format: text

text:
# Semiclassical Double-Pomeron Production of Glueballs and 𝜂'

## I Introduction

Semi-classical tunneling in the QCD vacuum, described by instantons, is traditionally studied in relation with the QCD vacuum properties such as chiral symmetry breaking and hadronic spectroscopy, see review .

More recently a number of authors  have suggested that the semiclassical physics based on instantons and QCD sphalerons significantly contributes to semi-hard scattering in QCD, in particular to the parameters of the so called “soft Pomeron”. The specific behavior of hadronic cross sections at high energy, i.e. their growth with energy $`\sigma s^{0.08}`$ is related to the Pomeron trajectory intercept at $`t=0`$. The semiclassical theory relates the small power of $`0.08`$ to the barrier-suppressed probability of tunneling in the QCD vacuum. Also, the small Pomeron size $`\alpha ^{}=1/(2\mathrm{GeV})^2=(0.1\mathrm{fm})^2`$ was found to be related in  to the small instanton size $`\rho =1/3`$ fm. As unexpected bonus, it was found that the semiclassical scattering cannot produce an odderon, essentially due to the inherent $`SU(2)`$ color nature of the semiclassical fields. Recently, the same semiclassical reasoning was applied to the saturation problem at HERA .

The semiclassical approach to semi-hard processes is distinct from many QCD models in a number of ways. It describes field excitations from the under-the-barrier part of vacuum wave function, becoming on-the-barrier states referred to as QCD sphalerons. They are specific topological clusters made of purely magnetic glue . As quantum-mechanical and semi-classical arguments show, it is the most natural excitation of the glue from under the barrier. When produced they explode , creating on the way many light quark pairs .

The corresponding contributions to the soft Pomeron can be viewed as a ladder-type diagrams, similar to the perturbative BFKL ones but with different rungs . The Lipatov vertex – 2 virtual gluons fusing into one physical gluon – is substituted by a new vertex with a tunneling path ending at the unitarity cut at the “turning state” -the topological clusters. In this work we focus on only one cluster production as illustrated in Fig. 1.

In contrast to deep-inelastic scattering, high energy hadronic collisions in the semi-hard regime have no large scale $`Q^2`$, and so the produced clusters have masses and sizes that are determined by the typical size of the instantons in the QCD vacuum. This leads to a mass of order 3 GeV for a size of order $`1/3`$ fm, as mentioned above.

A significant amount of clustering in $`pp`$ collisions has been known for a very long time , where it was also pointed out that those clusters have on average larger mass and multiplicity in comparison to the clusters produced in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation. Unfortunately, a study of these clusters and their identification is still not done. In general, from the analysis of secondaries in $`pp`$ collisions it is hard to tell which clusters are sphaleron-related and produced promptly, and which are simply products of the string fragmentation, a final state interaction unrelated to the underlying dynamics responsible for the cross section. In ordinary inclusive $`pp`$ collisions only a bulk statistical analysis can be performed.

That is why in the present work we focus on double-pomeron scattering, or processes in which there are two large rapidity gaps separating the colliding two protons with a single cluster produced at mid-rapidity. In this case there is no place for color strings and their fragmentation, as all object involved are colorless. So, if our assumption about dominance of the topological clusters is correct, we should be able to describe the double-pomeron data solely from the semiclassical theory. The answer is yes, as we will detail below.

Important experimental findings on $`inclusive`$ double diffraction were recently reported by the UA8 collaboration , based on its 1989 data data sample at CERN $`S\overline{p}pS`$ collider. We note in this work that the reported data display a wide maximum around cluster masses of order few GeV, with a cross section that is an order of magnitude larger than the one predicted by Pomeron factorization. Interestingly enough, the clusters with mass less than 5 GeV decay isotropically in their rest frame. Unfortunately, the UA2 detector used in this work was a simple calorimeter with poor mass resolution with sigma about 2 GeV, which prohibited from seeing mass structure in our pomeron-pomeron cross section.

The WA102 collaboration at CERN carried a fixed target $`pp`$ experiment at $`\sqrt{s}=28`$ GeV, focusing on the double-pomeron exclusive production into few hadron states. This experiment was the first to discover a strong dependence of the cross section on the azimuthal angle between the momenta transfered to two protons, a feature that was not expected from standard Pomeron phenomenology. This result inspired some phenomenological works  pointing a possible analogy between the Pomeron and vector particles. Close and his collaborators have even suggested to use this azimuthal distribution as a glueball filter, selecting the hadronic states which peak at small difference in transverse momentum $`dP_T`$ of the protons. In particular, the production of scalars and tensors such as $`f_0(980)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$, $`f_J(1710)`$, and $`f_2(1900)`$ was found to be considerably enhanced at small $`dP_T`$, while the production of pseudoscalars such as $`\eta `$, $`\eta ^{}`$ was found to be peaked at mutually orthogonal momentum transfers of the protons. In our approach the produced QCD sphalerons can be regarded as precursors of glueballs or pseudoscalar $`\eta ^{}`$ strongly coupled to glue. In the double-pomeron process the sphaleron production dwarfs the instanton-antiinstanton process  by 2 orders of magnitude, and contrary to the latter it triggers a rise in the cross section.

The paper is organized as follows: In section 2 we recall the general expression for the total QCD cross section in the eikonal approximation, and check its perturbative (Low-Nussinov) limit. In section 3 we analyze the generic form of the double-pomeron cross section and show its direct relationship with the inelastic cross section through the Pomeron. In section 4, we discuss the double-pomeron inclusive UA8 results in light of our results. In section 5, we derive explicit results for the even/odd double-pomeron gluon production. In section 6 we use the scale and U(1) anomaly to derive the double-pomeron cross sections for isosinglet production. In section 7, we compare our results to the CERN WA102 results for the reported glueball and $`\eta ^{}`$ states. Our conclusions are in section 8.

## II Total Cross Section

In this section and to help streamline the definitions, we quote the general result for the instanton-induced contribution to the total cross section, and check its perturbative limit.

### A General Result

The generic form of the total cross section for parton-parton scattering through a generic gauge configuration in QCD reads at large $`\sqrt{s}`$

$`\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}}{VT}}{\displaystyle \underset{CD}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle 𝑑q_{1+}𝑑q_1𝑑q_2𝑑q_2}`$ (1)
$`\times {\displaystyle }[dA][dA^{}]e^{iS(A)iS(A^{})+iS(A,A^{})}`$ (2)
$`\times {\displaystyle }dx_{}dx_{}dy_+dy_{}e^{\frac{i}{2}q_{1+}x_{}iq_1x_{}+\frac{i}{2}q_2y_+iq_2y_{}}`$ (3)
$`\times \left(𝐖_{}(\mathrm{},x_{},x_{})\mathrm{𝟏}\right)_{AC}\left(𝐖_+(y_+,\mathrm{},y_{})\mathrm{𝟏}\right)_{BD}`$ (4)
$`\times {\displaystyle }dx_{}^{}dx_{}^{}dy_+^{}dy_{}^{}e^{\frac{i}{2}q_{1+}x_{}^{}iq_1x_{}^{}+\frac{i}{2}q_2y_+^{}iq_2y_{}^{}}`$ (5)
$`\times \left(𝐖_{}(\mathrm{},x_{}^{},x_{}^{})\mathrm{𝟏}\right)_{AC}^{}\left(𝐖_+(y_+^{},\mathrm{},y_{}^{})\mathrm{𝟏}\right)_{BD}^{}.`$ (6)
(7)
which is the imaginary part of a retarded 4-point correlation function in Minkowski space. The line integrals are along the light cone with

$`𝐖_{}(\mathrm{},x_{},x_{})=`$ (8)
$`𝐏_c\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑x_+^{}A_{}(x_+^{},x_{},x_{})\right).`$ (9)
and

$`𝐖_+(x_{1+},\mathrm{},x_{})=`$ (10)
$`𝐏_c\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑x_{}^{}A_+(x_+,x_{}^{},x_{})\right).`$ (11)
### B Low-Nussinov Limit

In perturbation theory, the line integrals can be expanded to give in the lowest perturbative order

$`𝐖_+\mathrm{𝟏}{\displaystyle \frac{ig}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑x_{}^{}A_+(x_+,x_{}^{},x_{})`$ (12)
and similarly for $`𝐖_{}`$. The correlator of two vector potentials is the gluon propagator, so the expression corresponds to a diagram shown in Fig.1(a). Inserting (12) into (7) we obtain to leading order in perturbation theory

$`\sigma `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{T^e}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{T^f}{2}}\right)_{AA}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T^e}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{T^f}{2}}\right)_{BB}{\displaystyle \frac{dq_{}}{\pi ^2}}`$ (14)
$`\times \left|{\displaystyle 𝑑b_{}e^{iq_{}b_{}}𝑑\alpha 𝑑\beta \frac{v_+v_{}}{(v_+\alpha v_{}\beta )^2b_{}^2+i0}}\right|^2`$
where $`v_\pm `$ are the 4-velocities on the light-cone with proper-time extent $`T`$. The result (LABEL:A5) is

$`\sigma `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c^2}}\right)`$ (17)
$`\times {\displaystyle }dq_{}|{\displaystyle }db_{}e^{iq_{}b_{}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{b_{}}}\right)|^2,`$
after proper color tracing, in agreement with the perturbative result of Low-Nussinov .

## III Double-pomeron Cross Section

The exclusive cross section for the double-pomeron parton-parton scattering $`qqqqX`$ where $`X`$ stands for a centrally produced color singlet cluster as diagrammatically depicted in Fig. 1 (d). The vertical ellipses indicate instantons and the dashed line is an additional perturbative gluon that is needed to enforce overall color neutrality for the state $`X`$ emitted in the central region. The thin vertical lines in all diagrams denotes the unitarity cut. The corresponding exclusive cross section reads

$`\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}}{VT}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle 𝑑q_{1+}𝑑q_1𝑑q_2𝑑q_2}`$ (19)
$`\times {\displaystyle }[dA][dA^{}]e^{iS(A)iS(A^{})+iS(A,A^{})}`$ (20)
$`\times {\displaystyle }dx_{}dx_{}dy_+dy_{}e^{\frac{i}{2}q_{1+}x_{}iq_1x_{}+\frac{i}{2}q_2y_+iq_2y_{}}`$ (21)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{ig}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑z_+A_{}(z_+,x_{},x_{})𝐖_{}(\mathrm{},x_{},x_{})\right)_{AA}`$ (22)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{ig}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑z_{}A_{}(y_+,z_{},y_{})𝐖_+(y_+,\mathrm{},y_{})\right)_{BB}`$ (23)
$`\times {\displaystyle }dx_{}^{}dx_{}^{}dy_+^{}dy_{}^{}e^{\frac{i}{2}q_{1+}x_{}^{}iq_1x_{}^{}+\frac{i}{2}q_2y_+^{}iq_2y_{}^{}}`$ (24)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{ig}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑z_+^{}A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(z_+^{},x_{}^{},x_{}^{})𝐖_{}(\mathrm{},x_{}^{},x_{}^{})\right)_{AA}^{}`$ (25)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{ig}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑z_{}^{}A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(y_+^{},z_{}^{},y_{}^{})𝐖_+(y_+^{},\mathrm{},y_{}^{})\right)_{BB}^{}.`$ (26)
(27)
The leading order contribution to (27) stems from the perturbative part of the gluon exchanged in Fig. 1 around the semiclassical background attached to the eikonal partons. The former increases with the proper-length of the eikonalized trajectories spanned by the incoming partons. The result is

$`\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}}{VT}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle 𝑑q_{1+}𝑑q_1𝑑q_2𝑑q_2}`$ (28)
$`\times {\displaystyle }[dA][dA^{}]e^{iS(A)iS(A^{})+iS(A,A^{})}`$ (29)
$`\times {\displaystyle }dx_{}dx_{}dy_+dy_{}e^{\frac{i}{2}q_{1+}x_{}iq_1x_{}+\frac{i}{2}q_2y_+iq_2y_{}}`$ (30)
$`\times 2\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{|x_{}y_{}|}}\right)`$ (31)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{T^a}{2}}𝐖_{}(\mathrm{},x_{},x_{})\right)_{AA}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T^a}{2}}𝐖_+(y_+,\mathrm{},y_{})\right)_{BB}`$ (32)
$`\times {\displaystyle }dx_{}^{}dx_{}^{}dy_+^{}dy_{}^{}e^{\frac{i}{2}q_{1+}x_{}^{}iq_1x_{}^{}+\frac{i}{2}q_2y_+^{}iq_2y_{}^{}}`$ (33)
$`\times 2\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{|x_{}^{}y_{}^{}|}}\right)`$ (34)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{T^b}{2}}𝐖_{}(\mathrm{},x_{}^{},x_{}^{})\right)_{AA}^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T^b}{2}}𝐖_+(y_+^{},\mathrm{},y_{}^{})\right)_{BB}^{}.`$ (35)
The non-perturbative parts of the gluon propagator in Feynman background gauge have been dropped. The perturbative part dominates through its logarithmic growth at large proper time $`T`$.

### A Details

The result (35) is general and holds in Minkowski space. Following our previous arguments we assess the imaginary part by continuing to Euclidean space and saturating the double functional integral with singular gauge configurations which are sphaleron-like. The result can be considerably simplified if we note that the 2-dimensional Coulombic law probes transverse distances $`|x_{}y_{}|`$ of the order of the sphaleron size $`\rho `$, while the Euclidean time $`T`$ is of the order of the inverse sphaleron mass $`1/M_s`$. As a result and modulo color factors, the 2-dimensional Coulomb contribution brings about an overall factor of

$`4\alpha _s^2\mathrm{ln}^2(\rho M_s)=4\alpha _s^2\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\right).`$ (36)
The color factors can be unwound by using

$`𝐖=\mathrm{cos}\alpha i𝐑^{ai}\tau ^a𝐧^i\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$ (37)
where the singular gauge configuration is given by $`\alpha `$ 111Since the singular gauge configuration asymptotes the instanton profile, it is sufficient to use the instanton/antiinstanton profile in the form factors.. Specifically, the contribution

$`i𝐑^{ai}𝐧^i\left({\displaystyle \frac{T^e}{2}}\tau ^a\right)_{AA}\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$ (38)
$`\times `$ $`i𝐑^{bj}\underset{¯}{𝐧}^j\left({\displaystyle \frac{T^e}{2}}\tau ^b\right)_{BB}\mathrm{sin}\underset{¯}{\alpha }`$ (39)
$`\times `$ $`+i𝐑_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a^{}i^{}}𝐧^i^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T^f}{2}}\tau ^a^{}\right)_{AA}^{}\mathrm{sin}\alpha ^{}`$ (40)
$`\times `$ $`+i𝐑_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{b^{}j^{}}\underset{¯}{𝐧}^j^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T^f}{2}}\tau ^b^{}\right)_{BB}^{}\mathrm{sin}\underset{¯}{\alpha ^{}}`$ (41)
where the $`T^e`$’s are SU(Nc)generators with $`e=1,..,(N_c^21)`$ and $`\tau ^a`$’s are SU(2) generators with $`a=1,2,3`$, can be simplified using the color averaging relation

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{T^e}{2}}\tau ^a\right)_{AA}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}\mathrm{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T^e}{2}}\tau ^a\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}^{ea}}{N_c}}.`$ (42)
Thus, (41) becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c^4}}𝐧\underset{¯}{𝐧}𝐧^{}\underset{¯}{𝐧^{}}\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\underset{¯}{\alpha }\mathrm{sin}\alpha ^{}\mathrm{sin}\underset{¯}{\alpha ^{}}`$ (43)
### B Inclusive Double-Pomeron Cross Section

Inserting (36-43) into (35) and following the steps given in , we obtain for the total singlet cross section

$`\sigma (s)`$ $`𝐂_S\pi \rho ^2\mathrm{ln}s{\displaystyle 𝑑q_1𝑑q_2𝐊(q_1,q_2)}`$ (45)
$`\times {\displaystyle _{(q_1+q_2)^2}^{\mathrm{}}}dM^2\sigma _S(M).`$
The constant $`𝐂_S`$ is equal to

$`𝐂_S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^8}}{\displaystyle \frac{64}{5N_c^2}}\alpha _s^2\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\right).`$ (46)
The partial cross section $`\sigma _S(Q)`$ is the same as the one encountered in the sphaleron-like production. To exponential accuracy

$`\sigma _S(Q)=\mathrm{Im}{\displaystyle 𝑑Te^{QT𝐒(T)}}\kappa e^{\frac{4\pi }{\alpha }(𝐅(Q)𝐅(M_s))},`$ (47)
where the holy grail function $`𝐅(Q)`$ was evaluated in  using singular gauge configurations. In the approximation

$`\sigma _S(Q)\kappa \delta (Q^2M_s^2)`$ (48)
the singlet cross section simplifies to

$`\sigma (s)`$ $`𝐂_S\pi \rho ^2\kappa \mathrm{ln}\mathrm{s}{\displaystyle 𝑑q_1𝑑q_2𝐊(q_1,q_2)},`$ (49)
which is analogous to the inelastic (Pomeron induced) cross section derived in  with the substitution $`𝐂_S𝐂`$ where

$`𝐂={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^8}}{\displaystyle \frac{64}{15}}`$ (50)
Note that the ratio of the semiclassical double-pomeron cross section to the semiclassical inelastic cross section, as given by diagrams Fig. 1d and 1c respectively, is independent of the detailed dynamics, and involves mostly color factors resulting from the singlet projection through the extra gluon exchanged

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{DD}}{\sigma _{IN}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐂_S}{𝐂}}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{N_c^2}}\alpha _s^2\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\right)0.125.`$ (51)
### C The instanton-induced form factor

The form factor is

$`𝐊(q_1,q_2)=|𝐉(q_1)𝐉(q_2)+𝐉(q_1)\times 𝐉(q_2)|^2,`$ (52)
with

$`𝐉(q_{})={\displaystyle 𝑑x_3𝑑x_{}e^{iq_{}x}\frac{x_{}}{|x|}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi |x|}{\sqrt{x^2+\rho _0^2}}\right)}.`$ (53)
which is purely imaginary,

$`𝐉(q_{})=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{q}_{}}{\sqrt{q_{}}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑xJ_{3/2}(q_{}x)`$ (55)
$`\times \left((2\pi x)^{3/2}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi |x|}{\sqrt{x^2+\rho _0^2}}}\right)\right).`$
Here $`J_{3/2}`$ is a half-integer Bessel function. In the weak-field limit the instanton contributes a term $`{}_{}{}^{3}\sqrt{x}/x^21/\sqrt{x}`$ that causes the instanton-induced form factor to diverge. This divergence is analogous to the one encountered in $`QQQQ`$. Apart from the unphysical (perturbative) singularity at small $`q_{}`$, the instanton-induced form factor can be parameterized by a simple exponential

$`𝐉(q_{})i\widehat{q}_{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}50}e^{1.3q_{}\rho _0},`$ (56)
The divergence at small $`q_{}`$ can be removed by subtracting the tail of the instanton through the substitution

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi |x|}{\sqrt{x^2+\rho _0^2}}}\pi \left({\displaystyle \frac{|x|}{\sqrt{x^2+\rho _0^2}}}1\right)e^{𝐚|x|/\rho _0},`$ (57)
which amounts to a different renormalization of the charge. This will be understood throughout. Note that the subtracted form factor vanishes at small $`q_{}`$.

## IV Inclusive Double-Pomeron: UA8

The UA8 experiment at CERN studied the reaction $`\overline{p}p\overline{p}Xp`$ where $`X`$ is a set of hadrons at mid-rapidity. There are two sets of data: one in which both nucleons were detected (AND) and one in which only one nucleon was detected (OR). Since the two triggers are different, the two data sets were measured at different kinematics. UA8 used the following model-dependent parametrization of their measured differential cross section

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^6\sigma _{DPE}}{d\xi _1d\xi _2dt_1dt_2d\varphi _1d\varphi _2}}=`$ (58)
$`F_{𝒫/p}(t_1,\xi _1)F_{𝒫/p}(t_2,\xi _2)\sigma _{𝒫𝒫}^{tot}(M_X).`$ (59)
where the variables ($`\xi _i,t_i,\varphi _i`$) describe the fraction of the longitudinal momentum, momentum transfer squared and its azimuthal direction for each Pomeron. All the parameters are uniquely given by the measured parameters of the outgoing $`p,\overline{p}`$. The Pomeron flux factor or structure function is defined as

$`F_{𝒫/p}(t,\xi )=K|𝐅_1(t)|^2e^{bt}\xi ^{12\alpha (t)}`$ (60)
where $`|𝐅_1(t)|^2`$ is the so called Donnachie-Landshoff  nucleon form factor

$`𝐅_1(t)={\displaystyle \frac{4m_p^22.8t}{4m_p^2t}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1t/0.71)^2}}.`$ (61)
The parameters were defined from single-pomeron data with $`b=1.08\pm 0.2\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, and nonlinear Pomeron trajectory

$`\alpha (t)=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+ϵ+\alpha ^{}t+\alpha ^{\prime \prime }t^2`$ (62)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.035}+0.165t+0.059t^2.`$ (63)
The parameter $`K=0.74/\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ was not measured and was set from the Donnachie-Landshoff fit. The specific parametrizations (LABEL:pompomdist-traj) were used to set up the acceptances and so on. However, in the UA8 paper to be discussed below, it was pointed out that the difference between the AND and OR data sets may suggest that the above parametrization with factorizable flux factors maybe oversimplified.

The uncertainties related to the empirical extrapolation from the covered to the full kinematical range notwithstanding, the UA8 data show a striking and an unexpected shape and magnitude 222The extracted cross section is based on the value of $`K`$ quoted above. for the pomeron-pomeron cross section $`\sigma _{𝒫𝒫}^{tot}(M_X)`$ shown in Fig. 2. Only at the central cluster mass $`M_X>10`$ GeV was the cross section small $`0.1`$ mb, and more or less in agreement with standard Pomeron calculus (more specifically with the Pomeron factorization appended by some Reggeon contributions decreasing with $`M_X`$). At smaller masses $`M_X<10`$ GeV the observed cross section is an order of magnitude larger than what is expected from factorization. This was neither predicted prior to the experiment, nor explained (to our knowledge) after the experiment. Another crucial finding is that the low-mass clusters decay isotropically (in their rest frame).

Now, let us see to what extent our semiclassical description is able to describe these observations. We start with a qualitative argument of why the factorization does not work in our approach. This happens because instead of a single universal Pomeron pole we view high energy scattering in the semi-hard regime as a superposition of two different phenomena: color exchanges (which leads to a constant cross section, that does not grow with $`\sqrt{s}`$) and the topological cluster production. The single-pomeron may be caused by the former component alone, while the double-pomeron may produce a visible cluster which we will try to associate with the latter. Let us now compare the dependence of the different kinematical observables in the UA8 parameterization given above and in our semi-classical formulae.

The $`\varphi `$-dependence is explicitly333Implicitly there is some dependence due to kinematical limitations: not all values of the angle between $`\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q}_2`$ lead to positive $`M_X`$.  absent in (59). The same is true in our expressions, if the total sum of the even and odd parity combinations is taken.

The $`t_1,t_2`$-dependence factorizes in both cases. Naturally, since the UA8 expression is written for nucleons while we deal with partons, their expression has the nucleon form factor and ours does not. The remaining factor in the UA8 parameterization is

$`F_{UA8}=`$ $`e^{q^2(b+2\alpha ^{}log(1/\xi ))}`$ (64)
$``$ $`e^{q^22.6GeV^2}`$ (65)
while we have a square of our basic form-factor $`F_{our}=|𝐉(q)|^2`$. Although different in shape, they are not so much different in the range $`t=`$1-2 GeV2 in which the experiment has been done. The main scale of the object involved is obviously very close in both cases. Below we will discuss in more detail the WA102 data, which have a wider coverage on the $`t`$-dependence,

The $`\xi `$-dependence. In the first approximation, putting $`\alpha (0)1`$ into (59), one finds just $`d\xi _1d\xi _2/\xi _1\xi _2=dy_1dy_2`$ where $`y_{1,2}`$ are Pomeron rapidities, giving a flat rapidity distribution of a cluster. This contributes $`\mathrm{ln}(s)`$ to the cross section. The same dependence is seen in our formulae as well. In the next approximation one has a correlation between $`\xi `$ and the transverse momenta in (59), but this was most probably never really tested directly in those data, we think.

The $`M_X`$-dependence is of course the main issue. The UA8 results are shown in Fig. 2 above. Our qualitative expectations are a peak at the sphaleron mass, around 3 GeV. This is not in contradiction with the data, especially with the more kinematically constrained “AND” set. Unfortunately the low statistics and rather crude resolution of the UA8 experiment in $`M_X`$ leaves many unanswered questions. As we have shown in , at this point we can only calculate the low and high-$`M_X`$ parts separately, with the complete treatment in between still missing. So far we do not have a complete semiclassical prediction for the exact shape of the $`M_X`$ dependence, but we are working on it.

The magnitude of the double-pomeron cross section can be estimated qualitatively. One of the reason for that is that our quark-quark cross section should be extended to $`qg,gg`$ collisions and convoluted with appropriate structure functions. Those should be normalized at the semi-hard scale corresponding to $`t`$ 1-2 GeV2 and the instanton size. How to do so was discussed in . In short, each gluon gets an extra factor of 2 in the cross section relative to a quark (SU(2) color scaling). The total number of relevant partons was defined there as the integrated structure functions above $`\xi >0.01`$, giving about $`N_g4`$ gluons and $`N_q4`$ quarks (including the sea and valence quarks), and the elementary instanton-induced cross section for quark-quark collision $`\sigma _{qq}.017`$ mb. Multiplying all with the extra factor for color singletness (double-pomeron) as in (51), we estimate the total double-pomeron cross section for two nucleons to be about $`\sigma _{DD}^{NN}0.2`$ mb, or about 1 percent of the Pomeron-related part of the cross section. Parametrically this smallness comes from the first power of the instanton diluteness parameter $`\kappa =n\rho ^4(1/3)^4`$ and $`\alpha _s`$ in (51) for the extra gluon.

The experimental total double-pomeron cross section is clearly in the same ball-park, although an accurate determination by extrapolation of the UA8 data to the whole kinematical region is too uncertain to quote any specific number.

## V Parity Even and Odd Clusters

The cross section (45) can easily be separated into the even/odd parity contributions following the natural parity separation in the form factor (52). The even parity combination is

$`|𝐉(q_1)𝐉(q_2)|^2=\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi |𝐉(q_1)|^2|𝐉(q_2)|^2`$ (66)
while the odd parity combination is

$`|𝐉(q_1)\times 𝐉(q_2)|^2=\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi |𝐉(q_1)|^2|𝐉(q_2)|^2`$ (67)
where $`\varphi `$ is the azimuthal angle between $`(q_1,q_2)`$. The double-pomeron cross section for positive and negative parity glue emission are therefore (per unit rapidity $`\eta `$)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _+}{dQ^2dq_1dq_2d\eta }}=\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi 𝐂_S\pi \rho ^2|𝐉(q_1)|^2|𝐉(q_2)|^2\sigma _S(Q)`$ (68)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{}}{dQ^2dq_1dq_2d\eta }}=\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi 𝐂_S\pi \rho ^2|𝐉(q_1)|^2|𝐉(q_2)|^2\sigma _S(Q).`$ (69)
(70)
where $`𝐂_S`$ can also be rewritten as

$`𝐂_S={\displaystyle \frac{3}{N_c^2}}\alpha _s^2\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(0)}{\kappa }}\left({\displaystyle 𝑑q_{}𝐉^2(q_{})}\right)^2`$ (71)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)0.1`$ the ‘Pomeron’ intercept. The sum of the two, as noted before, is thus predicted to be independent of $`\varphi `$.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dxd\varphi dt_1dt_2}}/{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dQ^2dq_1dq_2}}=\pi sx`$ (72)
for symmetric kinematics with

$`q_1=((1x_1)\sqrt{s},q_1,(1x_1)\sqrt{s})`$ (73)
$`q_2=((1x_2)\sqrt{s},q_2,(1x_2)\sqrt{s}),`$ (74)
$`x_1=x_2=1x`$, $`t_1=t_2=t`$, $`|q_1|=|q_2|=\sqrt{t}`$, and

$`Q^2=sx^2+2t(1+\mathrm{cos}\varphi ).`$ (75)
## VI Isosinglet Scalar and Pseudoscalar Production

The double-pomeron cross section for even/odd parity gluon production can be readily translated to the isosinglet scalar ($`s_0`$) and pseudoscalar ($`\eta _0`$) $`\overline{q}q`$ double-pomeron cross sections through the scale and U(1) anomaly in QCD. In the instanton vacuum the induced interaction is given by

$`𝒮=`$ $`+{\displaystyle 𝑑z\frac{1}{2\chi _{}}\left(\chi (z)+i\chi _{}\sqrt{2N_f}\eta _0(z)\right)^2}`$ (77)
$`+{\displaystyle 𝑑z\frac{1}{2\sigma _{}^2}\left(\sigma (z)+i\sigma _{}^2\sqrt{2N_f}s_0(z)\right)^2},`$
where $`\sigma _{}^2`$ and $`\chi _{}`$ are the compressibility and topological susceptibility for fermionless QCD.

For small $`Q^2`$ the sphaleron induced double-pomeron cross section is mostly mediated by a singular instanton-antiinstanton configuration, which is about 1 quasiparticle before the unitarity cut. Thus the mixing (77) amounts to respectively multiplying the gluon amplitudes by

$`\sqrt{2N_f}\chi _{}\rho ^4`$ (78)
$`\sqrt{2N_f}\sigma _{}^2\rho ^4,`$ (79)
for the odd/even parities respectively. So we get from the parity even/odd double-pomeron gluon cross sections to the parity even/odd double-pomeron isosinglet cross sections by multiplying the formers with $`(\sqrt{2N_f}\sigma _{}^2\rho ^4)^2`$ (even) and $`(\sqrt{2N_f}\chi _{}\rho ^4)^2`$ (odd). The $`\eta _0`$ is a mixture of $`\eta ^{},\eta `$ with mixing angle $`\theta _M20^0`$.

Putting everything together, it follows that the double-pomeron production of $`\eta ^{}`$ in $`pp`$ scattering is given respectively by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _\eta ^{}}{dq_1dq_2d\eta }}=`$ $`\left(\sqrt{2N_f}\chi _{}\rho ^4\mathrm{cos}(\theta _M)\right)^2\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi `$ (81)
$`\times 𝐂_S\pi \rho ^2|𝐉(q_1)|^2|𝐉(q_2)|^2\sigma _S(m_\eta ^{}^2)`$
(82)
while the double-pomeron production of heavy isosinglet scalars reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _s}{dq_1dq_2d\eta }}=`$ $`\left(\sqrt{2N_f}\sigma _{}^2\rho ^4\right)^2\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi `$ (84)
$`\times 𝐂_S\pi \rho ^2|𝐉(q_1)|^2|𝐉(q_2)|^2\sigma _S(m_s^2).`$
## VII Exclusive Double-Pomeron: WA102

The most natural general prediction which follows from our approach is that since the inclusive clusters are predicted to have a mass of about 3 GeV, the exclusive glueball states – such as the scalar at 1.7 GeV and pseudoscalar above 2 GeV – can be significant. As the latter has not yet been identified experimentally, we focused instead on the $`\eta ^{}`$, known to interact strongly with the glue.

The $`\varphi `$ dependence is the most dazzling empirical feature of WA102. The data exhibit different azimuthal dependence of the partial cross section for various $`J^{PC}`$ quantum numbers of the final states. In Fig. 3 we show the dependence on $`\varphi `$ for two $`0^+`$ channels, $`\eta ,\eta ^{}`$, which is clearly $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi )`$. This is in complete agreement with the dependence expected from our calculations. On the other hand for the scalar glueball the WA102 finds a distribution with a maximum at $`\varphi =0`$ (not shown here). In this case, we predict $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi )`$.

The $`t`$-dependence is also very important to compare. As shown in our previous paper , the form-factor basically represents the size and the shape of the instantons, and although the latter is established rather well with $`\rho 0.3`$ fm , the shape is not. So identifying the observed $`t`$ dependence with our formfactor one can learn about the actual shape of the instantons in the QCD vacuum.

The measured dependence on the transverse momentum $`|t|`$ is shown in Fig. 4. It is best parametrized as  $`\beta |t|^ne^{b|t|}`$ with $`n12`$, $`10^3\beta 110`$ and $`b11`$GeV-2. This dependence in our case is carried by the $`𝐅^4`$ factor in the differential cross section. The dependence of $`𝐅`$ on $`\sqrt{t}`$ in units of the instanton size is shown in Fig. 5 for $`𝐚=0,1/4,1/2,3/4`$. Clearly, the empirical results are in agreement with a non-vanishing $`𝐚`$ as originally suggested in , and in disagreement with the Pomeron expectation. For large $`|t|`$ the sphaleron induced form factor falls as $`e^{6\rho \sqrt{t}}`$ with $`6\rho 7`$ GeV-1.

The next Fig.5 compares this experimental $`t`$-dependence from $`(d\sigma /dt)^{1/4}`$ to the instanton formfactor. The 4 theoretical curves are from our previous paper . They show the predicted shape for 4 values of the instanton tail modification parameter $`a`$. The experimental points show the same shape as predicted. Furthermore, they are right in the middle of the $`a`$ interval assumed, so that $`a1/3`$ would fit very well. Note that the relative errors (which are not shown) are large for points on the right side of the experimental quotes.

An estimate of the $`\eta ^{}`$ cross section in $`pp`$ double-pomeron follows from our projected result (82), i.e.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (\eta ^{})}{\sigma _{IN}}}(0.125)\times (\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}10}^4)\times (10^1).`$ (86)
where the first factor is due to the singlet projection, the second factor to the $`\eta ^{}`$ projection and the third factor to the fact that the $`\eta ^{}`$ mass is lower than the sphaleron mass which is an extra penalty in the partial cross section. For $`\sigma _{IN}30`$ mb at $`\sqrt{s}30`$ GeV, we predict $`\sigma (\eta ^{})225`$ nb in comparison to the $`588`$ nb observed empirically .

## VIII Conclusions

We have addressed the issue of inclusive and exclusive double-pomeron scattering in the semi-hard regime, using the semiclassical theory of high energy collisions recently developed. We have found that it works remarkably well, explaining even such details as correlation between the azimuthal distributions and quantum numbers of the cluster.

We have shown that the semiclassical double-pomeron cross section relates simply to the semiclassical inelastic cross section: overall it is about $`10\%`$ of the latter due to an extra gluon and extra color restrictions. This corresponds to a large cross section in absolute magnitude, well above the Pomeron factorization, as the UA8 experiment indeed observed. We also have shown that all the distributions of the UA8 inclusive data over 6-d kinematical space is quite compatible with our predictions.

The exclusive results from WA102 experiment seem to confirm this theory even more. We have a very good agreement for scalar glueball and $`\eta ^{}`$ productions, which show very different azimuthal dependence.

As example of a disagreement let us mention that in our theory central double-pomeron semiclassical production of $`\eta `$ is found to be suppressed by almost 2 orders of magnitude in comparison to $`\eta ^{}`$: a suppression of $`10^1`$ is due to the mixing angle, and an extra suppression of $`10^1`$ is due to its lower mass in the partial cross section. This strong suppression is not observed. We think that all light hadrons such as $`\eta `$ and $`\pi ^0`$ and possibly $`f_0(600)`$ are too far from the sphaleron mass scale of about 3 GeV to be reliably calculated in the same manner. We currently suspect their production to rely on a different mechanism, and will report on it elsewhere.

Since some sense has been made of the single- and double-pomeron physics in the context of semiclassical dynamics of the gauge fields, related with tunneling and topoly, new rounds of experiments seem to be justified in this context more than ever. We believe that the RHIC detectors and especially STAR can do a lot in the $`pp`$ mode, with and without diffraction. Clearly they have a potential to clarify further the nature and characteristics of the central production in the semi-hard regime.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported in parts by the US-DOE grant DE-FG-88ER40388. One of us I.Z. would like to thank V. Vento for discussions and La Comisión de Intercambio Cultural, Educativo y Científico entre España y Estados Unidos de América for supporting his visit to the University of Valencia where this work was initiated. We both thank P.Schlein for his comments on the manuscript and G. Papp for help with some of the figures.


text:
# Categorifications of the colored Jones polynomial

## 1 The colored Jones polynomial

The Jones polynomial. The Jones polynomial $`J(L)`$ of an oriented link $`L`$ in $`^3`$ is determined by the skein relation

$$q^2J(L_1)q^2J(L_2)=(qq^1)J(L_3)$$

for any three links $`L_1,L_2,L_3`$ that differ as shown in figure 1, and its value on the unknot, which we choose to be $`q+q^1.`$

The Jones polynomial does not depend on the framing of link components, but depends slightly on their orientations. Reversing the orientation of a component $`L^{}L`$ multiplies the polynomial by $`q^{6lk(L^{},LL^{})}`$ where $`lk(L^{},LL^{})`$ is the linking number of $`L^{}`$ with its complement in $`L.`$

The colored Jones polynomial. We briefly recall the basics about the colored Jones polynomial of links (for more details consult , , \[6, Sections 3,4\], and references therein). Given an oriented framed link $`L`$ whose components are colored (marked) by non-negative integers (or, equivalently, by irreducible representations of $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2),`$ with integer $`n`$ corresponding to the $`(n+1)`$-dimensional representation $`V_n`$), the colored Jones polynomial $`J_𝐧(L)`$ takes values in $`[q,q^1].`$ The label $`𝐧`$ stands for the coloring, that is, for a function from the set of components of $`L`$ to non-negative integers. If all components of $`L`$ are colored by $`1,`$ the invariant is the original Jones polynomial of $`L.`$ If a component of $`L`$ is colored by $`0,`$ deleting this component preserves the value of the colored Jones polynomial.

For a framed knot $`K`$ we denote by $`J_n(K)`$ the Jones polynomial of $`K`$ colored by $`n.`$ Thus, $`J_1(K)`$ is the original Jones polynomial of $`K`$ (and does not depend on the framing), while $`J_0(K)=1`$ for any knot $`K.`$

More generally, one could label link components by arbitrary finite-dimensional representations of $`U_q(𝔰𝔩(2)).`$ This does not give any extra information since the invariant is additive relative to the direct sum of representations,

$$J_{VW}(K)=J_V(K)+J_W(K),$$

but allows us to express the colored Jones polynomial via the Jones polynomials of cables. First, the Jones polynomial $`J_{VW}(K)`$ of a knot $`K`$ labelled by $`VW`$ equals the Jones polynomial of the 2-cable $`K^2`$ of $`K`$ with components labelled by $`V`$ and $`W.`$ The Jones polynomial $`J_{V_1^n}(K)`$ equals the original Jones polynomial of the $`n`$-cable $`K^n`$ of $`K.`$

For generic $`q`$ the quantum group $`U_q(𝔰𝔩(2))`$ has one irreducible representation $`V_n`$ in each dimension (we consider representations where $`q^H`$ has only powers of $`q`$ as eigenvalues). The Grothendieck group of this category of representations is free abelian with a basis given by images $`[V_n],n0`$ of all irreducible representations. We put square brackets around $`V_n`$ to distinguish a representation from its image in the Grothendieck group. Another basis in the Grothendieck group is given by all tensor powers of $`V_1.`$

Using the formula $`V_nV_1V_{n+1}V_{n1}`$ and induction on $`n,`$ one checks that

$$[V_n]=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\frac{n}{2}}{}}(1)^k\left(\begin{array}{c}nk\\ k\end{array}\right)[V_1^{(n2k)}].$$
(1)
Thus, the colored Jones polynomial $`J_n(K)`$ of a knot $`K`$ can be expressed via Jones polynomials of its cables:

$$J_n(K)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\frac{n}{2}}{}}(1)^k\left(\begin{array}{c}nk\\ k\end{array}\right)J(K^{n2k}).$$
(2)
This formula generalizes from knots to links, by summing over all connected components of a link:

$$J_𝐧(L)=\underset{𝐤=0}{\overset{\frac{𝐧}{2}}{}}(1)^{|𝐤|}\left(\begin{array}{c}𝐧𝐤\\ 𝐤\end{array}\right)J(L^{𝐧2𝐤}),$$
(3)
where $`𝐤`$ is a function from the set of link components to non-negative integers.

We define the colored Jones polynomial by formula (3). Since the Jones polynomial (which appears on the right) depends slightly on the orientation of each cable component, we need to specify our choices of orientations. Each component of $`L`$ is oriented. When forming the $`m`$-cable of a component, if $`m`$ is even we orient half of the strands one way and the rest the opposite way. If $`m`$ is odd, we orient $`\frac{m+1}{2}`$ strands by way of the original orientation of the component, and the remaining strands the opposite way.

With this definition, $`J_𝐧(L)`$ does not depend on the orientations of components colored by even integers, while reversing the orientation of an odd-colored component $`L^{}`$ multiplies the polynomial by $`q^{6lk(L^{},L_{\mathrm{odd}}L^{})}`$, where $`L_{\mathrm{odd}}`$ is the sublink of $`L`$ made of all odd-colored components.

If $`K`$ is the 0-framed unknot,

$$J_n(K)=[n+1]\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}\frac{q^{n+1}q^{n1}}{qq^1},$$

the quantum dimension of $`V_n.`$

Changing the framing of a component multiplies the colored Jones polynomial by a power of $`q,`$ as explained in the formula below and figure 2.

$`J_𝐧(L_1)`$ $`=`$ $`q^{2m(m+1)}J_𝐧(L_0)\mathrm{if}n=2m,`$
$`J_𝐧(L_1)`$ $`=`$ $`q^{2m(m+2)}J_𝐧(L_0)\mathrm{if}n=2m+1,`$
where $`n`$ is the color of the component.

Reduced colored Jones polynomial. Another common normalization for the colored Jones polynomial of knots is

$$\stackrel{~}{J}_n(K)\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}\frac{J_n(K)}{[n+1]}.$$

We will call $`\stackrel{~}{J}_n(K)`$ the *reduced* colored Jones polynomial. The reduced polynomial of the $`0`$-framed unknot is $`1.`$ We extend this normalization to colored links with a distinguished component, by

$$\stackrel{~}{J}_𝐧(L)\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}\frac{J_𝐧(L)}{[n+1]},$$

where $`n`$ is the color of the distinguished component. The reduced colored Jones polynomial has integral coefficients.

## 2 First non-trivial examples

Cohomology of cables. Take a framed link $`L`$, its cable $`L^𝐧,`$ and consider the complex $`𝒞(L^𝐧)`$ and its cohomology groups $`(L^𝐧)`$ (we refer the reader to  for definitions of $`𝒞`$ and $``$). These groups are invariants of $`L,`$ and depend non-trivially on its framing. The Euler characteristic of $`(L^𝐧)`$ is the Jones polynomial of the cable $`L^𝐧.`$ We will use the grading conventions of .

Categorification of $`J_2(K).`$ We would like to have a cohomology theory of links whose Euler characteristic is the colored Jones polynomial. Let’s start with the first non-trivial example beyond the original Jones polynomial: our link is a framed knot $`K`$ colored by the three-dimensional representation $`V_2.`$ Note that $`V_2`$ is a direct summand of $`V_1V_1`$ and the complementary summand is the trivial representation:

$$V_1V_1V_2V_0.$$

This formula translates into a simple relation between the Jones polynomials:

$$J_2(K)=J(K^2)1.$$
(4)
To categorify $`J(K^2)`$ we take the cohomology of the 2-cable of $`K.`$ Since $`J_0(K)=1,`$ we simply assume that its categorification is the abelian group $``$ placed in bidegree $`(0,0).`$

Formula (4) says that to categorify $`J_2(K)`$ we need to ”substract” $``$ from $`(K^2).`$ This could be achieved by taking the cone of some map $`(K^2)`$ or of a map going in the opposite direction, from $``$ to $`(K^2).`$ This map should be natural. In the cohomology theory $``$ natural maps come from cobordisms between links. Note that $``$ is the cohomology of the empty link $`\mathrm{}`$ and there is a canonical cobordism in $`^3\times [0,1]`$ between $`K^2`$ and $`\mathrm{}.`$ In the 2-cable $`K^2`$ two copies of $`K`$ run parallel next to each other, and there is a standard embedding of an annulus into $`^3`$ with $`K^2`$ as its boundary (the two components of $`K^2`$ will be oppositely oriented if we orient our annulus and induce the orientation onto its boundary). Push the interior of the annulus into the interior of $`^3\times [0,1]`$ slighly away from the boundary component $`^3\times \{0\}`$ that contains $`K^2.`$ The resulting annulus $`S_K`$ in $`^3\times [0,1]`$ is an oriented cobordism between $`K^2`$ and the empty link. Its Euler characteristic is $`0`$ and it induces a bidegree $`(0,0)`$ map between bigraded cohomology groups $`(K^2)`$ and $`(\mathrm{}).`$ This map is well-defined up to overall minus sign. On the level of complexes, we have a map $`u:𝒞(K^2),`$ well-defined (up to the minus sign) in the homotopy category of complexes. We define the complex $`𝒞_2(K)`$ as the cone of $`u,`$ shifted by $`[1]`$ (so that $``$ is in degree $`1`$), and cohomology groups $`_2(K)`$ as the cohomology of $`𝒞_2(K).`$ There is a short exact sequence of complexes

$$0[1]𝒞_2(K)𝒞(K^2)0$$

giving rise to a long exact sequence of cohomology groups

$$_2(K)(K^2)\stackrel{u}{}$$

In this sequence at most one boundary map could be non-zero (the one from $``$ to $`_2^{1,0}(K)`$). This map is non-zero if and only if $`u`$ is not surjective. It’s easy to see, and we do it below, that $`u((K^2))`$ is a subgroup of index $`1`$ or $`2`$ in $`.`$

Strictly speaking, in the above discussion we should fix a plane diagram $`D`$ of $`K,`$ the associated diagram $`D^2`$ of the 2-cable $`K^2,`$ and consider the complex $`𝒞(D^2).`$ From two diagrams $`D_0`$ and $`D_1`$ of $`K`$ related by a Reidemeister move for framed knots, we obtain diagrams $`D_0^2`$ and $`D_1^2`$ of $`K^2`$ and a diagram of complexes and homomorphisms

$$\begin{array}{ccc}C(D_0^2)& \stackrel{u_0}{}& \\ & & & & \\ C(D_1^2)& \stackrel{u_1}{}& \end{array}$$

which commutes up to overall minus sign. Therefore, the cones of $`u_0`$ and $`u_1`$ are homotopy equivalent and isomorphism classes of groups $`_2^{i,j}(K)`$ are invariants of $`K.`$

Since $`S_K`$ is also a cobordism from the empty link to $`K^2,`$ it induces a map $`u^{}:𝒞(K^2)`$ and we could alternatively define the cohomology groups of $`K`$ colored by $`2`$ as the cohomology of the cone of $`u^{}.`$

Ideally, we would like the two resulting cohomology theories to be naturally isomorphic. Right off, we could see that they are if $`2`$ is invertible in the base ring. Let $`k`$ be a commutative ring where $`2`$ is invertible (for instance, a field of characteristic other than $`2,`$ or $`[\frac{1}{2}].`$) Tensoring $`u^{}`$ and $`u`$ with $`k`$ we get maps $`u^{}:k𝒞(K^2)_{}k`$ and $`u:𝒞(K^2)_{}kk,`$ and the induced maps on cohomology groups (we don’t bother inventing different notations for these maps). The composition $`uu^{}:kk`$ is the value of the invariant on the composition of the two cobordisms given by the annulus $`S_K.`$ This composition is a cobordism in $`^3\times [0,1]`$ between empty links, and is isotopic to the torus standardly embedded into $`^4.`$ Its invariant is $`\pm 2,`$ therefore, $`uu^{}=\pm 2.`$ Since $`2`$ is invertible, we can decompose

$$(K^2)_k\mathrm{im}(u^{})\mathrm{ker}(u),$$
(5)
and derive isomorphisms

$$_2(K)_k\mathrm{ker}(u)\mathrm{coker}(u^{})$$
(6)
proving that the two definitions lead to isomorphic cohomology theories ($`(K^2)_k`$ in (5) stands for cohomology of $`𝒞(K^2)_{}k`$ and $`_2(K)_k`$ in (6) for the cohomology of the total complex of $`0𝒞(K^2)_{}k\stackrel{u}{}k0`$).

The above argument implies that $`u((K^2))`$ has index $`1`$ or $`2.`$

*Framing:* The colored Jones polynomial $`J_2(K)`$ depends in a simple way on the framing of $`K.`$ Change in the framing multiplies the polynomial by $`q^{\pm 4}.`$ The cohomology theory $`_2(K)`$ has a more complicated dependence on the framing. Already when $`K`$ is the unknot with framing $`m>0,`$ the rank of $`(K^2)`$ is $`2+2m,`$ and that of $`_2(K)`$ is $`1+2m.`$ In particular, cohomology of two knots that differ by a framing are not just overall shifts of each other.

In general, if $`K`$ is a knot and $`K_1`$ is obtained from $`K`$ by twisting by a large slope, an overall shift superimposes $`_2(K)`$ and $`_2(K_1)`$ except for a long tail in $`_2(K_1)`$ trailing along two adjacent diagonals in the bigrading plane (the tail is essentially the cohomology of the unknot with a large framing).

*Example:* For the $`0`$-framed unknot $`K,`$

$$_2^{i,j}(K)\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & \text{if }i=0\text{ and }j\{2,0,2\},\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise},\hfill \end{array}$$

for both definitions of $`_2.`$

*Note:* The complex $`𝒞_2(K)`$ and its cohomology $`_2(K)`$ do not depend on the orientation of $`K.`$

Categorification of $`J_3(K).`$ Direct sum decomposition

$$V_1^3V_3V_1V_1$$

implies that, for a framed knot $`K,`$

$$J_3(K)=J(K^3)2J(K).$$

To categorify $`J(K^3),`$ we form the $`3`$-cable $`K^3`$ of $`K,`$ take its cochain complex $`𝒞(K^3)`$ and its cohomology $`(K^3).`$ Choose a plane diagram of $`K`$ and the corresponding diagram of the cable. Enumerate the components of $`K^3`$ by $`1,2`$ and $`3`$ so that $`2`$ is in the middle, and orient component $`2`$ oppositely from $`1`$ and $`3,`$ see figure 3.

Consider two annuli in the neighbourhood of $`K`$ in $`^3,`$ one with components $`1`$ and $`2`$ as the boundary, and the other with components $`2`$ and $`3`$ as the boundary. Push the interiors of the annuli into $`^3\times [0,1]`$ away from the boundary. Two cobordisms from $`K_3`$ to $`K`$ result, inducing two maps from $`𝒞(K^3)`$ to $`𝒞(K)`$ and two maps on the cohomology, well-defined up to overall minus sign. We can guess that the categorification of $`J_3(K)`$ is the total complex of the bicomplex

$$0𝒞(K_3)𝒞(K)𝒞(K)0.$$

Denote the total complex by $`𝒞_3(K)`$ and its cohomology by $`_3(K).`$ We get a bigraded cohomology theory of knots with $`J_3(K)`$ as the Euler characteristic. Independence of $`_3(K)`$ from the choice of planar diagram is straightforward.

To categorify $`J_n(K)`$ for arbitrary $`n`$ we should look for a bicomplex built out of complexes $`𝒞(K^{n2k})`$ with binomial multiplicities as in (2), then form the total complex and take its cohomology. This is done in Section 4, while the representation-theoretic counterpart of this construction is worked out in the next section.

## 3 A resolution of an irreducible $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$ representation

In this section we give a homological interpretation of the formula

$$[V_n]=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\frac{n}{2}}{}}(1)^k\left(\begin{array}{c}nk\\ k\end{array}\right)[V_1^{(n2k)}]$$
(7)
describing the image of $`V_n`$ in the Grothendieck group via those of tensor powers of the defining representation $`V_1.`$ We consider the $`q=1`$ case, so that $`V_n`$’s are representations of the Lie algebra $`𝔰𝔩(2).`$ The case of generic $`q`$ is identical (by substituting below ”$`q`$-antisymmetrization” for ”antisymmetrization”).

The right hand side of (7) has alternating coefficients, due to $`(1)^k`$, and we could try to realize it as the Euler characteristic of a complex. We put the direct sum of $`\left(\begin{array}{c}nk\\ k\end{array}\right)`$ copies of $`V_1^{(n2k)}`$ in the $`k`$-th cohomological degree and look for a natural differential

$$(V_1^{(n2k)})^{\left(\begin{array}{c}nk\\ k\end{array}\right)}\stackrel{d}{}(V_1^{(n2(k+1))})^{\left(\begin{array}{c}nk1\\ k+1\end{array}\right)}$$

The differential reduces the number of $`V_1`$’s in each tensor power by $`2.`$ Since $`V_1V_1V_0V_2,`$ there is a unique, up to scaling, surjective homomorphism $`h:V_1V_1V_0,`$ and it is simply the antisymmetrization. We will use $`h`$ to construct the differential.

The binomial coefficient $`\left(\begin{array}{c}nk\\ k\end{array}\right)`$ equals the number of ways to select $`k`$ pairs of neighbours from $`n`$ dots placed on a line, such that each dot appears in at most one pair (the $`n=5,k=2`$ example is depicted in figure 4). We will call these $`k`$-pairings.

Notice that the exponent in the tensor power of $`V_1`$ is the number of dots without a partner (”single” dots). The differential goes in the direction of increasing the number of pairs by $`1.`$ A new pair will consists of two adjacent dots, and the differential should contract the two corresponding powers of $`V_1`$ into the trivial representation.

To formalize, let $`I_k`$ be the set of $`k`$-pairings of $`n`$ dots. For $`sI_k`$ let $`(s)`$ be the set of single dots in $`s,`$ and $`V^s\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}V^{(s)}`$ be the tensor product of $`V_1`$’s, one for each single dot. If $`s^{}I_{k+1}`$ contains $`s`$ (each pair in $`s`$ is also a pair in $`s^{}`$), there is a map $`h_{s^{},s}:V^sV^s^{}`$ given by contracting the two copies of $`V_1`$ representing the only pair in $`s^{}s.`$ Consider a graph with with vertices–elements of $`I_k,`$ over all $`k=0,1,\mathrm{},\frac{n}{2},`$ and arrows–inclusions $`ss^{}`$ as above. For $`n=4`$ this graph is depicted in figure 5. Assigning $`V^s`$ to the vertex $`s`$ and the map $`h_{s^{},s}`$ to the arrow from $`s`$ to $`s^{}`$ we obtain a commutative diagram of $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$ representations.

We make each square in the diagram anticommute by switching from $`h_{s^{},s}`$ to $`(1)^{(s,s^{})}h_{s^{},s}`$ where $`(s,s^{})`$ is the number of pairs in $`s`$ to the left of the only pair in $`s^{}s.`$ For each $`k`$ take the direct sum of $`V^s,`$ for all $`sI_k,`$ and the sum of maps as above. The result is a complex, denoted $`C_n.`$

*Example:* The complex $`C_4`$ has the form

$$0V_1^4V_1^2V_1^2V_1^2V_00,$$

with the differential–the sum of arrows in figure 5, the top left arrow appearing with the minus sign.

###### Theorem 1

The complex $`C_n`$ is acyclic in non-zero degrees and its degree $`0`$ cohomology is the irreducible $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$ representation $`V_n.`$

*Proof:* $`H^0(C_n)`$ is the subrepresentation of $`V_1^n`$ which is the kernel of $`d^0.`$ This map is the sum of antisymmetrizations of two $`V_1`$’s over all pairs of neighbours. Therefore, $`H^0(C_n)`$ is isomorphic to the $`n`$-th symmetric power of $`V_1,`$ and to $`V_n.`$

To prove exactness everywhere else, proceed by induction on $`n`$. The short exact sequence

$$0C_{n2}[1]C_nC_{n1}V_10$$
(8)
comes from separating all pairings of $`n`$ dots into two types: the one where the leftmost dot belongs to a pair, and the one where it does not. The sum of all first type selections is a subcomplex of $`C_n`$ isomorphic to $`C_{n2}`$ shifted one degree to the right, the sum of all second type selections is a quotient complex of $`C_n`$ isomorphic to $`C_{n1}V_1.`$

Induction hypothesis and the long exact sequence of (8) imply $`H^i(C_n)=0`$ for $`i>1`$ and exactness of

$$0H^0(C_n)V_1H^0(C_{n1})H^1(C_{n2}[1])H^1(C_n)0$$

Substituting $`V_m`$ for $`H^0(C_m),`$ we get a short exact sequence

$$0V_nV_1V_{n1}V_{n2}H^1(C_n)0$$

telling us that $`H^1(C_n)=0.`$

$`\mathrm{}`$

*Remark:* $`C_n`$ is a resolution of a simple module by a complex of semisimple modules. This is different from the homological algebra framework, where we usually resolve a module by a complex of projective, or injective, or flat modules. The category of finite-dimensional $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$ representations is already semisimple, all additive functors from this category are exact, and there is no need for resolutions from the homological algebra viewpoint. However, $`C_n`$ seems to be interesting on it own.

## 4 Categorification of the colored Jones polynomial

In characteristic $`2.`$ To avoid the sign ambiguity, in this subsection we work in characteristic $`2.`$ Let $`𝔽_2`$ be the 2-element field. For a diagram $`D`$ of a link, we denote the complex $`𝒞(D)_{}𝔽_2`$ by $`𝒞(D)_2`$ and its cohomology by $`(D)_2.`$

Start with a framed oriented knot $`K`$ and its plane diagram $`D.`$ It gives rise to diagrams $`D^n`$ of cables $`K^n.`$ The cables are oriented as in figure 6, and, in a cross-section of $`D^n,`$ orientations alternate. Choose a cross-section of $`D^n`$ and enumerate the strands from left to right from $`1`$ to $`n`$ so that component $`1`$ is oriented in the same way as $`D,`$ component $`2`$ is oppositely oriented, etc.

For a pairing $`sI_k`$ denote by $`D^s`$ the cable diagram containing only components corresponding to single dots (not in any pair) in $`s,`$ and by $`K^s`$ the corresponding link (it has $`n2k`$ components). Given an arrow $`ss^{},`$ there is a canonical cobordism $`S_s^s^{}`$ from $`K^s`$ to $`K^s^{}`$ given by ”contracting” the pair $`s^{}s`$ of neighbouring components of $`D^s`$ via an annulus. This cobordism induces a well-defined (up to homotopy) map $`h_{s^{},s}:𝒞(D^s)_2𝒞(D^s^{})_2`$ of complexes, and the induced map on cohomology (also denoted $`h_{s^{},s}.`$)

Let $`𝒞_n(D)_2`$ be the complex which in the $`k`$-th degree is the direct sum of $`(D^s)_2`$ over all $`sI_k.`$ The differential is the sum of $`h_{s^{},s}`$ over all possible arrows $`ss^{}.`$

Denote by $`_n(D)_2`$ the cohomology of $`𝒞_n(D)_2.`$ These groups are bigraded,

$$_n(D)_2=\underset{i,j}{}_n^{i,j}(D)_2.$$

If diagrams $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ are related by a Reidemeister move II or III, the complexes $`𝒞_n(D)_2`$ and $`𝒞_n(D^{})_2`$ are isomorphic. This implies

###### Proposition 1

Isomorphism classes of bigraded groups $`_n(D)_2`$ do not depend on the diagram $`D`$ of a framed knot $`K,`$ and are invariants of $`K.`$ Their Euler characteristic is the colored Jones polynomial $`J_n(K).`$

*Remarks:* These groups do not depend on the orientation of $`K.`$

*From knots to links.* Given a colored link $`(L,𝐧),`$ we choose its diagram $`D,`$ then do the above procedure for each component of $`L.`$ The result is a multi-dimensional commutative diagram of groups $`(D^𝐬)_2`$ with multiplicities–products of binomials, for various pairings $`𝐬`$ and associated cables $`D^𝐬`$ of $`D.`$ Note that $`𝐧=(n_1,\mathrm{},n_r),`$ and the pairing $`𝐬=(s_1,\mathrm{},s_r)`$ where $`s_i`$ is a pairing of $`n_i`$ dots (equivalently, of $`n_i`$ cables of the $`i`$-th component). We collapse this commutative diagram into a complex, denoted $`𝒞_𝐧(D)_2`$ (in characteristic $`2`$ a commutative square is anticommutative). Its cohomology groups do not depend on $`D,`$ and are invariants of $`L.`$ Their Euler characteristic is $`J_𝐧(L).`$

Cobordisms. A cobordism in $`^4`$ between colored framed links can be represented by a sequence of its cross-sections, each a generic plane diagram of a colored framed link, with each two consequent cross-sections related by either a Reidemeister II or III move, or by a Morse move, see figure 7. Components involved in a saddle point move should be colored by the same number, see figure 7.

A Reidemeister II or III move from $`D`$ to $`D_0`$ induces an obvious isomorphism of groups $`(D^𝐬)_2`$ and $`(D_0^𝐬)_2`$ and of complexes $`𝒞_𝐧(D)_2`$ and $`𝒞_𝐧(D_0)_2.`$

The unit and counit maps of $`𝒜^n`$ induce natural maps between the complexes for the empty link and for the crossingless unknot diagram colored by $`n.`$ We assign these maps to the ”birth” and ”death” Morse moves.

Suppose that diagrams $`D`$ and $`D_0`$ are related by a saddle point move. Consider the case when the move merges two components of $`D`$ (both labelled by $`n`$ and denoted $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$) into one component $`K`$ of $`D_0,`$ see figure 8.

We would like to come up with a natural map $`\psi `$ of complexes

$$\psi :𝒞_𝐧(D)_2𝒞_{𝐧_0}(D_0)_2,$$

where $`𝐧_0`$ is the coloring of $`D_0`$ induced by the coloring $`𝐧`$ of $`D.`$ As an abelian group, $`𝒞_𝐧(D)_2`$ is the direct sum of $`(D^𝐬)_2`$ over all pairings $`𝐬`$ of $`𝐧.`$ Given $`𝐬,`$ let $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ be the pairings of $`n`$ dots which are the restrictions of $`𝐬`$ to the components $`K_1`$ and $`K_2.`$ Let $`k_1`$ be the number of pairs in $`s_1`$ and $`k_2`$ the number of pairs in $`s_2.`$

If pairs in $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ have at least one common dot (see figure 9), we set $`\psi ((D^𝐬)_2)=0.`$ Otherwise, $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ are disjoint and their union $`s_1s_2`$ is a $`(k_1+k_2)`$-pairing of $`n`$ dots (see figure 10).

To such $`𝐬`$ we assign a pairing $`𝐬_0`$ of the $`𝐧_0`$ cable of $`D_0.`$ This pairing is the same as $`𝐬`$ on components of $`D_0`$ that are unchanged during the saddle point move, and $`s_1s_2`$ on the component $`K`$ colored by $`n.`$ The map $`\psi `$ will take $`(D^𝐬)_2`$ to $`(D_0^{𝐬_0})_2.`$

A pair in $`s_2`$ connects two dots numbered $`m`$ and $`m+1`$ for some $`m`$ (in the figure 10 example $`m=5`$). For each such pair we apply the operator of multiplication by $`X`$ at strand $`m`$ of $`K_1^{s_1}`$ on the cohomology $`(D^𝐬)_2`$ (recall that $`X`$ is the generator of the ring $`𝒜,`$ and $`X^2=0`$). Likewise, for a pair in $`s_1`$ connecting two dots numbered $`t`$ and $`t+1`$ (in the figure 10 example $`t=2`$), we apply the operator of multiplication by $`X`$ at strand $`t`$ of $`K_2^{s_2}.`$ Denote by $`\psi _1`$ the product of these operators. $`\psi _1`$ is an endomorphism of $`(D^𝐬)_2,`$ a multiplication by $`k_1+k_2`$ copies of $`X`$ at certain $`k_1+k_2`$ strands of the cable $`D^𝐬.`$

For each pair in $`s_2`$ (connecting dots/strands numbered $`m`$ and $`m+1`$) consider a thin annulus whose boundary is the union of two strands of $`K_1^{s_1}`$ labelled $`m`$ and $`m+1.`$ Similarly, for each pair in $`s_1`$ (connecting two dots numbered $`t`$ and $`t+1`$ for some $`t`$) consider a thin annulus whose boundary is the union of two strands of $`K_2^{s_2}`$ labelled $`t`$ and $`t+1`$. Figure 12 depicts these annuli schematically for our example. The resulting $`k_1+k_2`$ annuli give rise to a cobordism from the cabled link with diagram $`D^𝐬`$ to a cabled link with $`2(k_1+k_2)`$ fewer components, whose diagram $`D^{}`$ can be produced by removing these $`2(k_1+k_2)`$ components (the ”mirror” partners of pairs in $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$) from $`D^𝐬.`$ This cobordism induces a map of cohomology groups from $`(D^𝐬)_2`$ to $`(D^{})_2,`$ denoted $`\psi _2.`$

In the diagram $`D^{}`$ each strand in the cable $`K_1^{s_1s_2}`$ has a matching strand in the cable $`K_2^{s_1s_2}.`$ There is a canonical cobordism from $`D^{}`$ to $`D_0^{𝐬_0},`$ the composition of saddle point cobordisms for each pair of identically numbered strands in $`K_1^{s_1s_2}`$ and $`K_2^{s_1s_2}`$ (that is, one saddle point cobordism for each dot not in $`s_1s_2`$), for an example see figure 14. Denote by $`\psi _3`$ the map of cohomology groups from $`(D^{})_0`$ to $`(D_0^{𝐬_0})_0`$ induced by this composition of saddle point cobordisms.

To summarize, $`\psi _1`$ is the multiplication by a power of $`X`$ at certains strands of the cable $`D^𝐬,`$ $`\psi _2`$ is induced by annuli contraction cobordisms at ”mirrors” of strand pairs in $`s_1`$ and $`s_2,`$ and $`\psi _3`$ is induced by saddle point cobordisms of the remaining strands.

Let $`\psi =\psi _3\psi _2\psi _1:`$

$$\psi :(D^𝐬)_2\stackrel{\psi _1}{}(D^𝐬)_2\stackrel{\psi _2}{}(D^{})_2\stackrel{\psi _3}{}(D_0^{𝐬_0})_2.$$

Summing over all pairings $`𝐬`$ of $`𝐧`$ we get a homomorphism of abelian groups from $`𝒞_𝐧(D)_2`$ to $`𝒞_{𝐧_0}(D_0)_2.`$

###### Proposition 2

$`\psi `$ is a homomorphisms of complexes.

Proof is straightforward. $`\mathrm{}`$

Figures 11-14 illustrate our construction for the case of $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ in figure 10.

A similar map $`\psi `$ can be defined for the case when a saddle point cobordism increases (rather than decreases) the number of components by $`1.`$ We leave its construction to the reader.

Thus, to each Reidemeister and Morse move of framed colored link diagrams we can assign a map between the corresponding complexes $`𝒞_𝐧(D)_2.`$ We conjecture that the induced maps on cohomology of these complexes give an invariant of framed colored link cobordisms.

Categorification over a field. Let $`𝔽`$ be a field. For a diagram $`D`$ of a knot $`K`$ denote by $`𝒞(D)_𝔽`$ the complex $`𝒞(D)_{}𝔽`$ and its cohomology by $`(D)_𝔽.`$

For each arrow $`ss^{}`$ we have a map

$$h_{s^{},s}:(D^s)_𝔽(D^s^{})_𝔽$$

well-defined up to overall minus sign. For each square of arrows

$$\begin{array}{ccc}s& & s^{}\\ & & & & \\ s^{\prime \prime }& & s^{\prime \prime \prime }\end{array}$$

the induced square of maps $`h`$ either commutes or anticommutes.

###### Lemma 1

We can always make all squares of maps $`h`$ anticommute by changing signs in some of the maps $`h_{s^{},s}.`$

Let us call a choice of signs in maps $`h`$ *satisfactory* if all squares anticommute. If $`h`$ is satisfactory, the direct sum of $`(D^s)_𝔽`$ over all possible $`s`$ with differential–the sum of $`h_{s^{},s}`$ over all possible arrows $`ss^{}`$ forms a complex. Denote this complex by $`𝒞_{n,h}(D)_𝔽.`$

###### Lemma 2

For any two satisfactory choices of signs $`h^{},h^{\prime \prime }`$ the complexes $`𝒞_{n,h^{}}(D)_𝔽`$ and $`𝒞_{n,h^{\prime \prime }}(D)_𝔽`$ are isomorphic.

Proofs of these two lemmas are left to the reader. From lemmas 1 and 2 we derive that the cohomology groups of $`𝒞_{n,h}(D)_𝔽`$ do not depend on a satisfactory choice of signs. Denote these groups by $`_n(D)_𝔽.`$ Yet another exercise in sign juggling shows that a Reidemeister move induces an isomorphism of these cohomology groups, and implies

###### Proposition 3

Isomorphism classes of bigraded cohomology groups $`_n(D)_𝔽`$ are invariants of the framed knot $`K.`$ Their Euler characteristic is the colored Jones polynomial:

$$J_n(K)=\underset{i,j}{}(1)^iq^j\mathrm{rk}(_n^{i,j}(K)_𝔽).$$

*Remark:* Similar considerations work over $`,`$ with the further complication that we cannot pass from the complex $`𝒞(D^s)`$ directly to its cohomology (since $``$ is not a field), and will be forced to work with these complexes throughout. Our diagrams will not be commutative or anticommutative, but rather commutative or anticommutative up to chain homotopy.

Different definitions. There are several competing definitions of the complex whose cohomology categorify the colored Jones polynomial of a link. Our maps between complexes assigned to cables go in the direction of reducing the number of strands. We could set up these maps to go in the opposite direction.

From section 3 we know that the algebraic counterpart of the complex $`𝒞_n(K)_𝔽`$ has cohomology only in degree $`0.`$ Taking the hint, we could downsize our complex

$$0(K^n)_𝔽\stackrel{d_0}{}(K^{n2})_𝔽\mathrm{}$$

by restricting to the subgroup $`\mathrm{ker}(d_0)`$ of $`(K^n)_𝔽.`$

The above two modifications of $`𝒞_n(K)_𝔽`$ can be done independently, and give rise to the total of four complexes (including $`𝒞_n(K)_𝔽`$). We conjecture that if $`𝔽`$ has characteristic $`0,`$ these four complexes have isomorphic cohomology groups.

*Examples:* (a) $`n=2`$ case. We’ve observed in Section 2 that all four definitions give isomorphic theories over a field of characteristic different from $`2.`$

(b) $`n=3`$ case over $`𝔽_2.`$ The differential in

$$0(D^3)_2\stackrel{d_0}{}(D)_2(D)_20$$

is surjective, and the composition $`d_0d_1^{}`$ is a permutation, where $`d_1^{}`$ is the differential in

$$0(D)_2(D)_2(D^3)_20.$$

It is easy to derive that all four definitions give isomorphic theories in this case.

In yet another approach, we could consider an $`S_n`$-action on $`(K^n)`$ induced by permutations (braidings) of strands of the cable $`K^n,`$ and take the $`S_n`$-invariants under this action. We expect that over $``$ this definition would give the same result as each the previous four. One problem with this approach is the projectivity of the $`S_n`$-action, well-defined only up to sign.

## 5 Categorification of the reduced colored Jones polynomial

In this section we categorify the reduced colored Jones polynomial $`\stackrel{~}{J}_𝐧(L).`$ Let’s start with the case of a knot. Given a framed colored knot $`(K,n)`$, the Jones polynomial $`J_n(K)`$ can be computed with the help of the Kauffman bracket rules and the Jones-Wenzl projector, see . The Jones-Wenzl projector is uniquely determined by graphical relations in figure 15.

We denote the projector by $`p_n`$ and by $`p_n^{}`$ the projector divided by $`[n+1].`$

In this section we assume familiarity with  and, in particular, with the ring $`H^n`$ and its indecomposable left projective modules $`P_a,`$ for $`aB^n,`$ where $`B^n`$ is the set of crossingless matchings of $`2n`$ points. Positioning the Jones-Wenzl projector in the upper half of the plane we can view it as a function from $`B^n`$ to $`[q,q^1],`$ by coupling the projector to any crossingless matching, as in figure 16.

The Jones-Wenzl projector evaluates to zero on any crossingless matching except for the one denoted $`e`$ in figure 16, on which it takes value $`[n+1].`$ Therefore, $`p_n^{}`$ is a ”delta-function” on $`B^n`$ supported on $`e.`$

In  to any crossingless matching $`aB^n`$ we assigned an indecomposable left projective graded $`H^n`$-module $`P_a,`$ and to a tangle $`t`$ with no bottom and $`2n`$ top endpoints a complex of projective left $`H^n`$-modules $`(t),`$ well-defined in the homotopy category $`𝒦^n`$ of complexes of graded $`H^n`$-modules. To a tangle $`s`$ with no top and $`2n`$ bottom endpoints we assigned a complex of projective right $`H^n`$-modules $`(s).`$ Coupling $`t`$ with $`s`$ corresponds to forming the tensor product, $`(st)(s)_{H^n}(t).`$

For each $`aB^n`$ there exists a right $`H^n`$-module, denoted $`{}_{a}{}^{},`$ isomorphic as a graded abelian group to $``$ placed in degree $`0,`$ with the idempotent $`1_aH^n`$ acting as the identity on $`{}_{a}{}^{},`$ and other minimal idempotents acting by $`0.`$ If we were working over a field rather than over $`,`$ this module would have been the simple quotient of the right projective module $`{}_{a}{}^{}P,`$ while over $``$ the modules $`{}_{a}{}^{}`$ are substitutes for simple modules (for instance, they give a basis in the Grothendieck group of $`H^n`$-modules).

We have

$${}_{a}{}^{}_{H^n}P_b\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & \mathrm{if}a=b,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

In particular,

$${}_{e}{}^{}_{H^n}P_a\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & \mathrm{if}a=e,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise},\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
so that $`{}_{e}{}^{}`$ has the ”delta-function” behaviour when coupled to projective modules. Therefore, in our categorification we can interpret the quotient Jones-Wenzl projector $`p_n^{}`$ as the right $`H^n`$-module $`{}_{e}{}^{}.`$ The ring $`H^n`$ has infinite homological dimension, and $`{}_{e}{}^{}`$ does not have a finite length projective resolution. We do not know any explicit construction of a (necessarily infinite) projective resolution of $`{}_{e}{}^{}.`$

*Remark:* For a similar categorification of the Jones-Wenzl projector $`p_n`$ we should look for a graded $`H^n`$-module which has a filtration with quotient modules isomorphic to $`{}_{e}{}^{}\{n\},_e\{n+2\},\mathrm{},_e\{n\}.`$ Such a module does not exist when $`n>1.`$

We categorify the reduced colored Jones polynomial of a framed knot $`K`$ with the help of $`{}_{e}{}^{}.`$ Turn $`K`$ into a tangle $`K_{}`$ with no bottom and two top endpoints and form the $`n`$-cable $`K_{}^n`$ of this tangle. The tangle $`K_{}^n`$ has no bottom and $`2n`$ top endpoints. Orient it the same way we oriented cables in Section 4. The invariant $`(K_{}^n)`$ is a complex of graded projective left $`H^n`$-modules. Let

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_n(K)\underset{e}{\overset{\text{def}}{=}}_{H^n}(K_{}^n)$$

and define the reduced cohomology $`\stackrel{~}{}_n(K)`$ of $`K`$ colored by $`n`$ as the cohomology of the complex $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_n(K).`$ These cohomology groups are bigraded,

$$\stackrel{~}{}_n(K)=\underset{i,j}{}\stackrel{~}{}_n^{i,j}(K).$$

###### Proposition 4

Cohomology groups $`\stackrel{~}{}_n(K)`$ are invariants of a framed knot $`K.`$ Their Euler characteristic is the reduced colored Jones polynomial of $`K`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{J}_n(K)=\underset{i,j}{}(1)^iq^j\mathrm{rk}(\stackrel{~}{}_n^{i,j}(K))$$

*Remark:* If $`K_1`$ is obtained from $`K_0`$ by a frame change as in figure 2, we have

$`\stackrel{~}{}_n(K_1)`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{}_n(K_0)\{2m(m+1)\}[2m^2]\mathrm{if}n=2m,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{}_n(K_1)`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{}_n(K_0)\{2m(m+2)\}[2m(m+1)]\mathrm{if}n=2m+1.`$
We see that $`\stackrel{~}{}_n`$ depends on framing in a simpler way than $`_n.`$

*Examples:*

1. When $`n=0,`$ reduced cohomology does not depend on the knot and is isomorphic to $``$ placed in bidegree $`(0,0).`$
2. For $`n=1`$ reduced cohomology was defined in \[3, Section 3\]. $`𝒞(K)`$ is a complex of $`𝒜`$-modules, and tensoring it with the $`𝒜`$-module $``$ (where $`X𝒜`$ acts trivially) gives us the reduced complex $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}(K).`$
3. Reduced cohomology of the $`n`$-colored $`0`$-framed unknot is $``$ placed in bidegree $`(0,0).`$

For $`n=1`$ the relation between $`𝒞_n(K)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_n(K)`$ takes the form of a short exact sequence

$$0\stackrel{~}{𝒞}(K)\{1\}𝒞(K)\stackrel{~}{𝒞}(K)\{1\}0$$

of complexes, giving rise to a long exact sequence in cohomology

$$\stackrel{~}{}^{i,j1}(K)^{i,j}(K)\stackrel{~}{}^{i,j+1}(K)\stackrel{~}{}^{i+1,j1}(K).$$

We do not know how to relate categorifications $`𝒞_n(K)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_n(K)`$ for $`n>1.`$

Categorification of the reduced colored Jones polynomial of links

For simplicity, in this section we switch the base ring from $``$ to the $`2`$-element field $`𝔽_2.`$

Start with a colored link $`(L,𝐧)`$ with a distinguished component $`L^{}`$ colored by $`n.`$ Turn $`L`$ into a tangle $`L_{}`$ with no bottom and $`2`$ top endpoints by cutting a segment out of $`L^{}.`$ Taking the $`n`$-cable of $`L_{}`$ at the component $`L^{}`$ gives us a tangle, denoted $`L_{}^n,`$ with no bottom and $`2n`$ top endpoints.

Apply the construction of section 4 to all components of $`L_{}^n`$ other than the $`n`$ components coming from $`L^{}.`$ The result is a complex of projective left $`H^n`$-modules which we denote $`_𝐧(L_{}).`$ Let

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_𝐧(L)_2\underset{e}{\overset{\text{def}}{=}}𝔽_2_{H^n}_𝐧(L_{})$$

(where $`{}_{e}{}^{}F_{2}^{}`$ is the right $`H_n`$-module $`𝔽_2_{}(_e)`$), and define the reduced cohomology $`\stackrel{~}{}_𝐧(L)_2`$ as the cohomology of the complex $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_𝐧(L)_2.`$

###### Proposition 5

Isomorphism classes of cohomology groups $`\stackrel{~}{}_𝐧(L)_2`$ are invariants of a framed colored link $`L`$ with a distinguished component $`L^{}.`$ Their Euler characteristic is the reduced colored Jones polynomial $`\stackrel{~}{J}_𝐧(L).`$

## 6 Problems

(a) For a clean definition of cohomology groups $`_𝐧(L)`$ it is necessary to understand the sign ambiguity of our cohomology theory. This ambiguity forced us into a clumsy definition of $`_n(K)_𝔽,`$ for a field $`𝔽`$ of characteristic other than $`2,`$ see section 4. No matter how we define $`_𝐧(L),`$ taking care of signs is a prerequisite for extending these homology groups to an invariant of (framed and colored) link cobordisms.

(b) Cohomology theory described in section 4 depends nontrivially on the framing, and is expected to give rise to invariants of *framed* cobordisms between framed links. To check the invariance, one needs a list of movie moves for framed cobordisms.

Once (a) and (b) have been dealt with, one can move on to the following problem:

(c) Give a clean definition of cohomology groups $`_𝐧(L),`$ preferably over $`,`$ and extend this construction to a functor from the category of (colored, framed, decorated) link cobordisms to the category of bigraded abelian groups.

Here are some other problems that we’d like to mention:

(d) Establish equivalences between various definitions of cohomology groups (over $``$) discussed at the end of section 4.

(e) Extend the categorification of the reduced colored Jones polynomial to an invariant of (suitably decorated) link cobordisms.

(f) Relate categorifications of the colored Jones polynomial and the reduced colored Jones polynomial.

Acknowledgements. I would like to thank Greg Kuperberg for useful discussions.

Mikhail Khovanov, Department of Mathematics, University of California,

Davis, CA 95616, mikhail@math.ucdavis.edu