Martin Bridgeman gave a nice talk at Caltech recently on his discovery of a beautiful identity concerning orthospectra of hyperbolic surfaces (and manifolds of higher dimension) with totally geodesic boundary. The -dimensional case is (in my opinion) the most beautiful, and I would like to take a post to explain the identity, and give a derivation which is slightly different from the one Martin gives in his paper. There are many other things one could say about this identity, and its relation to other identities that turn up in the theory of hyperbolic manifolds (and elsewhere); I hope to get to this in a later post.

Let be a hyperbolic surface with totally geodesic boundary. An *orthogeodesic* is a geodesic segment properly immersed in , which is perpendicular to at its endpoints. The set of orthogeodesics is countable, and their lengths are proper. Denote these lengths by (with multiplicity). The identity is:

where is the Rogers’ dilogarithm function (to be defined in a minute). Treating this function as a black box for the moment, the identity has the form a term depending only on the topology of . The proof is very, very short and elegant. By the Gauss-Bonnet theorem, the term on the right is equal to of the volume of the unit tangent bundle of . Almost every tangent vector on can be exponentiated to a geodesic on which intersects the boundary in finite forward and backward time (eg. by ergodicity of the geodesic flow on a closed hyperbolic surface obtained by doubling). If is such a tangent vector, and is the associated geodesic arc, then is homotopic keeping endpoints on to a unique orthogeodesic (which is the unique length minimizer in this relative homotopy class). The volume of the set of associated to a given orthogeodesic can be computed as follows. Lift to the universal cover, where it is the crossbar of a letter “H” whose vertical lines are lifts of the geodesics it ends on. Any lifts to a unique geodesic segment in the universal cover with endpoints on the edges of the H. So the volume of the set of such depends only on , giving rise to the explicit formula for . qed.

That’s it — that’s the whole proof! . . . modulo some calculations, which we now discuss.

The “ordinary” polylogarithms are defined by Taylor series

which converges for , and extends by analytic continuation. Taking derivatives, one sees that they satisfy , thereby giving rising to integral formulae. is the familiar geometric series , so and

The Rogers dilogarithm is then given by the formula for real . One sees that the Rogers dilogarithm is obtained by symmetrizing the integrand for the integral expression for under the involution :

Martin derives his identity by direct calculation, but in fact this calculation can be simplified a bit by some hyperbolic geometry. Consider an ideal quadrilateral (whose unit tangent bundle has area ) with one pair of opposite sides that are distance apart. Join opposite vertices in pairs to decompose the quadrilateral into four triangles, each with one non-ideal point:

In the (schematic) picture, suppose the two edges of the H are the left and right side (call them and ) and the other two edges are and . Similarly, call the four triangles depending on which edge of the quadrilateral they bound. The triangle is colored gray in the figure. We secretly identify this figure with the upper half-plane, in such a way that the ideal vertices are (in circular order) , where are the ideal vertices of the gray triangle. Call the (hyperbolic) angle of the gray triangle at its vertex, so . Moreover, it turns out that where is the distance between and . We will compute implicitly as a function of , and show that it is a multiple of the Rogers dilogarithm function, thus verifying Bridgeman’s identity.

Every vector in exponentiates to a (bi-infinite) geodesic , and we want to compute the volume of the set of vectors for which the corresponding geodesic intersects both and . The point of the decomposition is that for in (say), the geodesic intersects whenever it intersects , so we only need to compute the volume of the in for which intersects . Similarly, we only need to compute the volume of the in for which intersects . For in , we compute the volume of the which do *not* intersect (since these are exactly the ones that intersect both and ), and similarly for .

These volumes can be expressed in terms of integrals of harmonic functions. Let denote the harmonic function on the disk which is on the arc of the circle bounded by , and on the rest of the circle. This function at each point is equal to times the visual angle (i.e. the length in the unit tangent circle) subtended by the given arc of the circle, as seen from the given point in the hyperbolic plane. Define similarly. Then the total volume we need to compute is equal to

(here we have identified by symmetry, and similarly for the other pair of terms). Let us approach this a bit more systematically. If denotes the angle at the nonideal vertex of triangle , we denote , and . The integral we want to evaluate can be expressed easily in terms of explicit rational multiples of , and the function . These functions satisfy obvious identities:

and

where the last identity comes by observing that we are integrating a certain function over an ideal triangle, and observing that the average of this function under the symmetries of the ideal triangle is equal to the constant function . In particular, we see that we can express everything in terms of . After some elementary reorganization, we see that the contribution to the volume of the unit tangent bundle of the surface associated to this particular orthogeodesic is

To compute , it makes sense to move to the upper half-space model, and move the endpoints of the interval to and . The harmonic function is equal to on the negative real axis, and on the positive real axis. It takes the value on the line . The area form in the hyperbolic metric is proportional to the Euclidean area form, with constant . In other words, we want to integrate over the region indicated in the figure, where the nonideal angle is , and the base point is :

If we normalize so that the circular arc is part of the semicircle from to , then the real projection of the vertical lines in the figure are and . There is no elementary way to evaluate this integral, so instead we evaluate its *derivative* as a function of where as before, . This is the definite integral

Integrating by parts gives . This evaluates to

Thinking of as a function of , we get

Comparing values at we see that and the identity is proved.

Well, OK, this is not terribly simple, but *a posteriori* it gives a way to express the Rogers dilogarithm as a sum of integrals of very simple harmonic functions over hyperbolic triangles, which is a nice geometric way to think of it.

**(Update 10/30):** This paper by Dupont and Sah relates Rogers dilogarithm to volumes of -simplices, and discusses some interesting connections to conformal field theory and lattice model calculations. I feel like a bit of a dope, since I read this paper while I was in graduate school more than a dozen years ago, but forgot all about it until I was cleaning out my filing cabinet this morning. They cite an older paper of Dupont for the explicit calculations; these are somewhat tedious and unenlightening; however, he does manage to show that the Rogers dilogarithm is characterized by the Abel identity. In other words,

**Lemma A.1 (Dupont):** Let be a three times differentiable function satisfying

for all . Then there is a real constant such that where is the Rogers dilogarithm (up to an additive constant).

Nevertheless, they don’t seem to have noticed the formula in terms of integrals of harmonic functions over hyperbolic triangles. Perhaps this is also well-known. Do any readers know?

It cannot be a coincidence that the imaginary part of another variation of the dilogarithm of the cross-ratio gives the volume of an ideal (3-dimensional) tetrahedron, but I don’t see the connection yet. Do you?

Dear Dylan — Well, it

couldbe a coincidence, but of course it’s not :)As you point out, 3-manifold topologists are familiar with the relationship between dilogarithms and volumes of hyperbolic ideal simplices (and volumes of spherical simplices, for that matter); Abel’s identity for the dilogarithm is reinterpreted homologically as equality of volumes for collections of simplices related by the 2-3 move (the move that replaces the “front” of a degenerate 4-simplex with its “back” under a projection with no vertex in the interior). In Bridgeman’s identity, the value of the dilogarithm is equal to the volume of what is “almost” a simplex in the homogeneous space modeled on .

One would like to analytically continue from one context to the other, maybe follow a path of representations of a degenerating family of cone structures on a hyperbolic manifold. I plan to try to write another blog post on this subject if I can work out the details sufficiently clearly (or, alternately, you could work them out, and then I won’t have to . . .)

I was wondering the same thing as Dylan…

One obvious (and very difficult) related question is whether the collection of identities satisfied in all these contexts for (somewhat) similar reasons are enough to characterize the dilogarithm uniquely; i.e. whether there is a “proof by functional equation” (or, if you prefer, a “proof by homological algebra”). Similar questions (in the context of hyperbolic volume) are posed by Milnor in Chapter 7 of Thurston’s notes. More abstract versions of these questions were posed and studied by Ramakrishnan, Beilinson, Goncharov, etc. and connect up with lots of mathematics that I do not really understand at all.

Pingback: Carnival of Mathematics #59 « The Number Warrior