborhood of $`A_0`$ in $`X_{A_0}`$, see \[15, Lemma 12.1.2\]. The union of such neighborhoods over all $`[A_0]^{}`$ is the open submanifold $`𝒰^{}`$. ∎

###### Corollary 5.4.

For a small generic perturbation $`h_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the moduli space $`_h^{}=_h(P)^{}`$ is non-degenerate.

###### Proof.

The projection from $`𝒰^{}`$ to $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is Fredholm of index zero hence the result follows from the Sard–Smale theorem. ∎

Let us now turn to connections in $`(P)`$ with stabilizer $`_2`$. Fix a generator $`\tau `$ in a copy of $`_2`$ and consider the subset $`^\tau `$ of $`(P)`$ consisting of gauge equivalence classes of connections stabilized by $`\tau `$. The argument of Proposition 5.3, after a slight modification, can be used to prove that $`_h^\tau =_h(P)^\tau `$ is non-degenerate *inside $`^\tau `$* for a generic small perturbation $`h_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. However, we are interested in non-degeneracy inside $`(P)`$ and hence in a description of the normal bundle of $`_h^\tau `$ in $`_h(P)`$.

To describe this normal bundle, we need to review the Kuranishi model of $`(P)`$ near $`[A]^\tau `$, see . Since the derivative of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_A\zeta (A):X_A\mathrm{ker}d_{\overline{A}}^{}`$ is already a Fredholm isomorphism from the orthogonal complement of its kernel to the orthogonal complement of its cokernel, the effect on the normal bundle of adding a small perturbation $`h`$ is determined by $`\mathrm{Hess}h(A):V^{}(A)V^{}(A)`$. In particular, the normal bundle is zero dimensional whenever $`\mathrm{Hess}h(A)`$ is an isomorphism.

Let us consider the universal zero set

$$𝒵^\tau =\{([A],h)^\tau \times _\mathrm{\Gamma }|\zeta _h(A)=0\}$$

and view $`^\tau =(P)^\tau `$ as a subset of $`𝒵^\tau `$ by assigning $`([A],0)`$ to every $`[A]^\tau `$.

###### Proposition 5.5.

The moduli space $`^\tau `$ has an open neighborhood $`𝒰^\tau 𝒵^\tau `$ such that

1. $`𝒰^\tau `$ is a submanifold in $`^\tau \times _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and
2. for every $`A`$, a generic $`h`$ such that $`([A],h)𝒰^\tau `$, has non-degenerate Hessian.

###### Proof.

Let us fix $`[A_0]^\tau `$. The slice at $`A_0`$ of the gauge group action on $`^\tau `$ is given by

$$X_{A_0}^\tau =\{A_0+\pi _{}^1(a)|a\mathrm{ker}d_{\overline{A_0}}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}\overline{P})^+\},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}\overline{P})^+`$ is the $`(+1)`$–eigenspace of $`\tau :\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}\overline{P})\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}\overline{P})`$. Denote by $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Sym}}(V^{})`$ the bundle over an open neighborhood $`W`$ of $`(A_0,0)`$ in $`X_{A_0}^\tau \times _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ whose fiber over $`(A,h)`$ is $`\mathrm{Sym}(V_h^{}(A))`$, the set of symmetric bilinear forms on the $`(1)`$–eigenspace $`V_h^{}(A)`$ of $`\tau :H_h^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}A)H_h^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}A)`$). Let

$$P:W(\mathrm{ker}d_{\overline{A_0}}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}\overline{P})^+)\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Sym}}(V^{})$$

be the section $`P(A,h)=(\mathrm{\Pi }_{A_0}^{}\zeta _h(A),\mathrm{Hess}h(A))`$ where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{A_0}^{}`$ is $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{A_0}`$ followed by the $`L^2`$–orthogonal projection onto $`\mathrm{ker}d_{\overline{A_0}}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}\overline{P})^+`$. The first partial derivative of $`P`$ at $`(A_0,0)`$ has cokernel $`V^+(A_0)\mathrm{Sym}(V^{}(A_0))`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is abundant at $`A_0`$, the image of the partial derivative $`P/h`$ is a subspace which orthogonally projects onto this cokernel. The implicit function theorem now implies that $`P^1(\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\}\times \mathrm{Sym}(V^{}(A_0)))`$ is smooth near $`(A_0,0)`$, which proves part (a). Since non-degenerate symmetric forms are generic in $`\mathrm{Sym}(V^{}(A_0))`$, the part (b) also follows. ∎

###### Corollary 5.6.

For a small generic admissible perturbation $`h_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the moduli space $`_h^\tau =_h(P)^\tau `$ is non–degenerate.

###### Proof.

The projection from $`𝒰^\tau `$ to $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is Fredholm of index zero hence the result follows from the Sard–Smale theorem. ∎

### 5.5. Proof of Proposition 5.2

The proof of Proposition 5.2 naturally divides into three parts, which can be viewed as pointwise, local, and global abundance. The passage from pointwise to local and global abundance is proved in essentially the same manner as in . These rely on basic analytical properties of the Chern-Simons function, especially the compactness of the perturbed moduli space, and the restriction to equivariant admissible perturbations does not change these arguments. Thus we will concentrate on establishing pointwise abundance, as summarized in the following proposition.

###### Proposition 5.7.

If $`A`$ is a projectively flat connection then there exists a mod–$`2`$ trivial link $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which is abundant at $`A`$. Moreover, if the stabilizer of $`A`$ equals $`_2`$, the functions $`h_1,\mathrm{},h_m`$ can be chosen so that, for some $`k`$,

1. $`Dh_1(A),\mathrm{},Dh_k(A)`$ span $`\mathrm{Hom}(V^+,)`$,
2. $`\mathrm{Hess}h_{k+1}(A),\mathrm{},\mathrm{Hess}h_m(A)`$ span $`\mathrm{Sym}(V^{})`$, and
3. $`Dh_j(A)=0`$ for $`j=k+1,\mathrm{},m`$.

For connections with trivial stabilizer, the result is established in Lemma 5.9, while the result for connections with stabilizer $`_2`$ is in Lemma 5.12.

Denote by $`p:\stackrel{~}{Y}Y`$ the regular covering space corresponding to the surjection $`\phi _2:\pi _1(Y)H_1(Y;_2)(_2)^3`$. This cover might be called the $`2`$–universal abelian cover, because of the following observation. Let $`G`$ be an abelian group which is a $`_2`$–vector space, and suppose that $`f:\pi _1(Y)G`$ is a homomorphism. Then there is a unique homomorphism $`\widehat{f}:H_1(Y;_2)G`$ such that $`\widehat{f}\phi _2=f`$. This can be readily seen from the universal property of the abelianization $`\phi :\pi _1(Y)H_1(Y;)`$ and the universal property of the map $`H_1(Y;)H_1(Y;)_2H_1(Y;_2)`$.

For a connection $`A`$ on the bundle $`PY`$, we will denote by $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ its pull-back to $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$. We need to understand the behavior of a projectively flat connection on $`Y`$, when lifted in this manner to $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$.

###### Lemma 5.8.

Let $`\rho :\pi _1YSU(2)`$ be a projective representation and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }:\pi _1\stackrel{~}{Y}SU(2)`$ the induced projective representation. Let $`\mathrm{Stab}(\rho )`$ denote the stabilizer of $`\rho `$ in $`H^1(Y;_2)`$ then

1. $`\mathrm{Stab}(\rho )=1`$ if and only if $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ is irreducible,
2. $`\mathrm{Stab}(\rho )=_2`$ if and only if $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ is reducible non-central, and
3. $`\mathrm{Stab}(\rho )=_2_2`$ if and only if $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ is central.

No other stabilizers $`\mathrm{Stab}(\rho )`$ may occur.

###### Proof.

According to Remark 4.2, the only $`\mathrm{Stab}(\rho )`$ that occur are 1, $`_2`$, and $`_2_2`$.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{Stab}(\rho )=_2_2`$ then, as we saw in the proof of Proposition 4.1, the image of $`\rho `$ is contained in a copy of the group $`Q=\{\pm 1,\pm i,\pm j,\pm k\}`$. Since $`\pi _1\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ is in the kernel of the map $`\phi _2`$, we conclude that the image of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ is contained in the kernel of the corresponding map $`QH_1(Q;_2)_2_2`$. This kernel is the same as the commutator subgroup $`[Q,Q]=\{\pm 1\}`$ hence $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ is central. Conversely, if $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ is central, its adjoint representation $`\mathrm{ad}\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ is trivial so that $`\mathrm{im}(\mathrm{ad}\rho )`$ is contained in a subgroup of $`SO(3)`$ of order at most eight. Therefore, $`\mathrm{im}(\mathrm{ad}\rho )`$ is contained in a copy of $`_2_2`$, and then $`\mathrm{im}(\rho )Q`$. In particular, $`\mathrm{Stab}(\rho )=_2_2`$.

Now suppose that $`\mathrm{Stab}(\rho )=_2`$. As in the proof of Proposition 4.1 we see that the image of $`\rho `$ is contained in a copy of $`S_ijS_i`$ where $`S_i`$ is the unit complex circle. By the argument about the abelianization mod $`2`$, it follows that $`\mathrm{im}(\stackrel{~}{\rho })S_i`$, so that $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ is abelian. Conversely, if $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ is abelian then $`\mathrm{im}(\mathrm{ad}\stackrel{~}{\rho })`$ is contained in a copy of $`SO(2)`$, and $`\mathrm{im}(\mathrm{ad}\rho )`$ in its finite 2–prime extension. Therefore, $`\mathrm{im}(\rho )`$ is contained in a copy of $`S_ijS_i`$.

The remaining case follows by elimination. ∎

The same result holds for projectively flat connections in place of projective representations.

Now we are able to deduce the existence of abundant links in the simplest case, when the stabilizer of $`A`$ in $`H^1(Y;_2)`$ is trivial.

###### Lemma 5.9.

Let $`A`$ be a projectively flat connection whose stabilizer in $`H^1(Y;_2)`$ is trivial. Then there exists a mod–$`2`$ trivial link $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ that is abundant at $`A`$.

###### Proof.

By Lemma 5.8, the connection $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ is irreducible, and so by \[10, Lemma 60\] there is a link $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ that is abundant at $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$. If we perturb $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ by a small amount, its projection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=p(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }})`$ will be an embedded link in $`Y`$. It is clear that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is mod–$`2`$ trivial; we claim that in fact it is abundant. In the discussion that follows, the perturbing functions on $`Y`$ will be the push-down of the perturbing functions $`h_i`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$. This makes sense because the holonomy of $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ around a component $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ is the same as the holonomy of $`A`$ around $`p(\stackrel{~}{\gamma })`$.

Consider the commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}^m& & \mathrm{Hom}(H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};\mathrm{ad}\stackrel{~}{A});)\\ & & \left(p^{}\right)^{}& & \\ ^m& & \mathrm{Hom}(H^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}A);)\end{array}$$

where the horizontal arrows are the holonomy maps as in (13). The arrow along the top is surjective, because $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ is abundant at $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$. Now it is a standard consequence of the transfer sequence  that the map

$$p^{}:H^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}A)H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};\mathrm{ad}\stackrel{~}{A})$$
(14)
is injective. Hence the bottom arrow is surjective as well. ∎

We next turn our attention to the abundance at projectively flat connections with stabilizer $`_2`$ in $`H^1(Y;_2)`$. Let $`\rho :\pi _1YSU(2)`$ be a projective representation with $`\mathrm{Stab}(\rho )=_2`$ and fix a generator $`\tau _2H^1(Y;_2)`$. Then $`\tau `$ acts on $`𝒫_c(Y;SU(2))`$ fixing $`\rho `$ and hence inducing a $`_2`$–action $`\tau ^{}`$ on the tangent space $`T_\rho 𝒫_c(Y;SU(2))=H^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}\rho )`$. Denote as before by $`V^\pm (\rho )`$ the $`(\pm 1)`$–eigenspaces of $`\tau ^{}`$ so that $`H^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}\rho )=V^+(\rho )V^{}(\rho )`$.

According to Lemma 5.8 the lift $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }:\pi _1\stackrel{~}{Y}SU(2)`$ of $`\rho `$ is a reducible (non–central) projective representation. Assuming (after conjugation if necessary) that $`\mathrm{im}(\stackrel{~}{\rho })`$ is contained in the complex circle $`S_i`$, we obtain a splitting $`\mathrm{ad}\stackrel{~}{\rho }=\mathrm{ad}_{}\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ where $``$ stands for a trivial one-dimensional representation and $`\mathrm{ad}_{}\stackrel{~}{\rho }:\pi _1\stackrel{~}{Y}SO(2)`$. Accordingly, $`H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};\mathrm{ad}\stackrel{~}{\rho })`$ splits as

$$H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};\mathrm{ad}\stackrel{~}{\rho })=H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};)H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};\mathrm{ad}_{}\stackrel{~}{\rho }).$$

###### Lemma 5.10.

The projection $`p:\stackrel{~}{Y}Y`$ induces a monomorphism $`p^{}:H^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}\rho )H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};\mathrm{ad}\stackrel{~}{\rho })`$ such that

$$p^{}(V^+(\rho ))H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};)\text{and}p^{}(V^{}(\rho ))H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};\mathrm{ad}_{}\stackrel{~}{\rho }).$$

###### Proof.

That $`p^{}`$ is a monomorphism follows from the standard transfer argument, see . Since the conjugacy class of $`\rho `$ is fixed by $`\tau `$, there exists an element $`uSU(2)`$ such that $`u^2=1`$ and $`\tau (x)\rho (x)=u\rho (x)u^1`$ for all $`x\pi _1Y`$. If $`x\pi _1\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ then $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(x)=\rho (x)`$ and $`\tau (x)=1`$ so that $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(x)=u\stackrel{~}{\rho }(x)u^1`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(x)S_i`$ we conclude that $`u=\pm i`$.

To describe the induced action $`\tau ^{}`$ on $`T_\rho 𝒫_c(Y;SU(2))=H^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}\rho )`$ we first identify the tangent spaces at $`\rho `$ and $`\rho ^\tau `$ by $`\mathrm{ad}u`$, and then linearize the map $`\rho \rho ^\tau `$ as follows :

$$\begin{array}{c}(1+\epsilon \xi (x))\rho (x)\stackrel{𝜏}{}\hfill \\ \hfill \tau (x)(1+\epsilon \xi (x))\rho (x)=(1+\epsilon \xi (x))\tau (x)\rho (x)\stackrel{\mathrm{ad}u}{}\\ \hfill u(1+\epsilon \xi (x))\tau (x)\rho (x)u^1=(1+\epsilon u\xi (x)u^1)\rho (x).\end{array}$$
(15)
Here, $`\xi :\pi _1Y𝔰𝔲(2)`$ is a 1-cocycle representing an element of $`H^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}\rho )`$, and $`\epsilon `$ is a small positive real number. Thus the action $`\tau ^{}:H^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}\rho )H^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}\rho )`$ at the level of 1-cocycles is given by the formula $`\tau ^{}(\xi )=u\xi u^1`$. Since $`u=\pm i`$, the subspace $`V^+(\rho )`$ is generated by 1-cocycles $`\xi `$ with $`\mathrm{im}(\xi )i`$, and $`V^{}(\rho )`$ by 1-cocycles $`\xi `$ with $`\mathrm{im}(\xi )`$ in the subspace $`𝔰𝔲(2)`$ spanned by $`j`$ and $`k`$.

The embedding $`p^{}:H^1(Y;\mathrm{ad}\rho )H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};\mathrm{ad}\stackrel{~}{\rho })`$ is given by pulling back the 1-cocycles $`\xi :\pi _1Y𝔰𝔲(2)`$ via the homomorphism $`p_{}:\pi _1\stackrel{~}{Y}\pi _1Y`$. In particular, if $`\mathrm{im}(\xi )i`$ then $`\mathrm{im}(p^{}\xi )i`$ so that $`[p^{}\xi ]H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};)`$. Similarly, if $`\mathrm{im}(\xi )`$ belongs to $``$ spanned by $`j`$ and $`k`$ then $`[\mathrm{im}(p^{}\xi )]H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};\mathrm{ad}_{}\stackrel{~}{\rho })`$. ∎

Denote by $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }:\stackrel{~}{Y}\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ the covering transformation corresponding to the (dual of) $`\tau _2H^1(Y;_2)`$, and by $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }^{}:H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};\mathrm{ad}\stackrel{~}{\rho })H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};\mathrm{ad}\stackrel{~}{\rho })`$ the induced action.

###### Lemma 5.11.

The subset $`p^{}(V^+(\rho ))H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};)`$ is the $`(+1)`$–eigenspace of $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }^{}:H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};)H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};)`$, and $`p^{}(V^{}(\rho ))H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};\mathrm{ad}_{}\stackrel{~}{\rho })`$ the $`(+1)`$–eigenspace of $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }^{}:H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};\mathrm{ad}_{}\stackrel{~}{\rho })H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};\mathrm{ad}_{}\stackrel{~}{\rho })`$. Moreover, $`p^{}(V^{}(\rho ))`$ is a totally real subspace of the complex vector space $`H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};\mathrm{ad}_{}\stackrel{~}{\rho })`$.

###### Proof.

The first two statements follow from the standard transfer argument, see . For the last statement, note that the pullback of $`\mathrm{ad}_{}\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ via $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ is exactly the complex conjugate representation $`\overline{\mathrm{ad}_{}\stackrel{~}{\rho }}`$. It follows that the action of $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }^{}`$ on the cochains used to compute $`H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};\mathrm{ad}_{}\stackrel{~}{\rho })`$ is complex anti-linear, and so the action on this cohomology group is also complex anti-linear. Thus the $`(+1)`$–eigenspace $`p^{}(V^{}(\rho ))`$ is totally real. ∎

###### Lemma 5.12.

Let $`A`$ be a projectively flat connection whose stabilizer in $`H^1(Y;_2)`$ is $`_2`$. Then there exists a mod–$`2`$ trivial link $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ that is abundant at $`A`$.

###### Proof.

By Lemma 5.8, the pull back connection $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ and the associated projective representation $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ are reducible and non–central. By \[10, Corollary 64 and Corollary 66\], see also \[4, Proposition 3.4\], there is a link $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ and admissible perturbations $`\stackrel{~}{h}_i:(\stackrel{~}{P})`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$, such that the map

$$^m\mathrm{Hom}(H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};),)\mathrm{Herm}(H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y},\mathrm{ad}_{}\stackrel{~}{\rho }))$$

given by

$$(x_1,\mathrm{},x_m)(x_iD\stackrel{~}{h}_i(\stackrel{~}{A}),x_i\mathrm{Hess}\stackrel{~}{h}_i(\stackrel{~}{A}))$$

is surjective. Here, $`\mathrm{Herm}(V)`$ stands for the Hermitian forms on a complex vector space $`V`$. If we perturb $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ by a small amount, its projection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=p(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }})`$ will be an embedded link in $`Y`$. It is clear that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is mod–$`2`$ trivial; we claim that in fact it is abundant. In the discussion that follows, the perturbing functions on $`Y`$ will be the push-down of the perturbing functions $`\stackrel{~}{h}_i`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$. This makes sense because the holonomy of $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ around a component $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ is the same as the holonomy of $`A`$ around $`p(\stackrel{~}{\gamma })`$.

According to Lemma 5.10, we have the following commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}^m& & \mathrm{Hom}(H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};);)\mathrm{Herm}(H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};\mathrm{ad}_{}\stackrel{~}{\rho }))\\ & & \left(p^{}\right)^{}& & \\ ^m& & \mathrm{Hom}(V^+(\rho );)\mathrm{Sym}(V^{}(\rho ))\end{array}$$

where the horizontal arrows are the holonomy maps as in (13). The arrow along the top is surjective. According to Lemma 5.10, both the map $`V^+(\rho )H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};)`$ and the map $`V^{}(\rho )H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};\mathrm{ad}_{}\stackrel{~}{\rho })`$ are injective. By Lemma 5.11, the map

$$V^{}(\rho )H^1(\stackrel{~}{Y};\mathrm{ad}_{}\stackrel{~}{\rho })$$

is obtained by complexification. Therefore, the right arrow in the diagram is surjective, and hence so is the arrow on the bottom. ∎

## 6. Proof of Theorem 1.1

Let $`0wH^2(Y;_2)`$ and consider a $`U(2)`$–bundle $`P`$ with $`c_1(P)=w(mod2)`$. If $`w`$ is not in the image of $`\iota :H^2(\pi _1Y;_2)H^2(Y;_2)`$ then the theorem follows from Corollary 3.12. Otherwise, choose a 2–cocycle $`c`$ so that $`[c]=w`$ and identify $`(P)`$ with $`𝒫_c(Y;SU(2))`$.

If $`(P)`$ is non–degenerate then Theorem 1.1 follows because no orbit in $`𝒫_c(Y;SU(2))`$ consists of one element, see Remark 4.2, the contribution of the two–orbits equals $`(a_1a_2a_3)[Y](mod2)`$ according to Proposition 4.3, and the orbits consisting of four and eight elements do not contribute to $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y,w)(mod2)`$ at all.

In general, $`(P)`$ needs to be perturbed to make it non–degenerate. The two–orbits are already non–degenerate and hence if our perturbation $`h`$ is sufficiently small they will remain such. The perturbation $`h`$ will not create orbits with one element or new orbits with two elements. Moreover, one can always achieve the non–degeneracy by using perturbations which are invariant with respect to the action of $`H^1(Y;_2)`$, see Corollary 5.4 and Corollary 5.6. Therefore, the above argument discarding the orbits with more than two elements can be applied again to complete the proof of Theorem 1.1.

## 7. The Casson and Rohlin invariants for integral homology spheres

In this section we explain how our Theorem 1.1 implies Casson’s original result that $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Sigma })=\rho (\mathrm{\Sigma })(mod2)`$ for integral homology spheres $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

### 7.1. Calculating the Casson invariant

Every integral homology sphere $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can be obtained from $`S^3`$ by surgery on an algebraically split link, that is, a link $`k_1\mathrm{}k_n`$ such that $`\mathrm{lk}(k_i,k_j)=0`$ for $`ij`$. Moreover, all the surgery coefficients can be chosen to be $`1`$ or $`1`$, so that

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=S^3+\epsilon _1k_1+\mathrm{}+\epsilon _nk_n,\epsilon _i=\pm 1.$$
(16)
The Casson invariants of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\pm k`$ are related by Casson’s surgery formula

$$\lambda (\mathrm{\Sigma }\pm k)=\lambda (\mathrm{\Sigma })\pm \lambda ^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }+0k)$$

where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }+0k`$ is the result of $`0`$–surgery of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ along $`k`$. In Casson’s original approach, the term $`\lambda ^{}`$ was interpreted in terms of the Alexander polynomial of the knot $`k`$. For our purposes, we interpret it gauge-theoretically.

Namely, let $`P`$ be a $`U(2)`$ bundle over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }+0k`$ such that $`w_2(\overline{P})`$ is dual to $`[k]H_1(\mathrm{\Sigma }+0k;_2)`$. Then $`\lambda ^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }+0k)`$ is half a signed count of projectively flat connections in $`P`$ with a fixed central part, modulo the gauge group consisting of automorphisms of $`P`$ with determinant one (perhaps after a perturbation). These projectively flat connections are counted with signs determined by the Floer index. Therefore, the invariant $`\lambda ^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }+0k)`$ equals half the Euler characteristic of the Floer homology $`I_{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }+0k)`$ so that the surgery formula (16) is just an application of the Floer exact triangle

The surgery formula evaluates $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Sigma }\pm k)`$ in terms of $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Surgering out one knot at a time in the surgery presentation (16), we end up with $`S^3`$ whose Casson invariant is known to be trivial.

In order to calculate $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ using this approach we need to know the invariants $`\lambda ^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }+0k)`$ at each of the steps. To this end, we use another surgery formula

$$\lambda ^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }+0k\pm \mathrm{})=\lambda ^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }+0k)\pm \lambda ^{\prime \prime }(\mathrm{\Sigma }+0k+0\mathrm{})$$
(17)
where $`k\mathrm{}`$ is an algebraically split link in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (it is sufficient to work with algebraically split links because such is the link in presentation (16)). The term $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$ here is defined exactly as $`\lambda ^{}`$ with only difference that now $`P`$ is a $`U(2)`$ bundle such that $`w_2(\overline{P})`$ is dual to $`[k]+[\mathrm{}]H_1(\mathrm{\Sigma }+0k+0\mathrm{};_2)`$. Again, the above surgery formula follows from the Floer exact triangle, see .

This reduces calculation of $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ to that of the $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$–invariants. Applying the surgery formula yet another time, we reduce the latter calculation to identifying $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y,w)`$ for the homology torus $`Y`$ obtained by $`0`$–surgery on an algebraically split link $`k\mathrm{}m`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with $`w`$ dual to $`[k]+[\mathrm{}]+[m]H_1(Y;_2)`$. Theorem 1.1 tells us that $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y,w)`$ equals $`(a_1a_2a_3)[Y](mod2)`$ for any choice of basis $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$, $`a_3H^1(Y;_2)`$.

###### Remark 7.1.

A caveat in the above argument is that the simplification scheme it is based upon fails for computing $`\lambda ^{}(S^3+0k)`$. After we simplified $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to $`S^3`$, a new scheme is needed to simplify the knot, not the manifold itself. Such a simplification scheme, based on skein moves, can be found in  or . Again, it reduces calculation of $`\lambda ^{}(S^3+0k)`$ to that of $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y,w)`$.

### 7.2. Calculating the Rohlin invariant

To conclude that $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Sigma })=\rho (\mathrm{\Sigma })(mod2)`$ for all integral homology spheres $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, we will show that the Rohlin invariant satisfies the same surgery formulas as the Casson invariant, only reduced modulo 2. Results similar to those in this section were found earlier by Turaev .

###### Lemma 7.2.

Let $`\rho ^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }+0k)`$ be the sum, over the two spin structures on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }+0k`$, of their Rohlin invariants. Then $`\rho (\mathrm{\Sigma }+k)=\rho (\mathrm{\Sigma })+\rho ^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }+0k)(mod2)`$.

###### Proof.

The manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }+0k`$ can be obtained by $`0`$–surgery on both $`\mathrm{\Sigma }+k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Let $`W_1`$ and $`W_2`$ be the traces of these surgeries, that is, smooth 4–manifolds obtained from $`[0,1]\times (\mathrm{\Sigma }+k)`$, respectively, $`[0,1]\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, by attaching a 2–handle along $`\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\}\times k`$ with zero framing. Then $`W_1`$ is a spin cobordism between $`\mathrm{\Sigma }+k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }+0k`$ with one spin structure, and $`W_2`$ is a spin cobordism between $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }+0k`$ with the other spin structure. Since the intersection forms of both $`W_1`$ and $`W_2`$ are zero, we are finished. ∎

Note that changing the surgery coefficient from plus to minus does not affect the Rohlin invariant, therefore, we may assume for the sake of simplicity that all the surgery coefficients $`\epsilon _i`$ in (16) are equal to one.

Let $`k\mathrm{}`$ be an algebraically split link in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and define $`\rho ^{\prime \prime }(\mathrm{\Sigma }+0k+0\mathrm{})`$ as the sum, over the four spin structures on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }+0k+0\mathrm{}`$, of their Rohlin invariants. An argument similar to that of Lemma 7.2 proves the surgery formula

$$\rho ^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }+0k+\mathrm{})=\rho ^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }+0k)+\rho ^{\prime \prime }(\mathrm{\Sigma }+0k+0\mathrm{}),$$

compare with (17), and yet another application of the same argument yields the formula

$$\rho ^{\prime \prime }(\mathrm{\Sigma }+0k+0\mathrm{})=\rho (\mathrm{\Sigma }+k+\mathrm{})+\rho (\mathrm{\Sigma }+k)+\rho (\mathrm{\Sigma }+\mathrm{})+\rho (\mathrm{\Sigma }).$$

This reduces the calculation of $`\rho (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ to that of the $`\rho ^{\prime \prime }`$–invariants. Applying the surgery formula one more time, we reduce the latter calculation to identifying $`\rho ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y)`$ for a homology torus $`Y=\mathrm{\Sigma }+0k+0\mathrm{}+0m`$. An argument similar to that of Lemma 7.2 yields

$$\begin{array}{c}\rho ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y)=\rho (\mathrm{\Sigma }+k+\mathrm{}+m)+\rho (\mathrm{\Sigma }+\mathrm{}+m)+\rho (\mathrm{\Sigma }+k+m)\hfill \\ \hfill +\rho (\mathrm{\Sigma }+k+\mathrm{})+\rho (\mathrm{\Sigma }+k)+\rho (\mathrm{\Sigma }+\mathrm{})+\rho (\mathrm{\Sigma }+m)+\rho (\mathrm{\Sigma }),\end{array}$$
(18)
which equals $`(a_1a_2a_3)[Y](mod2)`$ for any choice of basis $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$, $`a_3H^1(Y;_2)`$, see \[11, Lemma 6.3\]. This proves that $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y,w)=\rho ^{\prime \prime \prime }(Y)(mod2)`$ and therefore completes the proof of the formula $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Sigma })=\rho (\mathrm{\Sigma })(mod2)`$.


text:
# Scattering of neutral fermions by a pseudoscalar potential step in two-dimensional space-time

## Abstract

The problem of scattering of neutral fermions in two-dimensional space-time is approached with a pseudoscalar potential step in the Dirac equation. Some unexpected aspects of the solutions beyond the absence of Klein´s paradox are presented. An apparent paradox concerning the uncertainty principle is solved by introducing the concept of effective Compton wavelength. Added plausibility for the existence of bound-state solutions in a pseudoscalar double-step potential found in a recent Letter is given.

In a recent Letter the problem of confinement of neutral fermions by a double-step potential with pseudoscalar coupling in 1+1 dimensions was approached . There it was found that this sort of potential results in confinement in the event that the coupling is strong enough. The one-dimensional Dirac equation developed in that Letter could also be obtained from the four-dimensional one with the mixture of spherically symmetric scalar, vector and anomalous magnetic interactions. If we had limited the fermion to move in the $`x`$-direction ($`p_y=p_z=0`$) the four-dimensional Dirac equation would decompose into two equivalent two-dimensional equations with 2-component spinors and 2$`\times `$2 matrices . Then, there would result that the scalar and vector interactions would preserve their Lorentz structures whereas the anomalous magnetic interaction would turn out to be a pseudoscalar interaction. Furthermore, in the (1+1)-world there is no angular momentum so that the spin is absent. Therefore, the (1+1)-dimensional Dirac equation allow us to explore the physical consequences of the negative energy states in a mathematically simpler and more physically transparent way.

In the present Letter some aspects of the scattering of neutral fermions in a pseudoscalar potential step in a (1+1) dimensional space-time are analyzed. This essentially relativistic problem gives rise to some unexpected results and make more credible the existence of the bound-state solutions found in the former Letter .

Let us begin by presenting the Dirac equation in 1+1 dimensions. In the presence of a time-independent potential the (1+1)-dimensional time-independent Dirac equation for a fermion of rest mass $`m`$ reads

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=E\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(1)
$$=c\alpha p+\beta mc^2+𝒱$$
(2)
where $`E`$ is the energy of the fermion, $`c`$ is the velocity of light and $`p`$ is the momentum operator. $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are Hermitian square matrices satisfying the relations $`\alpha ^2=\beta ^2=1`$, $`\{\alpha ,\beta \}=0`$. From the last two relations it steams that both $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are traceless and have eigenvalues equal to $``$1, so that one can conclude that $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are even-dimensional matrices. One can choose the 2$`\times `$2 Pauli matrices satisfying the same algebra as $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, resulting in a 2-component spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The positive definite function $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }`$, satisfying a continuity equation, is interpreted as a probability position density and its norm is a constant of motion. This interpretation is completely satisfactory for single-particle states . We use $`\alpha =\sigma _1`$ and $`\beta =\sigma _3`$. For the potential matrix we consider

$$𝒱=1V_t+\beta V_s+\alpha V_e+\beta \gamma ^5V_p$$
(3)
where $`1`$ stands for the 2$`\times `$2 identity matrix and $`\beta \gamma ^5=\sigma _2`$. This is the most general combination of Lorentz structures for the potential matrix because there are only four linearly independent 2$`\times `$2 matrices. The subscripts for the terms of potential denote their properties under a Lorentz transformation: $`t`$ and $`e`$ for the time and space components of the 2-vector potential, $`s`$ and $`p`$ for the scalar and pseudoscalar terms, respectively. It is worth to note that the Dirac equation is invariant under $`xx`$ if $`V_e(x)`$ and $`V_p(x)`$ change sign whereas $`V_t(x)`$ and $`V_s(x)`$ remain the same. This is because the parity operator $`P=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )P_0\sigma _3`$, where $`\theta `$ is a constant phase and $`P_0`$ changes $`x`$ into $`x`$, changes sign of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta \gamma ^5`$ but not of $`1`$ and $`\beta `$.

Defining the spinor $`\psi `$ as

$$\psi =\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(4)
where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)=^x𝑑x^{}\frac{V_e(x^{})}{c}$$
(5)
the space component of the vector potential is gauged away

$$\left(p+\frac{V_e}{c}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)p\psi $$
(6)
so that the time-independent Dirac equation can be rewritten as follows:

$$H\psi =E\psi $$
(7)
$$H=\sigma _1cp+\sigma _2V_p+\sigma _3\left(mc^2+V_s\right)+1V_t$$
(8)
showing that the space component of a vector potential only contributes to change the spinors by a local phase factor.

Provided that the spinor is written in terms of the upper and the lower components

$$\psi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi \\ \chi \end{array}\right)$$
(9)
the Dirac equation decomposes into :

$`\left(V_tE+V_s+mc^2\right)\varphi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}c\chi ^{}(x)+iV_p\chi (x)`$
$`\left(V_tEV_smc^2\right)\chi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}c\varphi ^{}(x)iV_p\varphi (x)`$
where the prime denotes differentiation with respect to $`x`$. In terms of $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$ the spinor is normalized as $`_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑x\left(|\varphi |^2+|\chi |^2\right)=1`$, so that $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$ are square integrable functions. It is clear from the pair of coupled first-order differential equations (LABEL:eq8b) that both $`\varphi (x)`$ and $`\chi (x)`$ must be discontinuous wherever the potential undergoes an infinite jump and have opposite parities if the Dirac equation is invariant under $`xx`$. In the nonrelativistic approximation (potential energies small compared to the rest mass) Eq. (LABEL:eq8b) becomes

$$\chi =\frac{p}{2mc}\varphi $$
(11)
$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+V_t+V_s\right)\varphi =\left(Emc^2\right)\varphi $$
(12)
Eq. (11) shows that $`\chi `$ if of order $`v/c<<1`$ relative to $`\varphi `$ and Eq. (12) shows that $`\varphi `$ obeys the Schrödinger equation without any contribution from the pseudoscalar potential.

Now, let us choose the nonconserving-parity pseudoscalar potential step

$$V_p(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,& x<0\\ V_0,& x>0\end{array}$$
(13)
Then the solutions of the Dirac equation describing a fermion coming in from the left can be written as

$$\psi (x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}A\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ \mu _1\end{array}\right)e^{+ik_1x}+A^{^{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ \mu _1\end{array}\right)e^{ik_1x},& x<0\\ & \\ B\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ i\mu _2\end{array}\right)e^{+ik_2x},& x>0\end{array}$$
(14)
where

$`\left(\mathrm{}ck_1\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`E^2m^2c^4`$
$`\left(\mathrm{}ck_2\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`E^2m^2c^4V_0^2`$
$`\mu _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}ck_1}{E+mc^2}}`$
$`\mu _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}ck_2+V_0}{E+mc^2}}`$
The second line of (LABEL:eq11) can be written in the more suggestive form

$$\left(\mathrm{}ck_2\right)^2=E^2m^2c^4$$
(16)
where the effective mass

$$m^{}=\sqrt{m^2+V_0^2/c^2}$$
(17)
is independent of the sign of $`V_0`$.

The spinor for $`x<0`$ describes the incident wave moving to the right ($`k_1`$ is a real number) and the reflected wave moving to the left. The spinor for $`x>0`$ describes a transmitted wave moving to the right if $`k_2`$ is a real number, otherwise it describes an attenuated exponentially wave beyond the potential boundary

The continuity of the spinor at the potential boundary yields the relative amplitudes

$`r`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A^{^{}}}{A}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c\left(k_1k_2\right)iV_0}{\mathrm{}c\left(k_1+k_2\right)+iV_0}}`$
$`t`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{A}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}ck_1}{\mathrm{}c\left(k_1+k_2\right)+iV_0}}`$
In order to determinate the reflection and transmission coefficients we use the probability current density $`J=c\psi ^{}\alpha \psi `$, where $`\psi ^{}`$ is the Hermitian conjugate spinor. The probability current densities in the two different regions of the $`x`$-axis are

$`J(x`$ $`<`$ $`0)={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}c^2k_1}{E+mc^2}}(|A|^2|A^{^{}}|^2)`$
$`J(x`$ $`>`$ $`0)={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}c^2\mathrm{}(k_2)}{E+mc^2}}|B|^2`$
so that the $`x`$-independent current density allows us to define the reflection and transmission coefficients as

$`R`$ $``$ $`|r|^2={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2c^2\left[k_1^2+|k_2|^22k_1\mathrm{}(k_2)\right]+V_0^2+2\mathrm{}cV_0\mathrm{}(k_2)}{\mathrm{}^2c^2\left[k_1^2+|k_2|^2+2k_1\mathrm{}(k_2)\right]+V_0^2+2\mathrm{}cV_0\mathrm{}(k_2)}}`$
$`T`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}(k_2)}{k_1}}|t|^2={\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{}^2c^2k_1\mathrm{}(k_2)}{\mathrm{}^2c^2\left[k_1^2+|k_2|^2+2k_1\mathrm{}(k_2)\right]+V_0^2+2\mathrm{}cV_0\mathrm{}(k_2)}}`$
One can note that $`R+T=1`$ and $`R`$is always less than one, so that Klein´s paradox is lacking.

There are two clearly marked behaviors for the spinors. If $`E^2<V_0^2+m^2c^4`$ then $`k_2`$ becomes purely imaginary and $`\psi (x>0)`$ describes an evanescent wave ($`E<m^{}c^2`$) with $`R=1`$ and $`T=0`$. Even though $`\psi (x>0)`$ exists there is no probability current density through the potential frontier. Conversely, if $`E^2>V_0^2+m^2c^4`$ then $`k_2`$ becomes a real number so that $`\psi (x>0)`$ in fact describes a transmitted wave ($`E>m^{}c^2`$), with $`R<1`$ and $`T0`$.

Now let us move on to analyze the condition $`E^2>V_0^2+m^2c^4`$ which ensures that the spinor is an oscillatory wave ($`k_2`$ is a real number) in the region $`x>0`$. The resulting condition turns into $`\sqrt{E^2m^2c^4}<V_0<\sqrt{E^2m^2c^4}`$ ($`m<m^{}<E/c^2`$). This resembles the nonrelativistic result for a ascending step. On the other side, a deep enough step ($`V_0<\sqrt{E^2m^2c^4}`$) leads to total reflection, in contrast to nonrelativistic quantum mechanics that furnishes $`R=1`$ only in the $`V_0\mathrm{}`$ case.

The effective mass given by (17) clearly indicates that this kind of potential couples to the mass of the fermion and consequently it couples to the positive-energy component of the spinor in the same way it couples to the negative-energy component. The energy spectrum for a free fermion ranges continuously from $`mc^2`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ as well as from $`mc^2`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ and the potential step contributes to enhance the energy gap bringing into being at $`x=0`$ an ascending step for the positive-energy solutions and a descending step for the negative-energy solutions. The spectral gap always stretches whichever the sign of $`V_0`$. This is so because the effective mass depends on $`V_0^2`$. In other words, the potential step at $`x=0`$ is repulsive for the particles as well as for the antiparticles. In this way one can see that there is no room for transitions from positive- to negative-energy solutions. It all means that Klein´s paradox does not come to the scenario.

Another interesting way of visualizing the absence of Klein´s paradox is to consider the uncertainty in the position beyond the potential boundary in the case $`E^2<V_0^2+m^2c^4`$ ($`E<m^{}c^2`$). In this circumstance the probability density for $`x>0`$ is given by

$$\rho (x>0)=|B|^2e^{2|k_2|x}\left[1+\left(\frac{\mathrm{}c|k_2|+V_0}{E+mc^2}\right)^2\right]$$
(21)
so that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x=\frac{\mathrm{}c}{2\sqrt{m^2c^4+V_0^2E^2}}$$
(22)
From this last result one can see that the penetration of the fermion into the region $`x>0`$ will shrink without limit as $`|V_0|`$ increases and there is no atmosphere for the production of particle-antiparticle pairs at the potential frontier. It means that the localization of a fermion under the influence of this sort of pseudoscalar potential does not require any minimum value in order to ensure the single-particle interpretation of the Dirac equation. At first glance it seems that the uncertainty principle dies away provided such a principle implies that it is impossible to localize a particle into a region of space less than half of its Compton wavelength (see, e.g., Ref ). This apparent contradiction can be remedied by writing (22) into the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x=\frac{\mathrm{}c}{2\sqrt{m^2c^4E^2}}$$
(23)
Thus, it can be immediately seen that the minimum uncertainty is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x_{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m^{}c}$$
(24)
in the limit as $`|V_0|\mathrm{}`$, and again the sign of $`V_0`$ plays no part. Therefore, for obtaining a result consistent with the uncertainty principle it is a must to use the effective Compton wavelength.

In addition to their intrinsic importance, the above conclusions for the scattering of a neutral fermion by a pseudoscalar single-step potential enhance the plausibility arguments for the confinement of neutral fermions by a pseudoscalar double-step potential presented in the former Letter .

We have made the analysis of the scattering of neutral fermions by a pseudoscalar potential step in the (1+1)-dimensional Dirac equation. The results obtained in the (1+1) world are also supposed to be qualitatively true in the more realistic 3+1 world. Although the idea and calculations presented in this Letter are simple the results and conclusions seem to be new.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part through funds provided by CNPq and FAPESP.