Van Est differentiation and integration
Eckhard Meinrenken, Maria Amelia Salazar

TL;DR
This paper revisits the Van Est theory relating Lie group cohomology to Lie algebra cohomology, extending it to Lie groupoids and algebroids using homological algebra techniques to obtain precise cochain-level results.
Contribution
It introduces a homological algebra approach to the Van Est theory, providing explicit homotopy inverses at the cochain level for differentiation and integration maps.
Findings
Constructed homotopy inverses to Van Est differentiation maps
Extended Van Est theory to Lie groupoids and algebroids
Achieved precise cochain-level results
Abstract
The classical Van Est theory relates the smooth cohomology of Lie groups with the cohomology of the associated Lie algebra, or its relative versions. Some aspects of this theory generalize to Lie groupoids and their Lie algebroids. In this paper, continuing an idea from [18], we revisit the van Est theory using the Perturbation Lemma from homological algebra. Using this technique, we obtain precise results for the van Est differentiation and integrations maps at the level of cochains. Specifically, we construct homotopy inverses to the van Est differentiation maps that are right inverses at the cochain level.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Van Est differentiation and integration
Eckhard Meinrenken
Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto (Canada)
and
Maria Amelia Salazar
Instituto de Matematica e Estatistica, Universidade Federal Fluminense (Brazil)
Abstract.
The classical Van Est theory relates the smooth cohomology of Lie groups with the cohomology of the associated Lie algebra, or its relative versions. Some aspects of this theory generalize to Lie groupoids and their Lie algebroids. In this paper, continuing an idea from [18], we revisit the van Est theory using the Perturbation Lemma from homological algebra. Using this technique, we obtain precise results for the van Est differentiation and integrations maps at the level of cochains. Specifically, we construct homotopy inverses to the van Est differentiation maps that are right inverses at the cochain level.
Contents
1. Introduction
In a series of papers [27, 28, 29] in the early 1950s, Willem van Est established several key facts relating the smooth group cohomology of a Lie group to the cohomology of its associated Lie algebra . One of his results describes a cochain map from the Lie group complex to the Chevalley-Eilenberg Lie algebra complex, which induces an isomorphism in cohomology up to a certain degree depending on the connectivity properties of . (Using a localized complex, working with germs near the group unit, it induces an isomorphism in all degrees [16, 25]; see also [17].) Furthermore, van Est proved that the smooth group cohomology of a connected Lie group is canonically isomorphic to the relative Lie algebra cohomology of with respect to the maximal compact subgroup on . An explicit cochain map from the relative Lie algebra complex to the complex was described later by Dupont [11], Shulman-Tischler [24], and Guichardet [14]; see [12, 15, 16, 25] for applications and generalizations. The van Est map was extended by Weinstein-Xu [30] to Lie groupoids , as a cochain map from the smooth groupoid cochain complex to the Chevalley-Eilenberg complex of its Lie algebroid . Versions of the van Est theorems for Lie groupoids were obtained by Crainic [7]. More recently, an explicit homotopy inverse
[TABLE]
(where the subscript indicates the localized complex) was found by Cabrera-Marcut-Salazar [6].
In this article, we will revisit the van Est theory using the Perturbation Lemma from homological algebra. For the map , this was initiated by Li-Bland and Meinrenken in [18], but we will show that it carries much further. In short, this approach constructs the cochain maps in the van Est theory systematically, from homotopy operators on various double complexes (as opposed to ‘guessing’ the right formulas). The properties of these cochain maps are obtained from properties of these homotopy operators. This leads to a number of observations that were missed in earlier literature. All our results apply to cochain groups with coefficients in a given -representation , but for simplicity we will only describe the scalar case in the following summary:
Van Est theory for Lie groups. We begin by revisiting the classical setting that is a Lie group, and a compact Lie subgroup. We describe a distinguished horizontal homotopy operator on the van Est double complex, and use it to obtain a canonical van Est differentiation map
[TABLE]
with values in the relative Lie algebra complex. We will show that this relative van Est map is the composition
[TABLE]
where is given on degree elements by averaging under a natural -action. If has finitely many components, and is a maximal compact subgroup, then the diffeomorphism determines a vertical homotopy operator on the double complex, and a resulting cochain map (‘integration’)
[TABLE]
This map is similar to (but not equal to) the map defined in [11, 14, 24]. Our theory shows that
[TABLE]
at the level of cochains. Equations (1) and (2) provide a strengthening of van Est’s original results, which are stated at the level of cohomology. For arbitrary compact subgroups of (not necessarly maximal compact ones), we have a similar statement for the localized complex; in particular, this applies to .
Van Est maps for Lie groupoids. For a Lie groupoid , with Lie algebroid , it was shown in [18] how recover the van Est differentiation map of [30], through applications of the Perturbation Lemma to the van Est double complex from [7]. Given a (germ of a) ‘tubular structure’ for , we also have a vertical homotopy on the double complex. We will prove that the resulting van Est integration map , with values in the localized complex, coincides with the integration map of [6]. The fact that are cochain maps, and that
[TABLE]
on , are obtained as immediate consequences of the properties of and a general algebraic lemma, avoiding the calculations in [30] and [6].
Van Est maps for Lie groupoid actions. Here we consider groupoid actions of on manifolds , with anchor map a surjective submersion. The Lie algebroid complex is generalized to a foliated de Rham complex of invariant leafwise forms along the fibers of . (For with the left action, one recovers .) According to Crainic [7], if the action is proper, then the choice of a suitable ‘Haar distribution’ on the action groupoid gives a horizontal homotopy operator on a double complex . In turn, using the Perturbation Lemma, this determines a differentiation map from to . On the other hand, given a right inverse to and a tubular neighborhood embedding, one obtains a vertical homotopy and hence an integration map in the opposite direction, at least after localizing. We characterize situations where this integration map is right inverse to differentiation.
Each of the three themes outlined above constitutes a section of this article; these sections are preceded by a quick review of the Perturbation Lemma, which will be our main tool throughout the paper.
Acknowledgments
E.M. was supported by an NSERC Discovery Grant. This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance code 001. The authors would like to thank the hospitality of Fields Institute where some of this research was carried out.
2. The Perturbation Lemma
Let be a double complex, concentrated in non-negative degrees,
[TABLE]
Let be a cochain complex. A morphism of double complexes
[TABLE]
(where is regarded as a double complex concentrated in bidegrees ) will be called a horizontal augmentation map. Passing to total complexes, becomes a cochain map from to the cochain complex . The Perturbation Lemma, due to Brown [4] and Gugenheim [13], allows us to turn a homotopy operator for the horizontal differential into a homotopy operator with respect to the total differential .
Lemma 2.1** (Perturbation Lemma).**
Suppose is a linear map of bidegree , such that
[TABLE]
for some degree [math] map . Put and . Then
[TABLE]
Here, denotes the graded commutator, e.g. .
Proof.
Using one finds, by straightforward calculation,
[TABLE]
Expanding , using , gives the same result. ∎
We shall assume from now on that , so that is injective and is a projection onto the image of . Then also , and is again a projection. In other words, is a homotopy equivalence, with a homotopy inverse.
In our applications, there is another cochain complex , with a vertical augmentation map
[TABLE]
(thus is regarded as a double complex concentrated in bidegrees ). The horizontal homotopy allows us to ‘invert’ the second cochain map in
[TABLE]
thereby producing a cochain map . On elements of degree , this is given by a ‘zig-zag’
[TABLE]
illustrated here for :
[TABLE]
Example 2.2*.*
Let be a manifold with a covering by open sets, and let be the Čech-de Rham double complex. It comes with a horizontal augmentation map from the de Rham complex, and a vertical augmentation map from the Čech complex. Given a locally finite partition of unity subordinate to the cover, one obtains a horizontal homotopy operator , with the map taking a collection of -forms on the open sets to a global -form . See Bott-Tu [3, Proposition 8.5]. The resulting zig-zag (3) defines a Čech-de Rham cochain map , which is nothing but the ‘collating formula’ of Bott-Tu, [3, Proposition 9.5].
Consider now the situation that the vertical differential has a homotopy operator
[TABLE]
where is a cochain map for with . Then we can apply the Perturbation Lemma 2.1 to this vertical homotopy, and we obtain a cochain map given on degree elements by a zig-zag,
[TABLE]
Note that the route taken by the zig-zag (4) retraces the steps of the zig-zag (3). The following result will be used to relate van Est ‘integration’ and ‘differentiation’ maps.
Lemma 2.3** (Zig-zag back-and-forth).**
Suppose the homotopy operators satisfy
[TABLE]
Then (4) followed by (3) is the identity map of .
Proof.
We first note that
[TABLE]
and for ,
[TABLE]
Equation (7) follows from the calculation, for ,
[TABLE]
where we used that vanishes on for degree reasons. Equation (6) is obtained similarly. The Lemma now follows for from
[TABLE]
using (6), and for from the following calculation, as operators on :
[TABLE]
In the first equality, we used (7) if , or (6) if , to omit the factor. The second equality follows from
[TABLE]
Here we used and . ∎
Remark 2.4*.*
In the Čech-de Rham example 2.2, suppose that the cover is a good cover, so that all non-empty intersections of the are contractible. Then the choice of such retractions defines a vertical homotopy operator , and hence gives a cochain map in the opposite direction. Unfortunately, the conditions of Lemma 2.3 are not satisfied, in general; hence this map won’t give a right inverse to the Čech-de Rham cochain map, even though it is a homotopy inverse.
3. Van Est theory for Lie groups
Suppose that is a Lie group with finitely many connected components. One of van Est’s results, often referred to as the van Est theorem, is that the smooth cohomology of with coefficients in a representation is canonically isomorphic to the relative Lie algebra cohomology with respect to a maximal compact subgroup , with coefficients in . As we will see, the Perturbation Lemma will guide us towards explicit van Est maps, in both directions. Furthermore, we will show that the ‘integration map’ is a right inverse to the ‘differentiation map’, at the level of cochains.
3.1. The van Est double complex
Let be a Lie group, with a representation on a vector space . The smooth Lie group cochain complex has as its -cochains the functions
[TABLE]
and the differential is given by
[TABLE]
On the other hand, letting , we have the usual Lie algebra complex , where
[TABLE]
and where is the Chevalley-Eilenberg differential. The Lie group complex and Lie algebra complex are related by a double complex introduced in van Est’s original articles [27, 28, 29]; see also Guichardet [14]. The van Est double complex has bigraded components
[TABLE]
and the horizontal differential is given by
[TABLE]
The vertical differential is given by , where we identify with the Chevalley-Eilenberg complex of the -representation on , using the infinitesimal -representation on and the representation (the left-invariant vector field on the last -factor) on . Then , as desired. This double complex has horizontal and vertical augmentation maps
[TABLE]
where is the inclusion of constant functions, while
[TABLE]
for . Note is an inclusion of as the -invariant part of , or equivalently the -basic part of the full double complex, with respect to the following -action
[TABLE]
(using the coadjoint action on ).
Now suppose is a compact Lie subgroup. The relative Lie algebra complex with coefficients in is the -basic subcomplex
[TABLE]
That is, it consists of elements that are annilhilated by contractions with elements of on the -factor, and are invariant for the action of . Similarly, we can consider the -basic sub-double complex with respect to the action (10). The two augmentation maps for restrict to augmentation maps
[TABLE]
3.2. Differentiation
The double complex has a horizontal homotopy operator:
[TABLE]
here is the normalized invariant Haar measure on . Indeed, a direct calculation shows that where vanishes on elements of bidegree with , while
[TABLE]
for .
Remark 3.1*.*
For , the homotopy operator simplifies to
[TABLE]
Note that this homotopy operator on does not preserve the basic subcomplex with respect to a nontrivial compact subgroup.
Using the Perturbation Lemma 2.1, we obtain a cochain map (van Est differentiation)
[TABLE]
For an explicit description of this map, consider the following commuting -actions on the space ,
[TABLE]
For each of these actions we can consider its restriction to ; denote by
[TABLE]
the averaging operation with respect to -th -action. The operators commute since the actions commute, and we denote by the total -averaging operation. We will also need the -actions, obtained from the actions (13) labeled by passing to the diagonal action:
[TABLE]
Denote by the corresponding Chevalley-Eilenberg differential on .
Theorem 3.2**.**
For any compact Lie subgroup , the van Est differentiation is given by the formula
[TABLE]
for . In particular, .
Proof.
The -actions on , given by Equation (13), extend to commuting actions on , given by the same formulas (replacing with ). Denote by the averaging operation on for the -th action of .
We calculate on . The first few steps are
[TABLE]
In the last line, we used that the -action (10) defining for
[TABLE]
corresponds to the -th -action (13) (after setting ), defining . Next,
[TABLE]
Here we used that the -action (10) defining for
[TABLE]
corresponds (for ) to the -st diagonal -action (14), defining . Continuing in this fashion, we arrive at
[TABLE]
Since the -th-action (13) commutes with the -th action (14) for , the operator commutes with for . Hence we may move the averaging operations all the way to the right, resulting in the formula (15). ∎
Remark 3.3*.*
While there are various more or less explicit descriptions of the van Est differentiation (see in particular [14]), we are not aware of an appearance of the formula (15) in the literature, for general compact . Note also that it is not necessary to pass to a ‘normalized subcomplex’.
3.3. Integration
For the discussion of van Est integration maps, another interpretation of the relative (double) complex will be convenient. Let act on itself by left translation , and let be the corresponding complex of -invariant -valued forms, where the action of is the given representation. Restriction of such a form to the group unit gives an isomorphism , which intertwines the de Rham differential and the Chevalley-Eilenberg differential. Thus
[TABLE]
as differential complexes. The -action on (with the given -representation on and the coadjoint action on ) corresponds to the action on coming from the action on and the trivial action on . Consider the restriction of this action to ; Since , and similarly for the invariant forms for the action by left multiplication, we obtain the identification
[TABLE]
Similarly, elements may be identified with functions
[TABLE]
with smooth dependence on as parameters. In these terms, the two differentials are
[TABLE]
where is the de Rham differential, and
[TABLE]
where is the action of . (For , this is to be interpreted as .) The horizontal augmentation map is simply the inclusion of the invariant forms (16), while is the pullback of -valued functions on under the map .
Suppose now that has finitely many components and that is a maximal compact subgroup of . Recall that maximal compact subgroups are unique up to conjugation, and that the homogeneous space is diffeomorphic to the vector space (see, e.g., Borel [2, Chapter VII]). For semisimple, there is a canonical such diffeomorphism, by the Cartan decomposition .
Under the diffeomorphism , the scalar multiplication of translates into a smooth deformation retraction
[TABLE]
with , interpolating between the identity map and the map where
[TABLE]
are projection to and inclusion of the base point . It determines a de Rham homotopy operator on -valued forms,
[TABLE]
given by pullback under (20), followed by integration over . Thus . The homotopy operator has the properties , as well as
[TABLE]
for all .
[TABLE]
Thus where
[TABLE]
The vertical homotopy operator determines a ‘van Est integration map’
[TABLE]
Proposition 3.4**.**
The van Est integration map is a right inverse to the van Est differentiation map .
Proof.
By Lemma 2.3, it suffices to show that and . Given as in (17), let be the corresponding -equivariant map. The formula (11) shows that when . Consequently, in the differential form picture, whenever for all . In particular, this applies when is in the range of . This shows ; the argument for is similar. ∎
We will now give a more explicit description of . For and let
[TABLE]
For fixed , this defines a map .
Proposition 3.5**.**
Given , let be the corresponding -equivariant form. Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
We will calculate for . We have that
[TABLE]
viewed as an element of . Next, is given by
[TABLE]
The next application of (or of , if ) will annihilate the first term, due to (respectively, due to ). Hence we only need to keep the second term, and we find that is given by
[TABLE]
By the same reasoning as before, we need only keep the last term, since all terms starting with will be annihilated by the subsequent application of (respectively , if ). Proceeding in this manner, we arrive at the formula
[TABLE]
(The sign in the formula for is compensated by the alternating signs in the contributions.) By definition, each involves pullback under the map , followed by integration over . Denoting by the variable for the -th such integration, and by the map corresponding to for the variable , we arrive at
[TABLE]
On the other hand, by definition,
[TABLE]
This gives (23) (with the orientation of given by the volume element ). ∎
In summary, we obtain the following cochain-level version of van Est’s theorem:
Theorem 3.6** (Van Est theorem for Lie groups).**
Suppose is a maximal compact subgroup of the Lie group . Then the van Est differentiation map
[TABLE]
defined by (15) is a homotopy equivalence. The van Est integration map
[TABLE]
given by (23) is a right inverse at the level of cochains.
Remark 3.7*.*
Sometimes, it is convenient to work with the normalized subcomplex , consisting of functions with the property that whenever for some .The inclusion of the normalized subcomplex is well-known to be a homotopy equivalence (see, e.g., [21]). Theorem 3.6 holds for the normalized subcomplex, with the same proof.
If is any compact Lie subgroup of (not necessarily maximal compact), one obtains a similar conclusion by replacing with the localized complex
[TABLE]
of germs of functions at , and using a germ at of a diffeomorphism to define a germ of a retraction . One hence obtains a homotopy equivalence
[TABLE]
with a homotopy inverse which is also a right inverse. In particular, this is true for , cf. [16, 25].
4. Van Est theory for Lie groupoids
We will next review the cochain complexes for Lie algebroids and Lie groupoids, and the van Est double complex connecting them. We then show how certain horizontal and vertical homotopy operators on the double complex define van Est differentiation and integration maps, and finally show that the integration map is right inverse to the differentiation. Only at the end, we will derive the ‘explicit formulas’ for the integration and differentiation. For basic information on Lie groupoids and Lie algebroids, we refer to [8, 10, 20]. The van Est map for Lie groupoids was introduced by Weinstein-Xu in [30] and further studied by Crainic [7]; for further generalizations and applications see, [1, 5, 6, 18, 19, 22].
4.1. The simplicial manifold
Let be a Lie groupoid, with source and target maps denoted . Elements are composable if ; in this case their groupoid product is denoted as . We denote by
[TABLE]
the space of -arrows; by convention . Every -arrow comes with base points , where . The collection of spaces defines a simplicial manifold called the nerve of the groupoid. The face map drops the -th base point:
[TABLE]
while the -th degeneracy map repeats the -th base point by inserting a trivial arrow:
[TABLE]
Given a -action on manifold , with anchor , one obtains a simplicial manifold
[TABLE]
where the fiber product is with respect to and the map taking the -arrow to the base point . The face and degeneracy maps maps are
[TABLE]
(More conceptually, these formulas are explained through the identification , where is the action groupoid.) The manifolds come equipped with commuting -actions (cf. (13)):
[TABLE]
with anchor map .
4.2. The van Est double complex
4.2.1. Groupoid complex
Given a representation of the groupoid on a vector bundle , taking in (24), we obtain a simplicial vector bundle . The groupoid cochain complex \big{(}\mathsf{C}(G,V),\delta\big{)} has graded components
[TABLE]
while the differential is given on -cochains by . In the case of trivial coefficients , we write .
4.2.2. Lie algebroid complex
Let be the Lie algebroid of . Thus, is the vector bundle whose sections are the left-invariant vector fields on (tangent to the -fibers); for we denote by the corresponding left-invariant vector field. The anchor map is characterized by its property . The -representation on determines an -representation on . (Every is realized as the derivative of a 1-parameter family of bisections of . The group of bisections acts linearly on the sections of , and by differentiation one obtains the flat -connection defining the -representation.) Let \big{(}\mathsf{C}(A,V),{\mathsf{d}}_{CE}\big{)} be the resulting Lie algebroid complex (or Chevalley-Eilenberg complex), with -cochains
[TABLE]
and with the Chevalley-Eilenberg differential . For , we denote by the operator on given by contraction, and by the Lie derivative. On , we have that . In the case of the trivial representation on , the connection is where is the anchor of ; we will write .
4.2.3. Double complex
The two complexes are related by a van Est double complex, due to Crainic [7]. Taking in (24), with the -action by left multiplication, define a simplicial fiber bundle
[TABLE]
For each this is a principal -bundle, with anchor map
[TABLE]
and principal action
[TABLE]
(For background on principal bundles for Lie groupoids, see for example [20].) Each of these principal bundles is actually trivial, with a trivializing section
[TABLE]
where .
The face and degeneracy maps are principal bundle morphisms, making into a simplicial principal bundle; the ‘universal bundle’ of the Lie groupoid . (Note that (27) are not simplicial maps, and indeed is non-trivial as a simplicial principal bundle.) The van Est double complex
[TABLE]
is defined as follows.
- •
The bigraded summands of the double complex are
[TABLE]
generalizing the description (9) in the case of Lie groups.
- •
is the simplicial differential on sections of the simplicial vector bundle
[TABLE]
- •
on elements of bidegree , with the Chevalley-Eilenberg differential on
[TABLE]
In more detail, let be the foliation of given by the -fibers; thus is the vertical bundle. The isomorphism defines a Lie algebroid structure on . On the other hand, the isomorphism given by the -representation extends to an isomorphism, for any ,
[TABLE]
Since this bundle is trivial along the leaves of , it comes with a natural representation of the Lie algebroid , and the right hand side of (29) is its Lie algebroid complex.
Furthermore, the double complex comes with horizontal and vertical augmentation maps:
- •
is given in degree by the pullback (using (29) for ).
- •
is given in degree by the pullback map (using (30)).
The augmentation maps define cochain maps to the total complex
[TABLE]
Remark 4.1*.*
Sometimes, it is better to work with the normalized subcomplex, defined by the requirement that all pull-backs under the degeneracy maps are equal to zero. We will indicate the normalized subcomplexes (and the spaces of functions and sections defining them) by a tilde; for example
[TABLE]
By a general result for simplicial manifolds (see e.g. [21]), the inclusion is a homotopy equivalence.
As another variation, we will consider localized versions of these complexes, with respect to the submanifold of constant -arrows. These cochain complexes
[TABLE]
are given by germs of sections along the submanifold . There is also a localized version of the double complex (and its normalized subcomplex), working with germs of sections along . Note that the localized version (as well as its normalized subcomplex) also makes sense for local Lie groupoids.
4.3. Differentiation
4.3.1. The horizontal homotopy
The simplicial universal bundle comes with a simplicial retraction onto its submanifold (see [23] and [18, Appendix A.2]). This is reflected in the existence of a homotopy operator on the double complex . Consider the maps
[TABLE]
where . Since , these lift to fiberwise isomorphisms of vector bundles , defining a pullback map on sections.
Lemma 4.2**.**
The map
[TABLE]
satisfies
[TABLE]
where is the left inverse to given by pullback under the inclusion :
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let . If we have that , while and therefore . For we have that and therefore
[TABLE]
Similarly,
[TABLE]
Adding the two expressions, all terms except for cancel. ∎
Note that since , in general, the maps need not preserve the foliation , and hence the homotopy operator and the projection do not usually commute with the differential .
Remark 4.3*.*
The homotopy operator and the projection restrict to the normalized subcomplex . On this subcomplex , they have the additional properties
[TABLE]
this follows because coincides on the range of (or of , in case ) with the degeneracy map .
4.3.2. Van Est map
The Perturbation Lemma 2.1 gives a new projection , which is a cochain map for the total differential , with . Thus, is a homotopy equivalence, with a homotopy inverse. We obtain a cochain map
[TABLE]
For a more explicit description of this map, recall the commuting -actions (25) on , for a -manifold . These actions have generating vector fields . In the case of , the are linear with respect to the vector bundle structure on . They hence define covariant derivatives
[TABLE]
Theorem 4.4**.**
[18]** The map is given by the formula,
[TABLE]
for and . Here the sum is over the permutation group , and is regarded as a submanifold of consisting of constant -arrows.
Remark 4.5*.*
Equation (33) is Weinstein-Xu’s formula [30] for the van Est map . To be precise, [30] only treated the case of trivial coefficients, and exclusively worked with the normalized subcomplex . They proved by direct computation that this expression defines a cochain map, and furthermore that it intertwines the cup product on groupoid cochains with the wedge product on Lie algebroid cochains. The latter fact only holds true on the normalized subcomplex. In [18], it was explained by additional properties of the homotopy operator on the normalized sub-double complex, such as (31).
We include a proof of Theorem 4.4 in the Appendix. (It is a slightly simplified version of the argument in [18].)
4.4. Integration
We next discuss the integration from Lie algebroid cochains to Lie groupoid cochains. We will work with the localized complex defined in terms of germs of sections along ; here could also be only a local Lie groupoid. For convenience, we will typically omit explicit emphasis of ‘germs’ and ‘local’. If is a Lie groupoid which happens to be globally contractible to along its -fibers, one may work with the complex .
4.4.1. Differential form picture of double complex
Just as in the case that is a Lie group, the discussion of integration is more convenient using an interpretation in term of differential forms. Let be the de Rham complex of foliated (leafwise) -valued forms on . Restriction to takes such a form to a section of , and induced an isomorphism of differential complexes,
[TABLE]
Observe furthermore that
[TABLE]
We may hence regard the elements of as maps
[TABLE]
such that for , and smoothly depending on . Similarly, is interpreted as germs along of such maps.
In this picture, the vertical differential is (cf. (18)), while the horizontal differential is described similar to (19). The augmentation map is the inclusion of (34),
[TABLE]
while is the inclusion of into the space of maps such that is constant on , for any given with .
4.4.2. The integration map
A tubular structure for a (local) Lie groupoid is a tubular neighborhood embedding
[TABLE]
taking the fibers of to the -fibers, and with differential along the identity map of . The tubular structure transports the scalar multiplication in to a retraction along -fibers
[TABLE]
or more precisely the germ along of such a map. Here , where is the inclusion of units. The retraction determines a homotopy operator
[TABLE]
given by pullback under followed by integration over . This has the properties and
[TABLE]
Similar to (21), it defines a vertical homotopy operator on the double complex, where
[TABLE]
That is, where, for of bidegree ,
[TABLE]
(the restriction of to the units). The properties of show that
[TABLE]
By the Perturbation Lemma 2.1, we obtain a cochain map
[TABLE]
Note again that on elements of degree , the map is given by a zig-zag .
Remark 4.6*.*
The vertical homotopy restricts to the normalized sub-double complex . Hence, takes values in the normalized subcomplex .
Proposition 4.7**.**
The integration map is right inverse to the van Est differentiation :
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let with the corresponding map . By the properties of ,
[TABLE]
This means that the section corresponding to vanishes along . But then . This shows ; similarly we obtain . Now use Lemma 2.3. ∎
4.4.3. A formula for
We will now show that the van Est integration map coincides with the map defined in [6]. Define a a map (more precisely, a germ along of such a map) by the formula:
[TABLE]
For fixed (close to ), this is a smooth map from the unit cube into the -fiber of .
Theorem 4.8**.**
The van Est integration map is given on degree elements by the formula
[TABLE]
Here is the left-invariant foliated form defined by . We think of as a family of -valued forms on the fibers ; for fixed the map takes values in one such fiber, hence the pull-back is an ordinary form on .
Remark 4.9*.*
In [6], it was shown by direct calculation that the right hand side of (38) is a cochain map, which is a right inverse to at the level of cochains.
4.4.4. Proof of Theorem 4.8
The proof will require some preliminary results. Observe first the following alternative description of the maps . Denote by the map given by .
Lemma 4.10**.**
The map (37) is a composition
[TABLE]
Proof.
By direct calculation,
[TABLE]
eventually arriving at (37). ∎
We will also need:
Lemma 4.11**.**
For (but usually not for ), we have that
[TABLE]
Proof.
The identities follow since for (but usually not for ), and for (but usually not for ). ∎
Proof of Theorem 4.8.
Let . Then
[TABLE]
In this expression, the leftmost is the map . Using and Lemma 4.11, we have that for . Hence the composition may be replaced with , leading to
[TABLE]
If , consider the leftmost product . Using and Lemma 4.11 again, for ; hence we may replace this expression with . Continuing in this way, we arrive at
[TABLE]
But is given by times pull-back under the map , followed by integration over . The signs for ’s cancel the , and the resulting expression reads as
[TABLE]
where we used Lemma 4.10 and . ∎
4.5. Example: the pair groupoid
Let be the pair groupoid of the manifold , with associated Lie algebroid the tangent bundle . Here , and is the Alexander-Spanier complex, with differential
[TABLE]
while is the usual de Rham complex. The Van Est differentiation is given on functions of the form with by
[TABLE]
For the integration, choose an affine connection on . For sufficiently close, let be the geodesic starting at and ending at . Generalize to maps , given by for and inductively by
[TABLE]
The van Est integration takes to the (germ of a) function .
5. Van Est maps for Lie groupoid actions on manifolds
In his paper [7], Crainic proved a general van Est theorem for (proper) groupoid actions on manifolds . We explain how to generalize the differentiation and integration maps for cochains to this context. The construction of a horizontal homotopy operator for the double complex will require the additional data of a Haar distribution.
5.1. Haar distributions
By a (left-invariant) Haar distribution on a Lie groupoid , we mean a family of distributions on the -fibers
[TABLE]
such that:
- •
The family depends smoothly on , in the sense that for any compactly supported function the integral over -fibers defines a smooth function
[TABLE]
- •
The family is left-invariant, in the sense that for all with .
The Haar distribution is called properly supported if restricts to a proper map ; in particular, this means that the individual distributions are compactly supported. It is called normalized if furthermore for all , and non-negative if the integral (39) is non-negative for all . A Haar distribution is called a Haar density if it is smooth; by left-invariance, these are equivalent to smooth sections of the density bundle of . It is known [7, 9, 26] that if the Lie groupoid is proper, in the sense that is a proper map, then admits a properly supported, non-negative, normalized Haar density.
As shown by Crainic [7, Proof of Proposition 1], a properly supported normalized Haar distribution for a proper groupoid defines a homotopy operator for the groupoid cochain complex , for any -representation :
[TABLE]
where . (Actually, [7] only considers Haar densities, but the calculation for distributions is exactly the same.) Thus , where is the inclusion of invariant sections , while takes a section to the invariant section obtained by averaging:
[TABLE]
Examples 5.1*.*
- (a)
For a Lie group , every Haar distribution is automatically smooth, and is obtained by left translation of an element of the density space of . The groupoid is proper (and its Haar measure is properly supported) if and only if is compact. 2. (b)
The pair groupoid is proper. Its -fibers are ; under this identification, the left-action of elements on corresponds to the trivial diffeomorphism of . Hence, any fixed defines a Haar distribution with independent of ; it is proper if has compact support, and normalized if . In particular, we may take to be the delta-distribution at any given base point . The resulting homotopy for the complex is the standard one:
[TABLE] 3. (c)
Let be an open cover of a manifold , and put . The associated Čech groupoid , with the groupoid structure induced from the pair groupoid , is proper. A locally finite partition of unity subordinate to the cover defines a normalized properly supported Haar distribution: the -fiber of is a disjoint union of copies of (one for each containing ), and the Haar density on this discrete set is given by the sequence . The invariant elements of are pullback of functions on , and the homotopy operator on the Čech complex is the standard one [3, Chapter 2.8], cf. Example 2.2.
Suppose that is a Lie groupoid, and that is a -manifold, with anchor map . The action is called proper if the action groupoid is proper. The -fiber of in the action groupoid is canonically identified with the -fiber of in the groupoid ; hence a Haar distribution for the action groupoid amounts to a family of distributions
[TABLE]
with the following invariance property:
[TABLE]
If the action is proper, there exists a properly supported normalized Haar distribution.
Examples 5.2*.*
- (a)
For the action of on by left translation, we may take (42) to be the collection of delta-distributions
[TABLE] 2. (b)
Let be a Lie group, and consider the homogeneous space where a compact subgroup. Let be the push-forward of the normalized Haar density on . Then the family of distributions defines a normalized, properly supported Haar distribution.
5.2. The van Est double complex
For the rest of this section, suppose that is a Lie groupoid acting on a manifold , with moment map a submersion. The fibers of define a -invariant foliation of , and a corresponding -equivariant Lie algebroid . For any vector bundle , we obtain a ‘fiberwise trivial’ Lie algebroid representation of on the vector bundle ; given a -representation on , this representation is compatible with the -action on . It defines a foliated de Rham complex
[TABLE]
The invariant subcomplex consists of sections with the equivariance property . (If with the -action by left translation, this is the complex of left-invariant -valued forms on , and is identified with . If is a Lie group and , this is the de Rham complex .) Let
[TABLE]
be the natural projection (given by if ). The foliation of extends to foliations of given by the fibers of .
We obtain a simplicial Lie algebroid , together with a (fiberwise trivial) representation on the vector bundle . Following Crainic [7], define a double complex
[TABLE]
with the usual simplicial differential , and with . Its elements may be regarded as maps , with
[TABLE]
with and as in (19). This double complex comes with a horizontal augmentation map given by the inclusion of invariant elements, and a vertical augmentation map given by pullback under the bundle projection . For the total complex this gives cochain maps
[TABLE]
5.3. Differentiation
Assuming that the -action on is proper, we may choose a properly supported normalized Haar distribution for . It determines a horizontal homotopy on the double complex ; thus , where is the averaging map with respect to . These are given by (40) and (41), replacing with and with . Explicitly:
[TABLE]
for and all , and
[TABLE]
for . The Perturbation Lemma 2.1 defines a homotopy inverse to , and a cochain map
[TABLE]
Example 5.3*.*
If with the left-action of , and using the Haar distribution from Example 5.2 (a), we recover the homotopy operator and projection from Section 4. As we saw, this leads to the van Est differentiation map of Weinstein-Xu.
Example 5.4*.*
Let be a Lie group, a compact Lie subgroup, and . Let be the Haar distribution from Example 5.2 (b), thus . Making a change of variables , we recover the homotopy operator and projection from Section 3, leading to the differentiation map discussed there.
5.4. Integration
Suppose that the submersion admits a section , i.e, . Fixing we can think of as a submanifold as a submanifold of . Choose a tubular neighborhood embedding , taking the fibers of the normal bundle to the -fibers, to define a germ (along ) of a retraction , with , where
[TABLE]
In turn, it gives a homotopy operator on the localized foliated de Rham complex .
The discussion from Section 4.4 (for the case ) extends to this setting in a straightforward fashion: One obtains a homotopy operator on the double complex , with and ; in turn, this defines a homotopy inverse to , and the resulting van Est integration map
[TABLE]
is described by the formula
[TABLE]
for . Here is defined similar to (37):
[TABLE]
If the -action on is furthermore proper, we also have the differentiation map , defined by the properly supported normalized Haar distribution . In general, the van Est integration map defined by need not be a right inverse to the differentiation map – the compatibility conditions of Lemma 2.3 need not be satisfied, in general. One general setting where they are satisfied is the following.
Proposition 5.5**.**
Suppose is a properly supported normalized Haar distribution for with the property
[TABLE]
*(as a subset of ). Then the conditions of Lemma 2.3 are satisfied: that is, . *
Proof.
The condition is equivalent to the requirement that for all ,
[TABLE]
But, by the usual properties of the de Rham homotopy operator. On the other hand, the explicit formula (46) for the homotopy operator shows that for all ,
[TABLE]
Hence if (49) holds true, and likewise . ∎
This result ‘explains’ Propositions 3.4 and 4.7:
Example 5.6*.*
Let be a Lie group, a compact subgroup, and . The Haar distribution is supported in , which is the set of all such that , hence (49) holds true. In fact,
[TABLE]
Example 5.7*.*
Let be any Lie groupoid, and , with the Haar distribution . Then (49) holds true, in fact,
[TABLE]
Appendix A Proof of Theorem 4.4
Taking in (25), we have commuting -actions on ; these commute with the principal action and descend to the actions on . The projection intertwines each of these actions with the trivial action on ; hence we obtain commuting -actions on the vector bundles
[TABLE]
using the trivial action on the factor. The infinitesimal action gives covariant derivatives on ; the derivatives for different ’s commute. They ‘lift’ the operators on introduced earlier.
Lemma A.1**.**
- (a)
The maps intertwine for . 2. (b)
The operators on the double complex commute with the vertical differential , and also with contractions and Lie derivatives . 3. (c)
The maps intertwine for , while
[TABLE]
Proof.
- (a)
follows from the equivariance of the map with respect to the -th action. 2. (b)
Since is equivariant for -th action, it intertwines the operators . Next, since is equivariant for the -th action; the foliation of is preserved; i.e., the infinitesimal action of is by infinitesimal automorphisms of the Lie algebroid . It follows that the action on preserves the differential and hence also . Finally, since it also intertwines the Lie derivatives (for the principal -action); alternatively this follows directly because the -th action commutes with the principal action. 3. (c)
The first part follows since the maps
[TABLE]
(see (11)) are equivariant for the actions labeled by . For (51), we need to consider both the generating vector fields for the -th -action and the generators of the principal action. In terms of ,
[TABLE]
where is the left-invariant vector field sitting on the last -factor of . Since (where is the inclusion of units), we see that
[TABLE]
which implies Equation (51). ∎
We are now in position to give the proof of Theorem 4.4.
Proof of Theorem 4.4.
On elements of , we have that
[TABLE]
Using
[TABLE]
this means that . Given and , we want to compute
[TABLE]
Our strategy is to move the variables to the right, while retaining their ordering (keeping to the left of if ). The commutators of contractions with produces Lie derivatives . Using Lemma A.1 and , we find
[TABLE]
where we introduced the hat notation
[TABLE]
corresponding to the diagonal action for the actions labeled . (Note that the [math]-th action is not included.) We therefore obtain
[TABLE]
here the second equality follows since the composition is just the inclusion . To complete the proof, we argue that
[TABLE]
is equal to a similar sum with all hats removed. Given , let . Since
[TABLE]
we see that the product
[TABLE]
coincides with the corresponding expression for the permutation , given as the composition of with the transposition of the indices . Since have opposite signs, it follows that (52) does not change when we remove the hats from all for which .
Having done so, and assuming , consider for a given the indices for which . (If , we may simply put , completing the proof.) An argument similar to the first step shows that the expression
[TABLE]
coincides with a similar expression for the composition of with transposition of the indices . (We wrote (53) for the case that ; of course, if the would appear to the right of .) Since those permutations have opposite signs, it shows that we may also remove the hat from the factors with . Removing all the hats in this manner, we have proved the Weinstein-Xu formula
[TABLE]
∎
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] C. Abad and M. Crainic, The Weil algebra and the Van Est isomorphism , Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 61 (2011), no. 3, 927–970.
- 2[2] A. Borel, Semisimple groups and Riemannian symmetric spaces , Texts and Readings in Mathematics, vol. 16, Hindustan Book Agency, New Delhi, 1998. MR 1661166
- 3[3] R. Bott and L. Tu, Differential forms in algebraic topology , Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 82, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1982.
- 4[4] R. Brown, The twisted Eilenberg-Zilber theorem , Simposio di Topologia (Messina, 1964), Edizioni Oderisi, Gubbio, 1965, pp. 33–37.
- 5[5] A. Cabrera and T. Drummond, Van Est isomorphism for homogeneous cochains , Pacific J. Math. 287 (2017), no. 2, 297–336.
- 6[6] A. Cabrera, I. Marcut, and A. Salazar, On local integration of Lie brackets , Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik, to appear.
- 7[7] M. Crainic, Differentiable and algebroid cohomology, van Est isomorphisms, and characteristic classes , Comment. Math. Helv. 78 (2003), no. 4, 681–721.
- 8[8] M. Crainic and R.L. Fernandes, Lectures on integrability of Lie brackets , Lectures on Poisson geometry, Geom. Topol. Monogr., vol. 17, Geom. Topol. Publ., Coventry, 2011, pp. 1–107.
