format: text

text:
# Chromodynamic Lensing and Transverse Single Spin Asymmetries

## I Introduction

Many semi-inclusive hadron production experiments show surprisingly large transverse polarizations or single spin asymmetries (SSA) lambda . Moreover, the signs of these polarizations are usually not dependent on the energy. This very stable polarization pattern suggests that there is a simple mechanism that gives rise to these polarization effects.

Recently, it has become clear that phase factors due to final state interactions (FSI) of the struck quark play a crucial role for the leading twist single spin asymmetry (SSA) in semi-inclusive DIS hwang . Likewise, the initial state interactions (ISI) of the annihilating antiquark and the spectator quarks is believed to give rise to SSA in the corresponding Drell-Yan process.

According to BHS hwang , the SSA depends on the interference of different amplitudes arising from the hadron’s wavefunction and is distinct from probabilistic measures of the target such as transversity.

As has been emphasized in Ref. collins , this mechanism is also consistent with the Sivers mechanism. In Collins’ treatment the FSI of the struck quark are incorporated into Wilson line path-ordered exponentials (see also Ref. ji ). The ISI and FSI of the struck quark with the gluon field produce T-odd spin correlations (BHS), which is why a Sivers asymmetry is allowed.

However, what is not clear from these treatments is why the resulting SSAs are so large and and exhibit such stable patterns. The main purpose of this paper is to investigate whether one can understand, in a more physical picture, the mechanism associated with these phase factors that gives rise to such large SSAs.

## II Initial (final) state interactions and transverse spin asymmetries

Ref. collins  explains how ISI and FSI allow the existence of T-odd parton distribution functions. Formally the FSI (ISI) can be incorporated into $`𝐤_{}`$ dependent parton distribution functions (PDFs) by introducing a gauge string from each quark field operator to infinity

$`P(x,𝐤_{},𝐬_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dy^{}d^2𝐲_{}}{16\pi ^3}e^{ixp^+y^{}+i𝐤_{}𝐲_{}}}`$
$`\times p\left|\overline{q}(0,y^{},𝐲_{})W_y\mathrm{}^{}\gamma ^+W_0\mathrm{}q(0)\right|p.`$
We use light-front (LF) coordinates are defined as: $`y^\mu =(y^+,y^{},𝐲_{})`$, with $`y^\pm =(y^0\pm y^3)/\sqrt{2}`$.

$`W_y\mathrm{}=P\mathrm{exp}\left(ig_y^{}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z^{}A^+(y^+,z^{},𝐲_{})\right)`$ indicates a path ordered Wilson-line operator going out from the point $`y`$ to infinity. The specific choice of path in Ref. collins  reflects the FSI (ISI) of the active quark in an eikonal approximation.

The complex phase in Eq. (II) is reversed under time-reversal and therefore T-odd PDFs may exist collins , which is why a nonzero Sivers asymmetry sivers  is possible. However, given the fact that the asymmetry in $`𝐤_{}`$ hinges on a complex phase that depends on gluon-fields, it remains a puzzle why the resulting polarizations are so large and often not very sensitive to parameters like the energy or the momentum transfer.

Likewise, from the point of view of light-cone wave functions, spin asymmetries arise from the phase difference between two amplitudes coupling the proton target with $`J_p^z=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ to the same final state hwang . The main purpose of this paper is to investigate, in a semi-classical picture, how this phase translates into stable and large SSA.

The physics of the transverse asymmetry can be best seen by focusing on the mean transverse momentum

$`𝐏_{}(x,𝐬_{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle d^2𝐤_{}P(x,𝐤_{},𝐬_{})𝐤_{}}`$
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{dy^{}}{4\pi }e^{ixp^+y^{}}}`$
$`\times p|{\displaystyle \frac{}{_𝐲_{}}}\overline{q}(0,y^{},𝐲_{})W_y\mathrm{}^{}|_{𝐲_{}=0}\gamma ^+W_0\mathrm{}q(0)|p.`$
The $``$ derivative in Eq. (II) can act both on the quark field operator as well as on the gluon string.

Before proceeding further we would like to switch to light-front gauge $`A^+=0`$. Already in an abelian theory

$`a(𝐳_{}){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑z^{}A^+(z^{},𝐳_{})`$ (3)
is a gauge invariant quantity, it not entirely possible to accomplish this (In a nonabelian theory, the gauge invariant quantity is $`tr\left(W_\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\right)`$, and the argument is similar). In a box of length $`L`$ with periodic boundary conditions in the $`z^{}`$-direction, the closest one can get to LF gauge is $`A^+(z^{},𝐳_{})=\frac{1}{L}a(𝐳_{})`$ zero . If we regulate these zero-modes by working in such a box, using a gauge $`A^+=const`$ and finally taking $`L\mathrm{}`$, what we find is that (see also Appendix A)

$`{\displaystyle _{y^{},𝐲_{}}^{\mathrm{},𝐲_{}}}𝑑z^{}A^+(z^{},𝐲_{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{},𝐲_{}}^{\mathrm{},𝐲_{}}}𝑑z^{}A^+(z^{},𝐲_{})`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a(𝐳_{})`$
and111Note that the path-ordering of the gauge string becomes unnecessary for a constant gauge field.

$`W_{y^{},𝐲_{},\mathrm{}}e^{\frac{i}{2}ga(𝐲_{})}w(𝐲_{})`$ (5)
becomes independent of $`y^{}`$.

In this work, we conjecture that even though a strict light-cone gauge cannot be achieved, one can nevertheless summarize the mean effects of the $`A^+`$ component in its zero-mode (5). Likewise, any light-like gauge string that does not extend to infinity becomes trivial

$`W_{y^{},𝐲_T;z^{},𝐲_T}1,`$ (6)
which is why the gauge string can be omitted in the light-like correlations relevant for inclusive DIS.

In such an “almost-LF gauge”, one thus finds that

$`𝐏_{}(x,𝐬_{})`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{dy^{}}{4\pi }e^{ixp^+y^{}}}`$
$`\times p|{\displaystyle \frac{}{_𝐲_{}}}\overline{q}(0,y^{},𝐲_{})w^{}(𝐲_{})|_{𝐲_{}=0}\gamma ^+w(\mathrm{𝟎}_{})\psi (0)|p.`$
In the term where the derivative acts on the quark field the gauge string contribution disappears

$`p\left|_T\left(\overline{q}(0,y^{},\mathrm{𝟎}_{})\right)w^{}(\mathrm{𝟎}_{})\gamma ^+w(\mathrm{𝟎}_{})\psi (0)\right|p`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`p\left|_T\left(\overline{q}(0,y^{},\mathrm{𝟎}_{})\right)\gamma ^+\psi (0)\right|p.`$
However, without the gauge string pointing to infinity,

$`p\left|_T\left(\overline{q}(0,y^{},\mathrm{𝟎}_{})\right)\gamma ^+\psi (0)\right|p=0,`$ (9)
due to time reversal invariance.

Hence the only non-vanishing contribution in Eq. (II) arises when the derivative acts on the gauge string. Upon introducing

$`𝐈_{}(\mathrm{𝟎}_{})`$ $``$ $`i_𝐲_{}w^{}(𝐲_{})|_{𝐲_{}=0}w(\mathrm{𝟎}_{})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑z^{}_𝐲_{}A^+(z^{},\mathrm{𝟎}_{})={\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}_𝐲_{}a(\mathrm{𝟎}_{})`$
we can thus rewrite Eq. (II) in a very compact form

$`𝐏_{}(x,𝐬_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dy^{}}{4\pi }e^{ixp^+y^{}}}`$
$`\times p\left|\overline{q}(0,y^{},\mathrm{𝟎}_{})𝐈_{}(\mathrm{𝟎}_{})\gamma ^+q(0)\right|p,`$
which has a very physical interpretation as the correlation between the transverse quark position and the transverse impulse $`𝐈_{}(\mathrm{𝟎}_{})`$ acquired by the active quark as it escapes to infinity. This interpretation becomes even more transparent after switching to an impact parameter representation soper ; me:1st ; diehl ; ijmpa

$`|p^+,𝐑_{},s𝒩{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐩_{}}{2\pi }|p^+,𝐩_{},se^{i𝐩_{}𝐑_{}}},`$ (12)
where $`𝒩`$ is some normalization. Using the fact that the correlator in Eq. (II) does not change the transverse center of momentum (i.e. it is diagonal in $`𝐑_{}`$) this yields

$`𝐏_{}(x,𝐬_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2𝐑_{}\frac{dy^{}}{4\pi }e^{ixp^+y^{}}}`$
$`\times p^+,𝐑_{}\left|\overline{q}(y^{},\mathrm{𝟎}_{})𝐈_{}(\mathrm{𝟎}_{})\gamma ^+q(0)\right|p^+,𝐑_{}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2𝐑_{}\frac{dy^{}}{4\pi }e^{ixp^+y^{}}}`$
$`\times p^+,\mathrm{𝟎}_{}\left|\overline{q}(y^{},𝐑_{})𝐈_{}(𝐑_{})\gamma ^+q(0^{},𝐑_{})\right|p^+,\mathrm{𝟎}_{},`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2𝐛_{}\frac{dy^{}}{4\pi }e^{ixp^+y^{}}}`$
$`\times p^+,\mathrm{𝟎}_{}\left|\overline{q}(y^{},𝐛_{})𝐈_{}(𝐛_{})\gamma ^+q(0^{},𝐛_{})\right|p^+,\mathrm{𝟎}_{},`$
where we used translational invariance and then substituted the (dummy)-integration variable $`𝐑_{}`$ by the integration variable $`𝐛_{}`$. We use $`p^+,\mathrm{𝟎}_{}|`$ as a shorthand notation for $`p^+,𝐑_{}=\mathrm{𝟎}_{}|`$. If we compare this result with the impact parameter dependent parton distributions soper ; me:1st ; diehl ; ijmpa

$`q(x,𝐛_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dy^{}}{4\pi }e^{ixp^+y^{}}}`$
$`\times p^+,\mathrm{𝟎}_{}\left|\overline{q}(y^{},𝐛_{})\gamma ^+q(0^{},𝐛_{})\right|p^+,\mathrm{𝟎}_{},`$
we realize that Eqs. (II) and (II) differ only by the presence of the operator $`𝐈_{}(𝐛_{})`$ and an integration over the impact parameter $`d^2𝐛_{}`$. What we have thus accomplished is to express the mean transverse momentum of the outgoing quarks in terms of a correlation between impact parameter dependent PDFs and the transverse impulse $`𝐈_{}(𝐛_{})`$ as a function of impact parameter.

The physical interpretation of our result (II) is thus evident: $`𝐈_{}(𝐛_{})`$ is the net transverse impulse that a quark at $``$ position $`𝐛_{}`$ receives on its way out. The mean transverse momentum of the outgoing quark can be obtained by correlating the impact parameter dependent parton distribution with the impact parameter dependent impulse for an outgoing quark.

For a transversely polarized target, the impact parameter dependent parton distribution is not axially symmetric me . Therefore, even if one assumes to lowest order that $`𝐈_{}`$ was axially symmetric (which it actually does not have to be), the momentum distribution of the outgoing quark still exhibits an axial asymmetry. And the asymmetry arises from correlating the impact parameter dependent PDFs with the impact parameter dependence of the impulse due to the FSI. This is one of the main results of this paper and provides a mathematical foundation for the heuristic model for SSAs that was advocated in Ref. me :

For a transversely polarized target, the impact parameter dependent parton distribution $`q(x,𝐛_{})`$ is no longer axially symmetric. In Ref. me  it was suggested that the final state interactions deflect the outgoing quark in such a way that it receives a transverse momentum that is directed toward the center of the target. As a result, the final state interactions thus translate the axial asymmetry in impact parameter space into an axial asymmetry in the transverse momentum. Eq. (II) demonstrates that this very physical picture for SSA can in fact be related to the Wilson phase contribution discussed in Refs. hwang ; collins .

## III Simple Models for the Final State Interactions

In order to illustrate the implications of our results we will in the following adapt a potential model and treat the gluon vector potential as if it was abelian

$`gA^0(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`V(r)`$
$`g\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (15)
These are clearly drastic approximations, but what we have in mind is not an exact treatment of the problem but rather a qualitative illustration of the physics that is connected with these phase factors.

Note that the vector potential in Eq. (15) does not satisfy $`A^+=const.`$. In principle, one could transform the above ansatz into such a gauge. However, this is not necessary since $`𝐈_{}`$ is gauge invariant if we compactify space and we can evaluate $`𝐈_{}`$ it in any gauge.

The specific models that we consider are a logarithmic potential, linear, as well as quadratic confinement.

$`V_a(r)`$ $`=`$ $`c\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_0}}`$
$`V_b(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma r\mathrm{\Theta }(Rr)+\sigma R\mathrm{\Theta }(rR)`$
$`V_c(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K}{2}}r^2\mathrm{\Theta }(rR)+{\displaystyle \frac{K}{2}}R^2\mathrm{\Theta }(Rr).`$ (16)
In the cases $`b`$ and $`c`$ we have to introduce a long distance cutoff in order to avoid infrared divergences in $`𝑑z_{}A^0`$. The physical mechanism for such a cutoff is provided by pair creation when the active quark has separated far enough from the target. Parameters: $`\sigma =1\frac{GeV}{fm}`$, $`K=1.4\frac{GeV}{fm^2}`$, and $`c=0.3GeV`$. The cutoff radius is somewhat arbitrary and we chose a value of $`R=1fm`$.

The lensing function that assigns a mean transverse momentum for each impact parameter

$`𝐈_{}(𝐛_{})=_{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑zV(\sqrt{𝐛_{}^2+z^2})`$ (17)
in these three models is given by

$`𝐈_{}^a(𝐛_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐛_{}}{\left|𝐛_{}\right|}}`$
$`𝐈_{}^b(𝐛_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma 𝐛_{}}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R+\sqrt{R^2𝐛_{}^2}}{R\sqrt{R^2𝐛_{}^2}}}\right)\mathrm{\Theta }(R^2𝐛_{}^2)`$
$`𝐈_{}^c(𝐛_{})`$ $`=`$ $`2k𝐛_{}\sqrt{R^2𝐛_{}^2}\mathrm{\Theta }(R^2𝐛_{}^2).`$ (18)
It is not surprising to find in all 3 models that the momentum is directed opposite in direction to the original transverse position $`𝐛_{}`$ since the underlying potentials are all attractive. In fact, this should be a model-independent feature.

From Fig. 1 one can also see that, although there are some differences in the details, the transverse momenta generated by a quark being ejected through these momenta are all of the same order of magnitude $`0.30.5GeV`$ (Fig. 2)

The only significant differences arises for very small $`𝐛_{}`$ due to the very different short distance behavior when one compares logarithmic, linear, and quadratic potentials.

If the target is polarized in the x-direction in the infinite momentum frame, the unpolarized impact parameter dependent PDFs for flavor $`q`$ reads ijmpa

$`q(x,𝐛_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝚫_{}}{(2\pi )^2}e^{i𝚫_{}𝐛_{}}}`$
$`\times \left[H_q(x,0,𝚫_{}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{\Delta }_y}{2M}}E_q(x,0,𝚫_{}^2)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`q(x,𝐛_{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{b_y}}_q(x,𝐛_{}),`$
where we denoted $`_q`$ the Fourier transform of $`E_q`$, i.e.

$`_q(x,𝐛_{}){\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝚫_{}}{(2\pi )^2}e^{i𝚫_{}𝐛_{}}E_q(x,0,𝚫_{}^2)}.`$ (20)
Several comments are in order: first, Eq. (III) applies to a nucleon that is polarized in the $`x`$ direction in the infinite momentum frame. If one boosts this result into the rest frame, relativistic corrections from the boost arise and one needs to replace $`E_q`$ by $`E_q+H_q`$ in the term that described the asymmetry. Secondly, it should be emphasized that the axial asymmetry in Eq. (III) is described by the $`y`$derivative of an axially symmetric function, i.e. the angular dependence is proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )`$, where $`\varphi `$ is the angle relative to the (transverse) spin direction. No higher moments (e.g. $`\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )`$) are present.

The impact parameter dependent PDFs $`H_q(x,0,𝚫_{}^2)`$ and $`E_q(x,0,𝚫_{}^2)`$ are not known yet. In order to proceed, we thus adopt the simple model from ijmpa , where

$`H_q(x,0,t)`$ $`=`$ $`q(x)e^{at(1x)\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{x}}`$
$`E_d(x,0,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _dH_d(x,0,t)`$
$`E_u(x,0,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa _uH_u(x,0,t),`$ (21)
where $`\kappa _q`$ is the contribution from quark flavor $`q`$ to the anomalous magnetic moment of the proton. The factor $`\frac{1}{2}`$ for down quarks reflects the fact that $`𝑑xH_u(x,0,t)=2`$. Typical results for the resulting $``$ distortion in the model from Ref. ijmpa  are shown in Fig. 3.

The naive model incorporates a number of different features know about $`GPDs`$: in the forward limit they reduce to the usual PDFs, at small $`x`$ the $``$ size of the proton grows like $`\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{x}`$, and this ansatz also satisfies duality. Although some features, e.g. $`\frac{QF_2}{F_1}const.`$ are not correctly described by this model, we still believe that it has some use in illustrating general properties. Furthermore, since the integral of $`E_q`$ are constrained by known anomalous magnetic moments, it should be clear that the overall scale of any resulting effect is model independent — even if details require a better description for the GPDs.

However, despite all these caveats, the qualitative picture of large $``$ distortions, such as the ones depicted in Fig. 3, should be model independent. As has been emphasized in Ref. ijmpa , the $``$ center for each flavor ($``$ flavor dipole moment) is related to the anomalous magnetic moment contribution from that flavor and one thus finds that the typical scale for $``$ distortions is on the order of $`0.2fm`$. Although these considerations do not constrain the $`x`$-dependence of the $``$ distortion, at least they determine the expected typical size of the effect.

Furthermore, from the fact that the momentum asymmetry arises from corelating the impact parameter space asymmetry (Fig. 3) with the impulse (Fig. 1) it is also clear that the sign of the asymmetry in the nucleon is model independent: if the proton has spin up and if one looks into the direction of the momentum transfer then leading $`u`$-quark will on average pick up a $``$ momentum to the right, while leading $`d`$-quarks will be deflected to the left.

## IV Angular and $`x`$ Dependence of the Asymmetry

In the above model, the SSA arises when one correlates the angular asymmetry of the impact parameter dependent parton distribution with the lensing function $`𝐈_{}(𝐛_{})`$. For a transversely polarized target polarized for example in the $`x`$-direction, the transverse distortion of the impact parameter dependent PDFs is described by the transverse gradient of the Fourier transform of $`E(x,0,𝚫_{}^2)`$

$`q(x,𝐛_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2𝚫_{}e^{i𝚫_{}𝐛_{}}H(x,0,𝚫_{}^2)}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2M}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{b_y}}{\displaystyle d^2𝚫_{}e^{i𝚫_{}𝐛_{}}E(x,0,𝚫_{}^2)}.`$
Since $`E(x,0,𝚫_{}^2)`$ is axially symmetric, one thus finds that the transverse distortion of $`q(x,𝐛_{})`$ exhibits a pure $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ angular dependence. In general, since the PDFs become transversely distorted, the lensing function $`𝐈_{}(𝐛_{})`$ may also exhibit an axial asymmetry. However, we expect this effect to be small and in a first approximation we may take $`𝐈_{}(𝐛_{})`$ to be axially symmetric.

In our simple description for the SSA, the final state interaction is always directed toward the center of the hadron. As a result, the final state transverse momentum always point (anti-) parallel to the transverse position $`𝐛_{}`$ that the active quark had before it was struck

$`𝒫(x,𝐤_{})={\displaystyle d^2𝐛_{}q(x,𝐛_{})\delta \left(𝐤_{}𝐈_{}(𝐛_{})\right)}.`$ (23)
Therefore the pure pure $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ asymmetry of the PDFs in impact parameter space translates into a pure $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ asymmetry for the $`𝐤_{}`$ distribution of the SSA.

Because of the very large transverse distortion of the impact parameter dependent PDFs entering Eq. (23), it appears that our model predicts asymmetries that are numerically very large ($`0.5`$). However, one must keep in mind that our description neglects (among other things) the stochastic nature of the FSI, i.e. even in a semi-classical model one would expect some smearing of $`𝐤_{}`$, which would effectively reduce the asymmetry. However, the fact that the asymmetry depends only on $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ remains.

In order to determine the actual mean transverse momentum in our model, one needs to correlate the transverse distortion (Fig. 3) with the $``$ impulse associated the impact parameter. Because there are significant uncertainties both in the choice of the vector potential (and hence in $`𝐈_{}(𝐛_{})`$) as well as in the $`x`$-dependence of $`E(x,0,t)`$ (and hence in $`q(x,𝐛_{})`$) the resulting numerical values (in particular their $`x`$ dependence) would also exhibit a large uncertainties.

Nevertheless, we know that typical $``$ distortions for $``$ polarized targets are on the order of $`0.2fm`$ (Fig. 3). And we also know that the typical impulse acquired by an outgoing quark for $`𝐛_{}0.2fm`$ is on the order of $`𝐈_{}0.30.5GeV/c`$. As a result, the natural scale for the transverse momenta that emerges from this picture is also on the order $`𝐤_{}0.20.4GeV/c`$. Generating such a large mean transverse momentum scale in a natural way is one of the main results of this paper.

## V Summary

We have provided a physical interpretation of the mechanisms that leads to a transverse single spin asymmetries (SSAs) in semi-inclusive electro-production of mesons. The starting point of our analysis is the BHS/Collins Wilson-line phase hwang ; collins  that describes the final state interaction experienced by the active quark. As the active quark escapes from the target, the chromodynamic gauge field from the remaining spectators provides an impulse that translates the axial asymmetry in transverse position into an axial asymmetry in the transverse momentum of the outgoing quark before it fragments. This is the physics that underlies the observation that a Sivers asymmetry is allowed when one takes final (or initial) state interactions into account. Although the FSI are (to leading order) spin independent, they translate the spin-dependent impact parameter space distributions into a spin dependent transverse momentum of the leading quark.

Because of the attractive nature of the confining interaction in QCD, the mean impulse on the outgoing quark is directed toward the center (of momentum) of the target. The FSI with the spectators thus acts like a convex lens that deflects the active quark toward the center. The transverse impulse acquired by the active quark is a direct consequence of the the Wilson phase factor advocated in Ref. hwang .

In this simple picture, it is the combination of the transverse position space asymmetry with this chromodynamic lensing effect that gives rise to the transverse momentum asymmetry of the knocked out quarks. Since the axial asymmetry of impact parameter dependent PDFs for transversely polarized nucleons tends to be rather large, this simple picture provides a natural mechanism for generating large transverse single-spin asymmetries.

Of course, our semi-classical picture cannot give an accurate description of the actual dynamics that gives rise to SSAs, but hopefully it will still help to provide a better understanding of the physics that leads to these asymmetries.

Acknowledgments: I appreciate discussions with H. Avagyan, N. Makins, and G. Schnell. This work was supported by the Department of Energy (DE-FG03-96ER40965).

## Appendix A Detailed Derivation

First we use collins  the fact that time-reversal invariance relates transverse momentum distributions with gauge strings that point forward and backward in time respectively

$`P(x,𝐤_{},𝐬_{})|_{futurepointing}`$ $`=`$ $`P(x,𝐤_{},𝐬_{})|_{pastpointing}.`$
After performing a $`180^o`$ rotation around the $`zaxis`$ this implies

$`P(x,𝐤_{},𝐬_{})|_{futurepointing}`$ $`=`$ $`P(x,𝐤_{},𝐬_{})|_{pastpointing}.`$
Upon evaluating the mean $``$ momentum, we thus find

$`𝐏_{}(x,𝐬_{})`$ $``$ $`𝐏_{}(x,𝐬_{})|_{future}`$
$`=`$ $`𝐏_{}(x,𝐬_{})|_{past}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[𝐏_{}(x,𝐬_{})|_{future}𝐏_{}(x,𝐬_{})|_{past}\right].`$
Using partial integration, we transform the integration in $`𝐏_{}(x,𝐬_{})|_{future/past}`$ into the a $``$ derivative. Using again the fact that only the $``$ derivative on the gauge field contributes, this implies after some straightforward algebra

$`𝐏_{}(x,𝐬_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy^{}}{4\pi }}e^{ixp^+y^{}}`$
$`\times p\left|\overline{q}(y^{}){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑z^{}W_{yz}^{}_{}A^+(z^{})W_{z0}\gamma ^+q(0)\right|p,`$
where $`𝐲_{}=𝐳_{}=\mathrm{𝟎}_{}`$, plus a term where the $``$ derivative acts on the quark and which vanishes due to time reversal invariance. Eq. (A) is still rigorous.

Although the strict light-cone gauge $`A^+=0`$ is unattainable, we conjecture that a gauge choice can be achieved where light-like gauge strings that do not extend to infinity become trivial. The motivation for this conjecture relies on a limiting procedure, where works in a gauge $`A^+=const.`$ and imposes periodic boundary conditions in the $`x^{}`$ direction. Upon taking the ‘box-length’ to infinity, all gauge strings of finite length become trivial

$`W_{yz}1\text{for}y^{},z^{}\{\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}.`$ (28)
This conjecture is consistent with a probabilistic interpretation for the twist-2 parton distributions probed in deep-inelastic scattering.

However, despite Eq. (28) we may not drop $`A^+`$ entirely in Eq. (A) since the integration over $`z^{}`$ extends to $`\pm \mathrm{}`$. In fact, the remaining contribution from the gauge field is exactly the zero-mode advocated in Section II


text:
# Electronic-structure theory of crystalline insulators under homogeneous electric field

## Appendix A rigorous derivation of polarization

In crystalline insulators, the sole value of polarization is meaningless since its value depends on the state of the surface. The meaningful one, which can be compared with experiments, is the change of polarization induced by external factors such as electric field or stress. So a rigorous derivation of polarization is based on the analysis on the variation of the system with respect to the external electric field.

Denote the expected value of $`H_0`$ as

$$E_0=u|H_0|u.$$
(18)
It is a physical quantity that is well defined in crystalline insulators. Then the physical energy of the system can be written as:

$$E=E_0𝐏,$$
(19)
where $`𝐏`$ is the physical polarization whose expression is unknown at this point. For a ground (stable) state, the energy functional reaches its minimum, i.e.,

$$\delta E=0$$
(20)
for any infinitesimal variation of wavefunctions. Now, considering the variation of wavefunctions in a virtual process $`+\delta `$, from Eqs. (A2) and (A3) we have

$$\delta E=\frac{dE_0}{d}\delta \left(\frac{d𝐏}{d}\delta \right)=0.$$
(21)
So

$$\frac{d𝐏}{d}=\frac{dE_0}{d}.$$
(22)
It relates $`𝐏`$ to the well-defined quantity $`E_0`$.

Now define the Berry-Phase polarization as:

$$𝐏_\mathrm{B}=\frac{ie}{(2\pi )^3}u_𝐤|_𝐤|u_𝐤d𝐤.$$
(23)
It is not a physical quantity since it changes with gauge transformation. From Eq. (5), we have

$$𝐏_\mathrm{B}=E_0\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}E_𝐤d𝐤.$$
(24)
Conducting differential on the above equation with respect to $``$, we have

$$𝐏_\mathrm{B}+\frac{d𝐏_\mathrm{B}}{d}=\frac{dE_0}{d}\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{dE_𝐤d𝐤}{d}.$$
(25)
Combined with Eqs. (10), (A5) and (A6), we reach

$$\frac{d𝐏_\mathrm{B}}{d}=\frac{d𝐏}{d}.$$
(26)
So, the polarization defined in Berry-Phase expression, $`𝐏_\mathrm{B}`$, is equal to the physical polarization $`𝐏`$ except a constant.

## Appendix B Normalization and orthogonality of $`u_𝐤`$

Under finite electric field, there are correlations between wavefunctions $`u_𝐤`$ with different $`𝐤`$ values. However, it can be shown that $`u_𝐤`$ are normalized and orthogonal as the case of $`=0`$.

Compared with the Schrodinger’s equation $`i\mathrm{}\psi _𝐤/t=H\psi _𝐤`$, it is recognized that the role of $`𝐤`$ in Eq. (5) is similar to that of $`t`$. A consequence of this similarity is the conservation of possibility in the $`𝐤`$-space:

$$_𝐤u_𝐤|u_𝐤=0,$$
(27)
which is a physical requirement for the evolution equation. So the wavefunction can be normalized as $`u_𝐤|u_𝐤=1`$ or $`u_𝐤|u_𝐤=a^3`$. The difference between $`𝐤`$ and $`t`$ exists in the boundary condition. In the Schrodinger’s equation, no boundary condition is required in $`t`$-space, while in Eq. (5) $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐤+𝐊`$ label the same state (with a possible phase difference), so that the solutions to Eq. (5) are discrete (band structure).

In the conventional band theory without electric field, the wave-functions coming from different bands are orthogonal, i.e.,

$$u_𝐤^\alpha |u_𝐤^\beta =0,$$
(28)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ denote different bands. Since Eq. (12) is a conventional eigen-problem, the orthogonality gives

$$\underset{𝐤}{}u_𝐤^\alpha |u_𝐤^\beta =0$$
(29)
at finite fields. In the first glance, Eq. (B2) is no longer valid. Nevertheless, to one’s surprise, Eq. (B2) keeps valid in this case. To prove this point, we transform $`u_𝐤^\beta `$ into

$$\stackrel{~}{u}_𝐤^\beta =u_𝐤^\beta \mathrm{exp}(i𝐤𝐑),$$
(30)
($`𝐑`$ can be any lattice vector), which is also an eigen wavefunction of Eq. (12), thus

$$\underset{𝐤}{}u_𝐤^\alpha |\stackrel{~}{u}_𝐤^\beta =\underset{𝐤}{}u_𝐤^\alpha |u_𝐤^\beta \mathrm{exp}(i𝐤𝐑)=0.$$
(31)
By applying the knowledge of Fourier’s transformation on Eq. (18), we arrive at Eq. (B2) with electric fields.

## Appendix C the width of the peak of polarization

The width of the peak can be evaluated by considering the degenerate perturbation analysis on two bands $`u^\alpha `$ and $`u^\beta `$. Expanding the wavefunction on the bands $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ of $`=0`$, the Hamiltonian becomes:

$$H=\left[\begin{array}{cc}E_0^\alpha +a^3𝐏^{\alpha \alpha }& a^3𝐏^{\alpha \beta }\\ a^3𝐏^{\beta \alpha }& E_0^\beta +a^3𝐏^{\beta \beta }\end{array}\right],$$
(32)
where

$$𝐏^{\mu \nu }=\frac{ie}{(2\pi )^3}u_{𝐤0}^\mu |_𝐤|u_{𝐤0}^\nu d𝐤(\mu ,\nu =\alpha ,\beta ).$$
(33)
Eq. (C1) describes the transition between bands $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, where the transition range (width of the peak) is:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{}=\frac{𝐏^{\alpha \beta }}{𝐏^{\alpha \alpha }𝐏^{\beta \beta }}.$$
(34)
The degenerate condition requires that

$$E_0^\alpha +a^3𝐏^{\alpha \alpha }=E_0^\beta +a^3𝐏^{\beta \beta },$$
(35)
which gives

$$𝐏^{\alpha \alpha }𝐏^{\beta \beta }=\frac{E_0^\alpha E_0^\beta }{a^3}.$$
(36)
From Eq. (15), $`𝐏^{\alpha \beta }`$ is approximated as

$$\chi \frac{2a^3|𝐏^{\alpha \beta }|^2}{\epsilon _0(E_0^\beta E_0^\alpha )}.$$
(37)
Combining Eqs. (C3,C5,C6), we arrive

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{}=\left[\frac{a^3\epsilon _0\chi }{2(E_0^\beta E_0^\alpha )}\right]^{1/2}.$$
(38)
## Appendix D iteration solving of the equation

In the above main text, it is shown that our theory provides the basis for existing computational schemes9 ; 10 . Based on the theory, other computational schemes may also be developed. The calculation in the main text is conducted by solving the conventional eigen problem Eq. (12) with subroutine ZHEEVX in the program packet LAPACK, which is applicable for any finite electric fields but requires more computer capacity. Here, we demonstrate a second scheme to solve Eq. (5).

The computational scheme is based on the following iteration:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}E_𝐤^{(i)}=u_𝐤^{(i1)}(𝐫)|H_0+ie_𝐤|u_𝐤^{(i1)}(𝐫)\hfill \\ (H_0E_𝐤^{(i)})u_𝐤^{(i)}(𝐫)=ie_𝐤u_𝐤^{(i1)}(𝐫)\hfill \end{array}$$
(39)
$`𝐤`$-space is discretized into 99 points ($`N_𝐤=99`$). Iteration stops when the discrepancy is smaller than the convergence criterion: $`|u_𝐤^{(i)}u_𝐤^{(i1)}|<10^4`$. A computation example on the three-band model is shown in Fig 4. It can be seen that the convergence is obtained at $`0.2`$ for the first band (Fig. 4(a)), which exceeds the critical field given by Ref. 9 ($`E_{\mathrm{g}ap}/eaN_k=0.012`$) by about one order.

## Appendix E Dielectric susceptibility at zero field: a comparison

The analytic solution for the static susceptibility at zero field can be computed from the Kubo formula. In the following we show that the susceptibility derived from the theory in this paper is consistent with what is given by Kubo formula.

According to the reference (H. Ehrenreich and M. H. Cohen, Phys. Rev 115, 786), the analytical expression of the static susceptibility at zero field is given as:

$$\chi =\frac{e^2}{m\pi ^2}\underset{l,l^{}}{}{}_{}{}^{}f_0(E_{kl})f_{l^{}l}^\mu (\omega _{l^{}l})^2d^3k,$$
(40)
where $`f_0(E_{kl})`$ is the Fermi distribution and

$`f_{l^{}l}^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{}\omega _{l^{}l}m}}|P_{l^{}l}^\mu |^2,`$ (41)
$`P_{l^{}l}^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\upsilon }}u_{kl^{}}^{}P^\mu u_{kl}d^3x,`$ (42)
$`P^\mu =i\mathrm{}\widehat{\mu }.`$ (43)
At zero temperature ($`T=0`$),

$$\chi =\underset{l}{\overset{\mathrm{o}ccupied}{}}\frac{2e^2\mathrm{}}{m^2\pi ^2}\underset{l^{}}{}{}_{}{}^{}\frac{\left|u_{kl^{}}|\widehat{\mu }|u_{kl}\right|^2}{\omega _{l^{}l}^3}d^3k.$$
(44)
For the current theory, with an infinitesimal variation $`\delta `$, the linear term of Eq. (5) at $`=0`$ is:

$$H_0\frac{\delta u_{𝐤l}}{\delta }+ie_𝐤u_{𝐤l}=E_{𝐤l}\frac{\delta u_{𝐤l}}{\delta }+\frac{\delta E_{𝐤l}}{\delta }u_{𝐤l}.$$
(45)
Expand $`\frac{\delta u_{𝐤l}}{\delta }`$ as $`\frac{\delta u_{𝐤l}}{\delta }=_l^{}a_{𝐤l^{}}u_{𝐤l^{}}`$, thus

$$\underset{l^{}}{}a_{𝐤l^{}}E_{𝐤l^{}}u_{𝐤l^{}}+ie_𝐤u_{𝐤l}=\underset{l^{}}{}a_{𝐤l^{}}E_{𝐤l}u_{𝐤l^{}}+\frac{\delta E_{𝐤l}}{\delta }u_{𝐤l}.$$
(46)
Integral the above equation with $`u_{𝐤l^{}}|`$ yielding

$$a_{𝐤l^{}}=\frac{ie}{\mathrm{}\omega _{l^{}l}}u_{𝐤l^{}}|_𝐤u_{𝐤l}.$$
(47)
So the dielectric susceptibility is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\delta 𝐏_l}{\delta }\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{ie}{(2\pi )^3}_l^{}\left[\frac{\delta u_{𝐤l}}{\delta }|_𝐤u_{𝐤l}+u_{𝐤l}|_𝐤|\frac{\delta u_{𝐤l}}{\delta }\right]d^3𝐤\hfill \\ & =\hfill & \frac{2e^2}{(2\pi )^3\mathrm{}}\mathrm{R}e_l^{}\frac{u_{𝐤l^{}}|_𝐤|u_{𝐤l}^{}u_{𝐤l^{}}|_𝐤|u_{𝐤l}}{\omega _{l^{}l}}d^3𝐤.\hfill \end{array}$$
(48)
Eq. (E9) can be further simplified. Multipling $`_𝐤`$ with Eq. (5) gives:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & H_0_𝐤u_{𝐤l}i\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}u_{𝐤l}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2𝐤}{2m}u_{𝐤l}\hfill \\ & =\hfill & E_{𝐤l}_𝐤u_{𝐤l}+u_{𝐤l}_𝐤E_{𝐤l}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(49)
Multipling with $`u_{𝐤l^{}}|`$ yields

$$u_{𝐤l^{}}|_𝐤|u_{𝐤l}=\frac{i\mathrm{}}{m}.\frac{u_{𝐤l^{}}||u_{𝐤l}}{\omega _{l^{}l}}.$$
(50)
So the dielectric susceptibility is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\chi \hfill & =\hfill & \frac{1}{\epsilon _0}.\frac{\delta 𝐏_l}{\delta }\hfill \\ & =\hfill & \frac{2e^2\mathrm{}}{(2\pi )^3\epsilon _0m^2}\mathrm{R}e_l^{}\frac{u_{𝐤l^{}}||u_{𝐤l}^{}u_{𝐤l^{}}||u_{𝐤l}}{\omega _{l^{}l}^3}d^3𝐤.\hfill \end{array}$$
(51)
Considering the difference of the units used (SI vs. Gauss), Eqs. (E12) and (E5) are consistent.

## Appendix F A short note on Zener tunneling

Essentially, the Zener tunneling is a kinetic effect in which the transition rate between different states should be calculated. Therefore, Zener tunneling can not be directly solved in the framework of this paper or the existing computational schemes9 ; 10  or perturbation theories5  whose purpose is to obtain the eigen states of the system. Eigen states are unchanged with time and no transition will occur if no extra term is introduced into the Hamiltonian.

Zener tunneling is usually analyzed by semi-classical method. Here we illustrate some properties of motion by the theory of this paper.

Firstly, the velocity of the electron is given as:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\upsilon \hfill & =\hfill & \frac{i\mathrm{}}{m}\psi ^{}\psi d^3𝐫\hfill \\ & =\hfill & \frac{\mathrm{}𝐤}{m}+\frac{i\mathrm{}}{m}u_𝐤||u_𝐤.\hfill \end{array}$$
(52)
Multipling $`_𝐤`$ with Eq. (5) gives:

$$\begin{array}{c}H_0_𝐤u_𝐤+ie_𝐤_𝐤u_𝐤i\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}u_𝐤+\frac{\mathrm{}^2𝐤}{m}u_𝐤\hfill \\ =E_𝐤_𝐤u_𝐤+u_𝐤_𝐤E_𝐤.\hfill \end{array}$$
(53)
Multipling with $`|u_𝐤`$ yields

$$_𝐤u_𝐤|ie_𝐤u_𝐤\frac{i\mathrm{}^2}{m}u_𝐤||u_𝐤+\frac{\mathrm{}^2𝐤}{m}=_𝐤E_𝐤.$$
(54)
So the velocity is

$$\upsilon =_𝐤E_𝐤^0,$$
(55)
where

$$E_𝐤^0=u_𝐤|H_0|u_𝐤.$$
(56)
Secondly, we consider the motion of the wave packet. Consider a wave packet $`(𝐤_\mathrm{𝟎},𝐫_\mathrm{𝟎})`$ at $`t_0`$. Then at time $`t`$, the $`𝐤`$ will evolve into $`𝐤=𝐤_\mathrm{𝟎}e(tt_0)/\mathrm{}`$, and

$$𝐫𝐫_\mathrm{𝟎}=\underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}\upsilon dt=\underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}_𝐤E_𝐤^0dt=\frac{E_𝐤^0E_{\mathrm{𝐤𝟎}}^0}{e}.$$
(57)
So the $`E_𝐤^0`$ at finite fields should be used to replace the quantity at zero field to analyze the Zener tunneling.


text:
# Tulczyjew’s triples and lagrangian submanifolds in classical field theories

## 1 Introduction

In middle seventies, W.M. Tulczyjew  introduced the notion of special symplectic manifold, which is a symplectic manifold symplectomorphic to a cotangent bundle. Using this notion, Tulczyjew gave a nice interpretation of lagrangian and hamiltonian dynamics as lagrangian submanifolds of convenient special symplectic manifolds.

The other ingredients in the theory were two canonical diffeomorphisms $`\alpha :TT^{}QT^{}TQ`$ and $`\beta :TT^{}QT^{}T^{}Q`$. $`\beta `$ is nothing but the mapping obtained by contraction with the canonical symplectic form $`\omega _Q`$, but the definition of $`\alpha `$ is more complicated, and requires the use of the canonical involution of the double tangent bundle $`TTQ`$.

The theory was extended to higher order mechanics by several authors (see for instance ). But the extension to classical field theories has not been achieved up to now. There is a good approach by Kijowski and Tulczyjew , and in fact, the present approach is strongly inspired in that monograph.

The key point is a better understanding of the geometry of lagrangian submanifolds in the multisymplectic setting. A systematic study of the geometry of multisymplectic manifolds was started by Cantrijn et al at the beginning of the nineties , followed by a pair of papers which clarify that geometry  (a more detailed study  is in preparation).

A multisymplectic manifold is a manifold equipped with a closed form which is non-degenerate in some sense. The canonical examples are the bundles of forms on an arbitrary manifold, providing thus a nice extension of the notion of symplectic manifold. However, this definition is too general for practical purposes. Indeed, in order to have a Darboux theorem which would permit us to introduce canonical coordinates, we need additional properties. In other words, if we want to deal with multisymplectic manifolds which locally behave as the geometric models we need to consider multisymplectic manifolds $`(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ with additional structure, given by a 1-isotropic foliation $`𝒲`$ satisfying some dimensionality condition, or, even a “generalised foliation” $``$ defined roughly speaking on the space of leaves determined by $`𝒲`$.

The tangent and cotangent functors are now substituted by the jet prolongation functor and the exterior power functor, respectively, so that we obtain canonical diffeomorphisms $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }:\stackrel{~}{J^1Z^{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^{n+1}Z`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }:\stackrel{~}{J^1Z^{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^{n+1}Z^{}`$, where $`Z`$ is the 1-jet prolongation of the fibred manifold $`YX`$, $`X`$ being the space-time $`n`$-dimensional manifold, and $`Z^{}`$ is the dual affine bundle of $`Z`$. Here a tilde over a manifold of jets means that we are taking a quotient manifold in order to have only those elements with the same divergence.

Using a convenient formulation of the field equations with Ehresmann connections, we construct the corresponding lagrangian submanifolds which encode the dynamics. Indeed, we present a compact form for the De Donder and field equations as follows. From the lagrangian density $`\text{𝕃}=L\eta `$ ($`\eta `$ is a volume form on $`X`$), we construct the Poincaré-Cartan $`(n+1)`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L`$ on $`Z`$; then the extremals for 𝕃 coincide with the horizontal sections of any Ehresmann connection $`𝐡`$ in the fibred manifold $`ZX`$ satisfying the equation

$$i_𝐡\mathrm{\Omega }_L=(n1)\mathrm{\Omega }_L.$$

Since a connection in $`ZX`$ can be interpreted as a section of the 1-jet prolongation $`J^1ZZ`$, we have all the ingredients we need. In fact, the Euler-Lagrange equations are just the local equations defined by a $`k`$-lagrangian submanifold of $`\stackrel{~}{J^1Z^{}}`$, the latter being a multisymplectic manifold equipped with the multisymplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha `$ dragged via $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ from the canonical one on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^{n+1}Z`$.

A similar procedure can be developed in the hamiltonian setting, but in this case we would need to choose a convenient hamiltonian form. This hamiltonian form is obtained through the corresponding Legendre transformation $`Leg_L:ZZ^{}`$. Finally, both sides are related.

## 2 Lagrangian submanifolds and classical mechanics

### 2.1 Some prelimaries

Let $`(𝒱,\omega )`$ a finite dimensional symplectic vector space with symplectic form $`\omega `$. This means that $`\omega `$ is a 2-form on a vector space $`V`$ which is non-degenerate in the sense that the linear mapping

$$v𝒱i_v\omega V^{}$$

is injective (and hence it is a linear isomorphism).

Therefore, $`𝒱`$ has even dimension, say $`2n`$, and the non-degeneracy is equivalent to the condition $`\omega ^n0`$.

A linear isomorphism $`\varphi :(𝒱_1,\omega _1)(𝒱_2,\omega _2)`$ is called a symplectomorphism if $`\varphi `$ preserves the symplectic forms, say $`\varphi ^{}\omega _2=\omega _1`$.

Take a subspace $`E𝒱`$, and define the $`\omega `$-complement of $`E`$ as follows:

$$E^{}=\{v𝒱|i_{ve}\omega =0,\text{for all}eE\}.$$

The subspace $`E`$ is said to be isotropic (resp. coisotropic, lagrangian, symplectic) if $`EE^{}`$ (resp. $`E^{}E`$, $`E=E^{}`$, $`EE^{}=\{0\}`$).

An useful characterization of a lagrangian subspace $`E`$, is that it is a maximally isotropic subspace or, equivalently, on a finite dimensional symplectic vector space, it is isotropic and $`dimE={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}dim𝒱`$.

The algebraic model for a symplectic vector space is the following. Given an arbitrary vector space $`V`$ we construct $`𝒱_V=VV^{}`$ equipped with the symplectic form $`\omega _V`$ defined by

$$\omega _V((v_1,\gamma _1),(v_2,\gamma _2))=\gamma _1(v_2)\gamma _2(v_1),$$

for all $`(v_1,\gamma _1),(v_2,\gamma _2)𝒱_V`$.

We know that $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ are lagrangian subspaces of $`(𝒱_V,\omega _V)`$. Moreover, every symplectic vector space $`(𝒱,\omega )`$ is symplectomorphic to $`(𝒱_{},\omega _{})`$ for any lagrangian subspace $``$ of $`(𝒱,\omega )`$.

In addition we can prove that a linear isomorphism $`\varphi :(𝒱_1,\omega _1)(𝒱_2,\omega _2)`$ is a symplectomorphism if and only if its graph $`\{(v,\varphi (v))|v𝒱_1\}𝒱_1\times 𝒱_2`$ is a lagrangian subspace of the symplectic manifold $`(𝒱_1\times 𝒱_2,\omega _1\omega _2)`$, where $`\omega _1\omega _2=\pi _1^{}\omega _1\pi _2^{}\omega _2`$, $`\pi _1:𝒱_1,\times 𝒱_2𝒱_1`$ and $`\pi _2:𝒱_1,\times 𝒱_2𝒱_2`$ being the canonical projections.

A symplectic manifold is a pair $`(𝒫,\omega )`$, where $`\omega `$ is a closed 2-form such that the pair $`(T_x𝒫,\omega _x)`$ is a symplectic vector space for any $`x𝒫`$. Thus, $`𝒫`$ has even dimension, say $`2n`$.

Therefore, given a function $`f:𝒫\text{}`$ there exists a unique vector field (the hamiltonian vector field $`X_f`$ with hamiltonian energy $`f`$) such that

$$i_{X_f}\omega =df.$$

Let now $`\pi _Q:T^{}QQ`$ be the cotangent bundle of an arbitrary manifold $`Q`$. There exists a canonical 1-form $`\theta _Q`$ on $`T^{}Q`$ defined by

$$\theta _Q(\gamma )(X)=\gamma ,T\pi _Q(X)$$

for all $`XT_\gamma (T^{}Q)`$ and for all $`\gamma T^{}Q`$. $`\theta _Q`$ is the Liouville 1-form, and in bundle coordinates $`(q,p)`$ we have

$$\theta _Q=pdq.$$

So, $`\omega _Q=d\theta _Q`$ is a canonical symplectic form on $`T^{}Q`$ such that $`\omega _Q=dqdp`$.

As is well known, Darboux theorem states that any symplectic manifold is locally symplectomorphic to a cotangent bundle. More precisely, one can find local coordinates around each point of a symplectic manifold $`(𝒫,\omega )`$ such that

$$\omega =dqdp.$$

The following results are the main examples of lagrangian submanifolds.

###### Theorem 2.1

1. The image of a hamiltonian vector field $`X_f`$ on a symplectic manifold $`(𝒫,\omega )`$ is a lagrangian submanifold of the tangent lift symplectic manifold $`(T𝒫,\omega ^T)`$.
2. The fibres of $`T^{}Q`$ are lagrangian submanifolds of $`(T^{}Q,\omega _Q)`$.
3. The image of a 1-form $`\gamma `$ on a manifold $`Q`$ is a lagrangian submanifold of $`(T^{}Q,\omega _Q)`$ if and only if $`\gamma `$ is closed.
4. Given a diffeomorphism $`\varphi :(𝒫_1,\omega _1)(𝒫_2,\omega _2)`$ between two symplectic manifolds then $`\varphi `$ is a symplectomorphism if and only if its graph is a lagrangian submanifold in the symplectic manifold $`(𝒫_1\times 𝒫_2,\omega _1\omega _2)`$.

There is an important theorem due to A. Weinstein which gives the normal form for a lagrangian submanifold $``$ in a symplectic manifold $`(𝒫,\omega )`$.

###### Theorem 2.2

Let $`(𝒫,\omega )`$ be a symplectic manifold, and let $``$ be a lagrangian submanifold. Then there exists a tubular neighbourhod $`U`$ of $``$ in $`𝒫`$, and a diffeomorphism $`\varphi :UV=\varphi (U)T^{}`$ into an open neighbourhood $`V`$ of the zero cross-section in $`T^{}`$ such that $`\varphi ^{}\omega _{}=\omega _{|U}`$, where $`\omega _{}`$ is the canonical symplectic form on $`T^{}`$.

### 2.2 Lagrangian and hamiltonian dynamics

We shall recall the main results, more details can be found in .

Let $`L:TQ\text{}`$ be a lagrangian function. We construct a 2-form $`\omega _L`$ by putting

$$\omega _L=d\theta _L$$

where $`\theta _L=S^{}(dL)`$. Here $`S^{}`$ is the adjoint operator of the canonical vertical endomorphism $`S=dq{\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{q}}}`$. We have omitted the indices of the coordinates, and used the notation $`(q,\dot{q})`$ for the bundle coordinates on the tangent bundle $`\tau _Q:TQQ`$.

The energy function is defined by

$$E_L=\mathrm{\Delta }(L)L$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\dot{q}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{q}}}`$ is the Liouville or dilation vector field.

In local coordinates we have

$$\omega _L=dqd\widehat{p},E_{}=\dot{q}\widehat{p}L,$$

where $`\widehat{p}={\displaystyle \frac{L}{\dot{q}}}`$. The lagrangian is regular if and only if the hessian matrix

$$\left(\frac{^2L}{\dot{q}^i\dot{q}^j}\right)$$

is non-singular, where $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},n=dimQ`$.

We have that $`L`$ is regular if and only if $`\omega _L`$ is symplectic. In such case, there is a unique vector field $`\xi _L`$ satisfying the equation

$$i_{\xi _L}\omega _L=dE_L.$$
(2.1)
$`\xi _L`$ is a second order differential equation on $`TQ`$ such that its solutions (the curves in $`Q`$ whose lifts to $`TQ`$ are integral curves of $`\xi _L`$) are just the solutions of the Euler-Lagrange equations for $`L`$:

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{L}{\dot{q}}\right)\frac{L}{q}=0.$$
(2.2)
Let now $`H:T^{}Q\text{}`$ be a hamiltonian function. We denote by $`X_H`$ the corresponding hamiltonian vector field with respect to $`\omega _Q`$. In bundle coordinates we have

$$X_H=\frac{H}{p}\frac{}{q}\frac{H}{q}\frac{}{p}$$

Therefore, the integral curves $`(q(t),p(t))`$ of $`X_H`$ satisfy the Hamilton equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dq}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H}{p}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H}{q}}`$
The lagrangian and hamiltonian formalisms are connected through the Legendre transformation. More precisely, given a lagrangian function $`L:TQ\text{}`$ we define a fibred mapping $`Leg_L:TQT^{}Q`$ over $`Q`$ by

$$Leg_L(q,\dot{q})=(q,\frac{L}{\dot{q}}).$$

We know that $`L`$ is regular if and only if $`Leg_L`$ is a local diffeomorphism. For simplicity, we will assume that $``$ is hyperregular, which means that $`Leg_L`$ is a diffeomorphism. In such case, $`Leg_L`$ is in fact a symplectomorphism and, therefore, $`\xi _L`$ and $`X_H`$ are $`Leg_L`$-related, when $`H=E_LLeg_{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$. As a consequence, the Euler-Lagrange equations are translated into the Hamilton equations via $`Leg_L`$.

### 2.3 Dynamics as lagrangian submanifolds

In  W.M. Tulczyjew defined two canonical diffeomorphisms

$`\alpha `$ $`:`$ $`TT^{}QT^{}TQ`$
$`\beta `$ $`:`$ $`TT^{}QT^{}T^{}Q`$
locally given by

$`\alpha (q,p,\dot{q},\dot{p})`$ $`=`$ $`(q,\dot{q},\dot{p},p)`$
$`\beta (q,p,\dot{q},\dot{p})`$ $`=`$ $`(q,p,\dot{p},\dot{q})`$
with the obvious notations, where we have omitted the indices for the sake of simplicity.

The second diffeomorphism is nothing but the contraction with the canonical symplectic form $`\omega _Q`$ on $`T^{}Q`$. The intrinsic definition of $`\alpha `$ is more involved, and we remit to  for details. We have the following commutative diagram which justifies the name of Tulczyjew’ s triple for the above construction:

The manifold $`TT^{}Q`$ is endowed with two symplectic structures, in principle different. Indeed, they are $`\omega _\alpha =\alpha ^{}\omega _{TQ}`$ and $`\omega _\beta =\beta ^{}\omega _{T^{}Q}`$. A direct computation shows that both coincide up to the sign (say $`\omega _\alpha +\omega _\beta =0`$), and, in addition, that the symplectic form $`\omega _\alpha `$ is nothing but the complete or tangent lift $`\omega _Q^T`$ of $`\omega _Q`$ to $`TT^{}Q`$.

We denote by $`\theta _\alpha =\alpha ^{}\theta _{TQ}`$ and $`\theta _\beta =\beta ^{}\theta _{T^{}Q}`$, such that $`\omega _\alpha =d\theta _\alpha `$ and $`\omega _\beta =d\theta _\beta `$. In local coordinates we have

$`\theta _\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\dot{p}dq+pd\dot{q}`$
$`\theta _\beta `$ $`=`$ $`\dot{p}dq+\dot{q}dp`$
In fact, $`TT^{}Q`$, equipped with the symplectic form $`\omega _\alpha =\omega _\beta =\omega _Q^T`$ is an example of special symplectic manifold according to the definition introduced by Tulczyjew in .

###### Definition 2.3

A special symplectic manifold is a symplectic manifold $`(𝒫,\omega )`$ which is symplectomorphic to a cotangent bundle. More precisely, there exists a fibration $`\pi :𝒫M`$, and a 1-form $`\theta `$ on $`𝒫`$, such that $`\omega =d\theta `$, and $`\alpha :𝒫T^{}M`$ is a diffeomorphism such that $`\pi _M\alpha =\pi `$ and $`\alpha ^{}\theta _M=\theta `$.

The following is an important result for our discussion.

###### Theorem 2.4

Let $`(𝒫,\omega =d\theta )`$ an special symplectic manifold, let $`f:M\text{}`$ be a function, and denote by $`N_f`$ the submanifold of $`𝒫`$ where $`df`$ and $`\theta `$ coincide. Then $`N_f`$ is a lagrangian submanifold of $`(𝒫,\omega )`$ and $`f`$ is a generating function.

Theorem 2.4 applies to the particular case of Mechanics. Indeed, if we consider a lagrangian function $`L:TQ\text{}`$ we obtain a lagrangian submanifold $`N_L`$ of the symplectic manifold $`(TT^{}Q,\omega _\alpha )`$ with generating function $`L`$.

Now, assume that $`H:T^{}Q\text{}`$ is a hamiltonian function, with hamiltonian vector field $`X_H`$.

We have the following results.

###### Theorem 2.5

1. The image of $`X_H`$ is a lagrangian submanifold of $`(TT^{}Q,\omega _\alpha )`$.
2. The image of $`dH`$ is a lagrangian submanifold of $`(T^{}T^{}Q,\omega _{T^{}Q})`$.
3. $`\beta (\text{Im}X_H)=\text{Im}dH`$.

Finally, we relate both lagrangian submanifolds $`N_L`$ and $`\text{Im}X_H`$.

###### Theorem 2.6

Let $`H`$ be the hamiltonian function corresponding to the hyperregular lagrangian function $`L`$, say $`H=E_LLeg_L^1`$. Then we have $`N_L=\text{Im}X_H`$.

## 3 Multisymplectic manifolds and their lagrangian submanifolds

### 3.1 Multisymplectic vector spaces

###### Definition 3.1

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a $`(k+1)`$-form on a vector pace $`𝒱`$. The pair $`(𝒱,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is called a multisymplectic vector space if the form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is non-degenerate, that is, the linear mapping

$$v𝒱i_v\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Lambda }^k𝒱^{}$$

is injective. The form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is called multisymplectic.

Let $`(𝒱_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_1)`$ and $`(𝒱_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)`$ be two multisymplectic vector spaces (of the same order $`(k+1)`$) and let $`\varphi :(𝒱_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_1)(𝒱_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)`$ be a linear isomorphism.

###### Definition 3.2

$`\varphi `$ is called a multisymplectomorphism if it preserves the multisymplectic forms, i.e. $`\varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_2=\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$.

###### Example 3.3

Let $`V`$ be an arbitrary vector space and consider the direct product $`𝒱_V=V\times \mathrm{\Lambda }^kV^{}`$. Define a $`k`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V`$ on $`𝒱_V`$ as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_V((v_1,\gamma _1),\mathrm{},(v_{k+1},\gamma _{k+1}))=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(1)^i\gamma _i(v_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_i,\mathrm{},v_{k+1}),$$

for all $`(v_i,\gamma _i)𝒱_V`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k+1`$, where a check accent over a letter means that it is omitted. A direct computation shows that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V`$ is indeed multisymplectic.

If $`E`$ is a vector subspace of $`V`$, we consider the subspace $`𝒱_V^r=V\times \mathrm{\Lambda }_r^kV^{}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^kV^{}`$ denotes the space of $`k`$-forms on $`V`$ vanishing when applied to at least $`r`$ of their arguments from $`E`$. Of course, $`𝒱_V^r`$ equipped with the restriction $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V^r`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V`$ to $`𝒱_V^r`$ is a multisymplectic vector space. If $`E=\{0\}`$ we recover $`𝒱_V`$.

Let $`(𝒱,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ be a multisymplectic vector space of order $`k+1`$, and $`𝒲𝒱`$ a vector subspace. We define

$$𝒲^{,l}=\{v𝒱|i_{vw_1\mathrm{}w_l}\mathrm{\Omega }=0,\text{for all}w_1,\mathrm{},w_l𝒲\}.$$

###### Definition 3.4

$`𝒲`$ is said to be

1. $`l`$-isotropic if $`𝒲𝒲^{,l}`$;
2. $`l`$-coisotropic if $`𝒲^{,l}𝒲`$;
3. $`l`$-lagrangian if $`𝒲=𝒲^{,l}`$;
4. multisymplectic if $`𝒲𝒲^{,k}=\{0\}`$;

###### Proposition 3.5

A subspace $`𝒲`$ is $`l`$-lagrangian if and if it is $`l`$-isotropic and maximal.

###### Proposition 3.6

Let $`V`$ an arbitrary vector space. Then:

1. $`V`$ is a $`k`$-lagrangian subspace of $`𝒱_V`$ and $`𝒱_V^r`$, for all $`r`$;
2. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^kV^{}`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^kV^{}`$) is a 1-isotropic subspace of $`𝒱_V`$ (resp. $`𝒱_V^r`$).

Proof:

$`(i)`$ A direct computation shows that

$$V^{,k}=\{(x,\gamma )|\mathrm{\Omega }_V((x,\gamma ),(x_1,0),\mathrm{},(x_k,0))=0,\text{for all}x_1,\mathrm{},x_k\}$$

which is equivalent to the condition $`\gamma (x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)=0`$ for all $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_kV`$, and therefore $`\gamma =0`$. Hence $`V^{,k}=V`$.

The same proof holds for $`𝒱_V^r`$.

$`(ii)`$ We have to prove that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^kV^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^kV^{})^{,1}$$

which is obvious because

$$i_{(0,\gamma _1)(0,\gamma _2)}\mathrm{\Omega }_V=0.$$

The same argument works for $`𝒱_V^r`$.

###### Remark 3.7

In addition, notice that

$$(\mathrm{\Lambda }^kV^{})^{,1}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^kV^{}$$

which implies that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^kV^{}`$ is in fact 1-lagrangian.

###### Theorem 3.8

 Let $`(𝒱,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ be a multisymplectic vector space and $`𝒲𝒱`$ a 1-isotropic subspace such that $`dim𝒲=dim\mathrm{\Lambda }^k(𝒱/𝒲)^{}`$ and $`dim𝒱/𝒲>k`$. Then there exists a $`k`$-lagrangian subspace $`V`$ of $`𝒱`$ which is transversal to $`𝒲`$ (i.e. $`V𝒲=\{0\}`$) such that $`(𝒱,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is multisymplectomorphic to the model $`(𝒱_V,\mathrm{\Omega }_V)`$.

Proof: First step: Define the mapping

$`\iota :𝒲`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^k(𝒱/𝒲)^{}`$
$`v`$ $``$ $`\iota (v)=\stackrel{~}{i_v\mathrm{\Omega }}`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{i_v\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is the induced linear form from $`i_v\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Lambda }^k𝒱^{}`$. Notice that $`\stackrel{~}{i_v\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is well-defined because the isotropic character of $`𝒲`$. In addition, $`\iota `$ is a linear isomorphism because of the regularity of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Second step: Such a subspace $`𝒲`$ is unique. First of all, we shall prove that if $`u,v𝒱`$ are linearly independent vectors satisfying $`i_{uv}\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, then $`\text{span}(u,v)𝒲\{0\}`$. Otherwise, we could choose $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_{k2}𝒱`$ with $`v_i𝒲`$ such that $`\{u,v,v_1,\mathrm{},v_{k2}\}`$ are linearly independent and $`\text{span}(u,v,v_1,\mathrm{},v_{k2})𝒲=\{0\}`$, because the codimension of $`𝒲`$ is at least $`k`$. But for any $`w𝒲`$ we would have $`i_{wuvv_1\mathrm{}v_{k2}}\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ which contradicts the fact that $`\iota :𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^k(𝒱/𝒲)^{}`$ is an isomorphism.

Next, let $`𝒲`$ and $`𝒲^{}`$ be two subspaces of $`𝒱`$ satisfying the hypothesis of the theorem. Assume that $`𝒲𝒲^{}`$; then, there exists $`v𝒲^{}`$ such that $`v𝒲`$. Using the argument above, we deduce that $`𝒲𝒲^{}`$ has dimension at least 1. Consider the subspace $`Z=\pi (v)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{k1}(𝒱/𝒲)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_k(𝒱/𝒲)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_r𝒱`$ is the space of $`r`$-vectors on $`𝒱`$, and $`\pi :𝒱𝒱/𝒲`$ is the canonical projection. Of course, $`dimZ>1`$, and we have $`\iota (w)(z)=0`$ for any $`w𝒲𝒲^{}`$ and for any $`zZ`$. Hence we would have $`w\mathrm{ker}\iota `$.

Third step: There exists a $`k`$-lagrangian subspace $`V`$ such that $`𝒱=𝒲V`$. Obviously, there are $`k`$-isotropic subspaces $`U`$ such that $`U𝒲=\{0\}`$. To show this last assertion, one could take a vector $`v𝒱`$ such that $`u𝒲`$. It is obvious that $`\text{span}(u)`$ is $`k`$-isotropic.

Assume that $`U𝒲=𝒱`$. Then $`𝒲U^{,k}\mathrm{ker}\iota `$ and hence $`𝒲U^{,k}=\{0\}`$. Therefore $`U=U^{,k}`$, and $`U`$ is $`k`$-lagrangian.

Suppose now that $`U𝒲𝒱`$, then $`UU^{,k}`$; indeed, if $`U=U^{,k}`$ (that is, if $`U`$ were $`k`$-lagrangian) then there would be a vector $`x𝒱`$ such that $`xU𝒲`$, and then $`U\text{span}(x)`$ would be $`k`$-isotropic in contradiction with the maximality of $`U`$. Therefore, there is a vector $`vU^{,k}`$ such that $`vU𝒲`$, and we would have a $`k`$-isotropic subspace $`U^{}=U\text{span}(u)`$ such that $`U^{}𝒲=\{0\}`$. If $`U^{}𝒲𝒱`$, we can repeat the argument and will eventually arrive at a $`k`$-isotropic subspace $`V`$ which is complementary to $`𝒲`$. And using the argument above, we conclude that $`V`$ is in fact $`k`$-lagrangian.

Fourth step: Define a linear mapping

$`\varphi `$ $`:`$ $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^kV^{}`$
$`\varphi (w)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k+1}}(i_w\mathrm{\Omega })_{|V}`$
A direct computation shows that $`\varphi `$ is an isomorphism. Next, we define

$`\psi `$ $`:`$ $`𝒱V\times \mathrm{\Lambda }^kV^{}`$
$`\psi (v,w)=(v,\varphi (w))`$
which is also an isomorphism such that $`\psi ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_V=\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

###### Remark 3.9

A direct application of Theorem 3.8 shows that there exists a basis (a Darboux basis) $`\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_n,f_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _k}\}`$ such that $`\{e_i\}`$ is a basis of $`V`$ and $`\{f_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _k}\}`$ is a basis of $`𝒲`$ satisfying the relations

$$i_{f_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _k}}\mathrm{\Omega }=e_{\alpha _1}^{}\mathrm{}e_{\alpha _k}^{}$$

where $`\{e_1^{},\mathrm{},e_n^{}\}`$ denotes the dual basis of $`\{e_1,\mathrm{}e_n\}`$. Therefore we have

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{\alpha }{}f_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _k}^{}e_{\alpha _1}^{}\mathrm{}e_{\alpha _k}^{}$$
(3.3)
where $`\{f_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _k}^{}\}`$ is the dual basis of $`\{f_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _k}\}`$.

###### Definition 3.10

A triple $`(𝒱,\mathrm{\Omega },𝒲)`$ satisfying the hypothesis in Theorem 3.8 will be called a multisymplectic vector space of type $`(k+1,0)`$.

###### Theorem 3.11

Let $`(𝒱,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ be a multisymplectic vector space and $`𝒲𝒱`$ a 1-isotropic subspace. Assume that $`𝒱/𝒲`$ is a vector subspace of the quotient vector space $`𝒱/𝒲`$. Let us denote by $`\pi :𝒱𝒱/𝒲`$ the canonical projection. Assume that

1. $`i_{v_1\mathrm{}v_r}\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ if $`\pi (v_i)`$, for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$;
2. $`dim𝒲=dim\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^k(𝒱/𝒲)^{}`$, where the horizontal forms are considered with respect to the subspace $``$;
3. $`dim(𝒱/𝒲)>k`$.

Then there exists a $`k`$-lagrangian subspace $`V`$ of $`𝒱`$ which is transversal to $`𝒲`$ (i.e., $`V𝒲=\{0\}`$) such that $`(𝒱,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is multisymplectomorphic to the model $`(𝒱_V^r,\mathrm{\Omega }_V^r)`$.

Proof: First, we define the linear isomorphism

$`\iota `$ $`:`$ $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^k(𝒱/𝒲)^{}`$
$`w\iota (w)=\stackrel{~}{i_w\mathrm{\Omega }}`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{i_w\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is the induced $`k`$-form using that $`𝒲`$ is isotropic and that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ satisfies the first condition above.

Next, one follows the arguments given in the proof of Theorem 3.8.

###### Remark 3.12

A direct application of Theorem 3.11 shows that the multisymplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be written as the canonical multisymplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V^r`$ on $`𝒱_V^r`$ by choosing a convenient Darboux basis.

###### Definition 3.13

A triple $`(𝒱,\mathrm{\Omega },𝒲,)`$ satisfying the hypothesis in Theorem 3.11 will be called a multisymplectic vector space of type $`(k+1,r)`$.

Let $`(𝒱_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_1)`$ and $`(𝒱_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)`$ be two multisymplectic vector spaces of order $`k+1`$. Take the direct product $`𝒱_1\times 𝒱_2`$ endowed with the $`(k+1)`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2=\pi _1^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_1\pi _2^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$, where $`\pi _1:𝒱_1\times 𝒱_2𝒱_1`$ and $`\pi _2:𝒱_1\times 𝒱_2𝒱_2`$ are the canonical projections. Then $`(𝒱_1\times 𝒱_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2)`$ is a multisymplectic vector space.

###### Proposition 3.14

Let $`(𝒱_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_1)`$ and $`(𝒱_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)`$ be two multisymplectic vector spaces of order $`(k+1)`$ and $`\varphi :𝒱_1𝒱_2`$ a linear isomorphism. Then $`\varphi `$ is a multisymplectomorphism if and only if its graph is a $`k`$-lagrangian subspace of the multisymplectic vector space $`(𝒱_1\times 𝒱_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2)`$.

Proof: We recall that

$`(\text{graph}\varphi )^{,k}`$ $`=`$ $`\{(x,y)𝒱_1\times 𝒱_2|(\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2)((x,y),(x_1,\varphi (x_1)),\mathrm{},(x_k,\varphi (x_k))=0,`$
$`x_1,\mathrm{},x_k𝒱_1\}`$
Assume that $`\varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_2=\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$, then if $`(x,\varphi (x))\text{graph}\varphi `$, we have

$`(\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2)((x,\varphi (x)),(x_1,\varphi (x_1)),\mathrm{},(x_k,\varphi (x_k))`$
$`=\mathrm{\Omega }_1(x,x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)\mathrm{\Omega }_2(\varphi (x),\varphi (x_1),\mathrm{},\varphi (x_k))`$
$`=\mathrm{\Omega }_1(x,x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)\varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_2(x,x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)`$
$`=0`$
which implies that $`\text{graph}\varphi (\text{graph}\varphi )^{,k}`$.

Conversely, if $`\text{graph}\varphi `$ is $`k`$-isotropic, we have $`(x,\varphi (x))(\text{graph}\varphi )^{,k}`$ for all $`x𝒱_1`$, and therefore $`\varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_2=\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$.

In addition, if $`\text{graph}\varphi `$ is $`k`$-isotropic, it is also $`k`$-lagrangian. In fact, if $`(x,y)(\text{graph}\varphi )^{,k}`$ then we have

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_2(\varphi (x)y,\varphi (x_1),\mathrm{},\varphi (x_k))=0$$

for all $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_k𝒱_1`$ and therefore $`y=\varphi (x)`$ because of the regularity of the multisymplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ and the fact that $`\varphi `$ is an isomorphism.

### 3.2 Multisymplectic manifolds

###### Definition 3.15

A multisymplectic manifold $`(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is a pair consisting of a manifold $`𝒫`$ equipped with a closed $`(k+1)`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that the pair $`(T_x𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega }_x)`$ is a multisymplectic vector space for all $`x𝒫`$. The form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is called multisymplectic.

###### Example 3.16

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^kM`$ be the space of $`k`$-forms on an arbitrary manifold $`M`$, and denote by $`\rho :\mathrm{\Lambda }^kMM`$ the canonical projection. We define a canonical $`k`$-form $`\mathrm{\Theta }_M^k`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^kM`$ as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_M^k(\gamma )(X_1,\mathrm{},X_k)=\gamma (T\rho X_1,\mathrm{},T\rho X_k),$$

for all $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_kT_\gamma (\mathrm{\Lambda }^kM)`$ and for all $`\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }^kM`$.

A direct computation shows that $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }^kM,\mathrm{\Omega }_M^k=d\mathrm{\Theta }_M^k)`$ is a multisymplectic manifold (of order $`k+1`$).

Assume now that $`M`$ is a fibred manifold over a manifold $`N`$, say $`\pi :MN`$ is a fibration. Consider the bundle $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^kM`$ of $`k`$-forms on $`M`$ which are $`r`$-horizontal with respect to the fibration $`\pi :MN`$, that is, those $`k`$-forms $`\gamma `$ on $`M`$ such that $`i_{X_1\mathrm{}X_r}\gamma =0`$ when $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_r`$ are $`\pi `$-vertical. The space $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^kM`$ is a submanifold of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^kM`$, and hence we have the restriction $`(\mathrm{\Theta }_M)_r^k`$ of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_M^k`$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^kM`$. A simple computation shows that the pair $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^kM,(\mathrm{\Omega }_M)_r^k=d(\mathrm{\Theta }_M)_r^k)`$ is also a multisymplectic manifold. Of course, we have $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_M^k)_{|\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^kM}=(\mathrm{\Omega }_M)_r^k`$. The canonical projection will be denoted by $`\rho _r:\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^kMM`$ t

Following the notion of special symplectic manifold introduced by Tulczyjew we can give the following definition.

###### Definition 3.17

A special multisymplectic manifold $`(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is a multisymplectic manifold which is multisymplectomorphic to a bundle of forms. More precisely, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=d\mathrm{\Theta }`$, and there exists a diffeomorphism $`\alpha :𝒫\mathrm{\Lambda }^kM`$ (or $`\alpha :𝒫\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^kM`$), and a fibration $`\pi :𝒫M`$ such that $`\rho \alpha =\pi `$ (resp. $`\rho _r\alpha =\pi `$) and $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_M^k`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\alpha ^{}(\mathrm{\Theta }_M)_r^k`$).

###### Definition 3.18

Let $`𝒩`$ be a submanifold of a multisymplectic manifold $`(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ of order $`k+1`$. $`𝒩`$ is said to be $`l`$-isotropic (resp. $`l`$-coisotropic, $`l`$-lagrangian, multisymplectic) if $`T_x𝒩`$ is a $`l`$-isotropic (resp. $`l`$-coisotropic, $`l`$-lagrangian, multisymplectic) vector subspace of the multisymplectic vector space $`(T_x𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega }_x)`$ for all $`x𝒩`$.

###### Proposition 3.19

1. The fibres of $`\rho :\mathrm{\Lambda }^kMM`$ (and of $`\rho _r:\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^kMM`$) are 1-isotropic.
2. The image of a $`k`$-form $`\gamma `$ on $`M`$ (resp. a $`r`$-horizontal $`k`$-form) is $`k`$-lagrangian if and only if $`\gamma `$ is closed.

Proof: It follows from Proposition 3.6.

If $`\gamma `$ is a ($`r`$-horizontal) closed $`k`$-form on $`M`$, then $`(d(\mathrm{\Theta }_M)_r^k)_{|\text{Im}\gamma }=0`$ which implies that $`((\mathrm{\Theta }_M)_r^k)_{|\text{Im}\gamma }`$ is locally closed, say

$$((\mathrm{\Theta }_M)_r^k)_{|\text{Im}\gamma }=d\theta ,$$

and $`\theta `$ is called a generating $`k`$-form.

###### Definition 3.20

A triple $`(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega },𝒲)`$, where $`𝒲`$ is a 1-isotropic involutive distribution on $`(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ such that the triple $`(T_x𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega }_x,𝒲(x))`$ is a multisymplectic vector space of type $`(k+1,0)`$, for all $`x𝒫`$, will be called a multisymplectic manifold of type $`(k+1,0)`$.

###### Theorem 3.21

 Let $`(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ be a multisymplectic manifold of type $`(k+1,0)`$. Let $``$ be a $`k`$-lagrangian submanifold such that $`T𝒲_|=\{0\}`$. Then there exists a tubular neighbourhood $`U`$ of $``$ in $`𝒫`$, and a diffeomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }:UV=\mathrm{\Phi }(U)\mathrm{\Lambda }^k`$ into an open neighbourhood $`V`$ of the zero cross-section in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^k`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}((\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^k)_{|V})=\mathrm{\Omega }_{|U}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^k`$ is the canonical multisymplectic $`(k+1)`$-form on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^k`$.

###### Remark 3.22

Along the paper, the distribution $`𝒲`$ and the corresponding vector bundle $`\pi _0:𝒲𝒫`$ over $`𝒫`$ will be denoted by the same letter.

Proof:

First of all, we recall the relative Poincaré lemma, which will be very useful in what follows.

###### Lemma 3.23

(Relative Poincaré lemma) Let $`N`$ be a submanifold of a differentiable submanifold $`M`$, and let $`U`$ be a tubular neigbourhood of $`N`$ with bundle map $`\pi _0:UN`$. Notice that $`\pi _0:UN`$ is a vector bundle. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the dilation vector field of this vector bundle, and let $`\phi _t`$ be the multiplication by $`t`$. If we define an integral operator on forms on $`U`$ as follows

$$I(\mathrm{\Omega })_p=_0^1i_{\mathrm{\Delta }_t}\phi _t^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_p𝑑t$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_t=\frac{1}{t}\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`pU`$, then we have

$$I(d\mathrm{\Omega })+d(I\mathrm{\Omega })=\mathrm{\Omega }\pi _0^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{|N})$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{|N}`$ is the form on $`N`$ obtained by restricting $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ pointwise to $`TN`$ (observe that $`U`$ can be taken as a normal bundle of $`TN`$ in $`M`$).

Next, we shall prove the following result.

###### Lemma 3.24

Let $`(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega },𝒲)`$ be a multisymplectic manifold of type $`(k+1,0)`$. Let $``$ be a $`k`$-lagrangian submanifold of $`𝒫`$ which is complementary to $`𝒲`$ (that is, $`T𝒲_|=T𝒫_|`$). Then there is a tubular neighbourhood $`U`$ of $``$ and a diffeomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }:UV\mathrm{\Lambda }^k`$ where $`V`$ is an neighbourhood of the zero section, such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_|`$ is the standard identification of $``$ with the zero section of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^k`$, and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{}((\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^k)_{|V})=\mathrm{\Omega }_{|U}.$$

Proof of Lemma 3.24

Firstly, we define a vector bundle morphism over the identity of $``$ by

$$\varphi (w)=\frac{1}{k+1}i_w\mathrm{\Omega }.$$

Obviously $`\varphi `$ is injective, and since the dimensionality assumptions, we deduce that $`\varphi `$ is in fact a vector bundle isomorphism (see the diagram).

Since $`T𝒫_|=T𝒲_|`$, then $`\varphi `$ induces a diffeomorphism on a tubular neighbourhood defined by $`𝒲`$ onto a neighbourhood of $``$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^k`$ (as usual, the latter embedding is understood as the identification of $``$ with the zero section). We shall denote the restriction of $`\varphi `$ to this tubular neigbourhood by $`f`$. Notice that the restriction of $`f`$ to $``$ is just the identity, so that $`Tf`$ is also the identity on $`T`$; on the other hand, $`Tf`$ restricted to $`𝒲`$ coincides with $`\varphi `$ because it is fiberwise linear. Using the identifications $`T𝒫_|=T𝒲_|`$ and $`T\mathrm{\Lambda }^k_|=T\mathrm{\Lambda }^k`$, we have

$`f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^k((v_1,w_1),\mathrm{},(v_{k+1},w_{k+1}))`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^k((v_1,\varphi (w_1),\mathrm{},(v_{k+1},\varphi (w_{k+1}))`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k+1}{}}}(1)^i\varphi (w_i)(v_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{v}_i,\mathrm{},v_{k+1})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k+1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k+1}}\mathrm{\Omega }(v_1,\mathrm{},w_i,\mathrm{},v_{k+1})`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }((v_1,w_1),\mathrm{},(v_{k+1},w_{k+1}))`$
which implies $`f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^k=\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on $``$.

Next, we use $`f`$ to pushforward $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to obtain a $`k+1`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ in a neighbourhood of $``$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^k`$. Using Lemma 3.23 we deduce that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=d\mathrm{\Theta }_1`$, where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_1=I(\mathrm{\Omega }_1)`$. Recall that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^k=d\mathrm{\Theta }_{}^k`$, and

$$(\mathrm{\Theta }_{}^k)_|=(\mathrm{\Theta }_1)_|=0$$
(3.4)
because of the definition of $`I`$. Define

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_t=\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^k+t(\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^k),t[0,1].$$

Since

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }_t)_|=(\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^k)_|=(\mathrm{\Omega }_1)_|$$

is non-singular, and this is an “open condition”, we can find a neighbourhood of $``$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^k`$ on which all $`\mathrm{\Omega }_t`$ are non-singular for all $`t[0,1]`$. In addition, $`𝒲_{}=\mathrm{ker}\{T\rho :T\mathrm{\Lambda }^kT\}`$ is 1-isotropic for all $`\mathrm{\Omega }_t`$, in such a way that $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }^k,\mathrm{\Omega }_t,𝒲_{})`$ is a multisymplectic manifold of type $`(k+1,0)`$, for all $`t`$. Notice that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^k=d(\mathrm{\Theta }_1+\mathrm{\Theta }_{}^k)`$.

¿From (3.4) we deduce that there is a unique time-dependent vector field $`X_t`$ taking values in $`𝒲_{}`$ (in other words, $`\rho `$-vertical) such that

$$i_{X_t}\mathrm{\Omega }_t=\mathrm{\Theta }_{}^k+\mathrm{\Theta }_1.$$

Since the vector field $`X_t`$ vanishes on $``$, we can find a neighbourhood of $``$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^k`$ such that the flow $`\phi _t`$ of $`X_t`$ is defined at least for all $`t1`$. Therefore we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}(\phi _t^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_t)`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _t^{}(L_{X_t}\mathrm{\Omega }_t)+\phi _t^{}({\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_t}{dt}})`$
$`=`$ $`\phi _t^{}(di_{X_t}\mathrm{\Omega }_t)+\phi _t^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^k)`$
$`=`$ $`\phi _t^{}(d(\mathrm{\Theta }_1\mathrm{\Theta }_{}^k)+\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^k)=0.`$
Then we have

$$\phi _1^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_1=\phi _0^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^k=\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^k.$$

But $`(X_t)_|=0`$ implies $`(\phi _t)_|=id_|`$, and then we deduce that $`\phi _1f`$ gives the desired local diffeomorphism.

###### Lemma 3.25

Let $`(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega },𝒲)`$ be a multisymplectic manifold of type $`(k+1,0)`$. Let $`^{}`$ be a $`k`$-isotropic submanifold of $`𝒫`$ which is transversal to $`𝒲`$ (that is, $`T^{}𝒲_|^{}=\{0\}`$). Then there is a $`k`$-lagrangian submanifold $`^{\prime \prime }`$ of $`𝒫`$ which is complementary to $`𝒲`$ and contains $`^{}`$.

Proof of Lemma 3.25:

Since $`^{}`$ is transversal to $`𝒲`$ we can choose a submanifold $`^{\prime \prime }`$ of $`U^{}`$ such that $`^{}`$ is a deformation retract of $`^{\prime \prime }`$, and $`^{\prime \prime }`$ is complementary to $`𝒲`$. As in the theorem above, since $`T𝒫_{|^{\prime \prime }}=T^{\prime \prime }𝒲_{|^{\prime \prime }}`$, then $`𝒲`$ induces a tubular neighbourhood of $`^{\prime \prime }`$ in the usual way: $`\pi _1:U^{}^{\prime \prime }`$.

Next, we apply the relative Poincaré lemma to the restricted form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to this tubular neigborhood. Therefore, there is a $`k`$-form $`\mu `$ on $`U^{}`$ such that

$$d\mu =\mathrm{\Omega }\pi _1^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{|^{\prime \prime }})$$

(indeed, $`\mu =I(\mathrm{\Omega })`$).

Now, we can repeat the construction developed in the proof of Lemma 3.24 for the $`k+1`$-form $`d\mu `$. In fact, the mapping $`\psi :𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^k^{\prime \prime }`$ defined by $`\psi (u)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k+1}}(i_ud\mu )`$ is a vector isomorphism, and it induces a local diffeomorphim $`g:U^{\prime \prime }U^{}g(U^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{\Lambda }^k^{\prime \prime }`$; $`g`$ restrited to $`^{\prime \prime }`$ is the identity, and $`\psi `$ on the fibers. Again we can prove

$$g^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{^{\prime \prime }}^k=d\mu $$

since $`(d\mu )_{|^{\prime \prime }}=0`$. Proceeding as in the proof of Lemma 3.24 we can find a local diffeomorphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ from a tubular neigbourhood $`V`$ of $`^{\prime \prime }`$ onto a neighbourhood of the zero section of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^k^{\prime \prime }`$ which maps $`^{\prime \prime }`$ onto the zero section, and such that

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{^{\prime \prime }}^k=\mathrm{\Omega }$$

on $`V`$.

Now, if $`j:^{}^{\prime \prime }`$ is the natural inclusion, we know that $`j`$ induces an isomorphism in cohomology. Therefore $`j^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{|^{\prime \prime }})=\mathrm{\Omega }_|^{}=0`$ implies $`[\mathrm{\Omega }_{|^{\prime \prime }}]_{DR}=0`$, and we deduce that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{|^{\prime \prime }}=d\nu `$, for some $`k`$-form $`\nu `$ on $`^{\prime \prime }`$. A direct computation shows now that

$$=\mathrm{\Psi }^1(\nu )(^{\prime \prime })$$

is a $`k`$-lagrangian submanifold in $`(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega })`$, and in addition $`T𝒫_|=T𝒲_|`$.

###### Corollary 3.26

A multisymplectic manifold $`(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega },𝒲)`$ of type $`(k+1,0)`$ is locally multisymplectomorphic to a canonical multisymplectic manifold $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^kM`$ for some manifold $`M`$. Therefore, there are Darboux coordinates around each point of $`𝒫`$.

Proof: We only need to choose a point in Lemma 3.25, and then apply Theorem 3.21.

###### Definition 3.27

Let $`(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ be a multisymplectic manifold of order $`k+1`$. Assume that $`𝒲`$ is a 1-isotropic foliation of $`(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega })`$, and $``$ is a “generalised distribution” on $`𝒫`$ in the sense that $`(x)T_x𝒫/𝒲(x)`$ is a vector subspace for all $`x𝒫`$. Assume that the quadruple $`(T_x𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega }_x,𝒲(x),(x))`$ is a multisymplectic vector space of type $`(k+1,r)`$, for all $`x𝒫`$. A quadruple $`(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega },𝒲,)`$ satisfying the conditions in Theorem 3.28 will be called a multisymplectic manifold of type $`(k+1,r)`$.

###### Theorem 3.28

Let $`(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega },𝒲,)`$ be a multisymplectic manifold of type $`(k+1,r)`$. Let $``$ be a $`k`$-lagrangian submanifold such that $`T𝒲_{}=\{0\}`$. Then there exists a tubular neighbourhod $`U`$ of $``$ in $`𝒫`$, and a diffeomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }:UV=\mathrm{\Phi }(U)\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^k`$ into an open neighbourhood $`V`$ of the zero cross-section in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^k`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(((\mathrm{\Omega }_{})_r^k)_{|V})=\mathrm{\Omega }_{|U}`$, where $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{})_r^k`$ is the canonical multisymplectic $`(k+1)`$-form on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^k`$.

Proof: The proof is a consequence of the following two lemmas, which are proved in a similar way to Lemma 3.24 and Lemma 3.25.

###### Lemma 3.29

Let $`(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega },𝒲,)`$ be a multisymplectic manifold of type $`(k+1,r)`$. Let $``$ be a $`k`$-lagrangian submanifold of $`𝒫`$ which is complementary to $`𝒲`$. Then there is a tubular neighbourhood $`U`$ of $``$ and a diffeomorphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }:UV\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^k`$, where $`V`$ is an neighbourhood of the zero section, such that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_|`$ is the standard identification of $``$ with the zero section of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^k`$, and

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{}((\mathrm{\Omega }_{})_r^k)_{|V})=\mathrm{\Omega }_{|U}.$$

###### Lemma 3.30

Let $`(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega },𝒲,)`$ be a multisymplectic manifold of type $`(k+1,r)`$. Let $`^{}`$ be a $`k`$-isotropic submanifold of $`𝒫`$ which is transversal to $`𝒲`$. Then there is a $`k`$-lagrangian submanifold $`^{\prime \prime }`$ of $`𝒫`$ which is complementary to $`𝒲`$ and contains $`^{}`$.

###### Corollary 3.31

A multisymplectic manifold $`(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega },𝒲,)`$ of type $`(k+1,r)`$ is locally multisymplectomorphic to a canonical multisymplectic manifold $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^kM`$ for some fibration $`MN`$. Therefore, there are Darboux coordinates around each point of $`𝒫`$.

Proof: We only need to choose a point in Lemma 3.30, and then apply Theorem 3.28.

## 4 Lagrangian and hamiltonian settings for classical field theories

We remit to  for more details.

### 4.1 Lagrangian formalism

Let $`\pi _{XY}:YX`$ be a fibred manifold, where $`X`$ is an oriented $`n`$-dimensional manifold with volume form $`\eta `$. We choose fibred coordinates $`(x^\mu ,y^i)`$ on $`Y`$ such that

$$\eta =d^nx=dx^1\mathrm{}dx^n,\pi _{XY}(x^\mu ,y^i)=(x^\mu ),$$

where $`\mu =1,\mathrm{},n`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$, and $`dimY=n+m`$. The notation

$$d^{n1}x^\mu =i_{\frac{}{x^\mu }}d^nx$$

will be very useful, since $`dx^\mu d^{n1}x^\mu =d^nx`$.

Let $`\text{𝕃}:Z\mathrm{\Lambda }^nX`$ be a lagrangian density, that is, 𝕃 is an $`n`$-form on $`Z`$ along the canonical projection $`\pi _{XZ}:ZX`$. Therefore, $`\text{𝕃}=L\eta `$, where $`L:Z\text{}`$ is a function on $`Z`$, and $`\eta `$ equally denotes the volume form on $`X`$ and its lifts to the different bundles over $`X`$.

One constructs an $`n`$-form $`\mathrm{\Theta }_L`$ on $`Z`$ locally given by

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_L=(Lz_\mu ^i\frac{L}{z_\mu ^i})d^nx+\frac{L}{z_\mu ^i}dy^id^{n1}x^\mu .$$

The $`(n+1)`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L=d\mathrm{\Theta }_L`$ is called the Poincaré-Cartan form.

The de Donder equation is

$$i_𝐡\mathrm{\Omega }_L=(n1)\mathrm{\Omega }_L$$
(4.5)
where $`𝐡`$ is a connection in the fibred manifold $`\pi _{XZ}:ZX`$.

Indeed, if $`\sigma `$ is a horizontal section of a solution $`𝐡`$ of (4.5) then $`\sigma `$ is a critical section of the variational problem determined by $`L`$.

If $`L`$ is regular (that is, the hessian matrix

$$\left(\frac{^2L}{z_\mu ^iz_\nu ^j}\right)$$

is regular) then such a section $`\sigma `$ is necessarily a 1-jet prolongation, say $`\sigma =j^1\tau `$, where $`\tau `$ is a section of the fibred manifold $`\pi _{XY}:YX`$.

If $`𝐡`$ is a solution of equation (4.5) and

$$𝐡(\frac{}{x^\mu })=\frac{}{x^\mu }+y_\mu ^i\frac{}{y^i}+z_{\nu \mu }^i\frac{}{z_\nu ^i}$$

then we have

$$i_𝐡\mathrm{\Omega }_L=(n1)\mathrm{\Omega }_L$$
(4.6)
if and only if

$`(y_\nu ^jz_\nu ^j){\displaystyle \frac{^2L}{z_\mu ^iz_\nu ^j}}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (4.7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{y^i}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2L}{x^\mu z_\mu ^i}}y_\mu ^j{\displaystyle \frac{^2L}{y^jz_\mu ^i}}z_{\mu \nu }^j{\displaystyle \frac{^2L}{z_\mu ^jz_\nu ^i}}+(y_\nu ^jz_\nu ^j){\displaystyle \frac{^2L}{y^iz_\nu ^j}}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (4.8)
If $`L`$ is regular, then Eq. (4.7) implies $`y_\nu ^j=z_\nu ^j`$ and Eq. (4.8) becomes

$$\frac{L}{y^i}\frac{^2L}{x^\mu z_\mu ^i}z_\mu ^j\frac{^2L}{y^jz_\mu ^i}z_{\mu \nu }^j\frac{^L}{z_\mu ^jz_\nu ^i}=0$$
(4.9)
If $`𝐡`$ is flat (that is, the horizontal distribution is integrable) and $`\sigma :XZ`$ is an integral section, then $`\sigma =j^1(\pi _{YZ}\sigma )`$, and (4.9) are nothing but the Euler-Lagrange equations for $`L`$:

$$\frac{L}{y^i}\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{d}{dx^\mu }\left(\frac{L}{z_\mu ^i}\right)=0.$$
(4.10)
### 4.2 Hamiltonian formalism

Denote by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^nY`$ the vector bundle over $`Y`$ of $`n`$-forms on $`Y`$, and by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^nY`$ its vector subbundle consisting of those $`n`$-forms on $`Y`$ which vanish contracted with at least $`r`$ vertical arguments.

We have the short exact sequence of vector bundles over $`Y`$

$$0\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^nY\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^nYZ^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^nY/\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^nY0$$

We choose coordinates as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^nY`$ $`:`$ $`(x^\mu ,y^i,p)`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^nY`$ $`:`$ $`(x^\mu ,y^i,p,p_i^\mu )`$
$`Z^{}`$ $`:`$ $`(x^\mu ,y^i,p_i^\mu )`$
since the generic elements in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^nY`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^nY`$) have the form $`pd^nx`$ (resp. $`pd^nx+p_i^\mu dy^id^{n1}x^\mu `$).

In order to have a dynamical evolution in the hamiltonian setting one need to choose a hamiltonian form $`h`$ on $`Z^{}`$, that is, a section $`h:Z^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^nY`$ of the canonical fibration $`pr:\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^nYZ^{}`$.

The canonical multisymplectic form $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)_2^n`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^nY`$ induces a multisymplectic form (of the same type)

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_h=h^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)_2^n.$$

If $`\mathrm{\Theta }_h=h^{}(\mathrm{\Theta }_Y)_2^n`$ then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h=d\mathrm{\Theta }_h`$.

Since

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)_2^n=dpd^nxdp_i^\mu dy^id^{n1}x^\mu $$

and

$$h(x^\mu ,y^i,p_i^\mu )=(x^\mu ,y^i,p=H(x^\mu ,y^i,p_i^\mu ),p_i^\mu )$$

(in other words, $`h=Hd^nx+p_i^\mu dy^id^{n1}x^\mu )`$ we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_h=dHd^nxdp_i^\mu dy^id^{n1}x^\mu $$
(4.11)
Consider a connection $`𝐡^{}`$ in the fibred manifold $`\pi _{XZ^{}}:Z^{}X`$, and assume that

$$𝐡^{}(\frac{}{x^\mu })=\frac{}{x^\mu }+y_\mu ^i\frac{}{y^i}+p_{j\mu }^\nu \frac{}{p_j^\nu }.$$

Then

$$i_𝐡^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_h=(n1)\mathrm{\Omega }_h$$
(4.12)
if and only if

$`y_\mu ^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H}{p_i^\mu }}`$ (4.13)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}p_{i\mu }^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H}{y^i}}`$ (4.14)
If $`\tau :XZ^{}`$ is an integral section of $`𝐡^{}`$, and $`\tau (x^\mu )=(x^\mu ,y^i(x),p_i^\mu )`$, then it satisfies the Hamilton equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{y^i}{x^\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H}{p_i^\mu }}`$ (4.15)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_i^\mu }{x^\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H}{y^i}}`$ (4.16)
### 4.3 The Legendre transformation

Let $`L`$ be a lagrangian. We define the extended Legendre transformation

$$leg_L:Z\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^nY$$

by

$$leg_L(x^\mu ,y^i,z_\mu ^i)=(x^\mu ,y^i,Lz_\mu ^i\frac{L}{z_\mu ^i},\frac{L}{z_\mu ^i}),$$

and the Legendre transformation

$$Leg_L:ZZ^{}$$

by $`Leg_L=prleg_L`$. A direct computation shows that $`L`$ is regular if and only if $`Leg_L`$ is a local diffeomorphism. $`L`$ is said to be hyperregular if $`Leg_L`$ is a global diffeomorphism. In such case, $`h=leg_LLeg_L^1`$ is a hamiltonian form on $`Z^{}`$.

Since the next diagram

is commutative and $`Leg_L^{}(\mathrm{\Theta }_h)=\mathrm{\Theta }_L`$, we deduce that Equations (4.6) and (4.12) are equivalent. This means that the solutions of both equations are related by the Legendre transformation.

## 5 The multisymplectomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$

Consider the vector bundle $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^{n+1}Z`$ with generic elements of the form

$$a_idy^id^nx+b_i^\mu dz_\mu ^id^nx$$

This allows us to introduce local coordinates $`(x^\mu ,y^i,z_\mu ^i,a_i,b_i^\mu )`$ in the manifold $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^{n+1}Z`$.

On the other hand, we shall denote by $`J^1Z^{}`$ the manifold of 1-jets of local sections of the fibred manifold $`\pi _{XZ^{}}:Z^{}X`$. We have a canonical projection

$$j^1\pi _{YZ^{}}:J^1Z^{}Z$$

Denote by $`(x^\mu ,y^i,p_i^\mu ,y_\nu ^i,p_{i\nu }^\mu )`$ the induced coordinates on $`J^1Z^{}`$ respect to $`\pi _{XZ^{}}:Z^{}X`$, such that

$$j^1\pi _{YZ^{}}(x^\mu ,y^i,p_i^\mu ,y_\nu ^i,p_{i\nu }^\mu )=(x^\mu ,y^i,y_\mu ^i).$$

Define a mapping

$$\alpha :J^1Z^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^{n+1}Z$$

by

$$\alpha (x^\mu ,y^i,p_i^\mu ,y_\nu ^i,p_{i\nu }^\mu )=(x^\mu ,y^i,y_\mu ^i,\underset{\mu }{}p_{i\mu }^\mu ,p_i^\mu ).$$

The mapping $`\alpha `$ is a surjective submersion, or in other words, $`\alpha :J^1Z^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^{n+1}Z`$ is a fibred manifold. In order to obtain a diffeomorphism, we need to “reduce” the manifold $`J^1Z^{}`$. To do that, we introduce the following equivalence relation:

$$j_x^1\sigma _1j_x^1\sigma _2\text{if and only if they have the same divergence},$$

which in local coordinates $`(x^\mu ,y^i,p_i^\mu ,y_\nu ^i,p_{i\nu }^\mu )`$ and $`(x^\mu ,\overline{y}^i,\overline{p}_i^\mu ,\overline{y}_\nu ^i,\overline{p}_{i\nu }^\mu )`$ means

$$\overline{y}^i=y^i,\overline{p}_i^\mu =p_i^\mu ,\overline{y}_\nu ^i=y_\nu ^i,\underset{\mu }{}\overline{p}_{i\mu }^\mu =\underset{\mu }{}p_{i\mu }^\mu .$$

The corresponding quotient manifold will be denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{J^1Z^{}}`$, and we have a fibration $`\stackrel{~}{pr}:J^1Z^{}\stackrel{~}{J^1Z^{}}`$. The induced mapping

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }:\stackrel{~}{J^1Z^{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^{n+1}Z$$

is a diffeomorphism, and we have an induced projection

$$\stackrel{~}{j^1\pi _{YZ^{}}}:\stackrel{~}{J^1Z^{}}Z$$

Therefore, we can transport the canonical multisymplectic $`(n+2)`$-form
$`(\mathrm{\Omega }_Z)_2^{n+1}=d(\mathrm{\Theta }_Z)_2^{n+1}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^{n+1}Z`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{J^1Z^{}}`$ such that $`(\stackrel{~}{J^1Z^{}},\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha )`$ is a multisymplectic manifold, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha =\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^{}((\mathrm{\Omega }_Z)_2^{n+1})`$.

###### Remark 5.1

Following the terminology introduced by W.M. Tulczyjew in the symplectic context, and accordingly to Definition 3.17, we could call $`(\stackrel{~}{J^1Z^{}},\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha )`$ a special multisymplectic manifold, since it is multisymplectomorphic to a bundle of forms, and the multisymplectic $`(n+2)`$-form is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha =d\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha `$ (where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha =\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^{}((\mathrm{\Theta }_Z)_2^{n+1})`$. In addition, the following diagram is commutative:

Let $`\text{𝕃}:Z\mathrm{\Lambda }^nX`$ be a lagrangian density, that is, 𝕃 is an $`n`$-form on $`Z`$ along the projection $`\pi _{XZ}:ZX`$.

We put

$$𝒩_\text{𝕃}=\{u\stackrel{~}{J^1Z^{}}|\left(\stackrel{~}{j^1\pi _{XZ^{}}}\right)^{}(d\text{𝕃})_u=(\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha )_u\}$$

###### Theorem 5.2

$`𝒩_\text{𝕃}`$ is a $`(n+1)`$-lagrangian submanifold of the multisymplectic manifold $`(\stackrel{~}{J^1Z^{}},\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha )`$. In addition, the local equations defining $`𝒩_\text{𝕃}`$ are just the Euler-Lagrange equations for $`L`$, where $`\text{𝕃}=L\eta `$.

Proof: ¿From the definition it follows that

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(𝒩_\text{𝕃})=\text{im}d\text{𝕃},$$

In addition, we have

$`(\mathrm{\Theta }_Z)_2^{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`a_idy^id^nx+b_i^\mu dz_\mu ^id^nx`$
$`\alpha ^{}((\mathrm{\Theta }_Z)_2^{n+1})`$ $`=`$ $`p_{i\mu }^\mu dy^id^nx+p_i^\mu dy_\mu ^id^nx`$
$`d\text{𝕃}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{y^i}}dy^id^nx+{\displaystyle \frac{L}{z_\mu ^i}}dy_\mu ^id^nx.`$
Since

$$(\stackrel{~}{j^1\pi _{XZ^{}}})^{}(d\text{𝕃})=\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha $$

if and only if

$$\stackrel{~}{pr}^{}(\stackrel{~}{j^1\pi _{XZ^{}}}^{}(d\text{𝕃})\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha )=0$$

which is in turn equivalent to

$$(j^1\pi _{XZ^{}})^{}(d\text{𝕃})=\alpha ^{}(\mathrm{\Theta }_Z)_2^n,$$

we deduce that $`𝒩_\text{𝕃}`$ is locally defined by

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}p_{i\mu }^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{y^i}}`$ (5.17)
$`p_i^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{z_\mu ^i}}`$ (5.18)
Equations (5.17) imply that $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(𝒩_\text{𝕃})=\text{Im}d\text{𝕃}`$, and hence $`𝒩_\text{𝕃}`$ is a $`(n+1)`$-lagrangian submanifold of $`(\stackrel{~}{J^1Z^{}},\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha )`$.

Furthermore, we have

$$\underset{\mu }{}p_{i\mu }^\mu =\underset{\mu }{}\frac{}{x^\mu }(\frac{L}{z_\mu ^i})=\frac{L}{y^i}$$

which are just the Euler-Lagrange equations for $`L`$.

## 6 The multisymplectomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$

Recall that there exists a one-to-one correspondence between connections in the fibred manifold $`\pi _{XZ^{}}:Z^{}X`$ and sections of the 1-jet prolongation $`\pi _{Z^{}J^1Z^{}}:J^1Z^{}Z^{}`$. (At a pointwise level we have a one-to-one correspondence between horizontal subspaces in the fibred manifold $`\pi _{XZ^{}}:Z^{}X`$ and 1-jets in $`J^1Z^{}`$.)

Define a mapping

$$\beta :J^1Z^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^{n+1}Z^{}$$

as follows: given a connection $`𝐡^{}`$ in the fibred manifold $`\pi _{XZ^{}}:Z^{}X`$, we take the $`(n+1)`$-form

$$\beta (𝐡^{})=i_𝐡^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_h(n1)\mathrm{\Omega }_h.$$

An arbitrary $`(n+1)`$-form in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^{n+1}Z^{}`$ is written as

$$A_idy^id^nx+B_\mu ^idp_i^\mu d^nx$$

so that we can introduce local coordinates $`(x^\mu ,y^i,p_i^\mu ,A_i,B_\mu ^i)`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^{n+1}Z^{}`$.

If we put

$$𝐡^{}(\frac{}{x^\mu })=\frac{}{x^\mu }+y_\mu ^i\frac{}{y^i}+p_{j\mu }^\nu \frac{}{p_j^\nu }$$

or, equivalently,

$$𝐡^{}(x^\mu ,y^i,p_i^\mu )=(x^\mu ,y^i,p_i^\mu ,y_\mu ^i,p_{j\mu }^\nu )$$

(when $`𝐡^{}`$ is considered as a section of $`J^1Z^{}Z^{}`$), then a straightforward computation shows that

$$\beta (x^\mu ,y^i,p_i^\mu ,y_\mu ^i,p_{i\mu }^\nu )=(x^\mu ,y^i,p_i^\mu ,\underset{\mu }{}p_{i\mu }^\mu +\frac{H}{y^i},y_\mu ^i+\frac{H}{p_i^\mu }).$$

The mapping $`\beta `$ is a surjective submersion. Thus, in order to have a diffeomorphism we consider the induced mapping $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }:\stackrel{~}{J^1Z^{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^{n+1}Z^{}`$. Therefore we obtain a commutative diagram

where $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }:\stackrel{~}{J^1Z^{}}Z^{}`$ is the induced projection from the canonical one $`\rho :J^1Z^{}Z^{}`$.

Define a $`(n+1)`$-form $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\beta `$ on $`\stackrel{~}{J^1Z^{}}`$ as $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\beta =\stackrel{~}{\beta }^{}((\mathrm{\Theta }_Z^{})_2^{n+1})`$. Therefore, the pair $`(\stackrel{~}{J^1Z^{}},\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta )`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta =d\mathrm{\Theta }_\beta `$, is a multisymplectic manifold of type $`(n+2,2)`$.

###### Remark 6.1

It should be noticed that pair $`(\stackrel{~}{J^1Z^{}},\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta )`$ is a special multisymplectic manifold.

###### Theorem 6.2

Let $`𝐡^{}`$ be a solution of the de Donder equation. Then the projection $`𝒩_h`$ of the image of $`𝐡^{}`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{pr}`$ is a $`(n+1)`$-lagrangian submanifold of the multisymplectic manifold $`(\stackrel{~}{J^1Z^{}},\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta )`$. In addition, the local equations defining $`𝒩_h`$ are just the Hamilton equations for $`h`$.

Proof:

Since

$$(\mathrm{\Theta }_Z^{})_2^{n+1}=A_idy^id^nx+B_\mu ^idp_i^\mu d^nx$$

we have

$$\beta ^{}((\mathrm{\Theta }_Z^{})_2^{n+1})=(p_{i\mu }^\mu +\frac{H}{y^i})dy^id^nx+(y_\mu ^i+\frac{H}{p_i^\mu })dp_i^\mu d^nx.$$

Therefore, the projection $`𝒩_h`$ of the image of $`𝐡^{}`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{pr}`$ is just the inverse image of the zero-cross section of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^{n+1}Z^{}`$, and hence it is a $`(n+1)`$-lagrangian submanifold of $`(\stackrel{~}{J^1Z^{}},\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta )`$.

The second part of the theorem follows directly from the preceding discussion.

## 7 Relating $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$

The above constructions are collected in the following diagram:

Since

$`\stackrel{~}{pr}^{}(\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`p_{i\mu }^\mu dy^id^nx+p_i^\mu dy_\mu ^id^nx`$
$`\stackrel{~}{pr}^{}(\mathrm{\Theta }_\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`(p_{i\mu }^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{H}{y^i}})dy^id^nx+(y_\mu ^i+{\displaystyle \frac{H}{p_i^\mu }})dp_i^\mu d^nx`$
we deduce that

$`\stackrel{~}{pr}^{}(\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha \mathrm{\Theta }_\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`dh\left(y_\mu ^idp_i^\mu +p_i^\mu dy_\mu ^i\right)d^nx`$
$`=`$ $`dhd(p_i^\mu y_\mu ^i)d^nx`$
$`=`$ $`d\left(h(p_i^\mu y_\mu ^i)d^nx\right)`$
which implies that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha =\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta `$.

###### Theorem 7.1

Let $`L`$ be a regular lagrangian, and assume that $`h=leg_L(Leg_L)^1`$. Then $`N_\text{𝕃}=N_h`$.

Acknowledgment This work has been partially supported by MICYT (Spain) (Grant BFM2001-2272) and Basque Governement.