text:
# Supersymmetry Physics at Linear Colliders Plenary talk given at SUSY02, 10^{𝑡ℎ} International Conference on Supersymmetry and Unification of Fundamental Interactions, June 17–23, 2002, DESY Hamburg

## 1 Introduction

There is a worldwide consensus that the next important high energy physics project should be the construction of a $`e^+e^{}`$ Linear Collider (LC) in the $`0.51\mathrm{TeV}`$ energy range. One of the main arguments is the exploration of supersymmetry (SUSY). If the attractive concept of low energy, electro-weak scale supersymmetry is realised in Nature, then supersymmetry will be discovered at future hadron collider experiments . In many scenarios the production thresholds of the lightest supersymmetric particles, in particular neutralinos and charginos, are expected to be below about 1 TeV, while the Lhc is sensitive to gluinos and squarks with masses up to 2.5 TeV. However, the Lhc will only be able to reveal the gross features of supersymmetry. Many essential questions will be left open:
— Can each particle be associated to its superpartner with the expected spin-parity, gauge quantum numbers and couplings?
— What are the exact masses, widths and branching ratios? What are the production and decay properties, the mixing parameters and CP phases?
— What is the underlying SUSY breaking mechanism? How to reconstruct the fundamental theory and extrapolate its parameters to high energy, GUT scales?

Answers to these elementary questions can only be provided by precision experiments at a high luminosity $`e^+e^{}`$ Linear Collider. There are currently three Linear Collider projects, well advanced such that their construction may start in the near future: the German Tesla  design adopting superconducting cavities, the US Nlc  and the Japanese Jlc  projects using normal conducting cavities. The initial energies will be 500 GeV and all LCs will be upgradeable to reach about 1 TeV. This energy may be insufficient to produce the complete sparticle spectrum; ideas for multi-TeV collisions are being developed for Clic . Some parameters of the future LCs relevant for experimentation are compiled in table 1. Most important for SUSY studies is the availability of polarised beams, being indispensable for electrons and highly desirable for positrons. Furthermore $`e^{}e^{}`$, $`e^{}\gamma `$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ options may be provided.

The phenomenological implications of several SUSY scenarios, giving very distinct signatures, will be discussed: the minimal supergravity model (mSUGRA), gauge mediated (GMSB) and anomaly mediated (AMSB) supersymmetry breaking models (see e.g. LC reports ). Lacking reliable predictions, various benchmark scenarios have been proposed. Extensive work has been done within mSUGRA models, notably assuming the benchmarks of the Tesla tdr  and the Snowmass consensus .

Simulations of SUSY spectra serve to exploit the potential and to define the requirements of $`e^+e^{}`$ collider experiments; The results can often be easily extrapolated to other model parameters. A general exploration strategy would be to get an overview over the accessible SUSY processes at the highest collider energy and then investigate in a bottom-up approach particular channels choosing the appropriate enegy and beam polarisations. Usually, the background from SUSY is larger than from SM physics.

Obviously the expected accuracy has to be matched with improved, higher order theoretical calculations, as discussed by Majerotto . The extraction of the fundamental SUSY parameters, a model-independent determination of the symmetry breaking mechanism and the extrapolation of these parameters to high scales are discussed by Kalinowski .

In the following, studies within mSUGRA are presented, which is characterised by a few parameters: the universal scalar mass $`m_0`$, the universal gaugino mass $`m_{1/2}`$, the trilinear coupling $`A_0`$, the ratio of the Higgs vaccum expectation values $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the sign of the Higgsino parameter sign $`\mu `$. Detailed simulations and estimates on precisions achievable in a reasonable run time have been performed for the RR 1 model of the Tesla studies  and the Snowmass point SPS 1 . The spectra are shown in fig. 1. Both provide many superpartners to be accessible with a LC of 500 GeV energy, the main differences are $`\tau `$ rich $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ decays of SPS 1 due to the larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

## 2 Properties of sleptons

Scalar leptons are easy to detect and belong in many models to the lightest observable sparticles. They are produced in pairs

$`e^+e^{}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_i^+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_j^{},\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}[i,j=L,R\mathrm{or}1,2]`$ (1)
via $`s`$-channel $`\gamma /Z`$ exchange and $`t`$-channel $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ exchange for the first generation. The various states and $`L,R`$ quantum numbers can be efficiently disentangled by a proper choice of beam energy and polarisation. The cross section for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R^+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R^{}`$ production is much larger for right-handed $`e_R^{}`$ than for left-handed $`e_L^{}`$ electrons; positron polarisation further enhances the effect.

The isotropic two-body decays

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0,`$ (2)
$`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+`$ (3)
allow for a clean identification and lead to a uniform lepton energy spectrum. The minimum and maximum (‘endpoint’) energies

$`E_{+/}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}^2}{m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2}}\right)\gamma (1\pm \beta )`$ (4)
can be used for an accurate determination of the masses of the primary slepton and the secondary neutralino/chargino. This feature makes slepton production particularly attractive.

### 2.1 Study of smuons in continuum

Examples of mass measurements using the $`\mu `$ energy spectra of $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_L\stackrel{~}{\mu }_L`$ production are shown in fig. 2. The distributions are not perfectly flat due to beamstrahlung, QED radiation, selection criteria and detector resolutions. In the simple case of $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R`$ pair production a small background from $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is present. With a moderate luminosity the masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ can be obtained with an accuracy of about 3 per mil. The partner $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_L`$ is more difficult to detect because of large background from $`WW`$ pairs and SUSY cascades. However, with the high luminosity of Tesla one may select the rare decay modes $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_L\mu \stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, leading to a unique, background free signature $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\mathrm{}^\pm E/`$. The contributions of false $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ pairs from $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ decays can be readily subtracted using the corresponding $`e^+e^{}`$ cascade decays. The achievable mass resolutions for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_L}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}`$ is of the order of 2 per mil.

If the neutralino mass is known one can make use of correlations between the two observed muons. The $`\mu `$ momentum vectors can be arranged with the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0`$ momenta, whose magnitudes are calculable, in such a way as to give two back-to-back primary smuons under the assumption of a kinematically allowed minimum mass $`m_{\mathrm{min}}(\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R)`$. The resulting distribution in fig. 3 has a pronounced edge at the actual smuon mass, while the background is flat. The mass resolution can be improved by a factor of two.

An important quantity is the spin of the slepton which can be directly determined from their angular distribution. If the slepton and neutralino mass are known, one can reconstruct from the event kinematics the polar angle $`\theta `$ of the slepton up to a twofold ambiguity. The wrong solution is flat in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and can be subtracted. The angular distribution of the reaction $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R`$, shown in fig. 3, clearly exhibits a $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ behaviour as expected for a scalar particle.

### 2.2 Study of selectrons in continuum

Similar investigations can be performed for selectrons, but with higher accuracy due to larger cross sections. Of particular interest is the associated production of

$`e_R^{}e_R^+\stackrel{~}{e}_R^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_L^+`$ $`\mathrm{and}`$ $`e_L^{}e_L^+\stackrel{~}{e}_L^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_R^+`$ (5)
via $`t`$-channel $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0`$ exchange. Note that both $`e^\pm `$ beams carry the same helicity, which is ‘odd’ with respect to the usual $`\gamma /Z`$ exchange. For polarised beams the charge of the observed lepton can be directly associated to the $`L,R`$ quantum numbers of the selectrons and the energy spectrum uniquely determines whether it comes from the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ or the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ decay.

These properties have been used to disentangle the reaction $`e_{R,L}^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ from the simultaneous $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ production at $`\sqrt{s}=500\mathrm{GeV}`$ in the SPS 1 scenario . The idea is to eliminate all charge symmetric background by a double subtraction of $`e^{}`$ and $`e^+`$ energy spectra and opposite electron beam polarisations $`𝒫_e^{}=+0.8`$ and $`𝒫_e^{}=0.8`$, symbolically $`(E_e^{}E_{e^+})_{e_R^{}}(E_e^{}E_{e^+})_{e_L^{}}`$. The results of a simulation, shown in fig. 4, exhibit clear edges or ‘endpoints‘ from the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ decays. They can be used to determine both selectron masses to an accuracy of $`\delta m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R,\stackrel{~}{e}_L}0.8\mathrm{GeV}`$. This elegant method would profit considerably from additional positron beam polarisation, which could effectively enhance the signal and suppress the background.

### 2.3 Sneutrino production

Sneutrinos are being identified via their decay into the corresponding charged lepton and the subsequent chargino decays $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm q\overline{q}^{}/\mathrm{}^\pm \nu \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ leading to additional jets and leptons. The final topology, e.g. $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu \stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu \mu ^+\mu ^{}\mathrm{}^\pm 2jE/`$, is very clean and the event rates are large, in particular for $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$ production. The energy spectra of the primary leptons, see fig. 5, can be used to determine $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ to 2 per mil or better. Furthermore the di-jet energy and mass spectra can be used to measure the chargino couplings and the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ mass difference very precisely; a resolution below 50 MeV, given essentially by detector systematics, appears feasible. The detection and measurement of tau-sneutrinos $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau `$ is more problematic, due to losses in decay modes and decay energy spectra.

### 2.4 Threshold scans

High precision masses of accuracy $`𝒪(0.1\mathrm{GeV})`$ can be obtained by scanning the excitation curve close to production threshold. Slepton pairs $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_i`$ are produced in a P-wave state with a characteristic rise of the cross section $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}}\beta ^3`$, where $`\beta =\sqrt{14m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2/s}`$. Thus, a measurement of the shape of the cross section carries information on the mass and the spin $`J=0`$ of the sleptons. With the anticipated precision it is necessary to have an improved theory taking the finite width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ and higher order corrections into account. Complete one-loop calculations have been performed for $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}\stackrel{~}{e}`$ production . Examples of SPS 1 simulations within this frame are shown in fig. 6. Using polarised beams and $`=50\mathrm{fb}^1`$ a (highly correlated) 2-parameter fit gives $`\delta m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}=0.20\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}=0.25\mathrm{GeV}`$; the resolution deteriorates by a factor of $`2`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R`$ production.

A remarkable feature of pure $`t`$-channel selectron production, namely $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ and $`e^{}e^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_R,\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$, is that the cross section rises more steeply as $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{e}\stackrel{~}{e}}\beta `$. This property makes the $`e^{}e^{}`$ mode particularly attractive. Moreover, the cross sections are much larger than in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions, due to the missing destructive interference with the $`s`$-channel amplitude. A threshold curve for $`e_R^{}e_R^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ is shown in fig. 6; the gain in resolution is a factor $`4`$ with only a tenth of the luminosity, compared to $`e^+e^{}`$ beams.

### 2.5 $`𝝉`$ polarisation from $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝉}`$ decays

Sfermions of the third generation are in general mixed states due to the large Yukawa coupling of their superpartner fermions. For the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ sector one has

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1\\ \stackrel{~}{\tau }_2\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}& \mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}& \mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_L\\ \stackrel{~}{\tau }_R\end{array}\right)`$ (12)
The mixing angle is related to the off-diagonal elements of the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ mass matrix

$$\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}=\frac{2m_\tau (A_\tau \mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}^2}.$$
(13)
The detection of $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0`$ is more difficult, but offers as additional information the $`\tau `$ polarisation, measurable via the energy spectra of decay particles. This option is useful in order to study neutralino properties and in particular to determine $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ at large values, which is problematic otherwise.

The $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ masses can be determined with the usual techniques of decay spectra (see fig. 7 for $`\tau \rho \nu `$ decay) or threshold scans at the per cent level. The mixing angle $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}|`$ can be extracted with high accuracy from cross section measurements with different beam polarisations or at different cm energies.

The $`\tau `$ polarisation is related to the mixing of th $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ as well as to the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ coupling to the neutralino in the decay. The L/R quantum number is not directly transferred to the $`\tau `$ lepton. The gaugino component of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0`$ preserves the ‘chirality’ flow while the Higgsino causes a flip

$`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{R(L)}\tau _{R(L)}\stackrel{~}{B}`$ $`\mathrm{and}`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{R(L)}\tau _{L(R)}\stackrel{~}{H}_1^0.`$ (14)
The $`\tau `$ polarisation can be measured using the energy distributions of the decay hadrons, e.g. $`\tau \pi \nu `$ and $`\tau \rho \nu \pi ^\pm \pi ^0\nu `$. Very sensitive is the energy ratio $`E_{\pi ^\pm }/E_\rho `$ in $`\rho `$ decaya, shown in fig. 7 for two opposite maximal polarisations, giving $`\delta 𝒫_\tau 10\%`$. The polarisation can be expressed in terms of the mixing angle $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ components . In a simplified case study an accuracy of 10 per cent for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values was achieved using the $`\tau `$ polarisation.

The formalism of $`\tau `$ polarisation from $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ decays has been generalised for any choice of MSSM parameters . Fig. 7 shows the polarisation dependence on the mixing angle for a $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ being a pure Bino. For small mixings both $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$’s behave very different. However, in order to be useful for a precise evaluation of large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the decay neutralinos must have a considerable Higgsino component. Assuming that the parameters of the neutralino sector are well measured elsewhere (see section 3.3), the application of eq. (13) would give direct access to the trilinear $`A_\tau `$ coupling.

### 2.6 Testing SUSY relations in slepton sector

The precise measurements of slepton properties can be used to extract the underlying SUSY parameters $`m_0`$, $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and to perform stringent tests of basic relations in the slepton sector. These results may then be compared to the findings in the chargino and neutralino systems.

* Supersymmetry requires the SM gauge couplings $`g(Vff)`$ and $`\overline{g}(V\stackrel{~}{f}\stackrel{~}{f})`$ of a vector boson $`V`$ and the Yukawa coupling $`\widehat{g}(\stackrel{~}{V}f\stackrel{~}{f})`$ of the corresponding gaugino $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ to be identical, $`g=\overline{g}=\widehat{g}`$. The couplings can be extracted from cross section measurements and their equality can be checked within a fraction of per cent.
* The universality and flavour dependence of slepton masses can be checked at the per mil level.
* The superpartner $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_R`$ of right handed neutrinos would change the slepton mass predictions and may become observable via $`2(m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_R}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau }^2)m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}^2`$, valid up to higher orders .
* The robust tree-level prediction $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_L}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}}^2=m_W^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$ relates the $`L`$-slepton masses of one generation and can be tested very accurately. It further offers a model-independent determination of low values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

## 3 Properties of charginos and neutralinos

Charginos and neutralinos are produced in pairs

$`e^+e^{}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^{}[i,j=1,2]`$ (15)
$``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0[i,j=1,\mathrm{},4]`$ (16)
via $`s`$-channel $`\gamma /Z`$ exchange and $`t`$-channel $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$ exchange. Beam polarisations are important to study the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ properties and couplings, e.g. by manipulating the $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$ exchange contribution. Since charginos and neutralinos carry spin $`1/2`$, the cross section rises as $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }\stackrel{~}{\chi }}\beta `$ leading to steep excitation curves at threshold.

Charginos and neutralinos decay into their lighter partners and gauge or Higgs bosons and sfermion-fermion pairs. For the light $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ states, only three-body decays via virtual gauge bosons and sfermions may be kinematically possible

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i`$ $``$ $`Z/W\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j,h\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j`$ (17)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ (18)
$``$ $`\mathrm{}^+\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0,q\overline{q}^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ (19)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ (20)
$``$ $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0,q\overline{q}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ (21)
In MSSM scenarios with $`R`$-parity conservation the lightest neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is stable. The signatures are multi-lepton, multi-jet final states with large missing energy. Similar to the slepton analyses, the energy and mass spectra of di-leptons respectively di-jets give access to accurate determinations of the primary and secondary $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ masses and mass differences.

### 3.1 Chargino studies

Chargino production occurs at a fairly large rate. Results of a simulation of the reaction $`e_R^+e_L^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\mathrm{}^\pm \nu _{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0q\overline{q}^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ are presented in fig. 8. From the di-jet energy distribution one expects a mass resolution of $`\delta m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=0.2\mathrm{GeV}`$, while the di-jet mass distributions constrains the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ mass splitting within about $`100\mathrm{MeV}`$. The excitation curve clearly exhibits the $`\beta `$ dependence consistent with the spin $`J=1/2`$ hypothesis. The mass resolution is excellent of $`𝒪(50\mathrm{MeV})`$, degrading to the per mil level for the higher $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm `$ state.

The properties of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm `$ system also depend on the exchanged sneutrino which may be too heavy to be produced directly at the LC. High sensitivity to the $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$ mass can be reached by studying polarised cross sections and spin correlations between the beam electron and the lepton in the decay $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}e^{}\nu _e\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, as shown in fig. 9. From such measurements one may indirectly detect sneutrinos up to masses of 1 TeV with a precision of 10 GeV.

### 3.2 Neutralino studies

The lightest detectable neutralino system $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ is difficult to observe in the presence of other SUSY particle production. More suitable is the reaction $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^02(\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^04\mathrm{}^\pm E/`$ with $`\mathrm{}=e,\mu `$. Again the di-lepton energy and mass distributions can be used to determine the neutralino masses. The problem of wrong lepton pairing can be readily solved by subtracting the false $`e\mu `$ combinations. From the spectra presented in fig. 10 one expects uncertainties in the primary and secondary $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ masses of about 2 per mil. Note that the mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ can be determined very precisely using the abundant cascade decays of other SUSY particles. A more accurate mass of $`\delta m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}<𝒪(100\mathrm{MeV})`$ can be derived from a threshold scan. The higher mass $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0`$ states, if accessible, can still be resolved with a resolution of a few hundred MeV.

Similar to the chargino system, the study of polarised cross section and spin correlations in angular distributions of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ decays provide high sensitivity to the exchanged selectron and the gaugino parameter $`M_1`$, which is complementary to $`\stackrel{~}{e}\stackrel{~}{e}`$ production.

### 3.3 Chargino and neutralino systems

The chargino system can be described by the fundamental MSSM parameters $`M_2`$, $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The neutralino sector depends in addition to these parameters on the $`U(1)`$ gaugino mass $`M_1`$. From the multitude of precision measurements — masses, polarised cross sections, polarisation asymmetries, etc. — it is possible to construct an over-constrained set of SUSY relations and to derive the basic parameters including all mixings in a model-independent way . Applied to the RR 1 benchmark point one finds $`M_1=78.7\pm 0.7\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`M_2=152\pm 1.8\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\mu =316\pm 0.9\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3\pm 0.7`$. However, this procedure has poor or almost no sensitivity to large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. In this case additional information may be provided by the $`\tau `$ polarisation in the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ system (see section 2.5).

In general the parameters $`M_1`$ and $`\mu `$ may be complex, allowing for $`𝒞𝒫`$ violating phases. This can be taken into account in such an analysis , although the sensitivity to masses and cross sections is rather limited. It is certainly more sensible to look directly for $`𝒞𝒫`$ sensitive observables, like triple vector products, in the chargino/neutralino systems.

## 4 Stop quark studies

It is conceivable that the lightest superpartner of the quarks is the stop quark $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ due to substantial mixings between $`\stackrel{~}{t}_R`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_L`$ induced by the large Yukawa coupling to the top mass. The $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ quark phenomenology is completely analogous to that of the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ system. It is characterised by two mass eigenstates $`st_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_2`$ and a mixing angle $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$, the lighter state being $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1=\stackrel{~}{t}_L\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}+\stackrel{~}{t}_R\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$. If the mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$ is below 250 GeV, it may not be observed at Lhc and it may be discovered at the Linear Collider.

The production of $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ has been studied for typical decay modes $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1c\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$. Both the mass and mixing angle can be determined simultaneously by measuring the production cross section with different beam polarisations, e.g. $`\sigma _{e_R^{}e_L^+}`$ and $`\sigma _{e_L^{}e_R^+}`$. Th results of a high luminosity simulation , presented in the $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ plane of fig. 11, provide high accuracies on the mass and mixing angle.

## 5 A run scenario to explore mSUGRA

One may wonder if such a rich programme, i.e. exploiting the properties of all kinematically accessible sparticles through cross section measurements in the continuum and at threshold including various combinations of beam polarisations, can be performed in a reasonable time. At the Snowmass Summer Study 2001 a possible run scenario for the SPS 1 mSUGRA benchmark model has been constructed . The Nlc machine performance was assumed with an energy of $`\sqrt{s}=500\mathrm{GeV}`$ and an electron (no positron) beam polarisation of $`𝒫_e^{}=0.8`$. The task was to distribute an integrated luminosity of $`=1000\mathrm{fb}^1`$ (500 GeV equivalent) and to estimate the achievable precisions on the SUSY mass spectrum. The time needed to accumulate the data corresponds to four good years of Nlc operation or probably rather seven years including the start up phase.

The results of this study are compiled in table 2. For all sparticles, except the muon and tau sneutrinos and the heavy $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ states, mass resolutions of a few hundred MeV or better have been estimated. Under the assumption that mSUGRA is the correct underlying theory, the SUSY parameters can be deduced with high precision: $`m_0=100\pm 0.08\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_{1/2}=250\pm 0.20\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`A_0=0\pm 13\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10\pm 0.5`$.

Similar precisions are quoted in a study of the RR 1 model at the Tesla Lc , where one profits from higher rates due to the availability of polarised positrons.

## 6 $`𝑹`$-parity violation

Many supersymmetric models assume that $`R`$-parity, $`R_p=(1)^{3B+L+2S}`$, is a conserved quantity. There is, however, no strong theoretical argument for this assumption. The general superpotential contains $`/R_p`$ tri-linear terms which violate lepton-number and baryon-number

$`W_{/R_p}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{\delta L0}{\underset{}{\lambda _{ijk}L_iL_j\overline{E}_k}}+\underset{\delta L0}{\underset{}{\lambda _{ijk}^{}L_iQ_j\overline{D}_k}}+\underset{\delta B0}{\underset{}{\lambda _{ijk}^{\prime \prime }\overline{U}_i\overline{D}_j\overline{D}_k}}.`$ (22)
$`R_p`$ violation changes the SUSY phenomenology drastically. The lightest superpartner (LSP), usually the neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, is no longer stable. Instead of the typical missing energy signature there are characteristic multi-lepton, multi-jet final states. A systematic investigation of $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{},\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0`$ production  demonstrates that $`/R_p`$ decays are easily recognised as events with at least three leptons plus few missing energy or jets ($`\lambda `$ or $`\lambda ^{}`$ couplings) or multi-jet events (6-10 jets for $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }>0`$). Despite large combinatorics a $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ mass reconstruction appears feasible.

For not too small $`/R_p`$ couplings $`\lambda _{1j1}`$ single sparticle production $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{}^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^{}`$ is possible, to be significantly enhanced by $`e_L^+e_L^{}`$ or $`e_R^+e_R^{}`$ beam polarisations.

The reaction $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }e^+e^{}`$, interfering with Bhabha scattering, is particular interesting, as illustrated in fig. 12. For $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}<\sqrt{s}`$ one expects spectacular narrow resonances, while very heavy sneutrinos can be detected via contact interactions up to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}=1.8\mathrm{TeV}`$ for $`\lambda _{1j1}=0.1`$ at the highest LC energy.

A simulation of single chargino production $`e^+e^{}\mu ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1\mu ^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\mathrm{}E/`$ is presented in fig. 12. The process can be easily identified and the pronounced peak of the recoil muon momentum can be used to measure the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ mass very accurately. A sensitivity of $`\lambda _{121}=10^4`$ for masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}150600\mathrm{GeV}`$ can be reached at $`\sqrt{s}=500\mathrm{GeV}`$. An interesting aspect is the polarisation dependence, $`e_L^+e_L^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\mu ^+`$ and $`e_R^+e_R^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\mu ^{}`$, caused by helicity flip of the $`\lambda _{121}`$ coupling.

## 7 AMSB scenario

In anomaly mediated SUSY breaking, AMSB, the symmetry breaking is not directly communicated, but is caused by loop effects. The gaugino and scalar masses are dynamically generated via loops. A characteristic feature is that gaugino masses are no longer universal and are related by the reversed hierarchy $`M_12.8M_2`$ at the electroweak scale. Now the wino is the lightest supersymmetric particle, which leads to almost degenerate masses of the light chargino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ and the wino-like neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$.

The decay modes and lifetime, and hence the search strategy for $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}(\gamma )`$ , depend entirely on the small mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1}=m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$, typically in the range $`0.22\mathrm{GeV}`$. Background from $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}\pi \pi `$ can be effectively suppressed by tagging an additional photon. The signatures comprise a stable heavily ionising chargino, a chargino decaying inside the detector with or without visible secondary particles, low momentum pions associated to secondary vertices and standard topologies. The LC discovery potential for AMSB scenarios is shown in fig. 13. Large parts of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ region are covered up to masses close to the kinematic production limit already with a low luminosity of $`50\mathrm{fb}^1`$. A measurement of the pion energy in the decay $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \pi ^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ allows for a very precise determination of the mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1}`$. The $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1`$ masses can be reconstructed to an accuracy of order one GeV from the energy spectrum of the radiative photon.

The full exploration of AMSB spectra, exhibiting substantially different properties compared to other SUSY breaking scenarios, and the extraction of the fundamental parameters ($`m_0`$, $`m_{3/2}`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\mathrm{sign}\mu `$) follows along the same lines as discussed above.

## 8 GMSB scenario

Supersymmetry breaking may also occur at a lower scale $`\sqrt{F}𝒪(100\mathrm{TeV})`$, much below supergravity, and gauge interactions may serve as messengers, a mechanism called gauge mediated SUSY breaking GMSB. The spectra of GMSB models have charginos, neutralinos and sleptons much lighter than squarks and gluinos. Most characteristic, the LSP is a light gravitino $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ of mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}(\sqrt{F}/100\mathrm{TeV})^2\mathrm{eV}`$. The phenomenology is determined by the properties of the next lightest sparticle, the unstable NLSP $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$, which decays into the gravitino with a lifetime $`c\tau (\sqrt{F})^4/(m_{\mathrm{NLSP}})^5`$. The theoretically allowed range of scales $`\sqrt{F}`$ translates into expected NLSP decay lengths of $`10^410^5\mathrm{cm}`$. Conversely, the detection of a NLSP decay and a measurement of its lifetime can be used to pin down the GMSB scenario and to extract the fundamental symmetry breaking scale.

Detailed studies over a large GMSB parameter space are presented in ref.  including simulations of inclusive $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ (NLSP) production and assuming the detector design of the Tesla tdr. Experimental signatures of the decays $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\gamma \stackrel{~}{G},f\overline{f}\stackrel{~}{G}`$ are displaced and time delayed photons and secondary vertices. The photon energy spectrum of the reaction $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\gamma \gamma \stackrel{~}{G}\stackrel{~}{G}`$, shown in fig. 14, provides the neutralino mass within two per mil. Various techniques like pointing calorimetry, tracking, vertexing and statistical photon counting methods ensure a measurement of the NLSP decay length $`c\tau `$ to better than $`10\%`$ over a large range of $`30\mu \mathrm{m}40\mathrm{m}`$. This provides a precision below $`5\%`$ on the symmetry breaking scale over the entire interesting region $`\sqrt{F}=110^4\mathrm{TeV}`$.

Scenarios with sleptons as NLSP, e.g. decays $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1\tau \stackrel{~}{G}`$ leading to long lived, heavy particles or $`\tau `$ pairs from secondary vertices, have also been investigated . NLSP lifetime and mass measurements of the accessible sparticle spectrum can be used to determine the fundamental GMSB parameters ($`M_{\mathrm{mess}}`$, $`N_{\mathrm{mess}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\mathrm{sign}\mu `$) at the per cent level or better.

## 9 Experimentation at CLIC

A multi-TeV collider like Clic may be required to explore the complete spectrum of SUSY particles. In particular the coloured squarks and gluinos are in many models expected to be very heavy, with masses of order TeV. Experimental challenges at these high energies are the low cross sections, the diminishing mass differences within a sparticle multiplet, the cm energy smearing due to increasing QED radiation and beamstrahlung (see table 1) and a reduced resolution of high momentum particles.

A first case study has been performed for $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$ production in the focus point mSUGRA scenario SPS 2 . In this model the sleptons are relatively heavy with masses $`1.45\mathrm{TeV}`$ and widths of order 10 GeV comparable to the mass separation, while the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ states are much lighter ($`100300\mathrm{GeV}`$), thus opening many decay channels. Simulations of energy spectra of di-electron events are shown in fig. 15 for $`\sqrt{s}=3.5\mathrm{TeV}`$. Energy ‘endpoints’ are clearly observable. However, all sparticles provide very similar spectra and are difficult to resolve. Beam polarisation and further topology information may help to disentangle the selectrons and $`e`$-sneutrino. The detection and study of squarks, smuons and staus is much more difficult, the production rates being an order of magnitude smaller.

At high masses the excitation curves are less steep and their rise extends over few hundred GeV, possibly covering several production thresholds. An anticipated precision at the per cent level requires good knowledge of the branching ratios and control of the background to attobarns.

Obviously, a comprehensive study of very heavy sparticles is an ambitious task. It appears to be feasible with the present Clic design, although with less accuracy than for lower mass states. In any case high luminosity and high beam polarisations are mandatory, a reduction of the beamstrahlung width would be desirable.

## 10 Conclusions and outlook

Experiments at future $`e^+e^{}`$ Linear Colliders offer an enormous potential to discover and explore the superparticle spectra and will be essential to establish the basic concepts of supersymmetry. Linear Colliders are ideal instruments to carry out extremely precise measurements of the superpartner properties and interactions. Specifically such measurements comprise masses, widths, branching ratios, couplings and mixing parameters, gauge quantum numbers, spin-parity, $`𝒞𝒫`$ phases, …These high precision data are necessary in order to perform model independent analyses of the detailed structure of the underlying supersymmetry theory, to determine its fundamental parameters and the symmetry breaking mechanism. The resulting reliable extrapolations to very high scales offer the possibility to test our ideas on particle physics close to the Planck scale, where gravity becomes important.

The proposed Linear Collider projects are planned to reach center-of-mass energies around $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$, which should be sufficient to cover a large part of model predictions for sparticle masses. An extension to multi-TeV energies at a later stage may be required to detect and uncover the complete SUSY spectrum. It has been recognised by the international high energy physics community, that a high luminosity, TeV scale Linear Collider should be realised in the near future with high priority. Such a machine would beautifully complement the Lhc searches with its preference for heavy coloured supersymmetric particles. It appears particularly attractive and most desirable that both hadron and lepton colliders take data at the same time and benefit mutually in their SUSY analyses from a combination of their results. For instance, the Lc could provide the masses and quantum numbers of light gauginos and sleptons, while the Lhc may support information on the heavy squarks. Examples of such a synergy effect are presented in fig. 16. Almost all sparticles of the Snowmass benchmark spectra  would be accessible and their properties could be determined. Using the accurate sparticle masses, it would be possible to establish in a model independent approach the nature of supersymmetry breaking . The evolution of gaugino and scalar mass parameters to very high scales, shown for mSUGRA, clearly allows one to distinguish between models and to test unification. After a few years of $`e^+e^{}`$ Linear Collider operation a rich and coherent picture of supersymmetry could emerge.

#### Acknowledgement

I want to thank the organisers of SUSY 02 for the invitation to give this talk and for having prepared this excellent conference. I have profited from many stimulating discussions with my colleagues from the SUSY working group of the Ecfa/Desy Study.


format: text

text:
# 1 INTRODUCTION

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Let $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ be two analytic plane irreducible curves (branches) defined in a neighbourhood of the origin and having singularities there. The branches are said to be topologically equivalent if there are neighbourhoods $`U`$ and $`U^{}`$ of the origin such that $`C`$ is defined in $`U`$, $`C^{}`$ in $`U^{}`$, and there is a homeomorphism $`T:UU^{}`$ such that $`T(CU)=C^{}U^{}`$.

If $`F(X,Y)[[X,Y]]`$ is an irreducible formal power series, the local ring $`𝒪=[[X,Y]]/(F)`$ is called a (plane) algebroid branch. Two algebroid branches are formally equivalent if they have the same multiplicity sequence (see below for the definition of multiplicity sequence). Every algebroid (analytic resp.) branch is formally (topologically, resp.) equivalent to an algebraic branch, i.e. a branch defined by a polynomial , and if two analytic branches are formally equivalent, they are topologically equivalent. We will in the sequel consider algebroid branches.

Zariski has shown () that two branches are formally equivalent if and only if they have the same semigroup of values (see below for the definition of the value semigroup of a branch).

The crucial result of Section 2 is Proposition 2.3, which gives the relation between the value semigroups of an algebroid plane branch $`𝒪`$ and its blowup $`𝒪^{}`$. It is a result contained in . Apéry proved that, in order to show that the value semigroup $`v(𝒪)`$ of an algebroid plane branch $`𝒪`$ is symmetric. Subsequently Kunz proved that, for any analytically irreducible ring $`𝒪`$, $`𝒪`$ is Gorenstein if and only if $`v(𝒪)`$ is symmetric. So now it is more common to say that the value semigroup of an algebroid plane branch is symmetric because the ring is Gorenstein (it is in fact a complete intersection). At any rate we are interested in Apéry’s result for different reasons. By its use we give an easy proof of the fact that two plane algebroid branches are formally equivalent if and only if they have the same semigroup of values. We get also a well known formula of Hironaka and apply it again in Sections 3 and 4. The material in Section 3 is classical too and essentially contained in Enriqes-Chisini’s work, but what is new, is the use of Apéry’s Lemma in this context. After characterizing all possible multiplicity sequences for plane branches, we give a criterion to check if a semigroup is the value semigroup of a plane branch. In Section 4, we determine the semigroup of a plane branch from its parametrization, here also using results from . This result is well known, but the proof is new as far as we know. Finally in Section 5 we show that the semigroup ring of the semigroup of a plane curve is a complete intersection.

## 2 PLANE BRANCHES

Starting from Apéry’s article , we will proceed to explicate and expand various elements that are presented in the original arguments in a summary or not totally developed manner.

Let $`𝒪=[[X,Y]]/(F)=[[x,y]]`$, where $`F`$ is irreducible in $`[[X,Y]]`$ be an algebroid plane branch. Since $`F(X,Y)`$ is irreducible, then $`F(X,Y)`$ must contain some term $`X^i`$ and some term $`Y^j`$ (otherwise $`F`$ is not irreducible since we could factor out $`X`$ or $`Y`$). Denote the minimal such powers by $`n`$ and $`m`$ respectively. Then, by the Weierstrass Preparation Theorem, the same ideal $`(F)`$ can be generated by an element $`X^n+\varphi (X,Y)`$, where $`\varphi (X,Y)`$ is a polynomial of degree $`n1`$ in $`X`$ with coefficients which are power series in $`Y`$ (or vice versa by an element $`Y^m+\psi (X,Y)`$, where $`\psi (X,Y)`$ is a polynomial of degree $`m1`$ in $`Y`$ with coefficients which are power series in $`X`$). This gives that $`𝒪`$ is generated by $`1,x,\mathrm{},x^{n1}`$ as $`[[y]]`$-module (or generated by $`1,y,\mathrm{},y^{m1}`$ as $`[[x]]`$-module).

The Puiseux Theorem gives that the branch has a parametric representation $`x=t^m,y=a_it^i`$ (or $`x=_{im}b_it_1^i,y=t_1^n`$, where $`[[t]]=[[t_1]]`$). Thus $`𝒪=[[x,y]][[t]]=\overline{𝒪}`$, which is a discrete valuation ring. Denote by $`v`$ the valuation of such ring that consists in associating to any formal power series in $`[[t]]`$ its order. In particular $`v(x)=m`$ and $`v(y)=n`$. Since the fraction field of $`𝒪`$ equals the fraction field of $`\overline{𝒪}`$, there exist $`f_1(t),f_2(t)𝒪`$, such that $`f_1(t)/f_2(t)=t`$, so $`f_1(t)=tf_2(t)`$ and $`v(f_1)=v(f_2)+1`$. Since $`\mathrm{gcd}(v(f_1),v(f_2))=1`$, all sufficiently large integers belong to $`v(𝒪)=\{v(z);z𝒪\{0\}\}`$. Thus $`v(𝒪)`$ is a numerical semigroup, i.e., a subsemigroup of $``$ with finite complement to $``$.

In the sequel we use the following terminology. If $`S`$ is a subsemigroup of $``$ and $`T`$ is a subset of $``$, we call $`T`$ an $`S`$-module if $`sS,tT`$ implies $`s+tT`$. We call $`T`$ a free $`S`$-module if $`T=_{i=1}^kT_i`$ with $`T_iT_j=\mathrm{}`$ if $`ij`$ and $`T_i=n_i+S`$ for some $`n_i`$. We call $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_k`$ a basis of $`T`$.

With the hypotheses and notation above, we will construct a new basis $`y_0,\mathrm{},y_{m1}`$ for $`𝒪`$ as a $`[[x]]`$-module, such that, for each $`i`$, $`y_0,\mathrm{},y_i`$ is a basis for $`𝒪_i=[[x]]+y[[x]]+\mathrm{}+y^i[[x]]`$, and furthermore such that $`v(𝒪_i)=\{v(z);z𝒪_i\{0\}\}`$ is a free module over $`v([[x]])=m`$ with basis $`\omega _0,\mathrm{},\omega _i`$, where each $`\omega _j=v(y_j),j=0,\mathrm{},i`$ is the smallest value in $`v(𝒪)`$ in its congruence class $`(modm)`$. Let $`y_0=1`$, thus $`\omega _0=v(y_0)=0`$ and $`v(𝒪_0)=v([[x]])=m`$. Suppose that $`y_0,\mathrm{},y_{k1},k<m`$ have been defined such that $`v(𝒪_{k1})`$ is a free $`m`$-module with basis $`\omega _0,\mathrm{},\omega _{k1}`$. We claim that there exists a $`\varphi (x,y)𝒪_{k1}`$ such that $`y_k=y^k+\varphi (x,y)`$ has a value which does not belong to $`v(𝒪_{k1})`$. If $`v(y^k)v(𝒪_{k1})`$, we are ready. Otherwise $`v(y^k)=v(z_1)`$ for some $`z_1𝒪_{k1}`$. Then $`v(y^kc_1z_1)>v(y^k)`$ for some $`c_1`$. If $`v(y^kc_1z_1)v(𝒪_{k1})`$, we are ready. Otherwise take $`z_2𝒪_{k1}`$ with $`v(z_2)=v(y^kc_1z_1)`$. Then $`v(y^kc_1z_1c_2z_2)>v(y^kc_1z_1)`$ for some $`c_2`$ a.s.o. Thus we see that the expansion of $`y^k`$ as a power series in $`t`$ must contain a term $`a_it^i`$ with $`a_i0`$ and $`iv(𝒪_{k1})`$, since otherwise $`y^k𝒪_{k1}`$.

Notice that $`y_1y_{k1}=(y+\varphi _1(x))(y^{k1}+\varphi _{k1}(x,y))=y^k+\psi (x,y),\psi (x,y)𝒪_{k1}`$, so $`y_k=y_1y_{k1}+\varphi (x,y)\psi (x,y)`$ and we could equally well have defined $`y_k`$ as an element of the form $`y_1y_{k1}+\varphi (x,y)`$ (where $`\varphi (x,y)𝒪_{k1}`$) with a value which does not belong to $`v(𝒪_{k1})`$. In such expression of $`y_k`$, $`v(\varphi (x,y))v(y_1y_{k1})`$ since otherwise $`v(y_k)=v(\varphi (x,y))v(𝒪_{k1})`$. Thus $`\omega _k=v(y_k)v(y_1y_{k1})=v(y_1)+v(y_{k1})=\omega _1+\omega _{k1}`$. In particular the sequence $`\omega _0,\omega _1,\mathrm{}`$ is strictly increasing. Since $`v(𝒪_{k1})`$ is free over $`m`$, this shows that $`\omega _k\omega _j`$ if $`j<k`$. Any element $`z𝒪_k`$ can be written $`z=a_0(x)y_0+\mathrm{}+a_k(x)y_k`$. All terms in this sum have values in different congruence classes $`(modm)`$. Thus $`v(z)=\mathrm{min}v(a_i(x)y_i)`$. This shows that $`v(𝒪_k)`$ is free with basis $`\omega _0,\mathrm{},\omega _k`$. After $`m`$ steps, we get that $`𝒪_{m1}`$=$`𝒪`$ is a $`[[x]]`$-module generated by $`y_0,\mathrm{},y_{m1}`$ with the requested properties.

If $`S`$ is a numerical semigroup and $`aS\{0\}`$, then the elements $`n_0,n_1,\mathrm{},n_{a1}`$, where $`n_i`$ is the smallest element in $`S`$ congruent to $`i(moda)`$, is called the Apery set of $`S`$ with respect to $`a`$. If we order the elements in the Apery set, and then denote them $`\omega _0,\mathrm{},\omega _{a1}`$, we have the ordered Apery set. We call the elements $`y_0,\mathrm{},y_{m1}𝒪`$ constructed as above an Apery basis of $`𝒪`$ with respect to $`x`$ . By the construction, $`\omega _0=v(y_0),\mathrm{},\omega _{m1}=v(y_{m1})`$ is the ordered Apery set of $`v(𝒪)`$.

In a similar way an Apery basis of $`𝒪`$ with respect to $`y`$ is defined.

Example If in $`𝒪=[[x,y]]`$ we have $`\mathrm{gcd}(m,n)=1`$, where $`v(x)=m`$ and $`v(y)=n`$, then $`y_k=y^k,k=0,\mathrm{},m1`$ is an Apery basis of $`𝒪`$, and thus $`\omega _k=kn,k=0,\mathrm{},m1`$ is the ordered Apery set of $`v(𝒪)`$ with respect to $`m`$.

Example If in $`𝒪=[[x,y]]`$ we have $`x=t^8,y=t^{12}+t^{14}+t^{15}`$, then $`y_0=1,y_1=y,y_2=y^2x^3=2t^{26}+\mathrm{},y_3=y^3x^3y=2t^{38},y_4=y^42x^3y^24x^5y+3x^6=8t^{53}+\mathrm{},y_5=y^52x^3y^3+x^6y4x^8=8t^{65}+\mathrm{},y_6=y^63x^3y^44x^5y^3+3x^6y^2+4x^8yx^9=16t^{79}+\mathrm{}`$, and $`y_7=y^73x^3y^5+3x^6y^34x^8y^2x^9y+4x^{11}=16t^{91}+\mathrm{}`$ is an Apery basis for $`𝒪`$, so the ordered Apery set of $`v(𝒪)`$ with respect to $`8`$ is $`\{0,12,26,38,53,65,79,91\}`$. Thus $`v(𝒪)`$ is minimally generated by $`8,12,26,53`$.

If $`S`$ is a numerical semigroup, we denote the Frobenius number of $`S`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{max}\{x;xS\}`$, by $`\gamma (S)`$. The conductor of $`S`$ is $`c(S)=\gamma (S)+1=\mathrm{min}\{x;[x,\mathrm{})S\}`$.

The following lemma is well known, and its easy proof is left to the reader.

###### LEMMA 2.1

Let $`S`$ be a numerical semigroup with Frobenius number $`\gamma `$ and $`aS`$. If $`\omega _0,\mathrm{},\omega _{a1}`$ is the ordered Apery set of $`S`$ with respect to $`a`$, then $`\gamma =\omega _{a1}a`$.

Now we are ready for the crucial lemma from . If $`𝒪=[[x,y]]`$ with $`v(x)<v(y)`$, we denote the quadratic transform (or blowup) $`[[x,y/x]]`$ by $`𝒪^{}`$.

###### LEMMA 2.2

If an Apery basis of $`𝒪^{}`$ with respect to $`x`$ is $`y_0^{},\mathrm{},y_{m1}^{}`$, then $`y_i=y_i^{}x^i`$, for $`i=0,\mathrm{},m1`$ is an Apery basis of $`𝒪`$ with respect to $`x`$.

Proof. Let $`F_i(x,y/x)`$ be the polynomial of degree $`i`$ in $`y/x`$ which defines $`y_i^{}`$, i.e. let $`F_i(x,y/x)=(y/x)^i+\varphi _i^{}(x,y/x)`$, where $`\mathrm{deg}(\varphi _i^{})<i`$ in $`y/x`$. Then $`y_i=x^iF(x,y/x)=y^i+\varphi _i(x,y),\varphi _i(x,y)𝒪_{i1}`$ is of the requested form and, if $`v(y_i^{})=\omega _i^{}`$, then $`\omega _i=v(y_i)=\omega _i^{}+im`$, thus $`\omega _i\omega _i^{}(modm)`$. We have to show that $`\omega _iv(𝒪_{i1})`$. This is because $`\omega _i^{}`$ is not congruent to any $`\omega _j^{}`$, if $`j<i`$, and so also $`\omega _i`$ is not congruent to any $`\omega _j`$, if $`j<i`$.

As a consequence we get

###### PROPOSITION 2.3

\[3, Lemme 2\] If the ordered Apery set of $`v(𝒪^{})`$ with respect to $`m=v(x)`$ is $`0=\omega _0^{}<\omega _1^{}<\mathrm{}<\omega _{m1}^{}`$, then the ordered Apery set of $`v(𝒪)`$ with respect to $`m`$ is $`\omega _0=\omega _0^{}<\omega _1=\omega _1^{}+m<\omega _2=\omega _2^{}+2m<\mathrm{}<\omega _{m1}=\omega _{m1}^{}+(m1)m`$.

Recall that the multiplicity of the ring $`𝒪=[[x,y]]`$, where $`x=a_mt^m+a_{m+1}t^{m+1}+\mathrm{},a_m0`$ and $`y=b_nt^n+b_{n+1}t^{n+1}+\mathrm{},b_n0`$, is given by $`\mathrm{min}(m,n)`$ i.e. the multiplicity of $`𝒪`$ is the smallest positive value in $`v(𝒪)`$.

Set $`𝒪=𝒪^{(0)}`$, denote by $`𝒪^{(i+1)}`$ the blowup of $`𝒪^{(i)}`$ and by $`e_i`$ the multiplicity of $`𝒪^{(i)}`$. The multiplicity sequence of $`𝒪`$ is by definition the sequence of natural numbers $`e_0,e_1,e_2,\mathrm{}`$. Let $`k`$ be the minimal index such that $`e_k=1`$, i.e. such that $`v(𝒪^{(k)})=`$. Two algebroid branches are formally equivalent if they have the same multiplicity sequence.

As a consequence of Proposition 2.3, we get easily a well known formula:

###### COROLLARY 2.4

\[4, Theorem 1\] We have $`l_𝒪(\overline{𝒪}/(𝒪:\overline{𝒪}))=_{i=0}^ke_i(e_i1)`$ and $`l_𝒪(𝒪/(𝒪:\overline{𝒪}))=l_𝒪(\overline{𝒪}/𝒪)=\frac{1}{2}_{i=0}^ke_i(e_i1)`$.

Proof. Let $`\omega _i^{(j)}`$ ($`\omega _i^{(j+1)}`$, resp.) be the $`i`$’th element in the ordered Apery set of $`v(𝒪^{(j)})`$, ($`v(𝒪^{(j+1)})`$, resp.), with respect to $`e_j`$ and let $`𝒪^{(j)}:\overline{𝒪}=t^{c_j}[[t]]`$ ($`𝒪^{(j+1)}:\overline{𝒪}=t^{c_{j+1}}[[t]]`$, resp.). By Lemma 2.1 $`c_j=\omega _{e_j1}^{(j)}e_j+1`$ and $`c_{j+1}=\omega _{e_j1}^{(j+1)}e_j+1`$. Proposition 2.3 gives $`\omega _{e_j1}^{(j)}=\omega _{e_j1}^{(j+1)}+e_j(e_j1)`$ and so $`c_j=c_{j+1}+e_j(e_j1)`$. It follows that $`c_0=l_𝒪(\overline{𝒪}/(𝒪:\overline{𝒪}))=c_1+e_0(e_01)=\mathrm{}=c_k+e_{k1}(e_{k1}1)+\mathrm{}+e_0(e_01)=_{i=0}^ke_i(e_i1)`$. Since the ring $`𝒪`$ is Gorenstein, we get $`l_𝒪(𝒪/(𝒪:\overline{𝒪}))=l_𝒪(\overline{𝒪}/𝒪)=\frac{1}{2}l_𝒪(\overline{𝒪}/(𝒪:\overline{𝒪}))`$.

Example Not every symmetric semigroup is the value semigroup of an algebroid plane branch. The semigroup generated by 4,5,6 is symmetric and has Apery set 0,5,6,11 with respect to 4. If this were the value semigroup of a plane branch, then the Apery set of its blowup would be $`0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}=54,2=68,1=1112`$ which obviously is impossible.

###### THEOREM 2.5

 Two algebroid plane branches are formally equivalent if and only if they have the same semigroup.

Proof. Let $`𝒪=𝒪^{(0)},𝒪^{(1)},\mathrm{}`$ be the sequence of blowups of $`𝒪`$, and let $`e_0,\mathrm{},e_k=1`$ be the corresponding multiplicity sequence. Then $`v(𝒪^{(k)})=`$ has ordered Apery set $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},e_{k1}1\}`$ with respect to $`e_{k1}`$. Proposition 2.3 gives the ordered Apery set, hence the semigroup, of $`𝒪^{(k1)}`$ with respect to $`e_{k1}`$ a.s.o. Thus the multiplicity sequence determines the semigroup of $`𝒪`$. On the other hand, the semigroup of $`𝒪`$ gives the multiplicity $`e_0`$ of $`𝒪`$. Proposition 2.3 gives the Apery set of $`v(𝒪^{(1)})`$, hence $`v(𝒪^{(1)})`$ and so on. Thus the semigroup $`v(𝒪)`$ gives the multiplicity sequence.

Let $`c_i`$ denote the conductor degree of $`𝒪^{(i)}`$, i.e. $`𝒪^{(i)}:\overline{𝒪}=t^{c_i}[[t]]`$, and call $`(c_0,c_1,\mathrm{})`$ the conductor degree sequence of $`𝒪`$. Let $`f_i=l_{𝒪^{(i)}}(\overline{𝒪}/𝒪^{(i)})`$, and call $`(f_0,f_1,\mathrm{})`$ the sequence of singularity degrees of $`𝒪`$.

###### COROLLARY 2.6

Two algebroid plane branches are formally equivalent if and only if they have the same conductor degree sequence, and if and only if they have the same sequence of singularity degrees.

Proof. If $`\omega _0<\omega _1<\mathrm{}<\omega _{e_i1}`$ is the Apery set of $`v(𝒪^{(i)})`$ with respect to $`e_i`$, then by Lemma 2.1 $`c_i=\omega _{e_i1}e_i+1`$. Thus the multiplicity sequence of $`𝒪`$ determines, and is determined by, the conductor degree sequence. Since each ring $`𝒪^{(i)}`$ is Gorenstein, $`f_i=c_i/2`$ and the same is true for the sequence of singularity degrees.

Example The conductor degree of $`𝒪`$ does not suffice to give formal equivalence. The branches $`[[t^4,t^5]]`$ and $`[[t^3,t^7]]`$ both have conductor $`t^{12}[[t]]`$, but they are not formally equivalent.

## 3 THE MULTIPLICITY SEQUENCE FOR A <br>PLANE BRANCH

A sequence of numbers $`e_0e_1e_2\mathrm{}`$ is a multiplicity sequence of a (not necessarily plane) branch if and only if $`0,e_0,e_0+e_1,e_0+e_1+e_2,\mathrm{}`$ constitute a semigroup . We will now determine which multiplicity sequences occur for plane branches. We will also use this result together with Proposition 2.3 and Theorem 2.5 to get an algorithm to determine if a symmetric semigroup is the semigroup of a plane branch.

Let $`𝒪=[[t^{\delta _0}+_{iN}a_it^i,_{i>\delta _0}b_it^i]]`$ be a branch. Let, for $`i1`$, $`\delta _i=\mathrm{min}\{j;b_j0,\mathrm{gcd}(\delta _0,\mathrm{},\delta _{i1},j)<\mathrm{gcd}(\delta _0,\mathrm{},\delta _{i1})\}`$. Let $`d_0=\delta _0`$ and $`\mathrm{gcd}(\delta _0,\mathrm{},\delta _i)=d_i`$ for $`i1`$. Set also $`k=\mathrm{min}\{i;d_i=1\}`$. (There exists such a $`k`$ since the integral closure of $`𝒪`$ is $`[[t]]`$.) We call the parametrization standard if $`N>\delta _k`$. The numbers $`\delta _0,\delta _1,\mathrm{}`$ are called the characteristic exponents of $`𝒪`$. It follows from the proof of Lemma 3.1 below, that we always can get a standard parametrization from a given one.

###### LEMMA 3.1

Let $`𝒪=[[t^{\delta _0}+_{iN}a_it^i,_{i>\delta _0}b_it^i]]`$ be a branch with standard parametrization and with characteristic exponents $`(\delta _0,\mathrm{},\delta _k)`$. Then the characteristic exponents of $`𝒪^{}`$ are:
a) $`(\delta _0,\delta _1\delta _0,\mathrm{},\delta _k\delta _0)`$, if $`\delta _0<\delta _1\delta _0`$.
b) $`(\delta _1\delta _0,\delta _0,\delta _0+\delta _2\delta _1,\mathrm{},\delta _0+\delta _k\delta _1)`$, if $`\delta _0>\delta _1\delta _0`$ and $`\delta _0`$ is not a multiple of $`\delta _1\delta _0`$
c) $`(\delta _1\delta _0,\delta _0+\delta _2\delta _1,\mathrm{},\delta _0+\delta _k\delta _1)`$, if $`\delta _0`$ is a multiple of $`\delta _1\delta _0`$.

Proof We can suppose that $`v(_{i>\delta _0}b_it^i)=\delta _1`$. Then the blowup $`𝒪^{}`$ of $`𝒪`$ is $`(t^{\delta _0}+\mathrm{},t^{\delta _1\delta _0}+\mathrm{})`$. One of the following three cases will occur:
a) $`\delta _0<\delta _1\delta _0`$
b) $`\delta _0>\delta _1\delta _0`$ and $`\delta _0`$ is not a multiple of $`\delta _1\delta _0`$
c) $`\delta _0`$ is a multiple of $`\delta _1\delta _0`$.
We will in each case write $`𝒪^{}`$ in standard form and derive its characteristic exponents. In case a) $`𝒪^{}`$ is of standard form. We keep the meaning of $`\delta _i`$ and $`d_i`$ from above and denote the corresponding entities for $`𝒪^{}`$ with $`\delta _i^{}`$ and $`d_i^{}`$. It follows that $`d_i^{}=d_i`$ for all $`i`$ and that $`𝒪^{}`$ has characteristic exponents $`(\delta _0^{},\delta _1^{},\mathrm{},\delta _k^{})=(\delta _0,\delta _1\delta _0,\mathrm{},\delta _k\delta _0)`$. In case b) we first make the coordinate change $`X=y,Y=x`$ to get $`(t^{\delta _1\delta _0}(1+_{i1}c_it^i),t^{\delta _0}+\mathrm{})`$. Let $`i_0=\mathrm{min}\{i;c_i0\}`$. Then we choose a new parameter $`t_1`$, by $`t=t_1(1\frac{c_{i_0}}{\delta _1\delta _0}t_1^{c_{i_0}})`$ to get the parametrization $`(t_1^{\delta _1\delta _0}(1+_{i1}c_i^{}t_1^i),t_1^{\delta _0}+\mathrm{})`$. Now $`v(_{i1}c_i^{}t_1^i)>v(_{i1}c_it^i)`$. We continue to change parameter in this way. After a finite number of steps we get a parametrization of the branch of the type $`(t^{\delta _1\delta _0}+_{i>\delta _k}k_it^i,t^{\delta _0}+\mathrm{})`$ with $`d_i^{}=d_i`$ for all $`i`$, and with characteristic exponents $`(\delta _1\delta _0,\delta _0,\delta _0+\delta _2\delta _1,\mathrm{},\delta _0+\delta _k\delta _1)`$. In case c) finally, we use a similar reparametrization and get $`d_i^{}=d_{i+1}`$, and a branch with characteristic exponents $`(\delta _1\delta _0,\delta _0+\delta _2\delta _1,\mathrm{},\delta _0+\delta _k\delta _1)`$.

If $`m_0,m_1,\mathrm{}`$ and $`h_0,h_1,\mathrm{}`$ are natural numbers, denote by $`m_0^{(h_0)},m_1^{(h_1)},\mathrm{}`$ the sequence of natural numbers given by $`m_0`$ repeated $`h_0`$ times, $`m_1`$ repeated $`h_1`$ times and so on. Suppose that for a couple $`m,n`$ of natural numbers, the Euclidean algorithm gives

$$m=nq_1+r_1$$

$$n=r_1q_2+r_2$$

$$\mathrm{}$$

$$r_{i1}=r_iq_{i+1}+r_{i+1}$$

$$r_i=r_{i+1}q_{i+2}+0$$

Denote by $`M(m,n)`$ the sequence of natural numbers $`n^{(q_1)},r_1^{(q_2)},\mathrm{},r_{i+1}^{(q_{i+2})}`$. Of course such a sequence ends with $`r_{i+1}=\mathrm{gcd}(m,n)`$ (if $`m<n`$, and so $`q_1=0`$, $`n`$ appears $`0`$ times, i.e. it does not appear, hence $`M(m,n)=M(n,m)`$). With this notation:

###### THEOREM 3.2

A sequence of natural numbers is the multiplicity sequence of an algebroid plane branch if and only if it is of the following form:

$$M(m_0,m_1),M(m_2,m_3),\mathrm{},M(m_{2k},m_{2k+1}),1,1,\mathrm{}$$

where, for $`i0`$, $`\mathrm{gcd}(m_{2i},m_{2i+1})=m_{2i+2}`$ and $`m_{2i+3}`$ is such that $`m_{2i+4}<m_{2i+2}`$, and finally $`\mathrm{gcd}(m_{2k},m_{2k+1})=1`$.

Proof. Let $`𝒪`$ be an algebroid plane branch with standard parametrization. Then, by Lemma 3.1, its multiplicity sequence is

$$M(\delta _0,\delta _1),M(d_1,\delta _2\delta _1),M(d_2,\delta _3\delta _2),\mathrm{},M(d_{k1},\delta _k\delta _{k1}),1,1,\mathrm{}$$

and is a sequence of the requested form. Conversely, given a sequence of natural numbers as in the statement, we can get characteristic exponents $`(\delta _0,\delta _1,\mathrm{}\delta _k)`$ and so an $`𝒪`$.

We give two concrete examples.

Example $`6,4,2,2,1,1,\mathrm{}=M(10,6),1,1,\mathrm{}`$ is an admissible multiplicity sequence (i.e. the multiplicity sequence of an algebroid plane branch), but $`6,4,2,1,1,\mathrm{}`$ is not.

Example Let $`𝒪=[[x,y]]`$ with

$$x=t^{22^n},y=t^{32^n}+t^{32^n+2^{n1}}+\mathrm{}+t^{32^n+2^{n1}+\mathrm{}+2+1}.$$

The multiplicity sequence is

$$2^{n+1},2^n,2^n,2^{n1},2^{n1},\mathrm{},4,4,2,2,1,\mathrm{}=$$

$$M(32^n,2^{n+1}),M(2^n,2^{n1}),M(2^{n1},2^{n2}),\mathrm{},M(2,1),\mathrm{}$$

Now we are ready to give an algorithm to determine if a symmetric semigroup is the semigroup of values of a plane curve.

###### LEMMA 3.3

Let $`S`$ be a symmetric semigroup, $`m=\mathrm{min}(S\{0\})`$ and let

$$0=\omega _0<\omega _1<\mathrm{}<\omega _{m1}$$

be its ordered Apery set with respect to $`m`$. Suppose that $`\omega _0<\omega _1m<\mathrm{}<\omega _{m1}(m1)m`$ is the ordered Apery set of a semigroup $`S^{}`$. Then $`S^{}`$ is symmetric.

Proof. This follows from .

Given a symmetric semigroup $`S`$ satisfying the hypotheses of Lemma 3.3, one could repeat the process for the ordered Apery set of $`S^{}`$ with respect to its minimal non zero element, and so on until we find either a semigroup which does not satify these hypotheses or we find $``$. But even if, after a finite number of steps, we get $``$, it is not true that $`S`$ is a value semigroup of a plane branch, as the following example shows.

Example Let $`S=6,10,29`$; its ordered Apery set with respect to $`6`$ is $`\{0,10,20,29,39,49\}`$. The set obtained applying Lemma 3.3 is $`\{0,4=106,8=2012,11=2918,15=3924,19=4930\}`$, hence it is the ordered Apery set of $`S^{}`$ with respect to $`6`$. Hence $`S^{}=\{0,4,6,8,10,11,12,14,\mathrm{}\}=4,6,11`$. The ordered Apery set of $`S^{}`$ with respect to $`4`$ is $`0,6,11,17`$. Hence we get the new set $`\{0,2=64,3=118,5=1712\}`$ which is still ordered and determines the semigroup $`S^{\prime \prime }=2,3`$. Its ordered Apery set with respect to $`2`$ is $`0,3`$. Thus we get the set $`\{0,1=32\}`$, which is the ordered Apery set with respect to $`2`$ of $``$.

On the other hand the semigroup $`S`$ is not the value semigroup of a plane branch $`𝒪`$ since the multiplicity sequence of $`𝒪`$ should be $`6,4,2,1,1,\mathrm{}`$ which is not admissible, since the subsequence $`6,4`$ can be obtained only by $`M(10,6)`$ but $`M(10,6)=6,4,2,2`$.

Let $`S`$ be the value semigroup of a plane branch $`𝒪`$. By Proposition 2.3 we get that $`S^{}`$ (defined as in Lemma 3.3) is again a symmetric semigroup and $`S^{}=v(𝒪^{})`$. Repeating the process, if $`S^{(0)}=S`$ and $`S^{(j+1)}=(S^{(j)})^{}`$, and denoting by $`m_j`$ the minimal non zero element of $`S^{(j)}`$ and by $`\omega _0^{(j)},\omega _1^{(j)},\mathrm{},\omega _{m_j1}^{(j)}`$ its ordered Apery set with respect to $`m_j`$, we get that $`\omega _0^{(j)},\omega _1^{(j)}m,\mathrm{},\omega _{m_j1}^{(j)}(m_j1)m_j`$ is the ordered Apery set of a symmetric semigroup $`S^{(j+1)}`$, and $`S^{(j+1)}=v(𝒪^{(j+1)})`$. Since there exists an $`n1`$ such that $`𝒪^{(n)}=[[t]]`$, then $`S^{(n)}=`$. Moreover the sequence $`m_0,\mathrm{},m_{n1},1,\mathrm{}`$ is the multiplicity sequence of $`𝒪`$, hence is an admissible multiplicity sequence.

Conversely if $`S=S_0`$ is a symmetric semigroup, let $`S^{(j)},m_j,\omega _i^{(j)}`$ be defined as above. If the sets $`0=\omega _0^{(j)},\omega _1^{(j)}m_j,\mathrm{},\omega _{m_j1}^{(j)}(m_j1)m_j`$ are ordered Apery sets for every $`j=0,\mathrm{}n1`$ and the sequence $`m_0,m_1,\mathrm{},m_{n1},1,1,\mathrm{}`$ is an admissible multiplicity sequence, then $`S`$ is the value semigroup of a plane branch. In fact, since the sequence $`m_0,m_1,\mathrm{},m_{n1},1,1,\mathrm{}`$ is an admissible multiplicity sequence, then there exists a plane branch $`𝒪`$ having this sequence as multiplicity sequence. Now, by Theorem 2.5, the multiplicity sequence determines the value semigroups $`v(𝒪^{(k)})`$, $`k=0\mathrm{},n1`$, and these semigroups, by Proposition 2.3 and Lemma 3.3 have the same ordered Apery sets of the semigroups $`S^{(k)}`$; hence they are the same semigroups.

This discussion gives a criterion to check if $`S`$ is the value semigroup of a plane branch, since we can apply repeatedly the process described in Lemma 3.3 until we find either a semigroup which does not satisfy the hypotheses in Lemma 3.3 or we find $``$. If the last case occurs, then it is enough to check if the sequence $`m_0,\mathrm{},m_{n1},1,1,\mathrm{}`$ is admissible.

The condition that at each step the sequence $`0=\omega _0^{(j)},\omega _1^{(j)}m_j,\mathrm{},\omega _{m_j1}^{(j)}(m_j1)m_j`$ is an ordered Apery set (and not only an Apery set) is necessary as the following example shows.

Example Let $`S=\{0,4,8,9,10,12,13,14,16,\mathrm{}\}`$ be the semigroup with ordered Apery set $`\{0,9,10,19\}`$ with respect to $`4`$. The sequence $`0,5=94,2=108,7=1912`$ is not increasing. If we consider the semigroup $`S^{}`$ with ordered Apery set $`\{0,2,5,7\}`$ with respect to $`4`$ it is the symmetric semigroup $`\{0,2,4,\mathrm{}\}`$ and then in two more steps we get $``$.

Notice that the sequence $`m_0,m_1,\mathrm{}`$ is in this case $`4,2,2,1,1,\mathrm{}`$; it is admissible as multiplicity sequence since it is $`M(6,4),M(2,1),1,1,\mathrm{}`$. However, applying Theorem 2.5, we get the semigroup $`\{0,4,6,8,10,12,13,14,\mathrm{}\}`$ with ordered Apery set $`\{0,6,13,19\}`$ and applying Theorem 3.2 we get the parametrization $`𝒪=[[t^4,t^6+t^7]]`$.

## 4 THE SEMIGROUP OF VALUES FOR A <br>PLANE BRANCH

The following theorem is proved in different ways in e.g. , , , , .

###### THEOREM 4.1

Let $`𝒪=[[t^{\delta _0}+_{iN}a_it^i,_{i>\delta _0}b_it^i]]`$ be a branch with standard parametrization. Denote the minimal generators of $`v(𝒪)`$ by $`\overline{\delta }_0<\mathrm{}<\overline{\delta }_s`$. Then $`s=k`$, $`\overline{\delta }_0=\delta _0,\overline{\delta }_1=\delta _1`$ and $`\overline{\delta }_i=\overline{\delta }_{i1}\frac{d_{i2}}{d_{i1}}+\delta _i\delta _{i1}`$ if $`i=2,\mathrm{},k`$.

We will divide the proof into several steps. From now on we will, for a plane branch with characteristic exponents $`(\delta _0,\delta _1,\mathrm{})`$, let $`\overline{\delta }_i`$ denote the numbers defined in Theorem 4.1. It is clear that $`d_i=\mathrm{gcd}(\overline{\delta }_0,\mathrm{},\overline{\delta }_i)=\mathrm{gcd}(\delta _0,\mathrm{},\delta _i)`$. We keep also this notation in the sequel.

###### LEMMA 4.2

The conductor of $`S=\overline{\delta }_0,\mathrm{},\overline{\delta }_k`$ is

$$(\frac{d_0}{d_1}1)(\overline{\delta }_1d_1)+(\frac{d_1}{d_2}1)(\overline{\delta }_2d_2)+\mathrm{}+(\frac{d_{k1}}{d_k}1)(\overline{\delta }_kd_k),$$

and $`S`$ is symmetric.

Proof. Since $`\mathrm{gcd}(\overline{\delta }_0,\overline{\delta }_1)=d_1`$, we have that $`i\overline{\delta }_1,0i\frac{d_0}{d_1}1`$, are all different $`(mod\overline{\delta }_0)`$. They are also all smaller than $`\overline{\delta }_2`$, since $`\overline{\delta }_2>\frac{d_0}{d_1}\overline{\delta }_1`$. In the same way all $`i\overline{\delta }_1+j\overline{\delta }_2,0i\frac{d_0}{d_1}1,0j\frac{d_1}{d_2}1`$ are all different $`(mod\overline{\delta }_0)`$, and they are all smaller than $`\overline{\delta }_3`$, since $`\overline{\delta }_3>\frac{d_1}{d_2}\overline{\delta }_2>(\frac{d_1}{d_2}1)\overline{\delta }_2+(\frac{d_0}{d_1}1)\overline{\delta }_1`$ a.s.o. In this way we see that the Apery set of $`S`$ with respect to $`\overline{\delta }_0`$ is $`\{j_1\overline{\delta }_1+j_2\overline{\delta }_2+\mathrm{}+j_k\overline{\delta }_k;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}j_i<\frac{d_{i1}}{d_i},i=1,\mathrm{},k\}`$ and $`i_1\overline{\delta }_1+i_2\overline{\delta }_2+\mathrm{}+i_k\overline{\delta }_k>j_1\overline{\delta }_1+j_2\overline{\delta }_2+\mathrm{}+j_k\overline{\delta }_k`$ if and only if $`i_k=j_k,\mathrm{},i_s=j_s,i_{s1}>j_{s1}`$ for some $`s`$, i.e., if the last nonzero coordinate of $`(i_1j_1,\mathrm{},i_kj_k)`$ is positive. (We have found $`\frac{d_0}{d_1}\frac{d_1}{d_2}\mathrm{}\frac{d_{k1}}{d_k}=\frac{d_0}{d_k}=d_0=\overline{\delta }_0`$ elements which are smallest in their congruence classes $`(mod\overline{\delta }_0)`$.) Hence, the largest number in the Apery set is $`\omega _{\overline{\delta }_01}=(\frac{d_0}{d_1}1)\overline{\delta }_1+(\frac{d_1}{d_2}1)\overline{\delta }_2+\mathrm{}+(\frac{d_{k1}}{d_k}1)\overline{\delta }_k`$. Since the conductor equals $`\omega _{\overline{\delta }_01}(\overline{\delta }_01)`$ (cf. Lemma 2.1), we get the first statement after a small calculation. If $`\omega _i=i_1\overline{\delta }_1+\mathrm{}+i_k\overline{\delta }_k`$, it is easy to see that $`\omega _{\overline{\delta }_01i}=(\frac{d_0}{d_1}1i_1)\overline{\delta }_1+\mathrm{}+(\frac{d_{k1}}{d_k}1i_k)\overline{\delta }_k`$. Thus $`\omega _i+\omega _{\overline{\delta }_01i}=\omega _{\overline{\delta }_01}`$, which gives that $`S`$ is symmetric (cf. ).

For a semigroup $`S`$ and an integer $`d>0`$, we define the $`d`$-conductor of $`S`$ to be $`c_d(S)=\mathrm{min}\{nd;mdS\text{ if }mn\}`$. Thus $`c_1(S)`$ is the usual conductor of $`S`$.

###### COROLLARY 4.3

Let $`S=\overline{\delta }_0,\mathrm{},\overline{\delta }_k`$ and let $`d_i=\mathrm{gcd}(\overline{\delta }_0,\mathrm{},\overline{\delta }_i)`$. Then

$$c_{d_i}(S)=(\frac{d_0}{d_1}1)(\overline{\delta }_1d_1)+(\frac{d_1}{d_2}1)(\overline{\delta }_2d_2)+\mathrm{}+(\frac{d_{i1}}{d_i}1)(\overline{\delta }_id_i)$$

for every $`ik`$.

Proof. By the proof of Lemma 4.2, the semigroup $`S_i=\frac{\overline{\delta }_0}{d_i},\mathrm{},\frac{\overline{\delta }_i}{d_i}`$ has conductor $`c(S_i)=`$

$$(\frac{d_0/d_i}{d_1/d_i}1)(\frac{\overline{\delta }_1}{d_i}\frac{d_1}{d_i})+(\frac{d_1/d_i}{d_2/d_i}1)(\frac{\overline{\delta }_2}{d_i}\frac{d_2}{d_i})+\mathrm{}+(\frac{d_{i1}/d_i}{d_i/d_i}1)(\frac{\overline{\delta }_i}{d_i}\frac{d_i}{d_i}).$$

Then $`c_{d_i}(\overline{\delta }_0,\mathrm{},\overline{\delta }_k)=d_ic(S_i)`$. A calculation gives that $`\overline{\delta }_{i+1}>c_{d_i}(\overline{\delta }_0,\mathrm{},\overline{\delta }_k)`$, hence $`\overline{\delta }_j>c_{d_i}(\overline{\delta }_0,\mathrm{},\overline{\delta }_k)`$ if $`j>i`$. Thus $`c_{d_i}(S)=c_{d_i}(\overline{\delta }_0,\mathrm{},\overline{\delta }_k)`$.

###### LEMMA 4.4

For $`i=2,\mathrm{},k`$ we have $`\overline{\delta }_i=\frac{1}{d_{i1}}_{j=1}^{i1}(d_{j1}d_j)\delta _j+\delta _i`$. Thus the conductor of $`S=\overline{\delta }_0,\mathrm{},\overline{\delta }_k`$ is $`_{i=1}^k(d_{i1}d_i)\delta _i+(1d_0)`$. Furthermore $`c_{d_i}(S)=\frac{1}{d_i}_{j=1}^i\delta _j(d_{j1}d_j)+d_id_0`$.

Proof. By a calculation, replacing in Lemma 4.2 and in Corollary 4.3 $`\overline{\delta }_i`$ with $`\frac{1}{d_{i1}}_{j=1}^{i1}(d_{j1}d_j)\delta _j+\delta _i`$, we get the claim.

For the next proposition, we need a technical lemma. Let $`g(t)=_{i0}a_it^i`$, $`a_00`$ be a power series such that $`\mathrm{gcd}(\{i;a_i0\})=1`$. Let, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},k1`$, $`𝐝_i=(d_i,\mathrm{},d_{k1})`$, and let $`𝐝_i(g(t))=(ϵ_i(g),\mathrm{},ϵ_{k1}(g))`$, where $`ϵ_s(g)=\mathrm{min}\{j;a_j0,\text{ }d_s\text{ does not divide }j\}`$. The easy proof of the next lemma is left to the reader.

###### LEMMA 4.5

Let $`g(t)=_{i>0}a_it^i,a_00`$, $`h(t)=_{i>0}b_it^i,b_00`$, be power series such that $`\mathrm{gcd}(\{i;a_i0\}=\mathrm{gcd}(\{i;b_i0\}=1`$. Then
(a) $`𝐝_i(gh)\mathrm{min}(𝐝_i(g),𝐝_i(h))`$ (coefficientwise).
(b) If $`g=h`$ there is equality in (a).
(c) If $`𝐝_i(g(t))=(ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_{k1})`$, then $`𝐝_{i+1}((_{iϵ_1}a_it^i)/t^{ϵ_1})=(ϵ_2(g)ϵ_1(g),\mathrm{},ϵ_s(g)ϵ_1(g))`$.

We will call a power series monic if its least nonzero coefficient is 1.

###### PROPOSITION 4.6

Let $`𝒪=[[t^{\delta _0}+_{iN}a_it^i,_{i>\delta _0}b_it^i]]`$ be a branch of standard parametrization and with characteristic exponents $`(\delta _0,\mathrm{},\delta _k)`$. Let $`\overline{\delta }_i`$ be defined as in Theorem 4.1. Then we have $`\overline{\delta }_0,\mathrm{},\overline{\delta }_kv(𝒪)`$, i.e. $`\overline{\delta }_iv(𝒪)`$ for $`i=0,\mathrm{},k`$.

Proof. Let, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},k1`$, $`𝐝_i=(d_i,\mathrm{},d_{k1})`$, where $`d_i=\mathrm{gcd}(\delta _0,\mathrm{},\delta _i)`$ as above. We will, by induction, construct monic elements $`f_i𝒪`$ such that $`v(f_i)=\overline{\delta }_i`$ and such that $`𝐝_i(f_i/t^{\overline{\delta }_i})=(\delta _{i+1}\delta _i,\delta _{i+2}\delta _i,\mathrm{},\delta _k\delta _i)`$ if $`1i<k`$. We let $`f_0=t^{\delta _0}+_{iN}a_it^i`$. If $`v(_{i>\delta _0}b_it^i)`$ is not a multiple of $`\delta _0`$, then $`o(_{i>\delta _0}b_it^i)=\delta _1`$ and we let $`f_1=b_{\delta _1}^1_{i>\delta _0}b_it^i`$. If $`v(_{i>\delta _0}b_it^i)=m_0\delta _0`$, let $`f_1^{}=_{i>\delta _0}b_it^icf_0^{m_0}`$, where $`c0`$ is chosen so that $`v(f_1^{})>o(_{i>\delta _0}b_it^i)`$. Repeat this until $`v(f_1^{(n)})=\delta _1`$, and let $`f_1=c^{}f_1^{(n)}`$, where $`c^{}`$ is chosen so that $`f_1`$ is monic. It is clear that $`𝐝_1(f_1/t^{\overline{\delta }_1})=(\delta _2\delta _1,\delta _3\delta _1,\mathrm{},\delta _k\delta _1)`$. Suppose we have constructed $`f_0,f_1,\mathrm{},f_i𝒪`$ so that the conditions in the proposition are fulfilled. Then $`f_i^{d_{i1}/d_i}`$ has value $`\gamma _i=\overline{\delta }_i\frac{d_{i1}}{d_i}`$, which is a multiple of $`d_{i1}`$. A simple calculation, using Lemma 4.4, shows that $`\gamma _ic_{d_i}(\overline{\delta }_0,\mathrm{},\overline{\delta }_i)=\delta _id_i+d_0>0`$. Thus of course $`\gamma _i>c_{d_{i1}}(\overline{\delta }_0,\mathrm{},\overline{\delta }_{i1})`$. This last means that $`\gamma _i=_{j=0}^{i1}n_j\overline{\delta }_j`$ for some $`n_j0`$. We choose $`f_{i+1}^{}=f_i^{d_{i1}/d_i}f_0^{n_0}\mathrm{}f_{i1}^{n_{i1}}`$. From Lemma 4.5(b) it follows that $`𝐝_i(f_i^{d_{i1}/d_i}/t^{\overline{\delta }_i^{d_{i1}/d_i}})=𝐝_i(f_i/t^{\overline{\delta }_i})`$. Since, for $`j<i`$, $`𝐝_j(f_j/t^{\overline{\delta }_j})=(\delta _{j+1}\delta _j,\mathrm{},\delta _k\delta _j)`$, we have $`𝐝_j(f_j/t^{\overline{\delta }_j})=(\delta _{i+1}\delta _j,\mathrm{},\delta _k\delta _j)>(\delta _{i+1}\delta _i,\mathrm{},\delta _k\delta _i)`$ (coefficientwise). Lemma 4.5(a) and (b) shows that $`𝐝_i(f_0^{n_0}\mathrm{}f_{i1}^{n_{i1}}/t^{\overline{\delta }_i})>(\delta _{i+1}\delta _i,\mathrm{},\delta _k\delta _i)`$. Thus the smallest power in $`f_{i+1}^{}`$ which is not a multiple of $`d_i`$ and has nonzero coefficient is $`\overline{\delta }_{i+1}`$. If $`v(f_{i+1}^{})`$ is not a multiple of $`d_i`$, we choose $`f_{i+1}=cf_{i+1}^{}`$ ($`c`$ chosen so that $`f_{i+1}`$ is monic). If $`v(f_{i+1}^{})`$ is a multiple of $`d_i`$, then $`\gamma _i>c_{d_i}(\overline{\delta }_0,\mathrm{},\overline{\delta }_i)`$ shows that $`v(f_{i+1}^{}f_0^{m_0}\mathrm{}f_i^{m_i})=v(f_{i+1}^{\prime \prime })>v(f_{i+1}^{})`$ for some $`m_0,\mathrm{},m_i0`$. We repeat until $`v(f_{i+1}^{(n)})=\overline{\delta }_{i+1}`$, and let $`f_{i+1}=c^{}f_{i+1}^{(n)}`$, where $`c^{}`$ is chosen so that $`f_{i+1}`$ is monic. It follows from Lemma 4.5(c) that $`𝐝_{i+1}(f_{i+1}/t^{\overline{\delta }_{i+1}})=(\delta _{i+2}\delta _{i+1},\mathrm{},\delta _k\delta _{i+1})`$.

###### LEMMA 4.7

Let $`𝒪`$ be a branch with characteristic exponents $`(\delta _0,\mathrm{},\delta _k)`$. Then the semigroup $`v(𝒪)`$ has conductor $`_{i=1}^k(d_{i1}d_i)\delta _i+(1d_0)`$.

Proof. We make induction over the number $`l`$ of blowups we need to get a regular branch. If $`l=1`$, then $`𝒪=[[t^{\delta _0},t^{\delta _0+1}+\mathrm{}]]`$. It follows from Proposition 2.3 that $`v(𝒪)=\delta _0,\delta _0+1`$, which has conductor $`(\delta _01)\delta _0=(\delta _01)(\delta _0+1)+1\delta _0=(d_0d_1)\delta _1+1d_0`$. Suppose the claim is proved for $`l1`$. Let $`c`$ and $`c^{}`$ denote the conductors of $`v(𝒪)`$ and $`v(𝒪^{})`$, respectively. In case a) of Lemma 3.1, a calculation using Lemma 4.4 gives $`cc^{}=_{i=1}^k(d_{i1}d_i)\delta _{i1}=\delta _0^2\delta _0`$. By induction the statement is true for $`v(𝒪^{})`$. Proposition 2.3 shows it is true for $`v(𝒪)`$. A similar calculation in case b) of Lemma 3.1 shows that $`cc^{}=\delta _0^2\delta _0`$ also in this case. In case c) of Lemma 3.1 finally, we get, by using $`\delta _1\delta _0=d_1,\delta _0=kd_1,\delta _1=(k+1)d_1`$ for some $`k`$, that $`cc^{}=k^2d_1^2+kd_1=\delta _0^2\delta _0`$ also in case c).

Proof of Theorem 4.1. We know that $`\overline{\delta }_0,\mathrm{},\overline{\delta }_kv(𝒪)`$ and that by Lemmas 4.4 and 4.7 these two semigroups have the same conductor. Since $`\overline{\delta }_0,\mathrm{},\overline{\delta }_k`$ is symmetric, all strictly larger semigroups have smaller conductor. This gives that the two semigroups are in fact the same.

We get an easy criterion for a semigroup $`a_0,\mathrm{},a_k`$ to be a semigroup for a plane branch. The following seems to be a simpler characterization of the semigroup of a plane branch, with respect to equivalent characterizations found in  or .

###### PROPOSITION 4.8

Let $`S`$ be a semigroup which is minimally generated by $`a_0<a_1<\mathrm{}<a_k`$ and let $`d_i=\mathrm{gcd}(a_0,\mathrm{},a_i),i=0,\mathrm{},k`$. Then $`S`$ is the semigroup of a plane branch if and only if the following conditions are satisfied.
(a) $`d_0>d_1>\mathrm{}>d_k=1`$.
(b) $`a_i>\mathrm{lcm}(d_{i2},a_{i1})`$ for $`i=2,\mathrm{},k`$.

Proof. The necessity follows from Theorem 4.1, the sufficiency from the branch $`[[t^{a_0},t^{a_1}+t^{a_1+a_2\mathrm{lcm}(d_0,a_1)}+\mathrm{}+t^{a_1+\mathrm{}+a_k(\mathrm{lcm}(d_0,a_1)+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{lcm}(d_{k2},a_{k1}))}]]`$.

We give two concrete examples.

Example Let $`S=30,42,280,855`$. Then $`S`$ satisfies the conditions in Proposition 4.8, so $`S=v(𝒪)`$ for some $`𝒪`$. We can choose e.g. $`𝒪=𝕔[[t^{30},t^{42}+t^{112}+t^{127}]]`$. The conductor equals $`t^{1554}[[t]]`$. With the notation of the previous section, the multiplicity sequence is $`M(30,42),M(6,70),M(2,15),\mathrm{}`$, which is $`30,12^{(2)},6^{(13)},4,2^{(9)},1^{(2)},\mathrm{}`$.

Example Let $`𝒪=[[x,y]]`$ with

$$x=t^{22^n},y=t^{32^n}+t^{32^n+2^{n1}}+\mathrm{}+t^{32^n+2^{n1}+\mathrm{}+2+1}.$$

The generators of $`v(𝒪)`$ are $`\overline{\delta }_0=2^{n+1},\overline{\delta }_i=2^{ni+1}(32^{2i2}+(4^{i1}1)/3)`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n+1`$.

## 5 COMPLETE INTERSECTION RINGS <br>ARISING FROM THE SEMIGROUP OF A PLANE BRANCH

Let $`S=\overline{\delta }_0,\mathrm{},\overline{\delta }_k=v(𝒪)`$ be the semigroup of a plane branch, where $`\overline{\delta }_0<\overline{\delta }_1<\mathrm{}<\overline{\delta }_k`$ is a minimal set of generators of $`S`$, and let $`[S]=[t^{\overline{\delta }_0},\mathrm{},t^{\overline{\delta }_k}]=[Y_0,\mathrm{},Y_k]/I=T`$. We will show that $`T`$ has an associated graded ring (in the $`(Y_0,\mathrm{},Y_k)`$-filtration), which is a complete intersection. In particular this implies that $`T`$ is a complete intersection . We will use \[12, Theorem 1\] which states that if all elements in $`\mathrm{Ap}(S,\overline{\delta }_0)`$, the Apery set of $`S`$ with respect to $`\overline{\delta }_0`$, have unique expressions as linear combinations of the generators of $`S`$, then the relations are determined by the minimal elements above the Apery set. In the following results, we suppose $`S=v(𝒪)`$, where $`𝒪`$ is a plane branch. We also keep the notation of the previous sections.

###### LEMMA 5.1

All elements in $`\mathrm{Ap}(S,\overline{\delta }_0)`$ have unique expressions.

Proof. The elements in $`\mathrm{Ap}(S,\overline{\delta }_0)`$ are of the form $`i_1\overline{\delta }_1+\mathrm{}+i_k\overline{\delta }_k`$, with $`0i_j<d_{j1}/d_j`$ (cf. proof of Lemma 4.2). Suppose $`i_1\overline{\delta }_1+\mathrm{}+i_k\overline{\delta }_k=j_0\overline{\delta }_0+\mathrm{}+j_k\overline{\delta }_k`$. Then $`i_k\overline{\delta }_kj_k\overline{\delta }_k(modd_{k1})`$. Since $`i_1\overline{\delta }_1+\mathrm{}+i_{k1}\overline{\delta }_{k1}<\overline{\delta }_k`$, this implies that $`i_k=j_k`$. If $`k>1`$ we get $`i_{k1}\overline{\delta }_{k1}=j_{k1}\overline{\delta }_{k1}(modd_{k2})`$, which gives $`i_{k1}=j_{k1}`$ a.s.o. Finally $`0=j_0\overline{\delta }_0`$, so $`j_0=0`$.

Next we determine the “minimals” (cf. ), i.e. the minimal elements $`(n_1,\mathrm{},n_k)^k`$ such that $`n_1\overline{\delta }_1+\mathrm{}+n_k\overline{\delta }_k\mathrm{Ap}(S,\overline{\delta }_0)`$ (the order in $`^k`$ is the usual one). Some $`n_j`$ must be at least $`d_{j1}/d_j`$, otherwise the element belongs to $`\mathrm{Ap}(S,\overline{\delta }_0)`$. On the other hand at most one $`n_jd_{j1}/d_j`$ and there must be equality, if the element is minimal outside $`\mathrm{Ap}(S,\overline{\delta }_0)`$. Thus the minimals are

$$\{(d_0/d_1,0,\mathrm{},O),(0,d_1/d_2,0,\mathrm{},0),\mathrm{},(0,\mathrm{},0,d_{k1}/d_k)\}.$$

Thus the following theorem follows from \[12, Theorem 1\].

###### THEOREM 5.2

A minimal presentation for $`[S]`$ is

$$[S]=[Y_0,\mathrm{},Y_k]/(Y_1^{d_0/d_1}m_1,\mathrm{},Y_k^{d_{k1}/d_k}m_k)$$

where $`m_j`$ is a monomial in $`Y_0,\mathrm{},Y_j`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},k`$. Thus $`[S]`$ is a complete intersection.

###### COROLLARY 5.3

The associated graded ring of $`[S]`$ with respect to the filtration given by powers of $`(Y_0,\mathrm{},Y_k)`$ is $`[Y_0,\mathrm{},Y_k]/(Y_1^{d_0/d_1},\mathrm{},Y_k^{d_{k1}/d_k})`$. Thus it is a complete intersection.

Proof. Since $`m_j=Y_0^{n_0}\mathrm{}Y_{j1}^{n_{j1}}`$ and $`n_0\overline{\delta }_0+\mathrm{}+n_{j1}\overline{\delta }_{j1}=(d_{j1}/d_j)\overline{\delta }_j`$, it is clear that $`n_0+\mathrm{}+n_{j1}>(d_{j1}/d_j)`$, so $`\mathrm{in}(Y_j^{d_{j1}/d_j}m_j)=Y_j^{d_{j1}/d_j}`$. Since $`Y_1^{d_0/d_1},\mathrm{},Y_k^{d_{k1}/d_k}`$ is a regular sequence, we get the result, cf. .

Remark. Notice that not only for semigroups of plane branches the two results above hold. For example, if $`S=4,6,7`$, then $`S`$ is not the semigroup of a plane branch, but $`[S]=[X,Y,Z]/(Y^2X^3,Z^2X^2Y)`$ is a complete intersection and also its associated graded ring is a complete intersection.

###### COROLLARY 5.4

The generating function for $`S`$, i.e. $`_{iS}t^i`$, equals

$$(1t^{(d_0/d_1)\overline{\delta }_1})\mathrm{}(1t^{(d_{k1}/d_k)\overline{\delta }_k})/((1t^{\overline{\delta }_0})\mathrm{}(1t^{\overline{\delta }_k})).$$

Proof. As graded algebra $`[S]`$ is generated by $`k+1`$ elements of degrees $`\overline{\delta }_i`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},k`$ and has $`k`$ minimal relations of degrees $`(d_{i1}/d_i)\overline{\delta }_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$, which constitute a regular sequence.

Examples. If $`𝒪=[[t^8,t^{12}+t^{14}+t^{15}]]`$, then $`v(𝒪)=8,12,26,53`$ so the generating function is $`(1t^{24})(1t^{52})(1t^{106})/((1t^8)(1t^{12})(1t^{26})(1t^{53}))`$.

If $`𝒪=[[t^{30},t^{42}+t^{112}+t^{127}]]`$, then $`v(𝒪)=30,42,280,855`$ so the generating function is $`(1t^{210})(1t^{840})(1t^{1710})/((1t^{30})(1t^{42})(1t^{280})(1t^{855}))`$.