text:
# Presentations of Noneffective Orbifolds

## 1. Introduction

Recently, motivated largely by string theory, many researchers have developed new aspects of the geometry and topology of orbifolds (e.g. \[Rua\], \[CR\], \[AR\]). In particular, it has become clear that the traditional definition (originally due to Satake \[Sat56\]) is cumbersome and sometimes misleading. Orbifolds should not be seen simply as manifolds with mild singularities (i.e. a very nice kind of stratified space). Instead one wants to take into account the extra structure provided by the stabilizer groups attached to each point.

From the point of view of algebraic geometry this is already known. Orbifolds are the smooth version of Deligne-Mumford stacks. However stacks are not well known outside of algebraic geometry, so this point of view has not been popular among differential geometers or topologists. When one wants to take advantage of the extra structure of an orbifold—for example, to do “stringy geometry”—one must, one way or another, look at the stack structure on the orbifold. Lupercio and Uribe have pointed this out in \[LU\], although they do not develop it.

More concretely, stacks are represented by groupoids, and it is in this language that many constructions are easier than in the traditional orbifold language. In particular the correct notion of a map of orbifolds corresponds to a Hilsum-Skandalis morphism of groupoids. Such a map induces a continuous map on the underlying topological space, but considering only this continuous map loses information, that is, the functor $`\mathrm{𝐎𝐫𝐛}\mathrm{𝐓𝐨𝐩}`$ is not faithful. This is the precise sense in which an orbifold has “extra structure.” This was only observed recently in the orbifold literature, for example by Ruan \[Rua\], who noted that to pull back an “orbi-vector bundle,” one needs more than a map on the underlying topological space, and by Moerdijk and Pronk \[MP97\], who observed the same thing for sheaves. Also see \[Hen\] for concrete examples showing the need for more data.

This paper uses the groupoid language to (partially) answer a question about the presentation of orbifolds. Orbifolds often arise as a quotient of a smooth manifold $`P`$ by the action of a compact Lie group $`K`$. Conversely, suppose we require that the stabilizer groups of an orbifold $``$ to act effectively on the corresponding charts. Call such an orbifold effective. (Some sources refer to these as reduced orbifolds, but this conflicts with the standard use of the word “reduced” in algebraic geometry.) Then any effective $``$ can be presented 111This is very different from asking whether an orbifold can be obtained as a quotient by the action of a finite group, or more generally a discrete group. So this question has nothing to do with the distinction between “good” and “bad” orbifolds. as $`P/K`$ for some $`P,K`$.

If one thinks of an orbifold as simply a mildly singular stratified space, with the main function of the stabilizer groups being to provide interesting singularities, then the effectivity assumption is reasonable. However when one wants to utilize the extra structure associated to the stabilizer groups, this restriction becomes artificial. In addition, certain useful constructions on orbifolds (such as Kawasaki’s $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, \[Kaw78\], \[Kaw79\]) take one out of the effective situation.

Even the extreme case where the actions of the stabilizer groups are all trivial turns out to be interesting; the presentation problem here is the topological analogue of the Brauer Conjecture (see \[EHKV\]) in algebraic geometry. We will see that the appropriate language for this case uses gerbes.

Hence a natural question arises, can a noneffective orbifold always be presented? The answer is still unknown, but we prove results (Thm. 5.5, Cor. 5.6 and Thm. 5.7 below) showing that in many cases the answer is still yes. The extension of our method to answer the general question will require understanding equivariant gerbes.

### 1.1. Usual Definition of an Orbifold

For completeness, we recall the usual definition of an orbifold. We adapt the following from Ruan and Chen \[CR\]. (See also Moerdijk and Pronk \[MP97\].) We note that in Section 2.4 we will see an alternate characterization of orbifolds, one that we think of as a superior definition. Let $`M`$ be a paracompact Hausdorff space.

###### Definition 1.1.

An orbifold chart on $`M`$ is given by a connected open subset $`\stackrel{~}{U}^n`$, an action $`\rho :HAut(\stackrel{~}{U})`$ of a finite group $`H`$ by smooth automorphisms of $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$, and a map $`\varphi :\stackrel{~}{U}M`$, such that $`\varphi `$ is $`H`$-invariant and induces a homeomorphism from $`\stackrel{~}{U}/H`$ onto an open subset $`U=\varphi (\stackrel{~}{U})M`$.

An embedding $`\lambda :(\stackrel{~}{U},H,\rho ,\varphi )(\stackrel{~}{U}^{},H^{},\rho ^{},\varphi ^{})`$ between two such charts is a smooth embedding $`\lambda :\stackrel{~}{U}\stackrel{~}{U}^{}`$ and an injective map, also denoted by $`\lambda `$, $`\lambda :HH^{}`$, with $`\lambda (h\stackrel{~}{x})=\lambda (h)\lambda (\stackrel{~}{x})`$, and $`\varphi (\lambda (\stackrel{~}{x}))=\varphi ^{}(\stackrel{~}{x})`$. Furthermore, $`\lambda :HH^{}`$ is required to be an isomorphism from the kernel of the action map $`H\mathrm{Aut}(\stackrel{~}{U})`$ to the kernel of $`H^{}\mathrm{Aut}(\stackrel{~}{U}^{})`$.

An orbifold atlas on $`M`$ is a family $`𝒰=\{(\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ,H_\alpha ,\rho _\alpha ,\varphi _\alpha )\}`$ of such charts, which cover $`M`$ and are compatible in the following sense: given any two charts $`(\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ,H_\alpha ,\rho _\alpha ,\varphi _\alpha )`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{U}_\beta ,H_\beta ,\rho _\beta ,\varphi _\beta )`$, with $`\varphi _\alpha (\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha )=U_\alpha `$, $`\varphi _\beta (\stackrel{~}{U}_\beta )=U_\beta `$, and given any $`xU_\alpha U_\beta `$, there exists an open neighborhood $`U_\gamma U_\alpha U_\beta `$ and a chart $`(\stackrel{~}{U}_\gamma ,H_\gamma ,\rho _\gamma ,\varphi _\gamma )`$ for $`U_\gamma `$, such that there are embeddings $`(\stackrel{~}{U}_\gamma ,H_\gamma ,\rho _\gamma ,\varphi _\gamma )(\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ,H_\alpha ,\rho _\alpha ,\varphi _\alpha )`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{U}_\gamma ,H_\gamma ,\rho _\gamma ,\varphi _\gamma )(\stackrel{~}{U}_\beta ,H_\beta ,\rho _\beta ,\varphi _\beta )`$.

Two such atlases are said to be equivalent if they have a common refinement. An orbifold (of dimension $`n`$) is such a space $`M`$ with an equivalence class of orbifold atlases.

Many authors consider only effective (or “reduced”) orbifolds, defined as follows.

###### Definition 1.2.

An orbifold is effective if it has an atlas in which all of the group actions $`\rho _\alpha `$ are effective.

That is, for effective orbifolds, we can think of each stabilizer group as a subgroup of $`\mathrm{Aut}(\stackrel{~}{U})`$.

For a noneffective orbifold, the role of the noneffective parts of the stabilizer groups (the kernels of the maps $`\rho _\alpha `$) is rather subtle. In particular the above definition is not entirely satisfactory. In section Sec. 2.4 we will use the language of groupoids to give an alternate characterization of an orbifold, one which agrees with the above definition in the effective case but which we feel is superior in the noneffective case.

One obvious way to get an orbifold is to start with a smooth manifold and mod out by the action of a finite group. It is simple to find examples of orbifolds which do not arise in this way. A more general situation in which orbifolds arise is the following easy consequence of the slice theorem for group actions:

###### Proposition 1.3.

Let $`P`$ be a smooth manifold with a locally free action of a compact Lie group $`K`$. (I.e. the stabilizers are all finite.) Then the quotient $`P/K`$ has a canonical orbifold structure.

When an orbifold $`M`$ can be realized as such a quotient $`MP/K`$, we say that this is a presentation of $`M`$. In the paper \[Sat56\] which introduced orbifolds (under the name “V-manifolds”) Satake proved the following result about presentations.

###### Proposition 1.4.

Let $`M`$ be an effective orbifold. Then $`M`$ can be presented as $`MP/K`$ where $`P=\mathrm{Fr}_{O(n)}(M)`$ is the orthonormal frame bundle for some Riemannian structure on $`M`$ and $`K=O(n)`$.

The purpose of this paper is to generalize this result to a larger class of orbifolds than the effective ones, and give partial results toward the presentation question for all orbifolds.

## 2. Groupoids

As mentioned in the introduction, one of the ways to think of an orbifold is as a particularly simple kind of smooth groupoid. We will briefly review the notion of groupoid, and introduce the structures on groupoids which we will need in the sequel. A good source for some of the material in this section is the recent preprint of Moerdijk \[Moe\]. In Section 2.4 we will address how to think of orbifolds as groupoids.

A groupoid is a category where all morphisms are invertible. We need the notion of a smooth groupoid, where the sets of objects and of arrows are smooth manifolds, and the structure maps of the groupoid are smooth maps.222One can also work in the topological category. Here we restrict ourselves to the smooth setting. More precisely,

###### Definition 2.1.

A smooth groupoid $`𝒢`$ is a pair of smooth manifolds $`𝒢_1,𝒢_0`$ and smooth maps $`s,t:𝒢_1𝒢_0`$, $`u:𝒢_0𝒢_1`$, $`i:𝒢_1𝒢_1`$, $`m:𝒢_1\times _{s,𝒢_0,t}𝒢_1𝒢_1`$, satisfying the relations given below. We call $`𝒢_0`$ the space of objects and $`𝒢_1`$ the space of arrows. We use the notation $`g:xy`$ to denote an arrow $`g𝒢_1`$ with $`s(g)=x,t(g)=y`$. Denoting $`m(g,h)`$ by $`gh`$, $`i(g)`$ by $`g^1`$, and $`u(x)`$ by $`1_x`$, the axioms are the familiar ones for a groupoid: for appropriate $`x,y𝒢_0`$, $`g,h,k𝒢_1`$,

$$s(1_x)=t(1_x)=x,s(g^1)=t(g),t(g^1)=s(g);$$
(2.1)
$$s(gh)=s(h),t(gh)=t(g),g(hk)=(gh)k;$$
(2.2)
$$g1_x=1_yg=g,g^1g=1_x,gg^1=1_y\text{(for }g:xy\text{).}$$
(2.3)
We further require that $`s`$ (and hence $`t`$) is a submersion (in particular, this guarantees that $`G_1\times _{t,G_0,s}G_1`$ is actually a smooth manifold). Note: we do require all manifolds to be Hausdorff (and second countable).

If $`s`$ (hence $`t`$) is a local diffeomorphism we call $`𝒢`$ a smooth étale groupoid. If the map $`(s,t):𝒢_1𝒢_0\times 𝒢_0`$ is proper, we call the groupoid proper.

Note: It is easy to show that $`i`$ is an involution of $`𝒢_1`$; hence any property holds for $`s`$ if and only if it holds for $`t`$.

When we want to refer to a groupoid without any topological or smooth structure, we will use the term abstract groupoid.

Examples.

1. Given a manifold $`M`$, we can define the trivial groupoid, also denoted $`M`$, with $`M_0=M`$ and with only identity arrows in $`M_1`$.
2. Given a Lie group $`K`$ we can define a corresponding groupoid $`K`$ with only one object, and with $`K`$ as the space of arrows.
3. Given a manifold $`M`$ and a right action of the Lie group $`K`$ on $`M`$, we can form the translation groupoid $`MK`$ by $`(MK)_0=X`$, $`(MK)_1=M\times K`$, $`s(x,k)=xk`$, $`t(x,k)=x`$, $`u(x)=(x,1)`$, $`i(x,k)=(xk,k^1)`$, and $`(x,k)(y,h)=(x,kh)`$.

Note that the first example is $`M(e)`$, and the second example is $`K`$, where $``$, here and in the sequel, denotes the one-point space. The notation $`K`$ is meant to be suggestive of classifying spaces; see section 2.3 for a justification of this notation.

A strict homomorphism $`\varphi :𝒢`$ of smooth groupoids is a smooth functor, i.e. it is given by a pair of smooth maps $`\varphi _0:𝒢_0_0`$ and $`\varphi _1:𝒢_1_1`$ commuting with the structure maps of $`𝒢`$ and $``$. We get a corresponding notion of strict isomorphism. However we will use a different notion of morphism, explained in Sec. 2.3 below.

Given any smooth groupoid $`𝒢`$, one can form its topological, or coarse, quotient $`𝒢_{\mathrm{top}}=𝒢_0/𝒢`$ by identifying any two objects which have an arrow between them. However this is not a very fine invariant of $`𝒢`$ and is often not a nice topological space. For example, any groupoid that is categorically connected (i.e., any two objects can be joined by an arrow) has a topological quotient that is just a single point. Note that if we take the topological quotient of a translation groupoid $`XK`$, we get the topological quotient: $`(XK)_{\mathrm{top}}X/K`$. We will think of groupoids as models for their quotient spaces which are finer than the naïve topological quotient. The precise way in which we use a groupoid as a model for its quotient comes from the notion of map which we will define in Sec. 2.3.

### 2.1. Structures on Groupoids

Most notions that can be defined for a group or for a manifold can be defined for groupoids. We will need the following notions.

Let $`𝒢`$ be a groupoid. A right action of $`𝒢`$ on a space $`X`$ consists of two smooth maps $`\pi :X𝒢_0`$ (often called the “moment map”; we will call it the “base map” to avoid confusion with symplectic geometry usage) and

$`m:X\times _{\pi ,𝒢_0,t}𝒢_1=\{(x,g)|\pi (x)=t(g)\}`$ $`X`$
$`(x,g)`$ $`xg`$
(the action map) such that

$$(xg)h=x(gh),x1=x,\pi (xg)=s(g).$$

Given a right action of $`𝒢`$ on $`X`$ we can form the semidirect product, or translation, groupoid, generalizing the third example from the previous section: we define

$$(X𝒢)_0=X,(X𝒢)_1=X\times _{\pi ,𝒢_0,t}𝒢_1$$

and $`s(x,g)=xg`$, $`t(x,g)=x`$, $`(x,g)(xg,h)=(x,gh)`$, $`i(x,g)=(xg,g^1)`$. Note that $`\pi `$ extends as a covariant functor $`\pi :X𝒢𝒢`$ by defining $`\pi (x,g)=g`$. Unless otherwise specified all actions will be from the right, so by a $`𝒢`$-space we will mean a space with a given right $`𝒢`$-action.

A left action of $`𝒢`$ is a right action of the opposite groupoid $`𝒢^{\mathrm{op}}`$. We will use this a good deal so we will be explicit. We have a base map $`\pi :X𝒢_0`$ and an action map

$`m:𝒢_1\times _{s,𝒢_0,\pi }X=\{(g,x)|s(g)=\pi (x)\}`$ $`X`$
$`(g,x)`$ $`gx`$
(the action map) such that

$$g(hx)=(gh)x,1x=x,\pi (gx)=t(g).$$

Again we can form a semidirect product:

$$(𝒢X)_0=X,(𝒢X)_1=𝒢_1\times _{s,𝒢_0,\pi }X$$

and $`s(g,x)=x`$, $`t(g,x)=gx`$, $`(g,hx)(h,x)=(gh,x)`$, $`i(g,x)=(g^1,gx)`$. With these definitions $`\pi `$ again extends as a covariant functor $`\pi :𝒢X𝒢`$ by defining $`\pi (g,x)=g`$.

A $`𝒢`$-sheaf of sets (or $`𝒢`$-equivariant sheaf, or just sheaf) over $`𝒢`$ is a $`𝒢`$-space $`E`$ such that the base map $`\pi :E𝒢_0`$ is étale (i.e. a local diffeomorphism, not necessarily surjective). Sheaves of groups, covering spaces, and local systems (i.e. locally constant sheaves) are defined similarly.

We will need the following definition to describe maps of groupoids in the next section.

###### Definition 2.2.

Given a manifold $`B`$, a (right) $`𝒢`$-bundle over $`B`$ is a (right) $`𝒢`$-space $`E`$ and a smooth $`𝒢`$-invariant map $`p:EB`$ (so $`p(xg)=p(x)`$). It is principal if $`p`$ is a surjective submersion and

$$E\times _{𝒢_0}𝒢_1E\times _BE,(e,g)(e,eg)$$

is a diffeomorphism.

This reduces to the usual notion of a principal bundle in the case of a Lie group, i.e. when $`𝒢_0`$ is a point.

In section 5, to make certain reductions in the presentation problem, we will need the notion of a group action on a groupoid and the resulting semidirect product. (One can in fact define the notion of a groupoid acting on a groupoid, but we will not need this notion.)

Let $`𝒢`$ be a smooth groupoid and let $`K`$ be a Lie group. A right action of $`K`$ on $`𝒢`$ is a right action (in the usual sense) of $`K`$ on $`𝒢_0`$ and a right action of $`K`$ on $`𝒢_1`$ which respect the structure maps of $`𝒢`$, namely,

$$u(x)k=u(xk),s(gk)=s(g)k,t(gk)=t(g)k,(gh)k=(gk)(hk).$$

Note that every element of $`K`$ acts by an automorphism of the groupoid $`𝒢`$.

(Note: this is a very strict notion of a group action on a groupoid; one could define looser “2-categorical” notions but we will not need them.)

Given $`K`$ acting on $`𝒢`$ on the right, we define the semidirect product groupoid by

$$(𝒢K)_0=𝒢_0,(𝒢K)_1=𝒢_1\times K$$

with $`s(g,k)=s(g)k`$, $`t(g,k)=t(g)`$, and $`(g,k)(g^{},k^{})=(g(g^{}k^1),kk^{})`$. This reduces to the usual semidirect product of groups when $`𝒢`$ is a group, i.e. when it has just one object; and it reduces to the previous definition of semidirect product when $`𝒢`$ is a space, i.e. when it has only identity arrows.

We have the following useful lemma about semidirect products:

###### Lemma 2.3.

Let $`𝒢`$ be a smooth groupoid and let $`K,L`$ be two Lie groups acting on $`𝒢`$ on the right. Assume that the actions commute. Then there is a natural strict isomorphism

$$(𝒢K)L𝒢(K\times L).$$

### 2.2. Stabilizers

We will be particularly interested in the following $`𝒢`$-spaces. The stabilizer space $`S_𝒢`$ of a groupoid $`𝒢`$ (denoted simply by $`S`$ when it does not cause confusion) is defined to be the set of arrows with the same source and target:

$$S_𝒢=\{g𝒢_1|s(g)=t(g)\}.$$

(In categorical language, these are the automorphisms.) There is a right action of $`𝒢`$ by conjugation: given $`g𝒢_1`$, $`hS_𝒢`$, then we define $`hg=g^1hg`$. Hence $`S_𝒢`$ is a $`𝒢`$-space. Given $`x𝒢_0`$, let $`S_x=\{g:xx\}`$ be the space of stabilizer arrows at $`x`$; if $`𝒢`$ is étale then $`S_x`$ is discrete.

Let $`𝒢`$ be a smooth étale groupoid. An arrow $`g:xy`$ induces a germ of a diffeomorphism $`\varphi _g`$ from $`x`$ to $`y`$. For, choose an open neighborhood $`U`$ of $`g`$ such that $`s|_U:Us(U)𝒢_0`$ is a diffeomorphism. Then we have a smooth map $`t(s|_U)^1:s(U)t(U)`$, such that $`xy`$. Different choices of $`U`$ give the same germ. This defines a strict homomorphism $`\varphi :𝒢\mathrm{Diff}(𝒢_0)`$, the latter being the groupoid of germs of diffeomorphisms of $`𝒢_0`$.

In particular, given a stabilizer arrow $`(g:xx)S`$, consider the germ $`\varphi _g`$, which is the germ of a diffeomorphism fixing $`x`$. The space of ineffective stabilizers $`S^0=S_𝒢^0`$ is defined as the subspace of $`S`$ consisting of the arrows which induce the trivial germ (the germ of the identity map) on $`𝒢_0`$. Let $`S_x^0=S_𝒢^0S_x`$ be the set of ineffective stabilizers at $`x`$.

###### Proposition 2.4.

Let $`𝒢`$ be an étale groupoid. Then $`S_𝒢^0`$ is an open and closed $`𝒢`$-equivariant subspace of $`𝒢_1`$. Hence $`S_𝒢^0`$ is a $`𝒢`$-sheaf. If $`𝒢`$ is proper, then $`S_𝒢^0`$ is a local system.

###### Proof.

First note that an arrow $`gS_x`$ is in $`S_𝒢^0`$ if and only if there is a neighborhood $`U𝒢_1`$ of $`g`$ such that $`s|_U=t|_U`$. Given such a $`U`$, every $`hU`$ is also in $`S_𝒢^0`$, so $`S_𝒢^0`$ is open. Also, $`S_𝒢^0`$ is the inverse image under $`\varphi `$ of the identity arrows in $`\mathrm{Diff}(𝒢_0)`$, so it is closed as well.

Now we show that $`S_𝒢^0`$ is $`𝒢`$-equivariant. Given an arrow $`gS_x^0`$, let $`U`$ be such that $`s|_U=t|_U`$ and there is a section $`a:V=s(U)U`$ of $`s=t`$. Let $`h:yx`$ and, making $`V`$ smaller if necessary, let $`b:V𝒢_1`$ be a section of $`t`$ such that $`b(x)=h`$. Let $`c:V𝒢_1`$ be defined by $`c(z)=b(z)^1a(z)b(z)`$. It is easy to see that $`s(c(z))=t(c(z))`$, that $`c(x)=h^1gh`$, and that $`c(V)`$ is open in $`𝒢_1`$. Hence the conjugate $`h^1gh`$ is also in $`S_𝒢^0`$.

Now suppose that $`𝒢`$ is proper. We claim that $`s=t:S_𝒢^0𝒢_1`$ is proper. For, let $`K𝒢_0`$ be compact. Then

$$s^1(K)S_𝒢^0=(s,t)^1(K\times K)S_𝒢^0$$

is the intersection of compact and a closed set, hence is compact. Now we claim that $`s:S_𝒢^0𝒢_0`$ is a covering map, which will complete the proof. This follows from the following general topology lemma. ∎

###### Lemma 2.5.

Let $`p:EX`$ be a proper étale map. Assume that $`X`$ is locally compact and $`E`$ is Hausdorff. Then $`p`$ is a covering map.

###### Proof.

Let $`xX`$. Since $`p`$ is proper, $`p^1(x)=\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_n\}`$ is finite, and each $`e_k`$ has a neighborhood $`U_k`$ such that $`p|_{U_k}`$ is a diffeomorphism onto its image. Since $`E`$ is Hausdorff, we can assume that the $`U_k`$ are disjoint. Let $`U=U_k`$ and let $`V=p(U_k)`$. Since $`X`$ is locally compact, there is a neighborhood $`W`$ of $`x`$ with $`\overline{W}V`$ compact. Let

$$A=p^1(\overline{W})UE.$$

which is compact, and let $`B=p(A)X`$, also compact, hence closed. Since $`Ap^1(x)=\mathrm{}`$, $`xB`$, so there is a neighborhood $`W^{}`$ of $`x`$ with $`W^{}\overline{W}`$ and $`W^{}B=\mathrm{}`$. Then $`p^1(W^{})U`$, so $`p^1(W^{})=U_k^{}`$ for some open subsets $`U_k^{}U_k`$. Hence $`W^{}`$ is evenly covered, and $`p`$ is a covering map. ∎

If $`S_𝒢^0`$ consists only of identity arrows, we say $`𝒢`$ is effective. In this paper we will be most concerned with noneffective groupoids.

Given any groupoid $`𝒢`$ we can quotient out by the ineffective stabilizers. We define

$$(𝒢_{\mathrm{eff}})_0=𝒢_0\text{and}(𝒢_{\mathrm{eff}})_1=𝒢_1/S_𝒢^0.$$

Since $`S_𝒢^0`$ is $`𝒢`$-equivariant and acts trivially on $`𝒢_0`$, $`𝒢_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is a smooth effective groupoid. If $`𝒢`$ is étale (resp. proper) then so is $`𝒢_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. There is an evident strict homomorphism $`p:𝒢𝒢_{\mathrm{eff}}`$; two elements $`g,h:xy𝒢_1`$ have $`p(g)=p(h)`$ if they induce the same germ of a diffeomorphism from $`x`$ to $`y`$.

### 2.3. Maps of Groupoids

We have already defined the notion of a strict homomorphism of groupoids. However, we will more often use a different notion of morphism of groupoids. Since we are only interested in $`𝒢`$ as a model for its quotient, we need to be looser about what a morphism can be. The appropriate notion of map is that of Hilsum and Skandalis. We follow Crainic \[Cra99\] here. The key is that we are (roughly) allowed to “replace” the source groupoid by an “equivalent” object. Here the equivalent object is a principal bundle over the space of objects of the source.

###### Definition 2.6.

Let $`𝒢`$ and $``$ be smooth groupoids. A (Hilsum-Skandalis) morphism from $`𝒢`$ to $``$ consists of a manifold $`P`$, maps $`s_P:P𝒢_0`$, $`t_P:P_0`$, a left action of $`𝒢`$ on $`P`$ with the base map $`s_P`$, a right action of $``$ on $`P`$ with base map $`t_P`$, such that:

1. $`s_P`$ is $``$-invariant, $`t_P`$ is $`𝒢`$-invariant;
2. the actions of $`𝒢`$ and $``$ on $`P`$ are compatible: given $`pP`$, $`(gp)h=g(ph)`$;
3. $`s_P:P𝒢_0`$, as an $``$-bundle with base map $`t_P`$, is principal.

We will often abuse notation and denote such a morphism simply by $`P`$.

When we use the word “morphism” or “map” without qualification, we will always mean “Hilsum-Skandalis morphism.”

The composition of two morphisms $`P:𝒢`$ and $`Q:𝒦`$ is defined by dividing out $`P\times __0Q`$ by the action of $``$: $`(p,q)h=(ph,h^1q)`$, and taking the obvious actions of $`𝒢`$ and $`𝒦`$. The identity map of $`𝒢`$ is represented by the diagram $`𝒢_0𝒢_1𝒢_0`$ where the maps are the target and source maps and the actions are the left and right multiplication. A map $`𝒢_0P_0`$ is invertible (modulo the remark below) if both $`s_P`$ and $`t_P`$ are principal bundles.

Remark. The reader may note that composition is not associative on the nose but rather up to a natural notion of equivalence of maps (and similarly for identity maps and inverses). In section 3 we will note some of the subtleties this causes, especially relating to gluing. For the most part these issues will not concern us. However as one reflection of this subtlety we prefer to call a map with $`s_P,t_P`$ both principal an equivalence rather than an isomorphism.

Given a strict homomorphism $`\varphi :𝒢`$, there is an associated HS morphism given by

where the actions of $`𝒢`$ and $``$ on $`𝒢_0\times __0_1`$ are given by $`g(x,h)h^{}=(t(g),\varphi (g)hh^{})`$. It is easy to check that this defines an HS morphism. The resulting HS morphism will be an equivalence exactly when the functor giving rise to it is an essential equivalence, defined as follows.

###### Definition-Proposition 2.7.

A strict homomorphism $`\varphi :𝒢`$ is an essential equivalence if one, hence both, of the following equivalent conditions are satisfied:

1. the resulting HS map is an HS equivalence;
2. 1. $`\varphi `$ is essentially surjective: the map

    $$s\mathrm{pr}_2:𝒢_0\times _{\varphi ,_0,t}_1_0$$

    is a surjective submersion;
    2. $`\varphi `$ is fully faithful: the square

    is a fiber product.

It is easy to check the equivalence of these conditions.

Note that the second condition implies that the underlying map of categories (without any topological or smooth structure) is an equivalence.

Remark. One can arrive at the notion of morphism of groupoids by inverting the essential equivalences (in the sense of localization of categories). However we prefer the HS definition, partly because it leads more easily to the “stacky” nature of groupoids, see Section 3. (See also \[Pro96\].)

Example. We can let the source and the target of an HS morphism be translation groupoids. Let $`X`$ be a $`K`$-space, $`Y`$ be an $`L`$-space, for Lie groups $`K,L`$.

###### Lemma 2.8.

A morphism of translation groupoids $`XKYL`$ is equivalent to the data of a $`K`$-equivariant principal $`L`$-bundle $`s_P:PX`$ over the $`K`$-space $`X`$ and a $`K`$-invariant and $`L`$-equivariant map $`t_P:PY`$.

(Note: since $`K`$ acts on the right of $`X`$ and on the left of $`P`$, $`s_P`$ being $`K`$-equivariant means $`s_P(kp)=s_P(p)k^1`$.

The simple proof is left to the reader. Note that if we understand $`X`$ and $`Y`$ to be given the trivial actions of $`L`$ and $`K`$ respectively, we can describe both $`s_P`$ and $`t_P`$ as $`K^{\mathrm{op}}\times L`$-equivariant maps.

We can further specialize by setting $`Y`$ to be a point, $`Y=`$, and $`K`$ to be the trivial group, $`K=(e)`$. Then a map from $`X=X(e)`$ to $`L=L`$ is simply a principal $`L`$-bundle over $`X`$. in other words, $`L`$ classifies $`L`$-bundles, as the notation suggests. (Note that this fits with the topological definition of the classifying space, which is $`BG=EG/G`$. $`EG`$ is contractible, hence “morally” a point; topologists use it instead of a point to get a “good” quotient. Here we actually use a point for the space of objects, but use an alternate category of “spaces” to take the quotient.) We will discuss this example further in Section 3.

Many (but not all) properties and invariants of a groupoid are preserved by HS equivalence. For example, we have the following, saying that topological quotients and stabilizer groups are preserved.

###### Proposition 2.9.

Let $`(P,s_P,t_P)`$ be an HS map from $`𝒢`$ to $``$. Then $`P`$ induces a continuous map on the underlying topological quotients, $`f_P:𝒢_{\mathrm{top}}_{\mathrm{top}}`$. Given $`x𝒢_0`$ and $`y_0`$ such that $`f_P([x])=[y]`$, $`P`$ induces a group homomorphism $`\psi _{P,x,y}:S_xS_y`$, well defined up to conjugacy in the target.

If $`P`$ is an equivalence, then $`f_P`$ is a homeomorphism and each $`\psi _{P,x,y}`$ is an isomorphism.

###### Proof.

The map $`f_P:𝒢_{\mathrm{top}}_{\mathrm{top}}`$ is defined by $`f_P([s_P(p)])=[t_P(p)]`$. Since $`s_P`$ is surjective, this defines $`f_P`$ for all $`[x]𝒢_{\mathrm{top}}`$. To check that it is well-defined, let $`[s_P(p)]=[s_P(q)]`$; then there is a $`g:s_P(p)s_P(q)`$ in $`𝒢`$, so $`s_P(gp)=s_P(q)`$. Since the $``$-action on $`P`$ is principal, there is $`h_1`$ with $`gph=q`$ and $`h:t_P(q)t_P(gp)`$. Since $`t_P`$ is $`𝒢`$-invariant, we have $`h:t_P(q)t_P(p)`$, so $`[t_P(p)]=[t_P(q)]`$. It is also straightforward to check that $`f_P`$ is continuous. If $`P`$ is an equivalence, then the construction works in both directions, and it simple to check that the resulting maps are inverses.

Given $`x𝒢_0`$, $`y_0`$ with $`f_P([x])=[y]`$, we define $`\psi _{P,x,y}:S_xS_y`$ as follows. Let $`pP`$ with $`s_P(p)=x`$. We know there is $`h_0:t_P(p)y`$; fix such an $`h_0`$. Given $`gS_x`$, there is a unique $`hHHHl`$ with $`ph=gp`$; here $`h:t_P(p)=t_P(gp)=t_P(ph)t_P(p)`$. Hence we define $`\psi _{P,x,y}(g)=h_0hh_0^1S_y`$. It is simple to check that changing $`p`$ or $`h_0`$ changes the map $`\psi _{P,x,y}`$ by conjugating in the target. If $`P`$ is an equivalence, as above, the construction works in both directions to give inverse isomorphisms. ∎

### 2.4. Orbifold Groupoids

Moerdijk and Pronk (\[MP97\], \[Moe\]) show that to an effective orbifold with a given atlas, one can naturally associate a smooth proper effective étale groupoid. Equivalent atlases give rise to equivalent groupoids. Every such groupoid arises from an effective orbifold. Further, Ruan’s good maps (\[Rua\]) of orbifolds correspond to HS maps of groupoids.

Hence instead of the traditional definition of orbifold, we will henceforth consider orbifolds as groupoids. More precisely, following Moerdijk, we will refer to a smooth proper étale groupoid as an orbifold groupoid, and refer to a smooth proper effective étale groupoid as an effective orbifold groupoid. (Actually Moerdijk allows the groupoid to be an arbitrary proper foliation groupoid, which is always equivalent to an étale groupoid.) Similarly, a map of orbifold groupoids (our replacement for the notion of a good map of orbifolds) will be a Hilsum-Skandalis map.

We remark that this gives an elegant answer to the question of exactly what conditions one should put on the ineffective parts of the stabilizers, which we alluded to in Section 1.1. One can translate the groupoid statement to one involving explicit charts, analogous to Definition 1.1, but it is not particularly enlightening. One of our main themes in this paper is to stay within the groupoid language and demonstrate its usefulness.

Henceforth we will freely use the word “orbifold” to mean “orbifold groupoid.”

If we have presented orbifolds $`M=X/K`$, $`N=Y/L`$, then by Lemma 2.8, a map between the orbifolds is given by a $`K`$-equivariant principal $`L`$-bundle $`s_P:PX`$ and a $`K`$-invariant, $`L`$-equivariant map $`t_P:PY`$.

## 3. Groupoids as Stacks

We want to point out some of the subtleties inherent in the definition of maps of orbifolds given in Section 2.3, and briefly relate orbifolds to stacks. This section can be skipped if the reader is only interested in the presentation problem. However it does serve as motivation for the next section on gerbes.

First, given two HS maps from $`𝒢`$ to $``$, one can have an “isomorphism of HS maps” between them. It turns out that we do not want to simply identify two such isomorphic maps, as we would then lose the ability to glue maps. This leads to the idea of thinking of a groupoid as representing a stack. This point of view is very natural to algebraic geometers, but less so to differential geometers and topologists. However it should underlie all of the new “stringy” constructions on orbifolds. (See \[LU\] for more comments on this.)

###### Definition 3.1.

Given two groupoids $`𝒢`$ and $``$ and two HS maps $`(P,s_P,t_P):𝒢`$ and $`(Q,s_Q,t_Q):𝒢`$, an isomorphism (or 2-isomorphism for definiteness) from $`(P,s_P,t_P)`$ to $`(Q,s_Q,t_Q)`$ is a $`𝒢\times `$-equivariant diffeomorphism $`\alpha :PQ`$ such that $`s_Q\alpha =s_P`$ and $`t_Q\alpha =t_P`$.

Hence for every $`𝒢,`$ there is a category (in fact, an abstract groupoid) $`\mathrm{HS}(𝒢,)`$ of HS maps from $`𝒢`$ to $``$.

One would like to say this makes (Groupoids, HS maps) into a 2-category, but that is not quite true. Since the definition of composition of HS maps involves taking a pullback, composition of morphisms is not strictly associative, but only associative up to a coherent isomorphism. Hence (Groupoids, HS maps) form what is called a bicategory. However the lack of strict associativity of composition will not bother us too much, so it is not too wrong to think of this as a 2-category.

It is tempting to identify any two isomorphic HS maps to get a set of equivalence classes of maps. This does form a category, and often this is good enough. However there is one fundamental operation that fails when one does this, namely gluing maps together. A simple example shows the basic problem.

As in the previous section, let $`M`$ be a manifold and let $`K`$ be a group and consider the category of HS maps from the trivial groupoid $`M`$ to the classifying groupoid $`K`$. We saw that $`HS(M,K)`$ is the category of $`K`$-principal bundles on $`M`$. Suppose that $`M=_\alpha U_a`$ is an open cover of $`M`$. Then a $`K`$-bundle over $`M`$ is determined by the data of a bundle on each $`U_\alpha `$ and specific gluing isomorphisms on each $`U_\alpha U_\beta `$, such that the cocycle condition is satisfied.

If we simply identified any two isomorphic HS maps, then we would lose these specific gluing isomorphisms, retaining only the knowledge that the bundles happen to be isomorphic. If the cover is fine enough, that is no information at all since all bundles are locally trivial. Also, there is no way to talk about compatibility of gluings.

Hence HS maps glue in a different way from ordinary maps of manifolds. We have the following setup.

Let $`M`$ be a manifold (considered as a trivial groupoid) and $`𝒢`$ be an arbitrary groupoid. Let $`𝒰=\{U_\alpha \}`$ be an open cover of $`M`$, and denote $`U_\alpha U_\beta `$ by $`U_{\alpha \beta }`$.

###### Definition 3.2.

A collection of HS maps

$$\psi _\alpha :U_\alpha 𝒢$$

and 2-isomorphisms of HS maps

$$\chi _{\alpha \beta }:\psi _\alpha |_{U_{\alpha \beta }}\psi _\beta |_{U_{\alpha \beta }}$$

is called descent data if the $`\chi _{\alpha \beta }`$ satisfy the cocycle condition

$$\chi _{\alpha \beta }\chi _{\beta \gamma }\chi _{\gamma \alpha }=1.$$

We will only consider decent data that are normalized, i.e. with

$$\chi _{\beta \alpha }=(\chi _{\alpha \beta })^1\text{and}\chi _{\alpha \alpha }=1.$$

Descent data with respect to a given open cover form a groupoid, denoted $`\mathrm{Desc}(𝒰,𝒢)`$. An isomorphism of descent data from $`(\psi ,\chi )`$ to $`(\psi ^{},\chi ^{})`$ is given by

$$\eta _\alpha :\psi _\alpha \psi _\alpha ^{}$$

such that

$$\chi _{\alpha \beta }^{}\eta _\alpha |_{U_{\alpha \beta }}=\eta _\alpha |_{U_{\alpha \beta }}\chi _{\alpha \beta }$$

The proof of the following proposition exactly parallels the proof of the corresponding fact for principal bundles.

###### Proposition 3.3.

Let $`M`$ be a manifold (considered as a trivial groupoid) and let $`𝒢`$ be a groupoid. Let $`𝒰=\{U_\alpha \}`$ be an open cover of $`M`$. For every HS map $`\psi :M𝒢`$, restriction to the open cover induces an equivalence between the categories

$$HS(M,𝒢)\mathrm{Desc}(𝒰,𝒢).$$

In the algebraic geometry language, this says that a groupoid $`𝒢`$ naturally induces a stack on the category of manifolds. We present some further explanation of this idea and clarification of some confusing issues in a related paper \[Met\].

## 4. Gerbes

We will be particularly interested in a very simple kind of orbifold groupoid $`𝒢`$, namely one whose corresponding effective orbifold $`𝒢_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is equivalent to a manifold.

###### Definition 4.1.

A smooth étale groupoid $`𝒢`$ is purely ineffective (PI) if $`S_𝒢^0=S_𝒢`$, i.e. if every stabilizer arrow gives the germ of the identity on $`𝒢_0`$.

###### Proposition 4.2.

Let $`𝒢`$ be a purely ineffective orbifold groupoid. Then the quotient map $`p:𝒢_0𝒢_{\mathrm{top}}`$ is étale and the quotient $`𝒢_{\mathrm{top}}`$ is a smooth manifold. Moreover the induced map from $`𝒢_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ to $`𝒢_{\mathrm{top}}`$ is an equivalence.

###### Proof.

First note that the quotient map is open, since given an open set $`U𝒢_0`$, $`p^1p(U)=st^1(U)`$ is open since $`s`$ is an open map.

Further, note that $`S=S^0`$ is open in $`𝒢_1`$, by Prop. 2.4.

Let $`x𝒢_0`$. We will show that there is a neighborhood $`W`$ of $`x`$ such that for any arrow $`g:yz`$, $`y,zW`$, we must have $`y=z`$. Given such a $`W`$, $`p|_W`$ is open and injective, hence a homeomorphism onto its (open) image. This will prove $`p`$ étale. It will follow that $`𝒢_{\mathrm{top}}`$ is a smooth manifold (it is Hausdorff because it is a quotient by a proper equivalence relation).

Now we show the existence of $`W`$. Let $`U`$ be a neighborhood of $`x`$ whose closure is compact. Let $`A=(s,t)^1(\overline{U}\times \overline{U})`$. Since $`𝒢`$ is proper, $`A`$ is compact. Let $`B=AS`$ which is also compact.

Suppose that there is a sequence of points $`y_i,z_iU`$ with arrows $`h_i:x_iz_i`$, such that $`y_i,z_ix`$, and $`h_iS`$. We have $`h_iB`$ which is compact, so there is a convergent subsequence $`h_{i_j}hB`$ of $`h_i`$. This $`h`$ must be an arrow with $`s(h)=t(h)=x`$, so $`hS`$, a contradiction. Hence no such sequence can exist, so there must be some neighborhood $`W`$ of the form desired; hence $`p`$ is étale.

To show that the induced strict homomorphism, which we shall also call $`p`$, from $`𝒢_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ to $`𝒢_{\mathrm{top}}`$ is an equivalence, we need to verify conditions (2a), (2b) in Def-Prop. 2.7. Essential surjectivity is clear since the map on objects is a surjective étale map, hence certainly a surjective submersion. The map $`p`$ is also fully faithful since for both groupoids, there is a unique arrow from any object to any other object. ∎

As a corollary, we know when a groupoid is equivalent to a manifold. The answer is simple and standard.

###### Corollary 4.3.

Given a smooth proper étale groupoid $`𝒢`$, there is a manifold $`M`$ whose associated groupoid is equivalent to $`𝒢`$ if and only if $`S_𝒢`$ consists only of identity arrows. In that case, $`𝒢_{\mathrm{top}}`$ is a smooth manifold and is diffeomorphic to $`M`$.

###### Proof.

Given a smooth étale groupoid with $`S_𝒢`$ consisting only of identity arrows, Prop. 4.2 implies that $`𝒢_{\mathrm{top}}`$ is a smooth manifold. It is easy to see that $`p`$ satisfies condition 2 of the definition of an essential equivalence.

Conversely, since stabilizer groups are preserved by equivalence, if $`𝒢`$ is equivalent to a manifold, it must have no nonidentity stabilizers. ∎

Prop. 4.2 says that a PI orbifold groupoid is not a singular space at all, but instead is a smooth manifold with some extra structure, given by the stabilizers of the groupoid. In fact the extra structure is a well-known one, at least to algebraic geometers. Such a groupoid corresponds to a gerbe on the underlying manifold $`𝒢_{\mathrm{top}}`$.

We recall the definition of a gerbe $`F`$ on a space $`M`$. See \[Gir71\], \[Bry93\], \[LMB00\] for more details. A gerbe is roughly a certain kind of “sheaf of categories.” (More precisely, it is a certain kind of stack.)

###### Definition 4.4.

Let $`M`$ be a topological space. A (strict) gerbe $`F`$ on $`M`$ is an assignment of an abstract groupoid $`F(U)`$ to every open set $`UM`$ and a strict homomorphism of groupoids (a functor) $`r_{VU}:F(U)F(V)`$ for every inclusion $`VU`$. Denote $`r_{VU}(x)=x|_V`$ for $`x\mathrm{Ob}F(U)`$, and for $`x,y\mathrm{Ob}F(U)`$, denote the set of arrows in $`F(U)`$ from $`x`$ to $`y`$ by $`F(x,y)`$. This data is required to satisfy:

1. $`r_{WV}r_{VU}=r_{WU}`$ for $`WVU`$.
2. Given $`UM`$ and $`x,y\mathrm{Ob}F(U)`$, the assignment $`VF(x|_V,y|_V)`$ defines a sheaf (of sets).
3. Suppose we are given an open cover $`𝒰=\{U_\alpha \}`$ of $`U`$ and descent data for $`F`$ over $`𝒰`$, i.e. $`x_\alpha \mathrm{Ob}F(U_\alpha )`$ and $`\varphi _{\alpha \beta }:x_\alpha |_{U_\alpha U_\beta }x_\beta |_{U_\alpha U_\beta }`$ such that $`\varphi _{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{\beta \gamma }=\varphi _{\alpha \gamma }`$ (when restricted to $`U_\alpha U_\beta U_\gamma `$). Then there is an $`x\mathrm{Ob}F(U)`$ and $`\psi _\alpha :x|_{U_\alpha }x_\alpha `$ such that $`\varphi _{\alpha \beta }\psi _\alpha =\psi _\beta `$ (over $`U_\alpha U_\beta `$).
4. There is an open cover $`𝒰=\{U_\alpha \}`$ of $`M`$ such that each category $`F(U_\alpha )`$ is nonempty.
5. Given $`UM`$ and $`x,y\mathrm{Ob}F(U)`$, there is an open cover $`𝒱=\{V_\alpha \}`$ of $`U`$ such that for every $`\alpha `$, $`x|_{V_\alpha }y|_{V_\alpha }`$.

This definition amalgamates a number of more general concepts. Condition (1) says that $`F`$ is a presheaf of categories. Adding condition (2) says that $`F`$ is a “prestack.” Adding condition (3) says that $`F`$ is in fact a stack. One refers to this condition by saying that all descent data are effective, i.e. they define objects of $`F(U)`$ as stated.

Condition (4) says that the categories $`F(U)`$ are locally nonempty, and condition (5) says that any two objects are locally isomorphic. These last two conditions say that the stack $`F`$ is in fact a gerbe.

Remark. Condition (1), that the restriction functors commute on the nose, makes this a strict gerbe. Usually one allows the restriction functors to commute up to a coherent natural isomorphism. However in our case the strict condition will be satisfied, which simplifies the notation.

Now suppose $`𝒢`$ is a purely ineffective orbifold groupoid with topological quotient $`𝒢_{\mathrm{top}}`$.

We define a corresponding gerbe $`F`$ over $`𝒢_{\mathrm{top}}`$ as follows. Informally this is done as follows. Locally, over a small enough open set $`U𝒢_{\mathrm{top}}`$,

$$\mathrm{Ob}F(U)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(U;𝒢_0)=\{\text{sections of }p:𝒢_0𝒢_{\mathrm{top}}\text{ over }U\}.$$

The arrows are defined locally, for two local sections $`\sigma ,\tau :U𝒢_0`$, by

$$\mathrm{Ar}F(U)(\sigma ,\tau )=\mathrm{\Gamma }(U;𝒢_1)_{\sigma ,\tau }=\{\gamma :U𝒢_1|s\gamma =\sigma ,t\gamma =\tau \}.$$

Informally, the arrows over $`U`$ are just the different ways of gluing the representatives of $`U`$ together.

Formally, we first define a sheaf of categories $`\widehat{F}`$ by

$`\mathrm{Ob}\widehat{F}(U)`$ $`=\{\text{sections of }p:𝒢_0𝒢_{\mathrm{top}}\},`$
$`\mathrm{Ar}\widehat{F}(U)(s,t)`$ $`=\{\gamma :U𝒢_1|s\gamma =\sigma ,t\gamma =\tau \}`$
and then take $`F`$ to be the associated stack. This is defined as follows (following \[LMB00\]. An object of $`F(U)`$ consists of a cover $`𝒰=\{U_\alpha \}`$ of $`U`$, and descent data over $`𝒰`$, i.e. a family $`x_\alpha \widehat{F}(U_\alpha )=\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_\alpha ;𝒢_0)`$, and morphisms

$$f_{\alpha \beta }:x_\beta |_{U_\alpha U_\beta }x_\alpha |_{U_\alpha U_\beta }$$

satisfying $`f_{\alpha \beta }f_{\beta \gamma }=f_{\alpha \gamma }`$. By the definition of $`\widehat{F}`$, $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$ is a section of $`𝒢_1`$ over $`U_\alpha U_\beta `$.

An arrow of $`F(U)`$ from $`(\{U_\alpha \},\{x_\alpha \},\{f_{\alpha \beta }\})`$ to $`(\{U_\gamma ^{}\},\{x_\gamma ^{}\},\{f_{\gamma \delta }^{}\})`$ is given by the following data. Let $`V_{\alpha \gamma }=U_\alpha U_\gamma ^{}`$; these form a cover of $`U`$ which refines both $`\{U_\alpha \}`$ and $`\{U_\gamma ^{}\}`$. Then an arrow consists of a family of morphisms $`\{g_{\gamma \alpha }\}`$ of $`\widehat{F}(V_{\alpha \gamma })`$ from $`x_\alpha |_{V_{\alpha \gamma }}`$ to $`x_\gamma ^{}|_{V_{\alpha \gamma }}`$, compatible with the descent isomorphisms:

$$g_{\gamma \alpha }f_{\alpha \beta }=f_{\gamma \delta }^{}g_{\delta \beta }.$$

(This is defined over $`U_\alpha U_\beta U_\gamma ^{}U_\delta ^{}`$).

Restriction of objects and arrows from $`F(U)`$ to $`F(V)`$, for $`VU`$, is defined by restriction of $`x_\alpha `$, etc., in the obvious way.

It is straightforward to verify that this satisfies conditions (1)–(3) of Def. 4.4.

By Prop. 4.2, $`𝒢_0𝒢_{\mathrm{eff}}=𝒢_{\mathrm{top}}`$ always has local sections (being étale), verifying condition (4). Further, the map $`𝒢_1𝒢_0`$ has local sections, and hence any two objects of $`F(U)`$ are locally isomorphic, verifying condition (5). Therefore $`F`$ is indeed a gerbe. Note that if there are effective stabilizers, one will not get local sections of $`𝒢_0𝒢_{\mathrm{top}}`$, so one does not obtain a gerbe over $`𝒢_{\mathrm{top}}`$.

Conversely, if we start with a smooth manifold $`M`$ and a certain type of gerbe $`F`$ on $`M`$ (one whose band is locally constant, with finite isotropy groups) one can construct a corresponding orbifold groupoid $`𝒢=(M,F)`$. In fact there is an equivalence between orbifolds with only ineffective stabilizers and these types of gerbes over manifolds. We will not need this result here.

## 5. Presentations of Orbifolds

In this section we will prove a number of propositions that reduce the presentation problem for a general orbifold groupoid to a particular problem about equivariant abelian gerbes. We also show that the corresponding nonequivariant problem is solvable.

First we desingularize the space using the standard procedure of passing to the frame bundle.

Let $`𝒢`$ be a smooth étale groupoid of dimension $`n`$. Let $`F=\mathrm{Fr}(T𝒢_0)`$ be the orthonormal frame bundle of $`𝒢_0`$. Then there is a natural left action of $`𝒢`$ on $`F`$ with the standard projection $`\pi :F𝒢_0`$ as the base map. For, since $`𝒢`$ is étale, given an arrow $`g:xy`$ and a frame $`f=(e_1,\mathrm{},e_n)`$ with each $`e_kT_y(𝒢_0)`$, we can use the induced germ of a diffeomorphism $`\varphi _g`$ to act on the frame: $`gf=\varphi _g(f)`$. This is easily seen to be a smooth left action of $`𝒢`$. Further, this action commutes with the natural right action of $`O(n)`$ on $`F`$.

We can therefore use the following, which is stated with an extra group action present for later use.

###### Lemma 5.1.

Let $`𝒢`$ be a smooth groupoid and let $`K,L`$ be Lie groups. Let $`\pi :F𝒢_0`$ be a left $`𝒢`$-equivariant, right $`L`$-principal bundle over $`𝒢_0`$, and assume that the actions of $`𝒢`$ and $`L`$ commute. Further, assume that: $`K`$ acts on $`𝒢`$ and on $`F`$, $`\pi `$ is $`K`$ equivariant, the actions of $`K`$ and $`L`$ commute, and the actions of $`𝒢`$ and $`K`$ satisfy

$$(gf)k=(gk)(fk)$$

for $`g𝒢_1,fF,kK`$. Then $`K\times L`$ acts on the right of $`𝒢F`$ and the map $`\pi `$ induces a $`K`$-equivariant equivalence between $`(𝒢F)L`$ and $`𝒢`$.

###### Proof.

It is clear that $`K\times L`$ acts on the right of $`𝒢F`$, by $`(g,f)(k,l)=(gk,(fk)l)`$. We have

$$((𝒢F)L)_0=F,((𝒢F)L)_1=𝒢_1\times _{s,𝒢_0,\pi }F\times L.$$

We extend $`\pi :F𝒢_0`$ to arrows by defining $`\pi (g,f,l)=g`$. As usual this defines a smooth covariant functor, i.e. a strict homomorphism of groupoids. On objects, $`\pi `$ is a surjective submersion, since it is a principal bundle. We also need to check that $`\pi `$ is fully faithful. Since $`F`$ is an $`L`$-principal bundle, we have $`F\times LF\times _{𝒢_0}F`$. Hence

$`𝒢_1\times _{𝒢_0}F\times L`$ $`𝒢_1\times _{𝒢_0}F\times _{𝒢_0}F`$
$`𝒢_1\times _{𝒢_0\times 𝒢_0}(F\times F)`$
which says that $`\pi `$ is fully faithful.

Hence $`\pi `$ is an essential equivalence. It is also clearly $`K`$-equivariant. ∎

Note that $`𝒢F`$ should be thought of as a principal $`L`$-bundle over $`𝒢`$. Also, we want to think of $`(𝒢F)L`$ as (a finer model of) the quotient of $`𝒢F`$ by the action of $`L`$. So the lemma can be thought of as simply saying that when we mod out the total space of an $`L`$-bundle by $`L`$, we recover the base space.

Our first application of the lemma is the following.

###### Proposition 5.2.

Let $`𝒢`$ be an orbifold groupoid of dimension $`n`$. Put a $`𝒢`$-invariant Riemannian metric on $`𝒢_0`$ and let $`\pi :F=\mathrm{Fr}(T𝒢_0)𝒢_0`$ be the orthonormal frame bundle of $`𝒢_0`$. Then $`𝒢F`$ is a purely ineffective groupoid with a right action of $`O(n)`$, and $`\pi `$ induces an $`O(n)`$-equivariant equivalence $`(𝒢F)O(n)𝒢`$. Further, $`S_{(𝒢F)}^0\pi ^{}(S_𝒢^0)`$.

###### Proof.

The action of $`O(n)`$ and the stated equivalence follow directly from the lemma (with $`K`$ trivial). We need only to show that $`𝒢F`$ is purely ineffective. Given $`x𝒢_0`$, $`f=(e_1,\mathrm{},e_n)`$, $`e_kT_x𝒢_0`$, and $`g𝒢_1`$, $`g:xy`$, suppose that $`(g,f)S_{(𝒢F)}`$, i.e. that $`gf=f`$. Then $`(\varphi _g)_{}=1`$ on $`T_x𝒢_0`$. Now $`gS_𝒢(x)`$ which is a finite group, so $`\varphi _g`$ must be the identity. (Use an invariant inner product on a neighborhood of $`x`$ in $`𝒢_0`$ and the resulting exponential map.) Hence $`gS_𝒢^0`$, and $`(g,f)S_{(𝒢F)}^0`$. Hence $`S_{(𝒢F)}=S_{(𝒢F)}^0\pi ^{}(S_𝒢^0)`$. ∎

In particular, if $`𝒢`$ is effective, then $`𝒢F`$ has no stabilizers, so is equivalent to a manifold. This is the groupoid version of the proof that an effective orbifold is presentable as the quotient of its frame bundle by $`O(n)`$.

Now we reduce the complexity of $`𝒢`$ at the expense of making the compact group larger. Given a purely ineffective orbifold groupoid $`𝒢`$, the stabilizers will not generally be abelian, and the local system $`S_𝒢^0`$ may not be $`𝒢`$-equivariantly trivial. We will replace $`𝒢`$ with a new groupoid $`𝒢^{}`$ where $`S_𝒢^{}^0`$ is abelian and $`𝒢`$-equivariantly trivial, using a standard trick from bundle theory. We will assume $`𝒢`$ is connected (i.e. $`𝒢_{\mathrm{top}}`$ is connected) for simplicity.

###### Proposition 5.3.

Let $`𝒢`$ be a purely ineffective connected orbifold groupoid and let $`K`$ be a Lie group acting on $`𝒢`$ on the right. Let $`T=S_𝒢^0(x)`$ for some $`x𝒢_0`$. Then there is a purely ineffective orbifold groupoid $`𝒢^{}`$ with an action of $`K\times \mathrm{Aut}(T)`$ such that $`𝒢^{}\mathrm{Aut}(T)`$ is $`K`$-equivariantly equivalent to $`𝒢`$ and the stabilizer local system $`S_𝒢^{}^0`$ of $`𝒢^{}`$ is ($`𝒢^{}`$,$`K\times \mathrm{Aut}(T)`$)-equivariantly isomorphic to $`𝒢_0^{}\times Z(T)`$. In particular the stabilizer local system of $`𝒢^{}`$ is abelian and $`K`$-equivariantly trivial.

###### Proof.

Let

$$F=\{(x,\varphi )𝒢_0\times \mathrm{Hom}(T,𝒢)|\varphi :TS_𝒢^0(x)\}.$$

There is an obvious projection map $`\pi :F𝒢_0`$. It is surjective since all of the stabilizer groups of $`𝒢`$ are isomorphic to $`T`$ (since $`𝒢_{\mathrm{top}}`$ is connected and $`S_𝒢^0`$ is a local system). In fact it makes $`F`$ into a $`𝒢`$-equivariant $`\mathrm{Aut}(T)`$-principal bundle, where the left action of $`(g:xy)𝒢`$ is

$$g(x,\varphi )=(y,g\varphi g^1)$$

and the right action of $`\lambda \mathrm{Aut}(T)`$ is

$$(x,\varphi )\lambda =(x,\varphi \lambda ).$$
(5.1)
These actions clearly commute. It is also easy to check that everything is $`K`$-equivariant. Hence by Lemma 5.1, $`K\times \mathrm{Aut}(T)`$ acts on the right of $`𝒢F`$ and $`\pi `$ induces a $`K`$-equivariant equivalence between $`(𝒢F)\mathrm{Aut}(T)`$ and $`𝒢`$. So we let $`𝒢^{}=𝒢F`$.

It is clear that $`S_𝒢^{}^0=S_𝒢^{}`$, i.e. that the $`𝒢^{}`$ is purely ineffective, since $`𝒢`$ is.

By definition, $`𝒢_0^{}=F`$, and an arrow of $`𝒢^{}`$ from $`(x,\varphi )`$ to $`(y,\psi )`$ is an arrow $`g:xy`$ in $`𝒢_1`$ such that $`\psi =g\varphi g^1`$, i.e. $`\psi (t)=g\varphi (t)g^1`$ for every $`tT`$. Hence the stabilizers are

$`S_𝒢^{}^0(x,\varphi )`$ $`=\{g:xx|\varphi (t)=g\varphi (t)g^1tT\}=Z(S_𝒢^0(x))`$ (5.2)
since each $`\varphi `$ is surjective. Define a map $`c:𝒢_0^{}\times Z(T)S_𝒢^{}^0`$ by $`c((x,\varphi ),a)=\varphi (a)`$. More precisely, we should remember the source and target of this arrow, which are both equal to $`(x,\varphi )`$; hence where necessary we will denote the right hand side by

$$c((x,\varphi ),a)=\varphi (a)_{(x,\varphi )}.$$

By (5.2), this defines an isomorphism of local systems over $`𝒢_0^{}`$. It is $`𝒢^{}`$-equivariant since, for $`g:(x,\varphi )(y,\psi )`$,

$$gc((x,\varphi ),a)g^1=g\varphi (a)g^1=\psi (a)=c((y,\psi ),a).$$

It is also $`\mathrm{Aut}(T)`$-equivariant, where $`\mathrm{Aut}(T)`$ acts on the right of $`Z(T)`$ by $`a\lambda =\lambda ^1(a)`$. For, remember that $`\mathrm{Aut}(T)`$ acts on $`𝒢_0^{}`$ as in (5.1); we have

$$c((x,\varphi ),a)\lambda =\varphi (a)_{(x,\varphi )}\lambda =\varphi (a)_{(x,\varphi \lambda )}$$

and

$$c((x,\varphi )\lambda ,a\lambda )=c((x,\varphi \lambda ),\lambda ^1(a))=\varphi (a)_{(x,\varphi \lambda )}.$$

It is also easy to check that $`c`$ is $`K`$-equivariant. Hence we have a $`K`$-equivariant trivialization of the stabilizer local system of $`𝒢^{}`$, and this local system is abelian. ∎

Note: in gerbe language, this proposition accomplishes two things. It reduces to the case of an abelian gerbe, and it reduces to the case of a trivial band:

###### Definition 5.4.

A gerbe $`F`$ on a manifold $`M`$, represented by a purely ineffective groupoid $`𝒢`$, has trivial abelian band $`A`$, where $`A`$ is an abelian group, if the stabilizer local system $`S_𝒢^0`$ of $`𝒢`$ is $`𝒢`$-equivariantly isomorphic to $`𝒢_0\times A`$ for some abelian group $`A`$.

In fact one can quite generally define the notion of the band of a gerbe, which is analogous to the coefficient sheaf for a torsor, but it is somewhat involved. See Giraud \[Gir71\] for the original definition.

Combining the two previous propositions gives the following almost-presentation theorem.

###### Theorem 5.5.

Let $`𝒢`$ be a connected orbifold groupoid of dimension $`n`$. Then $`G`$ can be presented as $`𝒢/K`$ where $``$ is a purely ineffective orbifold groupoid (i.e. a manifold $`P`$ together with a gerbe $`F`$ on $`P`$) with trivial finite abelian band and an action of the compact Lie group $`K`$. The stabilizer groups of $``$ are isomorphic to $`Z(T)`$ where $`T`$ is the ineffective stabilizer of some point of $`𝒢_0`$.

As a corollary we obtain a result of Edidin-Hassett-Kresch-Vistoli \[EHKV\]:

###### Corollary 5.6.

Let $`𝒢`$ be a connected orbifold groupoid such that the ineffective stabilizers all have trivial center. Then $`𝒢`$ can be presented as $`𝒢P/K`$ where $`P`$ is a smooth $`K`$-manifold and $`K`$ is a compact Lie group.

We are thus led to consider the following situation. Let $`A`$ be a finite abelian group and let $`𝒢`$ be a purely ineffective orbifold groupoid such that the stabilizer local system $`S_𝒢^0`$ of $`𝒢`$ is $`𝒢`$-equivariantly isomorphic to $`𝒢_0\times A`$. I.e., we have a smooth manifold $`M=𝒢_{\mathrm{top}}`$ and a gerbe $`F`$, with trivial abelian band.

###### Theorem 5.7.

Given a smooth $`m`$-manifold $`M`$ and a gerbe $`F`$, with trivial finite abelian band $`A`$. Then $`(M,F)`$ can be presented as the quotient $`P/K`$ of a smooth $`K`$-manifold $`P`$, where $`K`$ is a compact Lie group; in fact $`K`$ can be taken to be a finite product of unitary groups, with $`A`$ centrally embedded in $`K`$, and $`P`$ can be taken to be the total space of a principal $`K/A`$ bundle.

We prove a preliminary result before proving this theorem. Let $`A/a`$ be a cyclic group and let $`i:AU(n)`$ be a central embedding of $`A`$ into a unitary group. The exact sequence

gives rise to a fibration sequence

where $`\beta `$ is the Bockstein map for the sequence.

For integers $`n,k`$, let $`d_{n,k}:U(n)U(n)^kU(nk)`$ be the composition of the diagonal map and the natural embedding of $`U(n)^k`$ as block diagonal matrices in $`U(n)`$. These maps form a direct system of groups and we define $`U(\mathrm{})`$ to be the direct limit of this system. (Note that this is different from $`U`$, which is the direct limit under direct sum with an identity matrix.) Note that the sequence $`U(1)\mathrm{}U(n!)U((n+1)!)\mathrm{}`$ is cofinal in our direct system, so $`U(\mathrm{})=\underset{}{lim}U(n!)`$.

The maps $`d_{n,k}`$ preserve the center, so given a central embedding $`i:AU(n)`$ for some $`n`$, there will be a corresponding central embedding in any $`U(nk)`$, and hence an embedding $`i_{\mathrm{}}:AU(\mathrm{})`$. We have an exact sequence

$$0AU(\mathrm{})U(\mathrm{})/A0.$$

The following result makes more precise a result of Serre, cited in \[Gro68\].

###### Proposition 5.8.

Let $`A`$ be a cyclic group and let $`SK(A,2)`$ be an $`m`$-dimensional skeleton. Then there is an integer $`n=n_m`$ and a central embedding $`i:AU(n)`$ such that the associated Bockstein map $`\beta :B(U(n)/A)K(A,2)`$ has a section over $`S`$.

###### Proof.

We construct the section using obstruction theory. First let $`n_0=1`$, and let $`i:AU(1)`$ be the standard embedding. We will try to section the map $`\beta _0:B(U(n_0)/A)K(A,2)`$ over successive skeleta of $`S`$, allowing ourselves to make $`n_0`$ larger, using the maps $`d_{n,k}`$ above, as follows. We will define a sequence

(where $`n_k=q_{k1}n_{k1}`$). Each term $`U(n_k)`$ in the sequence has its associated map $`\beta _k:B(U(n_k)/A)K(A,2)`$, and these maps commute with the $`d`$ maps as noted above. We will inductively find a section of each $`\beta _k`$ over the $`k`$-skeleton of $`S`$.

Clearly there is a section $`s_0`$ of $`\beta _0:B(U(n_0)/A)K(A,2)`$ over the 0-skeleton of $`K(A,2)`$. Now suppose that we have defined $`q_j`$ for all $`j<k`$ (which defines $`n_k`$) and we have found a section $`s_k`$ of $`\beta _k:B(U(n_k)/A)K(A,2)`$ over the $`k`$-skeleton of $`K(A,2)`$. The obstruction to extending the section of $`\beta _k`$ over the $`k+1`$-skeleton lies in

$$H^{k+1}(K(A,2);\pi _k(BU(n_k)))H^{k+1}(K(A,2);\pi _{k1}(U(n_k))).$$

It is well-known that any element of $`H^{k+1}(K(A,2);B)`$ is torsion, for a finite abelian group $`A`$ and an arbitrary abelian group $`B`$. So let $`q_k`$ be the least integer such that every element of $`H^{k+1}(K(A,2);\pi _{k1}(U(n_k)))`$ is $`q_k`$-torsion. So in particular the obstruction class is $`q_k`$-torsion. It is easy to see that under the diagonal map $`d=d_{n_k,q_k}`$, this class dies. Hence we can extend the section $`d_{n_k,q_k}s_k`$ of $`\beta _{k+1}`$ over the $`k+1`$-skeleton of $`K(A,2)`$. Continuing in this way, we get a section of $`\beta _m:B(U(n_m)/A)K(A,2)`$ over the $`m`$-skeleton, where $`n_m=n_0{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{m1}{}}}q_k`$.

(Note: since $`BU(n_0)`$ is 1-connected, we have $`q_0=q_1=1`$ and so $`n_2=n_0`$. Higher $`q_k`$ values are more complicated but calculable in principle.) ∎

Now the proof of the theorem is easy.

###### Proof of Theorem 5.7.

First we prove the theorem in the case where $`A`$ is cyclic. The gerbe $`F`$ is classified by an element $`\alpha H^2(M;A)`$. The class $`\alpha `$ defines a map $`\alpha :MK(A,2)`$. Since $`M`$ is an $`m`$-manifold we can assume that $`\alpha `$ maps into an $`m`$-skeleton $`S`$ of $`K(A,2)`$. Then Proposition 5.8 guarantees a lift of $`\alpha `$ through the Bockstein map associated to some embedding $`AU(n)`$. This lift classifies a $`U(n)/A`$-bundle $`P`$ whose Bockstein is $`\alpha `$. But for any such bundle we know that the class of the associated $`A`$-gerbe is given by the Bockstein of the classifying map of $`P`$. Hence we can present the $`A`$-gerbe using $`P`$.

If $`A`$ is an arbitrary finite abelian group, express it as a product $`A=A_k`$ and apply the above argument to each factor. We get a presentation with $`K=U(n_k)`$ and $`P=P_1\times _MP_2\mathrm{}\times _Mp_r`$. ∎

Note that for $`A`$ cyclic, we can take $`n=n_m`$ as in the proof of the last proposition. This gives, in principle, a computable bound for how large the group $`U(n)`$ must be.

In order to use this method to solve the general presentation problem for orbifolds, one needs a positive answer to following equivariant version of Theorem 5.7.

QUESTION: Let $`G`$ be a purely ineffective orbifold groupoid with equivariantly trivial abelian stabilizers, i.e. let $`G`$ represent an abelian gerbe $`F`$ with finite stabilizers and trivial band $`A`$ on a smooth manifold $`M`$. Let $`K`$ be a compact Lie group and assume that $`K`$ acts (strictly)on the right of $`G`$. Can we find a smooth manifold $`P`$, a compact Lie group $`L`$, and an action of $`K\times L`$ on $`P`$ such that we have a $`K`$-equivariant equivalence

$$PLG\mathrm{?}$$


format: text

text:
# On the maximum rotational frequency of neutron and hybrid stars

## 1 Introduction

Bulk properties of neutron stars depend sensitively on the equation of state (EOS) of nuclear matter at supernuclear density (Shapiro & Teukolsky 1983). In fact, matter in the cores of neutron stars possesses densities ranging from a few times $`n_0`$ $`(0.17\mathrm{fm}^3`$, the normal nuclear matter density) up to one order of magnitude higher. The EOS at such extreme densities is only poorly known. In the simplest model, a neutron star consists of neutrons only. In a slightly more accurate representation, a neutron star will contain neutrons and a small number of protons whose charge is balanced by leptons. Because of the extreme densities in the interior of a neutron star, the neutron chemical potential will exceed the mass (modified by interactions) of various members of the baryon octet. So in addition to neutrons, protons, and electrons, neutron stars may be expected to have populations of hyperons, too (Glendenning 1982, 1985). A comprehensive description of neutron star matter should thus account not only for nucleons and leptons, but also for hyperons, mesons, and the plausible transition to a quark-gluon plasma state (Glendenning 1982; Baym et al. 1985; Glendenning 1985, 1990; Weber 1999a, 1999b; Glendenning 2000).

Because of the unprecedented advances in observational astronomy, one may hope that measurements of neutron star parameters will soon constrain theories of dense matter. The rotational periods of rapidly rotating neutron stars (pulsars), for instance, provide restrictions on the EOS when combined with the mass constraint. Radio pulsars are stable rotators which can be treated as uniformly rotating bodies (Weber 1999a). Their rotational frequencies are bound from above by the Kepler frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_K`$, which sets an absolute limit on stable rotation because of mass shedding from the star’s equator. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_K`$ depends sensitively on the EOS (Friedman et al. 1986; Friedman et al. 1989; Lattimer et al. 1990; Cook et al. 1994; Salgado et al. 1994; Weber 1999a, 1999b). An EOS which predicts Kepler frequencies that are smaller than the observed rotational frequencies is to be rejected as it is not compatible with observation.

In this paper we present results for configurations that are rotating uniformly at their Kepler frequencies. Models for the EOS of dense neutron star matter are computed for three different descriptions which are based on the microscopic many-body Brueckner-Bethe-Goldstone (BBG) theory (Baldo 1999). The first EOS describes hadronic matter with nucleons and leptons in beta-equilibrium (Baldo et al. 1997). The second EOS includes the presence of all hyperons ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) that become populated in neutron star matter up to the highest densities relevant for neutron stars (Baldo et al. 2000a). Finally, the third EOS accounts for a hypothetical phase transition of confined hadronic matter into deconfined quark matter (Burgio et al. 2002a, 2002b). The hadronic phase is described in the framework of the BBG theory, and the deconfined quark phase within an extended MIT bag model (Chodos et al. 1974). We use recent experimental results on the possible formation of a quark-gluon plasma state (Heinz 2000) at CERN to constrain the bag constant, $`B`$, which turns out to be density dependent.

Calculations of neutron star (NS) properties performed for such an EOS show that the maximum NS masses lie in the relatively narrow interval of $`1.4\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{max}}1.7\mathrm{M}_{}`$. Moreover, we find that neutron stars with deconfined quark matter in their interiors computed for an effective density-dependent bag constant, can rotate at Kepler periods down to half a millisecond. Such small rotational periods are not accessible to neutron stars made of confined hadronic matter only nor to neutron stars with a hadron-quark phase transition computed for a constant bag constant. It was commonly believed that only absolutely stable strange stars (Witten 1984), which are self-bound objects, may rotate that rapidly (Glendenning 1990). Our findings, however, suggest that pulsars rotating with about half a millisecond period could still be interpreted as conventional neutron stars containing a metastable deconfined quark phase at their centers.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we briefly illustrate the BBG many-body theory. We then proceed to the discussion of the hadron-quark phase transition described within the MIT bag model supplemented with a density dependent bag constant. The stellar structure equations are introduced in Section 3. In Section 4 we present our results for both non-rotating as well as for rotating neutron stars and discuss the impact of an effective, density dependent bag constant on the Kepler frequency. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section 5.

## 2 Equations of state of neutron star matter

We begin with the description of the hadronic phase, for which we have adopted the Brueckner–Bethe–Goldstone (BBG) theory. This microscopic many-body approach is based on a linked cluster expansion of the energy per nucleon of nuclear matter (Baldo 1999). The basic ingredient is the Brueckner reaction matrix $`G`$, which is the solution of the Bethe–Goldstone equation,

$$G[n;\omega ]=V+\underset{k_ak_b}{}V\frac{|k_ak_bQk_ak_b|}{\omega e(k_a)e(k_b)}G[n;\omega ],$$
(1)
where $`V`$ is the bare nucleon-nucleon (NN) interaction, $`n`$ is the nucleon number density, and $`\omega `$ the starting energy. The single-particle energy $`e(k)`$ (assuming $`\mathrm{}`$=1),

$$e(k)=e(k;n)=\frac{k^2}{2m}+U(k;n),$$
(2)
and the Pauli operator $`Q`$ constrain the propagation of intermediate baryon pairs above the Fermi momentum. The Brueckner–Hartree–Fock (BHF) approximation for the single-particle potential $`U(k;n)`$ using the continuous choice is

$$U(k;n)=\mathrm{Re}\underset{k^{}k_F}{}kk^{}|G[n;e(k)+e(k^{})]|kk^{}_a,$$
(3)
where the subscript “a” indicates anti-symmetrization of the matrix elements. Because of the occurrence of $`U(k;n)`$ in Eq. (2), Eqs. (1) through (3) constitute a coupled system of equations that need to be solved self-consistently for different densities (i.e., Fermi momenta). The basic input quantity in the Bethe-Goldstone equation (1) is the NN interaction in free space, $`V`$. We adopt the elaborate Paris potential (Lacombe et al. 1980) as a model for the free two-nucleon interaction supplemented with the Urbana model UVII as three-body force (Carlson et al. 1983; Schiavilla et al. 1986). In the BHF approximation the energy per nucleon is given by

$$\frac{E}{A}=\frac{3}{5}\frac{k_F^2}{2m}+\frac{1}{2n}\mathrm{Re}\underset{k,k^{}k_F}{}kk^{}|G[n;e(k)+e(k^{})]|kk^{}_a.$$
(4)
Higher order correlations have been demonstrated to be negligible over the considered density range (Baldo et al. 2000b, 2001). The nuclear matter EOS computed from Eqs. (1) – (4) fulfills several essential requirements, namely (i) it reproduces the correct nuclear matter saturation density, i.e., $`n_0=0.176\mathrm{fm}^3`$, (ii) the nuclear incompressibility $`K=281\mathrm{MeV}`$ is compatible with the values extracted from phenomenology, (iii) the symmetry energy $`a_{\mathrm{sym}}=33.6\mathrm{MeV}`$ is compatible with nuclear phenomenology, and (iv) the causality condition is strictly fulfilled (Baldo et al. 1997).

Recently, we incorporated hyperons into the BBG treatment of neutron star matter (Baldo et al. 1998, 2000a). This requires knowledge of the nucleon-hyperon (NH) and hyperon-hyperon (HH) interactions. Because of the lack of experimental data, the hyperon-hyperon interaction has been neglected in a first approximation, whereas for the NH interaction the Nijmegen soft-core model (Maessen et al. 1989) has been adopted.

The equation of state of neutron star matter calculated along this scheme is shown in Fig. 1. The solid line displays the pressure as a function of baryon number density of beta-stable, electrically charge neutral nuclear matter when only nucleons and leptons are present. The dashed line represents the equation of state when $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons are self-consistently included, too. It is evident that the presence of hyperons strongly softens the equation of state (Glendenning 1982, 1985). This is caused by both the larger number of baryonic degrees of freedom and the attraction felt by the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ in the nuclear medium. As it turns out, this model for the EOS produces a maximum neutron star mass that lies slightly below the canonical value of $`1.44M_{}`$ (Taylor & Weisberg 1989).

We now turn to the description of the deconfined quark phase. To describe this phase, we have used the MIT bag model (Chodos et al. 1974). In this model, the total energy density is the sum of a non-perturbative energy shift $`B`$, the bag constant, and the kinetic energy for non-interacting massive quarks of flavors $`f`$ with masses $`m_f`$ and Fermi momenta $`k_F^{(f)}`$ \[=$`(\pi ^2n_f)^{1/3}`$, where $`n_f`$ denotes the density of quark flavor $`f`$\]:

$$\frac{E}{V}=B+\underset{f}{}\frac{3m_f^4}{8\pi ^2}\left[x_f(2x_f^2+1)\sqrt{x_f^2+1}\mathrm{arsinh}x_f\right]$$
(5)
with $`x_f=k_F^{(f)}/m_f`$. The $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks are considered to be massless, whereas the $`s`$ quark mass is chosen to be 150 MeV. In the original MIT bag model, the bag constant $`B`$ has a value of $`B55\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{fm}^3`$, which is quite small when compared with those ($`210\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{fm}^3`$) estimated from lattice calculations (Satz 1982). In this sense $`B`$ can be considered as a free parameter of the model.

In an earlier work, Burgio et al. (2002a) have proposed a method to constrain $`B`$ by experimental data obtained at the CERN SPS, where several experiments using high energy beams of Pb nuclei reported (indirect) evidence for the formation of a quark-gluon plasma (Heinz 2000). According to the analysis of those experiments, the quark-hadron transition takes place at about seven times normal nuclear matter energy density ($`ϵ_0156\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{fm}^3`$). By assuming that the transition to the quark-gluon plasma is determined by the value of the energy density only, Burgio et al. (2002a) found that a density dependent bag parameter is needed in order to reproduce correctly the experimentally found value of the energy density at the hadron-quark transition point. More specifically, a Gaussian-like or a Woods-Saxon-like density dependence of $`B`$ has been assumed, and parameters were fitted in order to correctly reproduce the experimental phase transition point. More details are given in (Burgio et al. 2002a, 2002b). We display in Fig. 2, panel (a), the bag constant $`B`$ as function of the baryon density $`n`$ in the case that the assumed parametrization is a Gaussian.

Once the density dependence of $`B`$ is established, the composition of electrically charge neutral, $`\beta `$-stable quark matter can be determined. The density range over which both hadronic matter and quark matter coexist is computed as outlined in (Glendenning 1992) for a system characterized by two conserved charges. The hadronic phase and the quark phase are allowed to be separately electrically charged while, at the same time, total charge neutrality is preserved. The pressure in the two phases is the same to ensure mechanical stability, while the chemical potentials of the different species are related to each other through baryon number conservation and electric charge conservation.

The resulting EOS for neutron star matter, for the Gaussian-like bag parametrization, is displayed in Fig. 2, panel (b), where the shaded area indicates the mixed phase region. A pure quark phase is present at densities above the shaded area and a pure hadronic phase is present below this area. Moreover, the onset density of the mixed phase turns out to be slightly smaller than the density for hyperon formation in pure hadronic matter. Of course hyperons are still present in the hadronic component of the mixed phase.

## 3 Stellar structure equations of rotating stars

The construction of general relativistic rotating neutron star models is a complicated task (see, for instance, Butterworth & Ipser 1976; Friedman, Ipser, & Parker 1986, 1989; Komatsu, Eriguchi, & Hachisu 1989; Lattimer et al. 1990; Salgado et al., 1994). We adopt Hartle’s method (Hartle 1967; Hartle & Thorne 1968) to achieve this goal. The metric has the form

$$ds^2=e^{2\nu }dt^2+e^{2\psi }(d\varphi \omega dt)^2+e^{2\mu }d\theta ^2+e^{2\lambda }dr^2+O(\mathrm{\Omega }^3),$$
(6)
where $`\nu ,\psi ,\mu ,\lambda `$ denote metric functions and $`\omega `$ is the angular velocity of a local inertial frame. The general relativistic Kepler frequency, denoted by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_K`$, is given as a solution of (Friedman et al., 1986; Weber 1999a,b)

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\nu \psi }v(\mathrm{\Omega })+\omega (\mathrm{\Omega }),`$ (7)
$`v(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^{}}{2\psi ^{}}}e^{\psi \nu }+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}}{\psi ^{}}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^{}}{2\psi ^{}}}e^{\psi \nu }\right)^2},`$ (8)
where $`v`$ denotes the orbital velocity at the star’s equator. Primes refer to derivatives with respect to the radial coordinate. All quantities in Eqs. (7) and (8) are to be evaluated at the star’s equator. Equations (6) to (8) are to be solved self-consistently for a given model for the EOS. Details can be found in Weber (1999a).

## 4 Results and discussion

In Figure 3 we plot our results obtained for non-rotating neutron stars (thin lines) as well as for neutron stars rotating at their self-consistent Kepler frequencies (thick lines). The vertical axes display the gravitational mass (in units of solar masses) as a function of central star density, $`ϵ_c`$, normalized to the saturation value of infinite nuclear matter, $`ϵ_0=156\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{fm}^3`$. On the right-hand side in Fig. 3 we illustrate the gravitational mass as function of the equatorial radius. The solid curves show results for neutron star matter composed of only nucleons and leptons (EOSa). The dotted lines represent equilibrium configurations of neutron stars composed of nucleons, hyperons, and leptons. The dashed curves display equilibrium configurations of hybrid stars, i.e., neutron stars composed of hadronic matter in the outer layers, followed by a mixed phase of quarks and hadrons at higher densities, and eventually a pure quark matter core in their centers (EOSc).

Our results for the gravitational mass, normalized central density, equatorial radius, and Kepler frequency for the maximum-mass star of each stellar sequence are displayed in Table 1. One sees an enhancement of the gravitational mass for rotating configurations, relative to the spherical star model of the same central energy density. This enhancement lies in the range between $`14\%`$ and $`17\%`$, depending on the underlying EOS. Correspondingly, for the same value of the gravitational mass, the rotating configurations exhibit reduced central densities compared to the corresponding non-rotating stars, which is due to the effect of the centrifugal force, which effectively stiffens the equation of state. Moreover, the mass increase is accompanied by a relatively large increase of the equatorial radius, due to the rotational deformation of the star.

A striking difference between the purely hadronic stars (EOSa and EOSb) and the hybrid stars (EOSc) concerns their compactness. In fact, for a fixed gravitational mass, hybrid stars are characterized by a larger central energy density and a smaller radius than their hadronic counterparts. This holds for both static as well as rotating configurations, as one would expect. The compactness of a star is crucial for its Kepler frequency as discussed next.

In Fig. 4 we display the Kepler periods $`P_K`$ ($`=2\pi /\mathrm{\Omega }_K`$) in milliseconds versus the rotational star mass for several different stellar sequences based on different EOSs. The shaded area represents the current range of the observed periods and masses.

Since the observed periods are larger than the Kepler values, which set an absolute limit on stable rapid rotation, all EOSs studied in this paper are compatible with the observed data. Stars made up of chemically equilibrated nucleons or nucleons plus hyperons, shown by the dotted and long-dashed lines respectively, show instability against mass shedding first because of their relatively large equatorial radii. In both cases, the limiting mass configurations are characterized by values of the Kepler period larger than half a millisecond, in agreement with results usually found in the literature (Weber 1999a,b). This is different for the Kepler periods computed for the hybrid stars in Fig. 4 \[labeled $`B=B_G(n)`$, $`B=90\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{fm}^3`$, and $`B=B_{WS}(n)`$\] which can be even smaller than half a millisecond. An example are the configurations along the solid line near the mass limit, which have been obtained using a Gaussian parametrization of the bag constant. We stress that this result does not depend on the particular parametrization chosen for the bag constant $`B`$. In fact, stellar configurations obtained with a Woods-Saxon-like bag parametrization (dashed line) show the same behavior.

For completeness, we show in Fig. 4 also the Kepler periods of hybrid stars computed for a quark matter EOS with a constant bag constant of $`B=90\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{fm}^3`$. In this case, no equilibrium configuration can rotate at Kepler periods smaller than half a millisecond. This is due to the fact that the increase of pressure with baryon density in the pure quark phase is less pronounced than in the case of a density dependent bag value, as shown in (Burgio et al., 2002a). Therefore, we deduce that only hybrid stars with a quark phase constructed by using a density-dependent bag constant can rotate stably at periods in the half millisecond regime. The Kepler periods of such hybrid stars therefore rival those of absolutely stable strange stars (Glendenning 1990), which were thought to be the only configurations able to withstand stable rotation down to half millisecond periods.

## 5 Summary

In this work, we have explored the Kepler periods of sequences of general relativistic, rotating neutron and hybrid stars. For this purpose we have employed three different equations of state derived by describing the hadronic phase in the framework of the many-body Brueckner-Bethe-Goldstone theory using state-of-the-art nucleon-nucleon interactions, and the quark phase within the MIT bag model supplemented by a density dependent bag constant $`B`$, as suggested by experiment. In essence, we have found that neutron stars made of purely hadronic matter (nucleons and hyperons) have minimum rotational periods that are clearly larger than half a millisecond. This may be different for hybrid stars, i.e., neutron stars containing deconfined quark matter cores. In the latter case, a density dependent bag constant provides additional compactness to hybrid stars so that Kepler periods down to half a millisecond are reached. Such small rotational periods are not obtained if the bag parameter is taken to be constant, as usually assumed in the studies published in the literature.

We thus conclude that very rapidly rotating pulsars, which are being actively searched for by upgraded radio telescopes and the latest generation of X-ray satellites, may be interpreted as either strange quark matter stars or neutron stars with deconfined quark matter interiors.

###### Acknowledgements.

We warmly thank Marcello Baldo (INFN Sezione di Catania) for the fruitful discussions about the hadron-quark phase transition in neutron stars.