WorksMathematics
A note on cohomogeneity one Einstein metrics on closed 4-manifolds
Abstract
K. Broder recently classified the closed Einstein 4-manifolds whose isometry groups have dimension at least three. The proof reduces the problem to the study of cohomogeneity-one Einstein metrics invariant under , however a few cases are not treated. We reconcile the missing cases using Broder's techniques with minimal modifications.
Introduction
Broder [2 Theorem 1.1] states that if is a connected closed Einstein 4-manifold with , then is flat or its universal cover is homothetic to one of
First, [3 Theorem 3] (see also [Bér82]) implies that only cohomogeneity one actions with 3-dimensional isometry group need to be considered. These actions are by and are known, see [8, 6]. In this setting, every invariant Einstein metric is diagonal (c.f. [4 Theorem 3.1]); along a normal geodesic it can be uniquely given in the form
The topologies and smoothness conditions depend on which vanishes at each singular orbit, and the possibilities are listed in [4 Table 4] (Table 1 below).
Let be the space whose group diagram (see §2) is , ( and ). For , appears twice in Table 1 as there are two configurations: either the same warping function vanishes at both ends (row (R5)), or different functions do (row (R6)). In [2 proof of Theorem 5.1] row (R6) on is reduced to row (R5) by changing the group diagram by conjugating one singular orbit by an element of , where is a principal isotropy. In [2 §6], on , only row (R6) is treated. This does not suffice since rows (R5) and (R6) genuinely must be treated separately; see §3. In this note, we close the remaining cases.
Theorem A. There is no -invariant Einstein metric on in row (R5), and there is no -invariant Einstein metric on in row (R6). In particular, up to rescaling, the Page metric and the sum of round metrics are the only Einstein metrics on invariant under the defined -action.
We only need to consider , as otherwise the metric is -invariant and thus classified in [Bér82]. One should note that only techniques from [2] are required to prove Theorem 3.5.
We introduce the required notation and preliminary results in § 3. In § 4, we show that the group diagram read off along a normal geodesic is determined by the metric up to interchanging and simultaneous conjugation; see Proposition 3.2. Finally, we prove Theorem 3.5 in § 5 and § 6, the former dealing with and the latter with .
Acknowledgements
I discussed these issues with Kyle Broder after [2] appeared on arXiv. While working on a related project, I realised that the remaining cases could be resolved quite simply using the techniques of [2], which led to this short note. I would also like to thank Qiu Shi Wang for interesting conversations related to this topic.
Preliminaries
One familiar with [2], or cohomogeneity one actions more generally, should skip this section.
Suppose is a closed simply-connected 4-manifold on which acts isometrically and by cohomogeneity one. The orbit space is homeomorphic to a closed interval. Let be a unit speed geodesic between the singular orbits and that intersects each orbit orthogonally and exactly once; we call such geodesics normal. The principal isotropy is for , and the singular isotropies are , . The diagram determines . The diagrams obtained by interchanging , simultaneous conjugation of by an element of , and replacing by with (c.f. [5]) also determine , up to equivariant diffeomorphism.
We will use notation introduced in [2 §2]. Fix an -invariant inner product on and a -orthonormal basis with , with a dual coframe of the action fields . A diagonal metric is given by on the principal part. It is known that any Einstein metric on can be written in a diagonal form, and that the functions are uniquely determined up to permutation (c.f. [4 Theorem 3.1]).
For define
The Einstein equations, , imply the following equations [2]:
Only one smoothness condition is needed in this work: a diagonal metric on is smooth about if and only if there are smooth functions , such that [9]
where is positive and necessarily vanishes unless . The smoothness condition at is given similarly; substitute and permute indices if required. Table 1 lists all possible smoothness conditions:
| Action | Einstein metrics | ||
| (R1) on | (2.4), | (2.4), , | round [2 Thm. 3.2] |
| (R2) on | (2.4), | (2.4), , | Fubini–Study [2 Thm. 4.2] |
| (R3) on | fixed point | fixed point | round [2 Thm. 3.1] |
| (R4) on | fixed point | (2.4), | Fubini–Study [2 Thm. 4.1] |
| (R5) , odd | (2.4) | (2.4) | Page [2 Thm. 5.1] |
| (R5) , even | (2.4) | (2.4) | none, Theorem 4.1 |
| (R6) | (2.4) | (2.4), | product [2 Thm. 6.1] |
| (R6) | (2.4) | (2.4), | none, Theorem 5.4 |
Table 1. The configurations of [4 Table 4] and where they are treated.
Equivariant diffeomorphisms and the smoothness conditions
This section is a clarification of [4 Remark 2.9].
Definition 3.1. A -invariant metric is compatible with the group diagram if some normal geodesic of realises it, that is,
There may exist metrics compatible with some group diagram that are not compatible with others representing the same action. In particular, a metric being compatible with a given group diagram is only preserved by interchanging and simultaneous conjugation. That is, the diagram obtained by replacing by with (c.f. [5]) has the same space of invariant metrics, but need not have the same space of compatible metrics.
Proposition 3.2. Let be compatible with .
(a) is compatible with another group diagram if and only if there exists such that and
That is, the new diagram is obtained by conjugating all three isotropy subgroups by the same element, possibly after interchanging and .
(b) If is a -equivariant diffeomorphism, then is compatible with the same group diagrams as .
Proof. Let be a normal geodesic of realising .
(a): If the new diagram is of this form, then (or if are interchanged) is a normal geodesic of realising the new diagram. Conversely, suppose is compatible with a group diagram that is realised by a normal geodesic of . Reversing if necessary, we may assume that , say with . Then is a normal geodesic starting at . By the slice theorem, acts transitively on , i.e., the space of unit vectors perpendicular to (c.f. [4 proof of Lemma 2.6]). Thus, there is a that maps the initial velocity of to that of , i.e.,
By uniqueness of geodesics, with , and
for all .
(b): The map is an isometry from to mapping orbits to orbits, so is a normal geodesic of . By equivariance, , so realises the same group diagram as .
Suppose acts via cohomogeneity one on and let be a normal geodesic. Let be the Lie algebra of and let be the Lie algebra of , a principal isotropy. Let be an -invariant subspace of such that . Identifying on the principal part of with via , the metric takes the form , where is an inner product on for each . The following well known and simple result specifies to which group diagram a specific metric belongs along .
Lemma 3.3. extend continuously to positive semi-definite forms and satisfying
where are the Lie algebras of and .
Proof. We consider ; the argument at is the same. extends continuously to a positive semi-definite form since for any , . An element also lies in precisely when , i.e., . That is, and the result now follows since .
We now specialise to the case of cohomogeneity one actions on 4 manifolds. In particular, due to the Einstein condition, we may assume that the metric is diagonal. Recall that we only consider the case where , are subgroups of , and .
Corollary 3.4. Let be diagonal with respect to a normal geodesic and a basis of as in §2. If vanishes at and vanishes at , then and .
Proof. By Lemma 3.3, is spanned by the for which .
We say a -invariant metric on is diagonalisable if there exists a single choice of basis of as in §2 such that is diagonal for all .
Corollary 3.5. We say if is a diagonalisable -invariant metric on such that for some choice of geodesic and some choice of basis of , the same can function vanishes at both ends. Similarly, we say if different functions can vanish. and are disjoint and invariant under pull-back by -equivariant diffeomorphisms .
The Page metric belongs to (R5) and the Riemannian sum of round metrics belongs to (R6).
Proof. Note that the row to which each metric belongs follows from Corollary 3.4. The latter also implies that for some group diagram if and only if . Since the condition is preserved under conjugation, the result follows immediately from Proposition 3.2.
Remark 3.6. In general, to study the space of all cohomogeneity one metrics on of the form , Proposition 3.2 shows that one must consider many different group diagrams. In particular, given an action with some group diagram , one must check the space of metrics compatible with the diagram for . It suffices to let range over a set of representatives of the double cosets of
This formulation is essentially given in [7]. If and are not conjugate to each other by an element of , then each double coset represents a different class of compatible invariant metrics. If and are conjugate to each other by an element , then one could also account for reversing the normal geodesic. That is, the diagrams $H\subset and for or have the same space of compatible metrics if and only if
or
respectively.
in row (R5)
Theorem 4.1. For even, carries no SU(2)-invariant Einstein metric in row (R5).
This follows using the exact same treatment as in Theorem 5.1 (see also Theorem 3.1 and Theorem 4.1) of [2] (which we repeat below for the convenience of the reader).
Proof. Suppose vanishes at both ends. By (2.4), as and , and . Suppose some ratio with exceeds 1 somewhere, and hence is attained at an interior point . Let , be the remaining index. At , we have that , and reaches an interior maximum, but (2.3) gives
a contradiction. Thus the ratio does not exceed 1, i.e., . Similarly, , so . This implies that the metric is U(2)-invariant and we can appeal to the classification of U(2)-invariant compact Einstein manifolds [Bér82].
in row (R6)
We now rule out Einstein metrics in row (R6). This is achieved by using the conditions at the endpoints to contradict the forward invariant cone . To show that this cone is forward invariant, we use the maximum principal from the previous section and the positivity of . This follows along the lines of the proof of Theorem 3.2 of [2].
Let be an SU(2)-invariant Einstein metric on in row (R6), i.e., with vanishing at and at . Recall that a compact Einstein manifold with a non-abelian identity component of the isometry group implies the Einstein constant is positive. As in [4], define the constants and , and also parametrise the reverse direction by ; . Solving (2.1) order by order about using (2.4) gives,
and hence around ,
In particular, about ,
and about ,
Lemma 5.1. On , . In particular on .
Proof. By applying a similar argument to the one in Theorem 4.1, . If, at some , for , then implies that , but then uniqueness implies that , which contradicts the initial conditions in (R6).
Lemma 5.2. , and on , .
Proof. Equation (2.2) implies that for such that the cone is forward invariant. By the initial and final conditions, we have that for small and for small . In particular, if , then, since and share the same sign for sufficiently small , they must both be positive. If , then they both contain at the lowest third order terms. However, using the initial conditions and (2.2),
for some bounded matrix and . The eigenvalues of are and , so by Lemma 2.5 of [2], , for small and hence on by uniqueness, which again contradicts the behaviour of near . By symmetry of the Einstein equations, must also satisfy this bound.
Note that (2.2) implies that
Lemma 5.3. On , .
Proof. Recall that on , and by Lemmas 5.1 and 5.2. By (5.1), is preserved, so it suffices to show the lemma holds for sufficiently small . This is trivial for by the initial conditions. For , we integrate (5.1) to see that for positive ,
where .
Theorem 5.4. There is no -invariant Einstein metric on in row (R6).
Proof. By (2.2),
Lemma 5.3 implies that the cone is forward invariant on . The initial conditions and Lemma 5.2 implies that and . Thus, for a contradiction, it suffices to show that is positive at some time. As before, we integrate (5.2) to see that for positive :
References
- [2]K. Broder. Cohomogeneity-one Einstein metrics on closed 4-manifolds. 2026. arXiv: 2605.24859 [math.DG].arxiv.org/abs/2605.24859
- [3]A. Derdziński. “Self-dual Kähler manifolds and Einstein manifolds of dimension four”. Compositio Math. 49.3 (1983), pp. 405–433.
- [4]P. Donovan. “Cohomogeneity one 4-dimensional gradient Ricci solitons”. J. Geom. Anal. 35.12 (2025), Paper No. 401, 39.arxiv.org/abs/2503.15033
- [5]K. Grove, B. Wilking, and W. Ziller. “Positively curved cohomogeneity one manifolds and 3-Sasakian geometry”. J. Differential Geom. 78.1 (2008), pp. 33–111.DOI
- [6]C. A. Hoelscher. “Classification of cohomogeneity one manifolds in low dimensions”. Pacific J. Math. 246.1 (2010), pp. 129–185.arxiv.org/abs/0712.1327
- [7]W. D. Neumann. “3-dimensional G-manifolds with 2-dimensional orbits”. Proc. Conf. on Transformation Groups (New Orleans, La., 1967). Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York, 1968, pp. 220–222.DOI
- [8]J. Parker. “4-dimensional G-manifolds with 3-dimensional orbits”. Pacific J. Math. 125.1 (1986), pp. 187–204.
- [9]L. Verdiani and W. Ziller. “Smoothness conditions in cohomogeneity one manifolds”. Transform. Groups 27.1 (2022), pp. 311–342.