format: text

text:
# Radiative capture and electromagnetic dissociation involving loosely bound nuclei: the 8B example

## I Introduction

The properties of loosely bound nuclei have been studied in nuclear physics for a number of years. In particular some electromagnetic processes, such as certain charged particle capture reactions, are very interesting in themselves as they are of vital importance in astrophysical scenarios. Unfortunately, at stellar energies, the cross sections for these reactions are very small due to the Coulomb barrier and direct measurements are therefore extremely difficult. Instead one has to rely on theoretical extrapolations from experimentally accessible energies down to stellar ones. An alternative, indirect method to investigate radiative capture reactions, is to study electromagnetic dissociation (EMD) on heavy targets Baur and Rebel (1996). This technique gives an enormous increase in yield due to the huge amount of virtual photons produced by the high-$`Z`$ target, the more favorable phase space factor, and the possibility to use thicker targets. In principle it should therefore be possible to measure the cross section at very low relative energies. There are, however, also disadvantages with the indirect method; the most important being the admixture of $`\gamma `$-transitions with different multipolarities whereas the direct capture process, in most cases, should be completely dominated by E1 transitions. Since the cross sections for radiative capture and photo-dissociation are related via detailed balance for each separate multipole, it is necessary to have knowledge of the strengths of different multipole transitions in the EMD reaction.

The problem of extracting the E1 contribution from a measured EMD energy spectrum remains a challenge to the nuclear physics community. In Ref. Esbensen and Bertsch (1995) it was proposed to study the angular or momentum distributions of the breakup fragments. The idea was to employ the fact that interference terms, between E1 and E2 excitation amplitudes, will produce an asymmetry in these distributions. This method was, e.g., used in the analysis of $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ EMD Davids et al. (2001) where the E2 excitation amplitude, calculated within first-order perturbation theory, was renormalized in order to reproduce the asymmetry of the measured $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Be}`$ longitudinal momentum distribution. However, as was already noted in Ref. Esbensen and Bertsch (1995), the asymmetry due to E1-E2 interference strongly depends on the final state interaction (FSI) between the breakup fragments; or in other words, on the structure of the continuum up to relatively large energies. Moreover, terms which contribute to the asymmetry do not contribute to the integrated cross section from which the astrophysical $`S`$-factor is extracted. Finally, for low beam energies, higher-order dynamical effects will lead to a reduction of the asymmetry Esbensen and Bertsch (1996). Therefore we conclude that, if we are interested in astrophysical applications of EMD experiments, it is desirable to look for more stable, and less model dependent, characteristics than the asymmetries of angular and momentum distributions. In this paper we will present two novel methods to extract the E1/E2 ratio from EMD experiments.

We will use an analytical approach based on a two-cluster picture of the nucleus, but the effects of many-body structure will also be included. Our approach will be general in the sense that both neutron-rich and proton-rich systems can be studied. This model was first presented in Forssén et al. (2002a) while similar approaches also exist for one-neutron Bertulani and Baur (1988); Otsuka et al. (1994) and two-neutron Pushkin et al. (1996); Forssén et al. (2002b, c) halo nuclei. Although advanced numerical investigations are readily performed utilizing present day computer power, an analytical approach might have an advantage when exploring general physics features, and the sensitivity to different model assumptions.

The physics case which will be investigated throughout this paper is the $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ nucleus. The interest in $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ stems from its key role in the production of high-energy solar neutrinos. It is well-known that the probability for the reaction $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Be}(p,\gamma ){}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ at solar energies strongly depends on the structure of $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ and, in particular, on the asymptotics of the valence proton wave function (WF). This reaction has been studied indirectly through EMD, using a radioactive $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ beam impinging on a heavy target Cortina-Gil et al. (2002); Davids et al. (2001); Iwasa et al. (1999); Kikuchi et al. (1997). Note that the question of E2 contributions to the experimental spectra was addressed differently in all these investigations. We should also mention the recent progress in radiative capture measurements Hammache et al. (2001), where the cross section has been measured at energies around 200 keV with an accuracy of $`15`$ percent. Nevertheless, in all cases theoretical models are needed to extrapolate the measured cross sections down to solar energies. Theoretical studies of the low-energy behavior of the astrophysical $`S_{17}`$-factor has been presented by many authors, see e.g. Christy and Duck (1961); Xu et al. (1994); Csótó and Langanke (1998); Jennings et al. (1998); Barker and Mukhamedzhanov (2000); Baye (2000); Mukhamedzhanov and Nunes (2002).

The structure of this paper is the following: Section II contains a summary of the theoretical framework that will be used in the calculations. In Sec. III our analytical model WFs are presented and discussed in quite some detail. Finally, in Sec. IV we discuss the model dependence of calculated EMD energy spectra and propose two new methods to extract information from EMD experiments.

## II Theoretical framework

Our starting point for calculating electromagnetic cross sections will be the $`\mathrm{E}\lambda `$ strength function for a transition from a bound state (total spin $`J_0`$) to a continuum state with energy $`E`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\mathrm{d}B(\mathrm{E}\lambda )}{\mathrm{d}E}=\frac{1}{2J_0+1}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \underset{j}{}\mathrm{d}\tau _j|j||(\mathrm{E}\lambda )||0|^2\delta (E_jE),\end{array}$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{d}\tau _j`$ is the phase space element for final states, $`(\mathrm{E}\lambda ,\mu )`$ is the electric multipole operator and $`|0`$, $`|j`$ are the bound and continuum states in the center of mass system.

We will consider loosely bound systems of two clusters $`(c+x)`$ and, in particular, we will study transitions to the low-energy continuum in which excitations are manifested as relative motion between the clusters $`E=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2\mu _{cx}`$, where $`\mu _{cx}`$ is the reduced mass of the two-body system. Introducing the intercluster distance $`r`$, the corresponding cluster $`\mathrm{E}\lambda `$ operator (operating only on the relative motion of clusters) is

$$(\mathrm{E}\lambda ,\mu )=eZ(\lambda )r^\lambda Y_{\lambda \mu }(\widehat{r}),$$
(2)
where we have also introduced the effective multipole charge $`Z(\lambda )=\mu _{cx}^\lambda (Z_x/m_x^\lambda +(1)^\lambda Z_c/m_c^\lambda )`$.

The strength function is the key to study several reactions. For example, the cross section for photo-dissociation $`A(\gamma ,x)c`$ is given by

$$\sigma _\gamma ^{\mathrm{E}\lambda }(E)=\frac{(2\pi )^3(\lambda +1)}{\lambda [(2\lambda +1)!!]^2}\left(\frac{E_\gamma }{\mathrm{}c}\right)^{2\lambda 1}\frac{\mathrm{d}B(\mathrm{E}\lambda )}{\mathrm{d}E},$$
(3)
where the photon energy $`E_\gamma =E+E_0`$ is larger than the binding energy $`E_0`$. From this formula the inverse radiative capture reaction $`c(x,\gamma )A`$ can be studied using detailed balance

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{rc}}^{\mathrm{E}\lambda }(E)=\left(\frac{E_\gamma }{\mathrm{}ck}\right)^2\frac{2(2J_A+1)}{(2J_c+1)(2J_x+1)}\sigma _\gamma ^{\mathrm{E}\lambda }(E),$$
(4)
where $`J_i`$ is the spin of particle $`i`$. Note that the probability for direct capture of charged particles is dramatically reduced at low energies due to the Coulomb barrier in the $`c+x`$ channel. The cross section is therefore usually factorized into the Gamow penetration factor and the $`S`$-factor

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{rc}}(E)=\frac{e^{2\pi \eta (k)}}{E}S(E),$$
(5)
where $`\eta (k)=Z_cZ_xe^2\mu _{cx}/\mathrm{}^2k`$ is the Sommerfeld parameter. The dominant part of the energy behavior is carried by the Gamow penetration factor while, e.g., nuclear structure information is incorporated into the $`S`$-factor.

Finally, we will consider the process of EMD on a high-$`Z`$ target. Using first-order perturbation theory, and the method of virtual quanta Winther and Alder (1979); Bertulani and Baur (1985), the energy spectrum can be written as a sum over multipole $`(\pi \lambda )`$ photo-dissociation cross sections multiplied by the corresponding spectra of virtual photons $`n_{\pi \lambda }(E_\gamma )`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{EMD}}}{\mathrm{d}E}=\underset{\mathrm{E}\lambda }{}\frac{n_{\mathrm{E}\lambda }(E_\gamma )}{E_\gamma }\sigma _\gamma ^{\mathrm{E}\lambda }(E)\hfill \\ \hfill +\underset{\mathrm{M}\lambda }{}\frac{n_{\mathrm{M}\lambda }(E_\gamma )}{E_\gamma }\sigma _\gamma ^{\mathrm{M}\lambda }(E).\end{array}$$
(6)
Note that, except in the vicinity of corresponding resonances, M$`\lambda `$ transitions are usually strongly suppressed Bertulani and Baur (1985). Therefore, we will not study them in this work.

## III Analytical model

### III.1 Model wave functions

A straightforward calculation of the electric multipole matrix element for a direct transition between a loosely bound state and a non-resonant continuum state, shows that the radial integrand rises to a maximum value at a radius which is, in most cases, many times the nuclear radius. Thus, these processes will mainly probe the surface structure of the nucleus. Furthermore, “loosely bound” implies that the nucleus will exhibit a large degree of clusterization and that the relative motion WF between the core and the valence nucleon will have an extended tail.

The final, continuum state will contain both Coulomb and nuclear distortions. For low continuum energies, and when the binding energy of the initial state is small, the nuclear distortions can be neglected in a first approximation. Therefore, we will only consider a pure Coulomb continuum in our analytical model, i.e., all nuclear phase shifts will be put equal to zero. The effects of nuclear distortions in $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ EMD will be considered in Sec. IV.1. Thus, a continuum state, with relative orbital momentum $`l`$ between the clusters, will be described by a normalized, regular Coulomb function

$$\varphi _l(k,r)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}\frac{1}{k}i^le^{i\sigma _l}F_l(k,r),$$
(7)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}F_l(k,r)=C_l(k)e^{ikr}(kr)^{l+1}\hfill \\ \hfill \times {}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(l+1+i\eta (k);2l+2;2ikr),\end{array}$$
(8)
and $`\sigma _l`$ is the Coulomb phase, $`\eta (k)`$ is the Sommerfeld parameter, $`{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a;b;z)`$ is the confluent hypergeometric function Abramowitz and Stegun (1972), and

$$C_l(k)=2^le^{\pi \eta (k)/2}|\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+1+i\eta (k))|/(2l+1)!.$$
(9)
The reduced matrix element introduced in the definition of the strength function, Eq. (1), contains a radial integral. With our approximation for the continuum state this integral takes the form

$$\begin{array}{c}I_l(k)=_0^{\mathrm{}}dre^{ikr}r^{l+1}\hfill \\ \hfill \times {}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(l+1i\eta (k);2l+2;2ikr)r^\lambda \varphi (0,r).\end{array}$$
(10)
Here, $`\varphi (0,r)`$ is the two-body, relative motion WF describing the initial, bound state. At large $`r`$, with relative orbital momentum $`l_0`$ between the clusters, this radial function should be proportional to the Whittaker function $`W_{\eta _0,l_0+1/2}(2\kappa _0r)`$, see e.g. Ref. Abramowitz and Stegun (1972), where $`\eta _0=Z_cZ_xe^2\mu _{cx}/\mathrm{}^2\kappa _0`$ and $`E_0=\mathrm{}^2\kappa _0^2/2\mu _{cx}`$ is the binding energy.

In most studies on loosely bound systems, the Whittaker function has been used to describe the bound state for all $`r`$. However, the Whittaker function behaves as $`r^{l_0}`$ in the limit $`r0`$, and therefore this approximation is only motivated if the transition matrix element is dominated by contributions from very large $`r`$. This is the case for reactions at very small energies; while for real experimental energies ($`E100`$ keV), the WF of the bound state should be constructed in a more realistic way. Our idea is therefore to introduce a model function that describes the bound state $`(c+x)`$ WF accurately for all distances. This can be achieved by considering the behavior at small and large $`r`$. We have already pointed out that the WF should be described by a Whittaker function at large $`r`$. Furthermore, the expected $`r0`$ behavior for a two-body system consisting of point-like particles is $`r^{l_0+1}`$. Both asymptotics are fulfilled using the following model function

$$\begin{array}{c}\varphi _{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}^{\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}\mathrm{exact}\text{}}(0,r)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}}}W_{\eta _0,l_0+1/2}(2\kappa _0r)\hfill \\ \hfill \times \left(1e^{\kappa _1r}\right)^{2l_0+1},\end{array}$$
(11)
where $`N_{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}`$ is the normalization constant and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ denotes the parameters $`\{\kappa _0,\kappa _1,\eta _0\}`$. The parameters $`\kappa _0`$ and $`\eta _0`$ are defined by the binding energy, charges, and masses, while $`\kappa _1`$ can be fitted to give the correct distance between particles $`c`$ and $`x`$ (or the correct size of the system). Using this WF, and solving the integral (10) numerically, it is possible to get very good estimates for the electromagnetic reaction cross sections. We should also mention that in the limit $`k0`$ we are actually able to solve the radial integral (10) analytically, except for the normalization constant $`N_{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}`$.

However, we are searching for a completely analytical model which will also enable us to incorporate many-body effects. Our model function has to be modified accordingly. First, we note that the asymptotic form of the Whittaker function as $`r\mathrm{}`$ is

$$\begin{array}{c}W_{\eta _0,l_0+1/2}(2\kappa _0r)\frac{e^{\kappa _0r}}{(2\kappa _0r)^{\eta _0}}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \left[1\frac{(\eta _0l_0)+(\eta _0^2l_0^2)}{2\kappa _0r}+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{r^2}\right)\right].\end{array}$$
(12)
Secondly, for two-body systems in which the clusters have an internal structure, the centrifugal barrier is effectively larger and the WF should behave as $`r^n`$ (where $`n>l_0+1`$) as $`r0`$.

Motivated by this, we put forward the following model function

$$\varphi _\gamma (0,r)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_\gamma }}\frac{e^{\kappa _0r}}{r^{\eta _0^{}}}\left(1e^{\kappa _1r}\right)^p,$$
(13)
with norm

$$N_\gamma =\underset{m=0}{\overset{2p}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2p}{m}\right)(1)^m(2\kappa _0+m\kappa _1)^{2\eta _0^{}1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(12\eta _0^{}),$$
(14)
where $`\gamma `$ denotes the parameters $`\{\kappa _0,\kappa _1,\eta _0^{},p\}`$, and $`p`$ is an integer fulfilling $`p>\eta _0^{}+1`$. The parameter $`\kappa _0`$ is defined by the binding energy and effective mass. By putting $`\eta _0^{}=\eta _0`$ we would ensure to reproduce the tail of the WF at very large $`r`$. However, the difference between an exact Whittaker function and its asymptotic behavior (first term of Eq. (12)) remains important for $`r100`$ fm. Therefore, $`\eta _0^{}`$ and $`\kappa _1`$ are used as free parameters in a fit to the “exact” WF (11) in the interval of interest. In this way $`\eta _0^{}`$ will be an *effective* Sommerfeld parameter while $`\kappa _1`$ will still mainly be connected with the size. Note that if $`\eta _0>l_0`$, then the second term in Eq. (12) will be negative and consequently we will find that $`\eta _0^{}<\eta _0`$. Finally, the integer $`p`$ is fixed by the small $`r`$ behavior. For a pure two-body system we will use $`p=<\eta _0^{}+l_0+1>`$ (where $`<x>`$ is the closest integer to $`x`$), while we can take many-body effects into account by putting $`p=<\eta _0^{}+n>`$.

With this model WF it is possible to solve the integral (10) exactly

$$\begin{array}{c}I_{l,\gamma }(k)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_\gamma }}\underset{m=0}{\overset{p}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p}{m}\right)(1)^m\hfill \\ \hfill \times (m\kappa _1+\kappa _0+ik)^{(l+2+\lambda \eta _0^{})}\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+2+\lambda \eta _0^{})\\ \hfill \times {}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(l+2+\lambda \eta _0^{};l+1i\eta (k);\\ \hfill 2l+2;\frac{2ik}{m\kappa _1+\kappa _0+ik}).\end{array}$$
(15)
Many-body nuclear structure can further be taken into account by considering the possibility that the bound state WF contains several different two-body components

$$\varphi (0,r)=\underset{i}{}a_i\varphi _{\gamma _i}(0,r),$$
(16)
which can be seen as two-body projections of the many-body WF. Note that pure many-body components will not contribute to two-body breakup and, as a result, we will have $`_ia_i^2<1`$. Note also that the threshold for two-body breakup will be higher for components where one (or both) of the clusters is excited. Therefore, we define the continuum strength function separately for each component. Finally, we arrive at an analytical formula for the strength function of component $`i`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\mathrm{d}B(\mathrm{E}\lambda )}{\mathrm{d}E}|_i=\frac{e^2Z^2(\lambda )\mu _{cx}}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{2\lambda +1}{2\pi ^2}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \underset{l}{}a_i^2k^{2l+1}C_l^2(k)l_00\lambda 0|l0^2|I_{l,\gamma _i}(k)|^2.\end{array}$$
(17)
### III.2 One-neutron halo systems

The special case where $`Z_x=0`$, i.e., a one-neutron halo system will lead to several simplifications. First of all we will have $`\eta _0=0`$ and the Whittaker function in Eq. (11) will transform into a modified, spherical Bessel function

$$W_{0,l_0+1/2}(2\kappa _0r)=\sqrt{\frac{2\kappa _0r}{\pi }}K_{l_0+1/2}(\kappa _0r).$$
(18)
Furthermore, the continuum solution will reduce from a Coulomb function (7) to the corresponding component of a plane wave

$$\varphi _l^{(1n)}(k,r)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}i^lrj_l(kr),$$
(19)
where $`j_l(x)`$ is a spherical Bessel function. In this case, the integral (10) can be solved exactly. Consider, e.g., a node-less $`s`$ state, for which our model WF would read

$$\varphi _{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}^{(1n,1s)}(0,r)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}^{(1n,s)}}}e^{\kappa _0r}\left(1e^{\kappa _1r}\right),$$
(20)
with norm

$$N_{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}^{(1n,1s)}=\frac{\kappa _1^2}{2\kappa _0(\kappa _1+2\kappa _0)(\kappa _1+\kappa _0)}.$$
(21)
The radial integral (10) for this special case will be given by

$$\begin{array}{c}I_{l,\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}^{(1n,1s)}(k)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}^{(1n,1s)}}}\frac{(2l)!!(l+1+\lambda )!}{2^ll!}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \underset{m=0}{\overset{1}{}}(1)^m(m\kappa _1+\kappa _0)^{(l+2+\lambda )}\\ \hfill \times {}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\frac{l+2+\lambda }{2};\frac{l+3+\lambda }{2};\frac{3}{2}+l;\frac{k^2}{(m\kappa _1+\kappa _0)^2}).\end{array}$$
(22)
### III.3 Application to $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟖}}\mathrm{B}`$

We will now apply our model to the $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ nucleus. The low-lying $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ continuum can, with relatively good precision, be approximated as a pure Coulomb one. At least there are no negative parity states at low excitation energies Ajzenberg-Selove (1988); Gol’dberg et al. (1998); Rogachev et al. (2001) and the electromagnetic processes are, in all cases we are considering, dominated by $`\mathrm{E1}`$ transitions. However, we will also show that the influence of a broad negative parity state at high excitation energy Gol’dberg et al. (1998); Rogachev et al. (2001) is not negligible at intermediate ($`0.4`$ MeV) continuum energies.

In a first approximation the bound state of $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ can be treated as a pure two-body ($`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Be}+p`$) system with binding energy $`E_0=137`$ keV and relative orbital momentum $`l_0=1`$. The single free parameter $`\kappa _1`$ in our “exact” model function (11) was then fitted to an rms intercluster distance of $`r_{\mathrm{rms}}=4.57`$ fm (extracted from Ref. Grigorenko et al. (1999)). In order to get analytical results, we then introduced the model function (13). We put $`p=3`$ and fixed $`\kappa _0`$ from the binding energy, while the remaining parameters $`\kappa _1`$ and $`\eta _0^{}`$ were fitted to the behavior of the “exact” model WF, see Table 1. The resulting E1 strength function is shown as a dotted line in Fig. 1. This analytical approximation agrees very well with numerical results obtained keeping the “exact” model WF. The error is less than 2% in the region of interest.

However, concerning the structure of the $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ ground state one should keep in mind that the $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Be}`$ core is in itself a weakly bound system with an excited $`1/2^{}`$ state at 429 keV. The common treatment of $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ as a pure two-body system is therefore questionable. We want to investigate what effect the many-body structure of $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ might have on the strength function. For this purpose we utilize a recent three-body ($`\alpha +{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}+p`$) calculation Grigorenko et al. (1999) where it was shown that, after projection onto the two-body channels, there are three main components (adding up to 94% of the total WF, see Table 1) and that the rest are pure three-body channels. For each of the numerical two-body overlap functions we fit our parameters $`\kappa _1`$ and $`\eta _0^{}`$. The binding energy, $`E_0=137`$ keV, determines $`\kappa _0`$ for the two first components and $`E_0=566`$ keV for the third, $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Be}`$ excited state, component. The best fit to the small $`r`$ behavior is obtained with $`p=5`$ which reflects the effectively larger centrifugal barrier in the three-body case. This centrifugal barrier will push the WF away from $`r=0`$ and will, thus, force it to become more narrow than the corresponding two-body WF.

### III.4 Studies of the corresponding potential

Using the two-body WF (11), which describes correctly the binding energy and the geometry, we are able to restore the corresponding two-body potential. Besides centrifugal barrier and Coulomb interaction, the potential also contains an attractive part which we find can be approximated with a high accuracy by one or two Yukawa-type potentials. Note that such potentials are widely used in few-body nuclear physics. In Fig. 2 the nuclear part of the potential which corresponds to our $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ “exact” two-body WF is plotted. As is shown in the figure, the potential can be very well described by a Yukawa-type potential. In this connection we would also like to point out that for the special case where $`l_0=0`$ and $`Z_x=0`$, the WF can be described by (20) and the corresponding potential reduces to a Hulthén potential which has exact solutions.

## IV Electromagnetic dissociation

The EMD of loosely bound nuclei, impinging on a high-$`Z`$ target, has been used in nuclear physics for many years both in order to investigate nuclear structure and as an indirect method to extract information on radiative capture reactions. Unfortunately, as for all reaction experiments, a lot of information is contained in the experimental results and it is a hard task to disentangle the desired part. The transition matrix elements represents the probability for an initial state wave function to end up in a specific final state after being filtered through the reaction mechanism. Naturally, both the structure of the initial as well as the final state are important for this quantity. In addition, further complications arise if nuclear induced breakup contributes to the measured cross section, and/or if the interaction time is long enough for higher-order transitions to become important. Therefore, in order to minimize interference from higher-order dynamical effects and from nuclear interactions, we will be interested in high-energy experiments in which events characterized by large impact parameters have been selected.

In this section we will demonstrate that the analysis of EMD energy spectra from loosely bound nuclei is highly model dependent. We will then discuss the important issue of how to separate the contributions from specific multipoles; a problem which is of great significance when extracting information on the inverse, radiative capture reaction.

### IV.1 Model dependence of energy spectrum analysis

Applying our analytical model to study EMD using first-order perturbation theory enables us to investigate the sensitivity of the energy spectrum to some properties of the initial bound state. At small relative energies the electromagnetic processes are highly peripheral, which means that the interaction mainly probes the external part of the bound state WF. As a consequence, the amplitude of the EMD cross section should depend crucially on the size of the nuclear system. A larger size implies a lower Coulomb barrier, which results in a larger tunneling probability, and consequently a larger cross section. However, the radii of nuclei far from stability are usually extracted from interaction cross section measurements, and this procedure has unfortunately proven to be highly model dependent. A Glauber-type analysis, assuming a uniform density distribution, results in a smaller radius as compared to an analysis in which the few-body structure is taken into account explicitly Al-Khalili and Tostevin (1996). Furthermore, the relevant parameter for two-body breakup is in reality the intercluster distance rather than the total matter radius, and the relation between these two quantities is also model dependent. In a pure two-body model one often assumes that the size of the core is equal to the size of the corresponding free nucleus. In contrast, taking many-body structure into account will result in polarization effects. For example, it was found in Ref. Grigorenko et al. (1998) that the average distance between $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}\alpha `$ is approximately 10% smaller inside $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ (studied in a $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}+\alpha +p`$ picture) than in a free $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Be}`$ nucleus ($`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}+\alpha `$ picture).

We have investigated the sensitivity of the EMD cross section to the rms intercluster distance by performing model calculations with a $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$-like system. A pure two-body system with $`l_0=1`$ relative motion (having unity spectroscopic factor) was assumed and a binding energy of 0.137 MeV was used. The effective Sommerfeld parameter was fitted to the asymptotic behavior of (11), i.e., to the Whittaker tail. The size of our model WF (13) was then a function of the remaining free parameter $`\kappa _1`$. By varying this parameter we could investigate the sensitivity to the size and from Fig. 3 it is clear how strong it is. Just for illustration: a 15% uncertainty in the rms intercluster distance (which, in our model, would correspond to 5% uncertainty in the $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ matter radius) results in $`50`$% ambiguity of the calculated total cross section.

Let us now consider the difference between a two-body and a three-body approach. As was mentioned in Sec. III.3, the effectively larger centrifugal barrier in a three-body system will push the relative motion WF away from $`r=0`$ and consequently force it to become more narrow than the corresponding two-body WF for a given radius. We therefore expect the distribution in momentum/energy space to be broader. This effect is clearly seen in Fig. 1 where the $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ E1 strength functions, obtained using our three-body <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Note that this is not strictly a three-body model, but rather the two-body projection of a three-body WF. However, in the following we will consistently refer to it as three-body results. and two-body analytical model WFs, are compared. This difference, seen in the strength function, should be even more pronounced in the energy spectrum since it will be magnified by the spectrum of virtual photons.

In Fig. 4 we compare different calculations of $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ EMD on Pb, including both E1 and E2 transitions, to the experimental data from Davids et al. Davids et al. (2001). This experiment is very appealing since the selection of scattering angles ($`\theta _{{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}}1.77^{}`$, which corresponds to a minimum impact parameter of $`b_{\mathrm{min}}=30`$ fm) minimizes the contribution from nuclear scattering, and the relatively high beam energy (82.7 MeV/nucleon) justifies the use of first-order perturbation theory. Let us first compare our analytical two-body (dotted line) and three-body (solid line) results, see also Ref. Forssén et al. (2002a). Concerning the shape of the energy spectrum we have an excellent agreement between the experimental data and our results obtained using the three-body model, while the pure two-body calculation gives a too narrow peak. As to the absolute values, the three-body energy spectrum is approximately 20% above the experimental data. However, the most important lesson from this comparison is that for two different assumptions concerning the nuclear structure, but keeping the rms intercluster distance fixed, we obtain very different shapes of the calculated energy spectra. Thus, one can conclude that the interpretation of energy spectra is highly model dependent. A final remark in connection to this observation is that, in order to interpret experimental data correctly, it is very important to fix the spectroscopic factors of different two-body and many-body components. Therefore, we want to stress the usefulness of experiments where EMD is studied in complete kinematics. Examples of interesting channels in the $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ case is $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Be}(1/2^{})+p+\gamma `$ and $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}+\alpha +p`$. Some progress has already been made in this direction. Recently, $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Be}`$ fragments and $`\gamma `$-rays were measured in coincidence after breakup on a light target by Cortina-Gil et al. Cortina-Gil et al. (2002) which resulted in a clear observation of the excited core component of the WF.

We have also performed numerical calculations, based on first-order perturbation theory, where the numerical $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ bound state WF from Grigorenko et al. (1999) was used. In the first investigation we assumed a pure Coulomb continuum and the results of this calculation is shown as a long-dashed line in Fig. 4. We note that the obtained energy spectrum compares rather well with our analytical three-body model except for a 15% difference in the peak height. Since our analytical model has the correct asymptotic behavior for large $`r`$ and a three-body behavior at small $`r`$, the main difference to the numerical WF should be in the intermediate region, and this is exactly the region which dominates the transition matrix elements for energies corresponding to the peak of the energy spectrum. This fact explains the observed discrepancy.

In our second numerical investigation we studied the influence of $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Be}+p`$ FSI. As previously mentioned, the low-energy continuum of $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ is dominated by positive parity states Ajzenberg-Selove (1988) which are only relevant for E2 ($``$10% of the total cross section) and M1 transitions. Note that the latter only plays a role in the vicinity of the narrow $`1^+`$ resonance at 0.64 MeV above threshold, and is therefore not included in our calculations. However, the possible existence of a very broad negative parity state at high excitation energy can still have a strong influence on the energy spectrum. Effects of such a state was observed in a recent elastic proton scattering experiment Rogachev et al. (2001) from which the authors made a $`2^{}`$ spin-parity assignment and, from an $`R`$-matrix analysis, they obtained a best fit with the parameters $`E=3.5\pm 0.5`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=8\pm 4`$ MeV. We have included such a broad continuum structure by adding an attractive potential in the $`s`$-wave channel. The effects of this are clearly seen in Fig. 4 (short-dashed line): the total cross section is reduced and the continuum strength is redistributed towards smaller energies. We conclude this comparison by stating that a broad negative parity structure in the high energy continuum has a non-negligible influence on the EMD energy spectrum for energies $`0.4`$ MeV and that the parameters of such a state are still to be determined with greater accuracy.

### IV.2 Extraction of E1 contribution using the low-$`𝑬`$ energy spectrum

As we have seen in the previous section the main model uncertainties in the EMD analysis are: the asymptotic normalization constant which depends on (i) the radius in combination with (ii) the spectroscopic factors of different two-body components; (iii) the underlying many-body structure, and finally; (iv) the FSI. Despite the difficulties connected with measuring the cross section at small relative energies, we still suggest to focus on the low-$`E`$ part of the energy spectrum. In this way one can avoid uncertainties associated with FSI (unless there are resonances very close to threshold) and with the many-body behavior of the WF at small intercluster distances. The asymptotic normalization constant in combination with the spectroscopic factor will enter as an absolute normalization of the cross section. However, since this normalization affects all multipole transitions equally it is possible to calculate the ratio of two different multipoles with a very good precision.

We have investigated the ratio

$$R_{\mathrm{EMD}}(E)\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{EMD}}(\mathrm{E1})/\mathrm{d}E}{\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{EMD}}(\mathrm{E1}+\mathrm{E2})/\mathrm{d}E},$$
(23)
and found that it is almost model independent at small relative energies. To demonstrate this we will continue to use the EMD of $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ (on a Pb target at 82.7 MeV/nucleon with $`b_{\mathrm{min}}=30`$ fm) as an example. Reusing the different model calculations from Sec. IV.1 we can investigate the sensitivity of the ratio to different model assumptions. Firstly, in Fig. 5 we can see that the difference between a two-body and a three-body approach is less than 3% in the region of interest. This low sensitivity can be explained by the fact that the low-$`E`$ part of the spectrum mainly probes the large $`r`$ asymptotics of the radial WF. Shown in Fig. 5 are also results from the numerical calculations introduced in Sec. IV.1. It is clearly seen that the influence from FSI is almost negligible at small relative energies where the numerical results and our analytical three-body model seem to converge. Unfortunately, the numerical accuracy of our calculations becomes questionable at small energies and the calculated ratio is therefore only plotted down to 0.1 MeV. In this context we want to stress that in our analytical model we are able to calculate the relevant transition matrix elements for all energies, including the limit $`E0`$. In contrast, the numerical approaches will run into problems for small energies since the continuum WF will be extremely small at relevant intercluster distances.

Furthermore, as can be seen in Fig. 6, the sensitivity of the $`R_{\mathrm{EMD}}(E)`$ ratio (23) to the intercluster distance is also very small. This feature is also expected since the intercluster distance determines the asymptotic normalization of the WF which, in turn, cancels when the ratio is calculated. However, as can be seen in the insets of Figs. 5 and 6, the results obtained using the different models diverge with increasing energy.

One final question is well-founded: Since the transition matrix elements for very small energies depend mainly on the tail of the bound state WF, is it still justified to use our model WF (13) which has merely an approximate description of the Whittaker tail? The result of our numerical calculation (remember that the numerical bound state WF has the correct asymptotics) presented in Fig. 5 indicates that it is justified, since it seems to converge with the analytical model for small $`E`$. Furthermore, in the limit $`E0`$ we are actually able to solve the radial integral (10) exactly even for the “exact” WF (11) which has a Whittaker tail. We find that $`R_{\mathrm{EMD}}(E0)`$ calculated with the model WF and with the “exact” WF agree within 0.5%. This result gives an additional justification to the use of our model WF for calculating transition matrix elements at small $`E`$.

In summary we have found that the calculated $`R_{\mathrm{EMD}}(E)`$ ratio of the energy spectrum is almost model independent at small relative energies. In first-order perturbation theory this ratio can be expressed as

$`R_{\mathrm{EMD}}(E)`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{EMD}}(\mathrm{E1})/\mathrm{d}E}{\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{EMD}}(\mathrm{E1}+\mathrm{E2})/\mathrm{d}E}}`$ (24)
$`=1/\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{n_{\mathrm{E2}}(E_\gamma )}{n_{\mathrm{E1}}(E_\gamma )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _\gamma ^{\mathrm{E2}}(E)}{\sigma _\gamma ^{\mathrm{E1}}(E)}}\right)`$
$`=1/\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{n_{\mathrm{E2}}(E_\gamma )}{n_{\mathrm{E1}}(E_\gamma )}}r_\gamma (E)\right),`$
where we have introduced the E2/E1 ratio of photo-dissociation cross sections

$$r_\gamma (E)\frac{\sigma _\gamma ^{\mathrm{E2}}(E)}{\sigma _\gamma ^{\mathrm{E1}}(E)}.$$
(25)
Naturally, the ratio $`R_{\mathrm{EMD}}(E)`$ will depend on the experimental conditions such as beam energy and minimum impact parameter. However, this dependence enters only in the spectra of virtual photons which are easily calculated for any experimental conditions $`\{b_{\mathrm{min}},E_{\mathrm{beam}}\}`$ (see, e.g., Eq. (4.7) of Bertulani and Baur (1985)). In contrast, the ratio of $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ photo-dissociation cross sections $`r_\gamma (E)`$ (25) does not depend on the experimental conditions. Therefore, we provide this ratio, calculated within our analytical three-body model, in Fig. 7. The curve shown in Fig. 7 can approximately be described by the formula

$$r_\gamma (E)=\frac{\sigma _\gamma ^{\mathrm{E2}}(E)}{\sigma _\gamma ^{\mathrm{E1}}(E)}=\left(1.7290+3.4663e^{1.5526E}\right)10^4,$$
(26)
which describes the calculated curve with an accuracy of $`<0.5`$% in the region $`0<E<0.3`$ MeV. From this formula it is easy to obtain $`R_{\mathrm{EMD}}(E)`$ using Eq. (24)

### IV.3 Extraction of E1 contribution using two different experimental conditions

One of the beauties with the method of virtual photons is the separation of reaction kinematics and nuclear excitation dynamics into the spectrum of virtual photons and the photo-absorption cross section, respectively. This separation can be used as an alternative method to extract the E1 contribution from the measured cross section. The objective is to use the fact that the cross section will depend on beam energy and minimum impact parameter only through the spectra of virtual photons. First, let us introduce the notation

$$N_{\mathrm{E}\lambda }(E_\gamma )=\frac{n_{\mathrm{E}\lambda }(E_\gamma ,b_{\mathrm{min}},E_{\mathrm{beam}})}{E_\gamma },$$
(27)
where we have indicated that the spectra of virtual photons are functions of the beam energy and minimum impact parameter. In reality this dependence enters in the adiabaticity parameter

$$\xi =\frac{\omega b_{\mathrm{min}}}{\gamma v}.$$
(28)
Assuming that the total cross section is dominated by E1 and E2 transitions we find that the energy spectrum for given experimental conditions $`\{b_{\mathrm{min}}^{(i)},E_{\mathrm{beam}}^{(i)}\}`$ is given by

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{EMD}}^{(i)}}{\mathrm{d}E}=N_{\mathrm{E1}}^{(i)}(E_\gamma )\sigma _\gamma ^{\mathrm{E1}}(E)+N_{\mathrm{E2}}^{(i)}(E_\gamma )\sigma _\gamma ^{\mathrm{E2}}(E),$$
(29)
where we would like to remind the reader of the relation $`E=E_\gamma E_0`$. Now we can use the fact that the virtual photon spectra depends differently on $`\xi `$ for different multipoles to extract the contribution from one of the multipoles. Let us assume that we have two sets of experimental data from the same experimental setup; the only difference being the beam energy and/or the selected scattering angles (minimum impact parameter). The E1 contribution to one of the measurements can then be obtained with the formula

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{EMD}}^{(1)}(\mathrm{E1})}{\mathrm{d}E}=\left(N_{\mathrm{E2}}^{(2)}(E_\gamma )\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{EMD}}^{(1)}}{\mathrm{d}E}N_{\mathrm{E2}}^{(1)}(E_\gamma )\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{EMD}}^{(2)}}{\mathrm{d}E}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \times \frac{N_{\mathrm{E1}}^{(1)}(E_\gamma )}{N_{\mathrm{E1}}^{(1)}(E_\gamma )N_{\mathrm{E2}}^{(2)}(E_\gamma )N_{\mathrm{E1}}^{(2)}(E_\gamma )N_{\mathrm{E2}}^{(1)}(E_\gamma )}.\end{array}$$
(30)
The advantage of this method is that information can be obtained directly from experimental data. However, it should be emphasized that the formula is only valid under the assumptions of first-order perturbation theory and straight-line trajectories. Thus, this method can only be used for EMD at relatively large beam energies where events characterized by large impact parameters have to be selected. Furthermore, the experimental conditions must be chosen so that the difference $`\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{EMD}}^{(1)}/\mathrm{d}E\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{EMD}}^{(2)}/\mathrm{d}E`$ is observable and larger than the experimental uncertainty.

## V Conclusion

In this paper we have studied electromagnetic processes involving loosely bound nuclei. To this aim we have developed an analytical model which is based on the use of radial model functions that give a realistic description of two-body WFs (or the two-body projections of many-body WFs) for all radii, see also Forssén et al. (2002a). We have used this model to study EMD of $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$, but have also indicated how it can be applied to other reactions and other nuclei. For example, it should provide an important tool to investigate the low-energy behavior of the astrophysical $`S`$-factor.

We have also presented numerical calculations based on the three-body model of $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$, developed in Ref. Grigorenko et al. (1999), and on recent experimental information on a broad negative parity state in the $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ continuum. Combining the results of our analytical model, and of these numerical calculations, has allowed us to investigate the sensitivity of calculated EMD energy spectra to different model assumptions. We concluded that the magnitude of the cross section depends strongly on the intercluster distance and on the spectroscopic factors of different many-body channels; while the shape of the energy spectrum is very sensitive to the few-body structure. Finally, we found that a broad negative parity state at high excitation energy will influence the energy spectrum for energies $`0.4`$ MeV, and will lead to a reduction of the cross section.

However, the main purpose of this paper has been to investigate the problem of how to extract the E1 contribution from a measured EMD energy spectrum. This question is of great significance for the gathering of information on astrophysically interesting radiative capture reactions from EMD experiments (note the relation between the E1 component of the EMD energy spectrum and the astrophysical $`S`$-factor via Eqs. (46)). The main method so far has been to study the asymmetries in angular or momentum distributions. However, this asymmetry (which is due to E1-E2 interference) depends strongly on details of the FSI which, in turn, are often relatively unknown. Furthermore, the E1-E2 interference terms do not themselves contribute to the integrated cross sections to which the $`S`$-factor is related. Instead, we have proposed two novel, and less model dependent, approaches to extract the E1 contribution from a measured EMD energy spectrum: (i) Firstly, we demonstrated that the ratio of EMD cross sections $`\sigma _{\mathrm{EMD}}(\mathrm{E1})/\sigma _{\mathrm{EMD}}(\mathrm{E1}+\mathrm{E2})`$ is almost model independent at small relative energies. We also provided an analytical formula to calculate this ratio for any experimental conditions. (ii) Secondly, we demonstrated how two sets of experimental data, obtained with different $`E_{\mathrm{beam}}`$ and/or $`b_{\mathrm{min}}`$, can be used to extract the E1 component. This method relies on the fact that the strengths of different multipole components depend on the beam energy and minimum impact parameter, and in first-order perturbation theory this dependence enters only in the virtual photon spectra.

Since the proposed two methods are not directly connected to each other, they can be used independently and the results can be compared to each other. However, both methods, but in particular the first one, require that the energy spectrum is measured down to very small relative energies (100–300 keV), which will probably prove to be a difficult challenge.

###### Acknowledgements.

N. B. S. is grateful for support from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science. The support from RFBR Grants No 00–15–96590, 02–02–16174 are also acknowledged.


text:
# Local models for ramified unitary groups

## 1 Introduction

Given a Shimura variety $`S=S(G,h)`$ over a number field $`E`$ it is useful to have a model over the ring of integers $`𝒪_E`$ , i.e. a scheme $`S^{}\text{Spec}(𝒪_E)`$ such that the diagram

$`\begin{array}{ccc}S& & \text{Spec}(E)\\ & & & & \\ S^{}& & \text{Spec}(𝒪_E)\end{array}`$
is cartesian. To qualify as a model, the scheme $`S^{}`$ should at least be flat over $`\text{Spec}(𝒪_E)`$ and have only “good” singularities. In the PEL-case, $`S`$ can be written as a moduli space of abelian varieties with polarization, an action by a semisimple $``$-algebra and a $`K`$-level strucure where $`KG(𝔸_f)`$ is an open and compact subgroup. If we fix a prime $`p`$ , the investigation of a model $`S^{}`$ at $`p`$ can be reduced to the investigation of the associated “local model” $`M`$, introduced in  – at least if $`K=K^p.K_p`$ where $`K^pG(𝔸_f^p)`$ and $`K_pG(_p)`$ is a parahoric subgroup.
In this work we will consider the case that $`K_p`$ is a maximal parahoric subgroup of $`G(_p)`$ . We further fix a prime $`𝔭`$ of $`𝒪_E`$ lying over $`p`$ and denote by $`R`$ the completion of $`(𝒪_E)_𝔭`$ . Then the local model $`M`$ is a closed subscheme of a Grassmannian, defined over $`\text{Spec}(R)`$ . Locally for the étale topology $`M`$ coincides with $`S^{}_{𝒪_E}R`$ . Hence $`S^{}`$ is flat if and only if the local model is and both schemes have the same singularities.
We are going to study local models $`M_{r,s}`$ of Shimura varieties where $`G`$ is a reductive group over $``$ such that $`G_{}=GU(r,s)`$ . In  it is conjectured that $`M_{r,s}`$ is flat over the base $`R`$. This is true if $`p`$ is unramified by the work of Görtz , but an argument of Pappas shows that this is not true in general: Using the facts that the generic fiber of $`M`$ is a Grassmannian of dimension $`rs`$ (cf.  or proposition 2.2 below) and that the special fiber does not depend on the partition $`(r,s)`$ of $`n=r+s`$ we show nonflatness in the case $`|rs|>1`$ (see corollary 2.3 for a somewhat different proof of Pappas’ statement). Hence these “naive” local models need to be modified. Therefore we investigate a closed subscheme $`M_{r,s}^{loc}`$ of the naive local model – introduced by Pappas – in section 3, which stands a better chance to be flat. In fact, Pappas is able to show the flatness of $`M_{r,s}^{loc}`$ if $`(r,s)=(n1,1)`$ (see , theorem 4.5). In the case $`|rs|1`$ , Pappas conjectures that $`M_{r,s}=M_{r,s}^{loc}`$ and is able to prove this in the case $`(r,s)=(2,1)`$.
Another interesting task in the theory of Shimura varieties is to calculate the local factors of the semisimple Hasse-Weil zeta function at places where the Shimura variety has bad reduction. (For a definition of the semisimple zeta function see ). It is related to the alternating semisimple trace

$`\text{Tr}^{\text{ss}}(\text{Frob}_q;(R\mathrm{\Psi }_l)_x^I)`$
of the geometric Frobenius on the invariants of the inertia group of the sheaf of nearby cycles. We are going to calculate this trace in the case $`(r,s)=(n1,1)`$ . Again we can restrict to the local model associated to the Shimura variety. We cannot calculate the alternating semisimple trace directly, as the local model does not have semi-stable reduction. We have to proceed in several steps: First we have to resolve the singularities of the local model. In , this was done by blowing up the singular locus. Our approach is different: We define a resolution $`\tau :M_{n1,1}^{loc}`$ by posing a moduli problem analogous to the Demazure-resolution of a Schubert variety in the Grassmannian. It was suggested by Pappas and Rapoport. The following result is the main result of this article. It was conjectured by Pappas and Rapoport.

###### Theorem.

Let $`(r,s)=(n1,1)`$ . $``$ is a regular scheme of dimension $`n`$ .Its special fiber is reduced and has normal crossings. The morphism $`\tau :M^{loc}`$ is proper and induces an isomorphism outside a point $`yM^{loc}`$. The fiber of $`\tau `$ over $`y`$ is a projective space of dimension $`n1`$ . The generic fiber of $`\text{Spec}(R)`$ is smooth and geometrically irreducible of dimension $`n1`$ . The special fiber is the union of two smooth irreducible varieties of dimension $`n1`$ – one of them being the fiber over $`y`$ – which intersect in a smooth irreducible variety of dimension $`n2`$ . The morphism $`\text{Spec}(R)`$ is flat.

As $``$ has semistable reduction, we are able to compute the alternating semisimple trace on $``$ which then can be related to the alternating semisimple trace on $`M_{n1,1}^{loc}`$ .
In conclusion, I would like to express my gratitude to those who helped me with this work. First of all, I would like to thank M. Rapoport for introducing me into this area of mathematics and his steady interest in my work. I am very grateful to T. Wedhorn. His mathematical advice, his encouragement and his infinite patience accompanied me during my work on this article. Finally, I would like to thank U. Görtz for helpful remarks on an earlier version of this work.

## 2 The naive local model

Let $`R_0`$ be a complete discrete valuation ring with uniformizing element $`\pi _0`$ and perfect residue field $`k`$ . We assume that $`\text{char}k2`$ . Set $`K_0=\text{Quot}(R_0)`$ and

$`K=K_0[X]/(X^2\pi _0).`$
Denote by $`\pm \pi `$ the roots of $`X^2\pi _0`$ in $`K`$ . The ring $`R=𝒪_K`$ of integers is a discrete valuation ring with uniformizing element $`\pi `$ and residue field $`k`$ . For $`n3`$ set $`V=K^n`$ with canonical basis $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_n`$ and denote by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the standard lattice $`Re_i`$ in $`V`$ . We write $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }k`$ . The uniformizing element $`\pi `$ induces a $`R_0`$ \- linear mapping on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which we denote by $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ . Define on $`V`$ an alternating $`K_0`$-bilinear mapping

$`,:`$ $`V\times VK_0`$
by imposing that for $`i,j\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$

$`e_i,e_j=0,e_i,\mathrm{\Pi }e_j=\delta _{ij}.`$
For any element $`a=x+\pi yR`$ $`(x,yR_0)`$ set $`\overline{a}=x\pi y`$ . Then we have

$`av,w=v,\overline{a}w`$
for $`aR`$ and $`v,wV`$ . Fix natural numbers $`r,s`$ with $`r+s=n`$ .

###### Definition 2.1.

Let $`M_{r,s}`$ be the functor which associates to each scheme $`S`$ over $`\text{Spec}(R)`$ the set of subsheaves $`F`$ of $`(R_{R_0}𝒪_S)`$-modules of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{R_0}𝒪_S`$ such that

1. $`F`$ as an $`𝒪_S`$-module is locally on $`S`$ a direct summand of rank $`n`$ ;
2. $`F`$ is totally isotropic for $`,_{R_0}𝒪_S`$ ;
3. $`\text{char}_{\mathrm{\Pi }|F}(T)=(T+\pi )^r(T\pi )^s`$ .

The functor $`M_{r,s}`$ is represented by a closed subscheme of $`Gr(n,2n)R`$ hence $`M_{r,s}`$ is a projective $`\text{Spec}(R)`$-scheme. (Here we denoty by $`Gr(a,b)`$ the scheme parameterizing locally direct summands of rank $`a`$ of a free module of rank $`b`$).
The next result is due to Pappas (cf. , proposition 3.8). Recall that $`K=\text{Quot}(R)`$ .

###### Proposition 2.2 (Pappas).

We have

$`M_{r,s}\times _{\text{Spec}(R)}\text{Spec}(K)Gr(ns,n)K.`$
In particular, the generic fiber of $`M_{r,s}`$ is smooth and geometrically irreducible of dimension $`rs`$ .

###### Proof.

This proof is more or less a replication of Pappas’ proof in . Let $`B`$ be a $`K`$-algebra. We have an isomorphism of $`B`$-algebras

$`R_{R_0}B`$ $`BB,`$
$`ab`$ $`(ab,\overline{a}b).`$
Denote by $`f_0,f_1`$ the two idempotent elements of $`R_{R_0}B`$ corresponding to $`(1,0)`$ and $`(0,1)`$ in $`BB`$ . Set

$`G_i=f_i(R__pB)^n,i=0,1.`$
Then $`G_i`$ is totally isotropic with respect to $`,B`$ . For $`i/2`$ , consider the map

$`\psi _i:`$ $`G_iHom_B(G_{i+1},B),`$
$`xx,|_{G_{i+1}}.`$
As $`,`$ is perfect and $`G_i`$ is isotropic, $`\psi _i`$ is an isomorphism. Now consider the functor $`N`$ which associates to each $`K`$-algebra $`B`$ the set of pairs $`(F_0,F_1)`$ of $`B`$-modules which are a direct summand of $`B^n`$ of rank $`s`$ (resp. $`r`$) such that $`\psi _i(F_i)`$ vanishes on $`F_{i+1}`$ ($`i/2`$). (Here we view $`F_i`$ as subsets of $`G_iB^n`$). We get a bijection

$`M_{r,s}(B)N(B)`$
via

$`F(f_0F,f_1F).`$
On the other hand, the pair $`(F_0,F_1)`$ is determined by $`F_0`$ . Indeed, we have $`F_1F_0^{}`$ . This is an inclusion of direct summands of $`B^n`$ of rank $`r=ns`$ , hence they must be equal. We conclude that

$`M_{r,s}(B)=Gr(ns,n)(B).`$
###### Corollary 2.3 (Pappas).

We have

$`dimM_{r,s}_Rk\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{n^2}{4}\hfill & \text{if }n\text{ is even}\hfill \\ \frac{n^21}{4}\hfill & \text{if }n\text{ is odd\hspace{0.33em}.}\hfill \end{array}`$
In particular, $`M_{r,s}`$ is not flat if $`|rs|>1`$ .

###### Proof.

As $`M_{r,s}\text{Spec}(R)`$ is proper we have the inequality

$`dimM_{r,s}_RkdimM_{r,s}_RK.`$
On the other hand, the special fiber of $`M_{r,s}`$ does not depend on the partition $`(r,s)`$ of $`n`$ . Indeed, condition 3 is just $`\text{char}_{\mathrm{\Pi }|F}=T^n`$ in the special fiber. Using this and proposition 2.2 we see that $`dimM_{r,s}_Rkr^{}s^{}`$ for every pair $`(r^{},s^{})`$ with $`r^{}+s^{}=n`$ . Choosing $`(r^{},s^{})`$ such that $`r^{}s^{}`$ is maximal gives the inequality. In particular, if $`|rs|>1`$ , the dimension of the two fibers are not equal, hence the proper morphism $`M_{r,s}\text{Spec}(R)`$ cannot be flat. ∎

## 3 The local model

###### Definition 3.1.

If $`r=s`$ , set $`M_{r,s}^{loc}=M_{r,s}`$ . If $`rs`$ let $`M_{r,s}^{loc}`$ be the functor $`(Sch/\text{Spec}R)(Sets)`$ which associates to each scheme $`S`$ over $`\text{Spec}(R)`$ the subset of $`M_{r,s}(S)`$ which consists of subsheaves $`F`$ such that

1. $`^{r+1}(\mathrm{\Pi }\pi |F)=(0)`$ ;
2. $`^{s+1}(\mathrm{\Pi }+\pi |F)=(0)`$ .

The functor $`M_{r,s}^{loc}`$ is represented by a closed subscheme of $`M_{r,s}`$ . We fix $`(r,s)`$ and set $`M=M_{r,s}`$ and $`M^{loc}=M_{r,s}^{loc}`$ . We denote by $`M_\eta ^{loc}`$ and $`M_s^{loc}`$ the generic and special fiber of $`M^{loc}`$ respectively.
While the naive local model $`M`$ cannot be flat over $`\text{Spec}(R)`$ if $`|rs|>1`$ , Pappas conjectures in  that $`M^{loc}`$ is flat for every pair $`(r,s)`$ . He is able to prove the following. Denote by $`y`$ the $`\text{Spec}(k)`$-valued point $`\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ of $`M_s^{loc}`$ .

###### Theorem 3.2 (Pappas).

Suppose that $`(r,s)=(n1,1)`$ . Then $`M^{loc}`$ is normal and Cohen-Macaulay and the morphism $`M^{loc}\text{Spec}(R)`$ is flat and and it is smooth outside the closed subscheme defined by $`y`$ .

###### Proof.

See , theorem 4.5 . ∎

###### Remark 3.3.

We need only one consequence of theorem 3.2 in this work: We use the fact that $`M_{n1,1}^{loc}`$ is smooth outside the point $`y`$ in proposition 4.3.

###### Proposition 3.4.

The generic fibers of $`M^{loc}`$ and $`M`$ coincide, in particular the generic fiber of $`M^{loc}`$ is a smooth, geometrically irreducible variety of dimension $`rs`$ .

###### Proof.

In the proof of proposition 2.2 we saw that for every $`K`$-algebra $`B`$ and every $`FM(B)`$ there is a decomposition $`F=F_0F_1`$ with $`\text{rk}F_0=s`$ and $`\text{rk}F_1=r`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ acts on $`F_0`$ via $`\pi `$ and on $`F_1`$ via $`\pi `$ . Hence

$`{\displaystyle ^{r+1}}(\mathrm{\Pi }\pi |F)`$ $`={\displaystyle ^{r+1}}(+2\pi |F_1)=(0),`$
$`{\displaystyle ^{s+1}}(\mathrm{\Pi }+\pi |F)`$ $`={\displaystyle ^{s+1}}(2\pi |F_0)=(0).`$
###### Remark 3.5.

We saw in corollary 2.3 that $`M^{loc}M`$ if $`|rs|>1`$. Pappas conjectures in  that $`M^{loc}=M`$ if $`|rs|1`$ and is able to prove this in the case $`(r,s)=(2,1)`$ (see  4.15).

## 4 A resolution of the singularities

In this section we introduce a resolution of the singularities of the local model in the case $`(r,s)=(n1,1)`$ .

###### Definition 4.1.

Let $``$ be the functor $`(Sch/\text{Spec}(R))(Sets)`$ which associates to each scheme $`S`$ over $`\text{Spec}(R)`$ the set of pairs $`(F_0,F)`$ where $`F_0`$ and $`F`$ are $`𝒪_S`$-submodules of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{R_0}𝒪_S`$ such that

1. $`F`$ as an $`𝒪_S`$-module is locally on $`S`$ a direct summand of rank $`n`$ ;
2. $`F_0`$ as an $`𝒪_S`$-module is locally on $`S`$ a direct summand of rank $`1`$ ;
3. $`F_0F`$ ;
4. $`F`$ is totally isotropic for $`,_{R_0}𝒪_S`$ ;
5. $`(\mathrm{\Pi }+\pi )FF_0`$ ;
6. $`(\mathrm{\Pi }\pi )F_0=(0)`$ .

The functor is represented by a projective $`\text{Spec}(R)`$-scheme. We denote by $`_\eta `$ and $`_s`$ the generic and special fiber of $``$ respectively.
Consider the projection morphism

$`\tau :`$ $`M^{loc},`$
which is given by

$`(F_0,F)F`$
on $`S`$-valued points. The map $`\tau `$ is well defined: Condition 3 and 5 imply that $`F`$ is $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$-stable. If we assume that $`F`$ is a free module spanned by elements $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_n`$ with $`F_0=\text{sp}(v_1)`$ the map $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is represented by the matrix

$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\pi & \lambda _2& \mathrm{}& \lambda _n\\ 0& \pi & \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& & & \\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& \pi \end{array}\right)`$
with suitable $`\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _n`$ . We conclude that the condition on $`\text{char}_{\mathrm{\Pi }|F}`$ is satisfied, that $`^n(\mathrm{\Pi }\pi |F)=(0)`$ and that $`^2(\mathrm{\Pi }+\pi |F)=(0)`$ . As $``$ and $`M^{loc}`$ are proper $`\text{Spec}(R)`$-schemes, the morphism $`\tau `$ is proper.

###### Remark 4.2.

The morphism $`\tau `$ induces an isomorphism on the generic fibers. Indeed, the proof of proposition 2.2 shows that for every $`K`$-algebra $`B`$ and every $`FM^{loc}(B)`$ we have a decomposition $`F=F_0F_1`$ and $`F(F_0,F)`$ defines the inverse map to $`\tau `$ .

Recall that we denote by $`y`$ the $`\text{Spec}(k)`$-rational point $`\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ .

###### Proposition 4.3.

The map $`\tau `$ induces an isomorphism

$`\tau ^{}:\tau ^1(y)M^{loc}\{y\}.`$
###### Proof.

We know from remark 4.2 that $`\tau ^{}`$ is an isomorphism on the generic fibers. Next consider $`\tau ^{}`$ on the special fibers. A point $`zM_s^{loc}\{y\}`$ corresponds to a $`n`$-dimensional $`\kappa (z)`$-subvectorspace $`F`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\kappa (z)}=\mathrm{\Lambda }\kappa (z)`$ such that $`F\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\kappa (z)}`$ . It follows that $`\mathrm{\Pi }F(0)`$ . Let $`T`$ be a $`\text{Spec}(\kappa (z))`$-scheme and $`(F_0,F_{\kappa (z)}T)`$ a $`T`$-valued point of the fiber in $`z`$ . Set $`F_T=F_{\kappa (z)}T`$ . By definition we have $`\mathrm{\Pi }F_TF_0`$ . Take a point $`tT`$ . As the morphism $`\text{Spec}(\kappa (t))\text{Spec}(\kappa (z))`$ is faithfully flat we have $`(\mathrm{\Pi }F)_{\kappa (t)}0`$ , hence it must equal $`(F_0)_{\kappa (t)}`$ . By Nakayama’s Lemma $`(F_0)_t=(\mathrm{\Pi }F_T)_t`$ , hence $`F_0=\mathrm{\Pi }F_T`$ . We conclude that the scheme-theoretic fiber in any point $`z`$ of $`M^{loc}\{y\}`$ equals $`\text{Spec}(\kappa (z))`$ . It follows that $`\tau ^{}`$ is an isomorphism: As $`\tau `$ is proper, the morphism $`\tau ^{}`$ is also proper. Furthermore we have just seen that it is quasifinite, hence Zariski’s main theorem implies that $`\tau ^{}`$ is finite. As $`M^{loc}\{y\}`$ is reduced (cf. proposition 3.2),  §3 $`n^02`$ proposition 7 implies that $`\tau ^{}`$ is flat. Lemma 4.4 gives the result. ∎

###### Lemma 4.4.

Let $`S`$ be a scheme and $`f:XY`$ be a finite and flat morphism of $`S`$-schemes. Assume that $`f`$ is an isomorphism on the fibers. Then $`f`$ is an isomorphism.

###### Proof.

. It suffices to show the statement in the case $`X=\text{Spec}(B)`$ and $`Y=\text{Spec}(A)`$ . As $`B`$ is a finitely generated, flat $`A`$-module, $`B`$ is locally free. We may assume that $`B`$ is free, say $`BA^n`$ . As the morphism is an isomorphism on the fibers, we conclude that for a prime ideal $`pA`$ we have $`B_A\kappa (p)\kappa (p)^n\kappa (p)`$ , hence $`n=1`$ . ∎

###### Theorem 4.5.

$``$ is a regular scheme of dimension $`n`$ with reduced special fiber. The generic fiber of $``$ is smooth and geometrically irreducible of dimension $`n1`$ . The special fiber is the union of two smooth irreducible varieties of dimension $`n1`$ which intersect in a smooth irreducible variety of dimension $`n2`$ . The morphism $`\text{Spec}(R)`$ is flat.

###### Remark 4.6.

In the proof of theorem 4.5 we will see that the second part of the theorem is also correct for the geometric special fiber of $``$ .

###### Proof of theorem 4.5.

It follows from remark 4.2 that the generic fiber of $``$ is smooth and geometrically irreducible of dimension $`n1`$ as $`M_\eta ^{loc}`$ has these properties. Now consider the special fiber of $``$ . We proceed in several steps.

###### Step 1.

Set

$`Z_1=\tau _s^1(y)=y\times _{M_s^{loc}}_s.`$
We have $`Z_1(\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$ . Indeed, for every $`\text{Spec}(k)`$-scheme $`S`$ and for every $`F_0(\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})(S)`$ the pair $`(F_0,\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_S)`$ satisfies the conditions 5 and 6.

###### Step 2.

Next, consider the morphism

$`\phi :`$ $`_s(\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}),`$
which is given by

$`(F_0,F)F_0`$
on $`S`$-valued points ($`S`$ a $`\text{Spec}(k)`$-scheme). Define a form on $`\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ by

$`\{\mathrm{\Pi }v,\mathrm{\Pi }w\}=\mathrm{\Pi }v,w.`$
This is well-defined: If $`\mathrm{\Pi }w=\mathrm{\Pi }w^{}`$ then $`w=w^{}+\mathrm{\Pi }u`$ and $`\{\mathrm{\Pi }v,\mathrm{\Pi }w\}=\mathrm{\Pi }v,w=\mathrm{\Pi }v,w^{}+\mathrm{\Pi }v,\mathrm{\Pi }u=\{\mathrm{\Pi }v,\mathrm{\Pi }w\}`$ . The form is symmetric as

$`\{\mathrm{\Pi }v,\mathrm{\Pi }w\}=\mathrm{\Pi }v,w=w,\mathrm{\Pi }v=\mathrm{\Pi }w,v=\{\mathrm{\Pi }w,\mathrm{\Pi }v\}.`$
Furthermore $`\{,\}`$ is non-degenerate as $`,`$ is. Denote by $`𝒬`$ the closed subscheme of $`(\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$ consisting of the isotropic lines (with respect to $`\{,\}`$). A subspace $`F_0=a_1\mathrm{\Pi }e_1+\mathrm{}+a_n\mathrm{\Pi }e_n`$ is isotropic if and only if $`a_i^2=0`$ . As $`k`$ is a field with characteristic $`2`$ and as $`n3`$ , this implies that $`𝒬`$ is a smooth, geometrically irreducible variety of dimension $`n2`$ .
Note that $`F_0`$ is isotropic with respect to $`\{,\}`$ if and only if

$`F_0(\mathrm{\Pi }^1(F_0))^{};`$
with  indicating the orthogonal complement with respect to $`,`$ . Set

$`Z_2=\phi ^1(𝒬)=𝒬\times _{(\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})}_s.`$
###### Claim.

$`Z_2`$ is a locally trivial $`^1`$-bundle over $`𝒬`$ .

###### Proof.

Denote by $`G_0\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝒬\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝒬`$ the universal $`𝒪_𝒬`$-module corresponding to $`\text{id}_𝒬`$ . It follows that for every $`𝒬`$-scheme $`S`$ the $`S`$-valued points of $`Z_2`$ are all pairs $`((G_0)_S,F)(S)`$ . Set $`𝒱=\mathrm{\Pi }^1G_0`$ . Then $`𝒱`$ and $`𝒱^{}`$ are locally direct summands of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝒬`$ of rank $`n+1`$ and $`n1`$ , respectively.
For every pair $`((G_0)_S,F)Z_2(S)`$ , the sheaf $`F`$ satisfies

$`𝒱_S^{}F𝒱_S`$ (4.1)
On the other hand, if $`F`$ satisfies (4.1) we have $`\mathrm{\Pi }F(G_0)_S`$ and $`(G_0)_SF`$ (recall that $`G_0𝒱^{}`$). Furthermore, $`F`$ is totally isotropic. Indeed, $`F/𝒱_S^{}`$ is a submodule of rank $`1`$ of $`𝒱_S/𝒱_S^{}`$ hence it is isotropic with respect to the induced symplectic form $`,`$ on $`𝒱_S/𝒱_S^{}\times 𝒱_S/𝒱_S^{}`$ . Set $`=𝒱/𝒱^{}`$ . This is a locally free sheaf of rank $`2`$ on $`𝒬`$ . It follows that

$`Z_2(S)=\{Fg^{}F\text{ is a locally direct summand of rank }1\},`$
where $`g`$ is the morphism $`S𝒬`$ . Hence $`Z_2()`$ . ∎

###### Step 3.

Obviously, $`Z_1`$ is not contained in $`Z_2`$ or vice versa.

###### Claim.

$`_s=Z_1Z_2`$ .

###### Proof.

We show that

$`_sZ_2(\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})𝒬`$
is an isomorphism. Choose a point $`z(\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})𝒬`$ . Hence $`z`$ corresponds to a $`\kappa (z)`$-subvectorspace $`F_0`$ of $`\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{\kappa (z)}=\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\kappa (z)`$ of dimension one. Let $`S`$ be a scheme over $`\text{Spec}(\kappa (z))`$ . For every pair $`((F_0)_S,F)\phi ^1(z)(S)`$ we have the relations

$`(F_0)_SF(\mathrm{\Pi }^1(F_0))_S.`$ (4.2)
Now $`F_0\mathrm{\Pi }^1(F_0)`$ (recall that $`z`$ is not contained in $`𝒬`$). We conclude that $`(F_0\mathrm{\Pi }^1(F_0))_S`$ is a submodule of $`F`$ . But for every point $`sS`$ we have an inclusion $`(F_0\mathrm{\Pi }^1(F_0))_{\kappa (s)}F_{\kappa (s)}`$ of vectorspaces of the same dimension, hence they are equal. By Nakayama’s lemma, $`(F_0\mathrm{\Pi }^1(F_0))_S=F`$ . On the other hand, the relations in (4.2) are also true if we replace $`F`$ by $`\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_S`$ , hence $`F=\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_S`$ . It follows that the fiber in $`z`$ is isomorphic to $`\text{Spec}(\kappa (z))`$ . The same argument as in the proof of proposition 4.3 shows that the map $`_sZ_2(\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})𝒬`$ is an isomorphism. ∎

###### Step 4.

We have shown that $`Z_1`$ and $`Z_2`$ are the irreducible components of $`_s`$ . The scheme $`Z_1Z_2=Z_1\times _{M_s^{loc}}Z_2`$ is smooth of dimension $`n2`$ as for every $`\text{Spec}(k)`$-scheme $`S`$ we have

$`(F_0,F)Z_1(S)Z_2(S)F=\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_S\text{ and }F_0𝒬(S).`$
Thus $`Z_1Z_2𝒬`$ .
It follows from proposition 4.3 that $`M_s`$ is reduced outside the closed subscheme $`Z_1`$ , as $`M_s^{loc}`$ is even smooth outside the point $`y`$ (see theorem 3.2). To show that $`M_s`$ is reduced even along $`Z_1`$ , we take an open affine covering of $`(\mathrm{\Lambda })\times Gr_n(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and write down the equations that define $``$ in a neighbourhood of $`Z_1`$ .
We represent $`F`$ by giving $`n`$ generating vectors $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_n`$ (with respect to the basis $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_n,\mathrm{\Pi }e_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Pi }e_n`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$). Hence we may view $`F`$ as a $`2n\times n`$-matrix. The condition that $`rk(F)=n`$ is expressed by imposing that a certain $`n`$-minor of the matrix is invertible. As we are only interested in points $`F`$ with $`\overline{F}=\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ , we can restrict to the case that

$`F=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a_{11}& \mathrm{}& a_{1n}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ a_{n1}& \mathrm{}& a_{nn}\\ 1& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 1\end{array}\right).`$
In the same way we identify $`F_0`$ with

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}b_1\\ \mathrm{}\\ b_{2n}\end{array}\right)`$
with the additional condition that $`b_k=1`$ for some $`k\{1,\mathrm{},2n\}`$ . Set $`A=(a_{ij})`$ .
The condition that $`F`$ is isotropic translates to

$`A=A^t.`$ (4.3)
The condition $`F_0F`$ translates to

$`\lambda _i,i=1\mathrm{}n:b={\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\lambda _lv_l.`$ (4.4)
But this implies that $`\lambda _i=b_{n+i}`$ for $`i\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ . Set

$`\lambda =\left(\begin{array}{c}b_{n+1}\\ \mathrm{}\\ b_{2n}\end{array}\right).`$
It follows that equation (4.4) is equivalent to

$`A\lambda =\left(\begin{array}{c}b_1\\ \mathrm{}\\ b_n\end{array}\right).`$ (4.5)
The condition $`(\mathrm{\Pi }\pi )F_0=(0)`$ is equivalent to

$`A\lambda =\pi \lambda .`$ (4.6)
Note that (4.6) implies that $`b_i1`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ . Hence it suffices to consider the case $`k\{n+1,\mathrm{},2n\}`$ . Next we have $`(\mathrm{\Pi }+\pi )FF_0`$ . This is equivalent to

$`\gamma =\left(\begin{array}{c}\gamma _1\\ \mathrm{}\\ \gamma _n\end{array}\right):A+\pi Id=\lambda \gamma ^t.`$ (4.7)
The equations (4.5) and (4.6) imply that $`F`$ is $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$-stable. We may replace $`A`$ by $`\lambda \gamma ^{}\pi Id`$ . Hence (4.3) – (4.7) is equivalent to

$`\lambda \gamma ^t`$ $`=\gamma \lambda ^t;`$ (4.8)
$`\lambda \gamma ^t\lambda `$ $`=2\pi \lambda ;`$ (4.9)
$`\lambda _k`$ $`=1.`$ (4.10)
Using (4.10), equation (4.8) is equivalent to

$`\gamma _i=\gamma _k\lambda _i,i=1,\mathrm{},n.`$
Hence for $`ik,\gamma _i`$ is determined by $`\lambda _i`$ and $`\gamma _k`$ . It follows that equation (4.9) translates to

$`({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\lambda _i^2)\gamma _k=2\pi .`$
Set $`y=\gamma _k`$ and $`x_i=\lambda _i`$ . We have shown that the open subschemes

$`U_k`$ $`=\text{Spec}(R[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y]/(y({\displaystyle x_i^2})2\pi ,x_k1))`$ (4.11)
of $``$ cover $`Z_1`$ . We have

$`Z_1U_k`$ $`=\text{Spec}(k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]/(x_k1));`$
$`Z_2U_k`$ $`=\text{Spec}(k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y]/(x_k1,{\displaystyle x_i^2}));`$
$`(Z_1Z_2)U_k`$ $`=\text{Spec}(k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]/(x_k1,{\displaystyle x_i^2})).`$
We conclude that $`_s`$ is reduced.

###### Step 5.

The morphism $`\text{Spec}(R)`$ is flat.

###### Proof.

If $`x`$ is a point of $``$ which does not lie on $`Z_1`$ , then the morphism $`\text{Spec}(R)`$ is flat in $`x`$ , as $`Z_1M^{loc}y`$ is an isomorphism (see proposition 4.3) and the latter scheme is even smooth over $`\text{Spec}(R)`$ (see theorem 3.2). If $`xZ_1`$ , then there is a number $`k`$ such that $`xU_k`$ as in (4.11). But it is obvious that $`U_k`$ is flat over $`\text{Spec}(R)`$ .∎

###### Step 6.

It remains to show that $``$ is regular of dimension $`n`$ . Since the generic fiber $`_\eta `$ of $``$ is smooth, the local ring $`𝒪_{,x}`$ is regular of dimension $`n1`$ if $`x_\eta `$ is a closed point (recall that $`dim_\eta =n1`$). As $`\text{Spec}(R)`$ is flat, it follows that for all closed points $`x`$ lying on the special fiber we have $`dim𝒪_{,x}=n`$ and that $``$ is regular in $`x`$ if $`x`$ is not contained in $`Z_1Z_2`$ , because $``$ is smooth outside $`Z_1Z_2`$ . Hence we only have to show that $`𝒪_{,x}`$ is regular for closed points lying on $`Z_1Z_2`$ . Let $`x`$ be such a point. There is a number $`k`$ such that $`xU_k`$ . We have

$`𝒪_{Z_1Z_2,x}`$ $`=𝒪_{,x}/(y,{\displaystyle x_i^2},\pi )`$
$`=𝒪_{,x}/(y,{\displaystyle x_i^2})`$
(as $`2\pi =0`$ implies $`\pi =0`$). As $`B=𝒪_{Z_1Z_2,x}`$ is a regular local ring of dimension $`n2`$ , there are elements $`\overline{t}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{t}_{n2}`$ generating $`m_B/m_B^2`$ . We can lift these elements to $`C=𝒪_{,x}`$ . Hence $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_{n2},y,x_i^2`$ generate $`m_C/m_C^2`$ . On the other hand $`dim𝒪_{,x}=n`$ , hence $``$ is regular in $`x`$ .

As the dimension of the generic fiber is $`n1`$ and for all closed points $`x`$ lying on the special fiber $`dim𝒪_{,x}=n`$ , the dimension of $``$ is $`n`$ . This completes the proof of theorem 4.5 . ∎

## 5 Trace of Frobenius on the sheaf of nearby cycles

Denote by $`R`$ a henselian discrete valuation ring. Let $`X`$ be a scheme of finite type over $`S=\text{Spec}(R)`$ . Let $`\overline{\eta }`$ be a geometric point over $`\eta `$ and denote by $`\overline{s}`$ the corresponding geometric point over $`s`$ . Denote the characteristic exponent of $`s`$ by $`p`$ . Consider the diagram

$`\begin{array}{ccccc}X_{\overline{\eta }}& \stackrel{\overline{j}}{}& X& \stackrel{\tau }{}& X_s\\ & & & & & & \\ \overline{\eta }& & S& & s\end{array}.`$
###### Definition 5.1.

Let $`l`$ be a prime number with $`lp`$ . The sheaf

$`R^i\mathrm{\Psi }_l=\tau ^{}R^i\overline{j}_{}_l`$
on $`X_s`$ is called the $`i`$-th sheaf of nearby cycles. Denote by $`I\text{Gal}(\overline{\eta }/\eta )`$ the inertia group and by $`PI`$ the biggest subgroup of $`I`$ which is a pro-$`p`$-group. The sheaf

$`R^i\mathrm{\Psi }_t_l=(R^i\mathrm{\Psi }_l)^P`$
is called the $`i`$-th sheaf of tame nearby cycles.

Suppose that the residue field of $`s`$ is contained in $`𝔽_q`$ . Consider the geometric Frobenius $`\text{Frob}_q`$ over $`𝔽_q`$ i.e. the map $`xx^{1/q}`$ on $`\kappa (\overline{s})`$ . For a $`𝔽_q`$-valued point $`x`$ of $`X_s`$ , we have the alternating semisimple trace

$`\text{Tr}^{\text{ss}}(\text{Frob}_q;R\mathrm{\Psi }_t(_l)_x^I)={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(1)^i\text{Tr}^{\text{ss}}(\text{Frob}_q;R^i\mathrm{\Psi }_t(_l)_x^I).`$
We are going to compute this alternating semisimple trace in the case where $`X`$ is the local model $`M^{loc}`$ introduced in section 3 and $`(r,s)=(n1,1)`$ . We do this in two steps: First we calculate the trace on $``$ and then relate it to the trace on $`M^{loc}`$ . We assume in the rest of the section that $`k=R/\pi `$ is contained in $`𝔽_q`$ .

###### Theorem 5.2.

Let $`X`$ be a scheme over $`S`$ of finite type with smooth generic fiber. Suppose that the special fiber is a reduced divisor with normal crossings. Assume further that $`X_{\overline{s}}`$ is globally the union of smooth irreducible divisors. Let $`xX_s`$ and let $`S_x`$ be the set of irreducible components of $`X_{\overline{s}}`$ passing through $`x`$ . Then

$`R^1\mathrm{\Psi }_t(_l)_x`$ $`=\text{ker}({\displaystyle \underset{S_x}{}}_l(1)\stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}_l(1));`$
$`R^i\mathrm{\Psi }_t(_l)_x`$ $`={\displaystyle ^i}R^1\mathrm{\Psi }_t(_l)_x.`$
In particular, the inertia group acts trivially on $`R^i\mathrm{\Psi }_t(_l)_x`$ .

###### Proof.

See , exp. I, theorem 3.3 . ∎

The operation of $`\text{Frob}_q`$ on the $`_l`$-vectorspace $`V:=_l(1)^n`$ is just multiplication with $`q`$ , hence we have $`\text{Tr}^{\text{ss}}(\text{Frob}_q,V)=nq`$ . It follows that for $`j\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ we have $`\text{Tr}^{\text{ss}}(\text{Frob}_q,^jV)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{j}\right)q^j`$ .
As the scheme $``$ satisfies the conditions of theorem 5.2 (recall that we assume that $`k`$ is contained in $`𝔽_q`$) , we have

$`\text{Tr}^{\text{ss}}(\text{Frob}_q,R\mathrm{\Psi }_t(_l)_x^I)={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{t}{}}}(1)^j\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{t}{j}}\right)q^j=(1q)^t`$
for every $`x_s`$ (with $`t=|S_x|1`$). The following theorem connects the alternating semisimple traces of Frobenius on $``$ resp. $`M^{loc}`$ .

###### Theorem 5.3.

Assume that $`\kappa (s)`$ is contained in $`𝔽_q`$ and let $`X^{}\stackrel{f}{}X`$ be a proper morphism of $`S`$-schemes of finite type. Suppose that $`f`$ is an isomorphism on the generic fibers, and denote by $`R\mathrm{\Psi }_t`$ resp. $`R\mathrm{\Psi }_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ the sheaves of tame nearby cycles on $`X`$ resp. $`X^{}`$ . For $`xX(𝔽_q)`$ we have

$`\text{Tr}^{\text{ss}}(\text{Frob}_q;R\mathrm{\Psi }_t(_l)_x)={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{x^{}X^{}\left(𝔽_q\right)}{x^{}x}}{}}\text{Tr}^{\text{ss}}(\text{Frob}_q;R\mathrm{\Psi }_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(_l)_x^{})`$
###### Proof.

Compare , corollary 4.3 . ∎

In section 4 we saw that the morphism

$`(𝔽_q)\stackrel{\tau (𝔽_q)}{}M^{loc}(𝔽_q)`$
is bijective outside the point $`\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝔽_q}=\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔽_q`$ and that for every point $`x\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝔽_q}`$ the preimage lies on only one irreducible component (namely $`Z_2`$). In this case we have

$`\text{Tr}^{\text{ss}}(\text{Frob}_q;R\mathrm{\Psi }_t(_l)_x)=1.`$
Now consider the $`\text{Spec}(𝔽_q)`$-valued point $`y=\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝔽_q}`$ of $`M^{loc}`$ . As explained in section 4 the preimage of $`y`$ under the map $`(𝔽_q)M^{loc}(𝔽_q)`$ is $`(\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})(𝔽_q)`$ . By definition, every $`𝔽_q`$-rational point point $`F_0=\text{sp}\{a_1\mathrm{\Pi }e_1+\mathrm{}+a_n\mathrm{\Pi }e_n\}`$ of $`\tau ^1(y)`$ lies on the irreducible component $`Z_1`$ and it lies on $`Z_2`$ if and only if $`a_i^2=0`$. Hence the number of $`𝔽_q`$-rational points of $`\tau ^1(y)`$ lying on both irreducible components equals

$`z=|𝒬(𝔽_q)|={\displaystyle \frac{|\{(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)𝔽_q^n|a_i^2=0\}|1}{q1}}.`$
Hence for the point $`y`$ the alternating semisimple trace of Frobenius equals

$`\text{Tr}^{\text{ss}}(\text{Frob}_q;R\mathrm{\Psi }_t(_l)_y)`$ $`=z(1q)+(|(\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})(𝔽_q)|z)1`$
$`=z(1q)+{\displaystyle \frac{q^n1}{q1}}z`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{q^n1}{q1}}zq.`$
There is an explicit formula for $`z`$ (see e.g. , lemma 1.3.1):

$`z={\displaystyle \frac{q^{n1}\chi q^{\frac{n}{2}1}+\chi q^{\frac{n}{2}}1}{q1}};`$
with $`\chi =0`$ if $`n`$ is odd and $`\chi =1`$ or $`1`$ if $`n`$ is even, depending on whether $`𝔽_q^n`$ is hyperbolic with respect to $`vv_i^2`$ or not. Combining these two results we obtain the following theorem.

###### Theorem 5.4.

Let $`x`$ be a $`𝔽_q`$-rational point of $`M^{loc}`$ and denote by $`y`$ the point corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ . If $`xy`$ we have

$`\text{Tr}^{\text{ss}}(\text{Frob}_q;R\mathrm{\Psi }_t(_l)_x)=1.`$
For $`x=y`$ we have

$`\text{Tr}^{\text{ss}}(\text{Frob}_q;R\mathrm{\Psi }_t(_l)_y)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }n\text{ is odd}\hfill \\ 1q^{\frac{n}{2}}\hfill & \text{if }n\text{ is even and }𝔽_q^n\text{ is hyperbolic}\hfill \\ 1+q^{\frac{n}{2}}\hfill & \text{if }n\text{ is even and }𝔽_q^n\text{ is not hyperbolic}.\hfill \end{array}`$