the balitsky , fadin , kuraev and lipatov ( bfkl ) equation @xcite is meant to describe the energy dependence of certain high energy hard processes . for the bfkl equation to be applicable certain conditions must be met : ( i ) the process , or part of a process , to be described should have only a single hard transverse momentum scale .
processes having more than one hard scale may have significant contribution from the dokshitzer , gribov , lipatov , altarelli and parisi ( dglap ) equation @xcite which governs scale dependence in qcd .
certain observables ( e.g.  @xcite ) are known to satisfy this criterion though they have not yet been well measured .
( ii ) the rapidity of the hard process , related to the centre of mass energy @xmath2 and the hard transverse momentum scale @xmath0 by @xmath3 , should be large .
the bfkl equation includes all terms @xmath4 in the coupling but neglects factors of @xmath5 not accompanied by factors of @xmath6 .
there is a vigorous effort @xcite to systematically include the first non - leading terms , an @xmath5 unaccompanied by a @xmath6 and this should improve the accuracy and reliability of the bfkl equation .
the bfkl equation should describe high energy processes having a single hard scale in a limited range of rapidity . when @xmath6 becomes too large , unitarity corrections become important and slow the rate of growth with energy . at even higher values of energy one
expects parton densities to become so large that the whole perturbative qcd picture breaks down leading to a new regime of weak coupling but high density non - perturbative qcd .
the goal in small - x physics is to understand , experimentally and theoretically , the onset of bfkl behaviour , its modification due to unitarity corrections as one proceeds to higher energies and finally the nature of the transition to the high density ( saturation ) regime at even higher energies .    from a theoretical point of view
the simplest process to study is high energy heavy quarkonium - heavy quarkonium scattering .
if the onium is sufficiently heavy the radius of the onium is small enough to set the single hard scale of the process .
any understanding of bfkl dynamics and beyond gained in studying heavy onium collisions should be applicable to the more experimentally accessible single hard scale processes mentioned above . in the large @xmath7 limit of qcd a dipole picture of
high energy heavy onium - heavy onium scattering has been developed which is equivalent to the usual bfkl description @xcite . in this dipole picture
the light - cone wave function of a heavy onium is viewed as a collection of colour dipoles .
the dipoles are made up of the quark part of a gluon ( or the heavy quark itself ) and the antiquark part of a different gluon ( or the heavy antiquark ) .
high energy elastic scattering in the bfkl approximation proceeds by two - gluon exchange between a right - moving dipole in the right - moving onium and a left - moving dipole in the left - moving onium .
perhaps the main advantage of the dipole picture is that the equation governing the number and distribution of dipoles in the light - cone wave function of the onium is a branching equation which allows monte carlo methods to be used . in a recent paper @xcite ,
one of us has studied high energy onium - onium scattering from energies where the bfkl approximation is valid into the higher energy regime where unitarity limits , for a fixed impact parameter of the scattering , are reached . in the centre of mass system
unitarity corrections are simply the independent scattering of two or more dipoles of the right - moving onium with two or more dipoles of the left - moving onium . because of the large number of ( small ) dipoles in an onium wave function unitarity corrections become important when the dipoles are relatively dilute in the onium so that independent multiple scatterings are the natural leading corrections to the bfkl approximation .
the purpose of the present paper is to study two related questions , the probability of producing an unusually large number of particles in an onium - onium collision and the nature of gluon ( dipole ) evolution when dipole densities become so dense that saturation effects due to dipole - dipole interactions become important . at a given energy dipole densities in an onium wave function
are largest not in a typical configuration but rather in rare high multiplicity fluctuations .
thus attempts to measure saturation will naturally focus on the high multiplicity tail of particle production .
one can not directly study particle production in the dipole formalism .
in the dipole picture the @xmath8 light - cone wave function is constructed .
this is sufficient to describe an elastic scattering , but it is not sufficient to describe an inelastic event where one must follow the time evolution of the wave function to a large positive time when particles ( or jets ) are produced .
however , using the abramovskii , gribov , kancheli ( agk ) cutting rules @xcite one can relate particle production and forward elastic scattering involving one or more dipole scatterings .
while there has been no detailed proof of the agk rules in qcd it is likely that they are correct and we assume that this is the case in the present paper .
we calculate @xmath9 the cross section for @xmath0 cut pomerons when @xmath0 takes values far above average
. the multiplicity of produced particles , in the central unit of rapidity , should be proportional to @xmath0 .
we begin by studying a toy model which obeys _ dipole _ evolution but where the absence of transverse dimensions makes analytic solutions to the multiplicity distribution possible .
our main result for the toy model is given in eq .
( [ eq : toysigk ] ) where @xmath9 is seen to decrease exponentially in @xmath10 at large @xmath0 , a tail much longer than that given by kno scaling @xcite .
we have not been able to solve the large @xmath0 behaviour for the @xmath0 cut pomeron contribution to a zero impact parameter collision in qcd , @xmath11 . however , monte carlo results obtained using oedipus ( onium evolution , dipole interaction and perturbative unitarisation software ) @xcite indicate a very similar @xmath0-dependence to that found in the toy model with an @xmath12 dependence at large @xmath0 . the same dependence , but with different values of @xmath13 and @xmath14 , also well describes onium - onium collisions integrated over impact parameter
the fact that the high multiplicity tail extends so far encourages one to believe that high parton density systems can be produced at reasonable accelerator energies if the right signal is found to trigger on the interesting physics associated with saturation .    in section 3 ,
we turn to a study of saturation @xcite , beginning with defining measures of saturation .
saturation effects show up as a modification of the simple branching picture of dipoles in constructing the square of the onium wave function .
thus , a non - independence of the dipoles in an onium wave function is a measure of saturation .
however , it is not known how to estimate the interaction of dipoles in an onium wave function directly .
one expects that the interaction of a slightly right - moving dipole with higher rapidity right - moving dipoles in a right - moving onium should be similar to that of a slightly left - moving dipole with the right - moving onium .
this latter interaction is just the scattering amplitude for a simple dipole with an onium state and is straightforward to calculate .
thus one measure of saturation of a light - cone onium wave function is the interaction probability with an opposite moving elementary dipole .
this measure of saturation is however time consuming to evaluate .
a more efficient measure is the _ overlap _ that a given dipole in the onium wave function has with all the other dipoles in the wave function .
happily , it turns out that these two measures are strongly correlated so that the simpler overlap measure can be used .
the toy model discussed earlier also furnishes a useful model of saturation .
saturation is expected to slow the growth of the number of dipoles . by comparing the cross section calculated in frames where the two incoming particles share the incoming energy differently , a consistency condition , requiring that the cross section be frame independent , gives sufficient information to determine dipole branching as a function of rapidity .
while at low energy the rate of parton evolution grows exponentially in rapidity , as in bfkl evolution , that rate reaches a constant ( saturates ) at high rapidity as shown in eq .
( [ eq : toyrsn ] ) .    the toy model can be used to study the intriguing , and still not well understood , relationship between unitarity limits and saturation . in qcd the centre of mass onium - onium scattering , at a fixed impact parameter ,
reaches the unitarity limit at energies well below that at which saturation effects begin to appear . however , if onium - onium scattering is viewed in a frame where , say , the left - moving onium has a small rapidity , the scattering looks exactly like the measure we have earlier discussed for saturation since now the left - moving onium is simply a single dipole
. thus the multiple scatterings in the centre of mass system must show up as saturation effects in a system where one of the onia carries almost all the energy .
this can be most sharply seen in the toy model by considering a toy onium scattering on a toy nucleus consisting of @xmath15 onia .
here it is found that saturation effects found earlier are exactly what is necessary to make _ onium - nucleus _ scattering the same in either the frame where the onium is at rest or in the frame where the nucleus is at rest .    in qcd
it is not possible to do such complete analytical calculations , however , we have found a phenomenological modification of dipole branching eq .
( [ eq : rlmdlstrn ] ) which makes onium - onium and onium - nucleus scattering reasonably frame independent .
one particularly sharp way to see the necessity of saturation effects and their frame dependence is to compare the s - matrix , at zero impact parameter , for onium - onium scattering in the centre of mass frame with that obtained in a laboratory frame at very high rapidities . at rapidities large enough so that the s - matrix has become very small the evaluation of the s - matrix neglecting saturation is determined by the very low multiplicity fluctuations of the wave function .
we find , on theoretical grounds and from numerical simulations , that @xmath16 .
however , without saturation effects @xmath17 is a factor of 2 larger in the lab frame than in the centre of mass .
saturation effects will slow the growth of dipoles in the laboratory frame so that the typical wave function configuration agrees with the centre of mass calculation coming from rare fluctuations .
this is exactly what happens in the toy model as can be seen by comparing eqs .
( [ eq : toysn ] ) and ( [ eq : toysotyp ] ) .    at large impact parameters , @xmath18 , we find that the property of the centre of mass frame , that saturation corrections set in much later than unitarity effects , starts to break down .
this is brought about by several factors . at large @xmath18
, the amplitude has a significant contribution from asymmetric onium - onium configurations , for example where one onium has a only central dense cluster of small dipoles ( of order of the onium size ) : for there to be an interaction the second onium must have small dipoles at the relevant large impact parameter , where they are likely to be much more dilute .
this kind of scattering looks similar to a lab frame collision , and hence the saturation and unitarity corrections will be similar .
a second point is that one might expect a distribution of large dipoles which looks relatively dilute , to have only small saturation corrections .
however , the sequence of evolution to produce this distribution will often have passed through a stage with a dense collection of small dipoles , whose evolution would be significantly altered by saturation effects , reducing the production of large dipoles in the first place .
overall , in the centre of mass frame , at large impact parameters , these effects combine to give saturation corrections of the same order as the unitarity corrections .
fortunately , the total scattering cross section is not too strongly affected by these large impact parameters , and it is still reasonable to neglect saturation effects in its calculation .
it is most useful to start from the agk cutting rules @xcite as expressed in @xcite .
the cross section , @xmath9 involving the exchange of exactly @xmath0 cut pomerons can be expressed as follows :    @xmath19    where @xmath20 is the amplitude for the exchange of @xmath21 pomerons . in this notation ,
the total cross section @xmath22 is    @xmath23    one knows from previous work @xcite that the terms of the sum in eq .
( [ eq : sigtotf ] ) diverge as a factorial , and therefore so will the terms in eq .
( [ eq : sigkf ] ) .
the reason for this divergence is that rare configurations of the onia contribute increasingly large amounts to the amplitudes for higher pomeron exchange .
the solution is to sum multiple pomeron amplitudes before averaging over onium configurations . applying this method here
one obtains the differential cross section for obtaining @xmath0 cut pomerons .
the @xmath21 pomeron amplitude for a fixed impact parameter @xmath24 between the two onia ( of sizes @xmath25 and @xmath26 , evolved to rapidities @xmath27 and @xmath28 ) is :    @xmath29    where @xmath30 is the two gluon exchange interaction amplitude between a pair of configurations @xmath31 and @xmath32 which occur with probabilities @xmath33 and @xmath34 from onia situated at @xmath35 and @xmath36 . substituting this into eq .
( [ eq : sigkf ] ) gives    @xmath37    the cross section for obtaining no cuts is the difference between the unitarised cross section and @xmath38 , which comes out as :    @xmath39    in the work that follows , @xmath27 will be set to @xmath40 , so that we will be examining the number of cuts at a central rapidity .      as was the case for the unitarised amplitude @xcite , the evaluation of eq .
( [ eq : sigkp ] ) is very difficult to do analytically , because it requires a detailed understanding of the distribution of dipole configurations for an onium .
however some of the features of multiple cut cross sections can be extracted by examining a `` toy '' model which has no transverse dimensions @xcite .
the main feature of the toy model is that the probability of obtaining a large number @xmath14 of dipoles has an exponential distribution , @xmath41 , where @xmath42 is the mean number of dipoles ( proportional to @xmath43 for an onium evolved to a rapidity @xmath27 ) .
one can show that in the case with transverse dimensions , the probability of obtaining a large density of dipoles also has a distribution which is an exponential in the density @xcite .
it is this similarity which leads to the correspondence between the toy model and the case with two transverse dimensions . in the toy model ,
the cross section for an interaction with @xmath0 cut pomerons is    @xmath44    where the interaction amplitude between two dipoles is defined to be @xmath45 ( equivalent to @xmath30 above ) .
there are two limits which can be taken .
let @xmath46 be the amplitude for exchange of one pomeron .
if @xmath47 , then unitarisation effects ( the exponential factor ) are unimportant , and the evaluation of the cuts cross sections is very similar to the evaluation of the multiple pomeron amplitudes @xcite :    @xmath48    the opposite limit is when unitarisation effects are important , @xmath49 ( and also @xmath50 ) . approximating the sums by integrals , and changing variables to @xmath51 and @xmath52 gives    @xmath53    performing the @xmath54 integration using the saddle point approximation , it is clear that the integral is dominated by a region where @xmath55 and @xmath14 are similar .
performing the second integration gives    @xmath56    the unusual feature of this result is the square root dependence on @xmath0 in the exponential .
given that the number of cuts is related to the final state multiplicity , one might have expected the usual kno type @xcite exponential distribution .
the origin of the @xmath1 behaviour is that , in the region of configuration space contributing to the @xmath0-cut amplitude , the factor @xmath57 is the most rapidly varying and fixes the dominant values of @xmath58 .
the probabilities associated with the relevant configurations just fix the normalisation , with @xmath59 .
one is most likely to find a similarity between the toy model results and the realistic situation , by examining the differential cut cross sections , which eliminates two of the transverse degrees of freedom . in @xcite correspondence between the toy model and monte carlo results for zero impact parameter
has already been established for the multiple pomeron exchange amplitudes .
the main difference was that where the quantity @xmath21 occurred in an expression relating to @xmath21-pomeron exchange , it had to be replaced with @xmath60 where @xmath14 was a constant which originated from the details of the dynamics in the transverse dimensions .
one might expect a similar effect when looking at cut cross sections , and one can examine the differential cross section for small impact parameters for behaviour of the form    @xmath61   \label{eq : sqrtfit}\ ] ]    where @xmath13 , @xmath62 , @xmath14 and @xmath31 are constants to be determined .
the first stage is to ensure that one really does have @xmath63 . by defining @xmath64 and plotting    @xmath65    ( essentially the ratio of first and second derivatives )
one can eliminate @xmath13 and @xmath62 .
figure  [ fig : rbc_v_sqrt ] shows this quantity as a function of @xmath0 , determined using the oedipus monte carlo simulation @xcite .
for @xmath0 sufficiently large , the linear behaviour is very clear , and the slope corresponds to @xmath66 .
the value of the intercept with the @xmath0 axis yields @xmath14 , which has a value of @xmath67 .
this is somewhat larger than the corresponding value found for multiple pomeron exchange ( @xmath68 , with @xmath69 ) .
the difference can be explained by arguing that the multiple pomeron and multiple cut cross sections are sensitive to the dipole distributions ( and the manner in which they differ from an exponential ) in different ways .
the other property to examine is the variation of @xmath13 with @xmath6 .
one clearly can not expect @xmath13 to be exactly @xmath70 , however it might be reasonable for it to be proportional to @xmath70 .
table  [ tbl : avf ] gives @xmath13 for two values of @xmath6 , indicating that to within the accuracy of the monte carlo results , this proportionality does hold .
.parameterisations of cut distributions at central impact parameters . [ cols="^,^,^,^,^",options="header " , ]     the dependence of the distributions on @xmath14 is relatively weak which is why it is not determined more accurately .
table  [ tbl : avf ] therefore confirms that for the zero impact parameter cross section the distribution scales as suggested by the toy model .
one can argue that events with @xmath0 cut pomerons will have a multiplicity proportional to @xmath0 . in an experimental situation , one might be able to determine the cross sections for various ranges of multiplicities , but this will correspond to cut cross sections integrated over impact parameter , for which there will not necessarily be any correspondence with the toy model . however figure  [ fig : tc_v_sqrt ] shows that a fit of the form eq .
( [ eq : sqrtfit ] )    @xmath71\ ] ]    works remarkably well .
the value of @xmath14 turns out to be considerably smaller than for eq .
( [ eq : sqrtfit ] ) : this is associated with the fact that at larger values of @xmath18 the value of @xmath14 decreases .
it is not clear why the @xmath72 behaviour also applies to the integrated cross section .
the results do however suggest that the variation of the coefficient @xmath13 with the rapidity is not as simple as in the toy model ( or in the fixed impact parameter case ) .
the numerical results for the variation with rapidity of the fraction of the cross section coming from different numbers of cuts is shown in figure  [ fig : allcuts_frac ] .      just as high numbers of pomeron exchange tend to be dominated by small impact parameters
, one can expect events with large numbers of cuts also to be relatively central , because they are dominated by dense configurations , which arise most commonly at small impact parameters .
this is illustrated in figure  [ fig : cmltv_cts ] , which shows @xmath73 , the fraction of the @xmath0-cut cross section which comes from impact parameters larger than @xmath74 , for various numbers of cuts , as a function of @xmath74 .
one sees for example that about half the one - cut cross section is coming from a region @xmath75 , whereas the first half of the 5-cut cross section comes from @xmath76 .
there is of course a limit to how central the many cut cross section can become , since any cross section is bound to be spread out over a region at least the size of the onia .
the no cut cross section is also quite central : like the many cut cross sections , it is particularly sensitive to dense configurations . note that all these cross sections have significant tails at large @xmath18 .
this is to be contrasted with the 5-pomeron curve , where the tail dies off quickly : the difference arises because of the unitarity corrections that are associated with multi - cut cross sections but not multi - pomeron contributions , and which limit the relative contributions from very dense configurations .
in the calculations performed to determine the unitarity corrections @xcite , it has been assumed that saturation of the wave function can be neglected .
the justification for doing this is that in a situation where both wave functions are evolved to @xmath40 , unitarisation corrections will set in when @xmath77 , while saturation corrections for a particular dipole will be of the order @xmath78 .
two problems can arise with this argument .
the first relates to the question of whether @xmath79 is small enough . in the calculations presented here , @xmath80
, so when unitarisation is important one might expect @xmath81 . since the conditions for saturation
can only be guessed to within a factor of order 1 , one is potentially close to the onset of saturation corrections as well .
secondly , the argument is based on the principle that the mean dipole density will be a good gauge of the saturation corrections .
however in the case of unitarisation corrections , it has been shown @xcite that the use of mean interactions can be very misleading . in this section
we will perform a more sophisticated analysis of the importance of saturation corrections , relative to unitarity corrections .
we will also present work on understanding wavefunction evolution once saturation becomes a large effect .
it is first necessary to develop a measure of saturation .
two methods will be used here .
firstly one can probe a wave function with an ( unevolved ) onium .
the two gluon exchange amplitude between the wave function and the onium indicates the local density dipoles of size similar to the onium and might be similar to the interaction that a dipole in the wave function would have with its neighbours .
since the dipole - dipole interaction has spikes wherever two sources overlap , one should average the interaction over a region of roughly the onium size .
the choice of the size of the region over which to average is one of the main uncertainties with this method .
it also has the disadvantage of being relatively slow , because one needs to determine dipole - dipole interactions at many points to determine the saturation over the whole extent of the wave function and if one wants the saturation associated with dipoles of different sizes , one must use probes of different sizes .
the second method is more arbitrary , but much faster to compute .
each dipole has an `` overlap '' associated with it . for each pair of dipoles within the onium wave function which are separated by less than a certain distance ( which will be a function of the dipole sizes ) the quantity @xmath82
is added to the overlap for each of the two dipoles ( where the smaller dipole has size @xmath83 and the larger , size @xmath84 ) .
this function is loosely based on the fact that the total two - gluon interaction amplitude between a pair of dipoles ( moving fast relative to each other ) has the form @xmath85 and that it is dominated by a region where the two dipoles are close in impact parameter .
this method has the advantage that one obtains a value of the saturation for each dipole .    comparing the two methods
one finds that there is a good ( linear ) correlation between them , as can be seen in figure  [ fig : op_histo ] which shows the frequency distribution for configurations with various values of @xmath86 ( the maximum interaction with the probe ) and @xmath87 ( the maximum overlap ) .
one can carry out other comparisons , in particular , considering the location in impact parameter of the maximum saturation , and one again finds that the two methods give very similar results .
in addition , if one examines other values of rapidity , one finds that the factor relating @xmath86 and @xmath87 stays approximately the same .
the degree of saturation is obviously just related to the density of dipoles .
therefore the distribution of @xmath86 should be related to the probability of obtaining large densities , which has been shown to be exponential @xcite , the slope of the exponential being proportional to the mean density of dipoles . instead of searching the whole relevant region of impact parameter for the location of @xmath86 ,
one finds the location of the dipole corresponding to @xmath87 and bases the search for @xmath86 around that point .
the probe size is always the same as the onium size .
one finds , as expected , that @xmath86 also shows an exponential behaviour , with a slope varying in proportion to the local density of dipoles .
one also finds that the maximum saturation is usually close to the original onium which is also unsurprising since that is where the evolution has the longest rapidity range to produce a large number of dipoles .
while these properties are of general interest , one of the main reason for studying saturation is to see whether it is likely to affect the onium - onium cross section .
so one needs to know the typical values of @xmath86 and also the correlation between @xmath86 for a pair of onium configurations and the interaction cross section for that pair of configurations .
the most appropriate value of rapidity to examine is @xmath88 , since this is the rapidity for which the mean 1-pomeron amplitude at @xmath89 , @xmath90 , is equal to 1 ( the unitarity bound ) .
consider first the ` unweighted ' curve of figure  [ fig : sig_nw ] : this corresponds to the probability distribution of @xmath86 in onium - onium collisions with a total rapidity @xmath88 .
the rapidity for each onium is @xmath91 .
@xmath86 is now defined to be the larger of the @xmath86 values for the two onium configurations .
one sees that typical values of saturation are @xmath92 .
the exponential probability distribution for large saturation is relatively clear .
more relevant though are the distributions weighted with the onium - onium cross section for each configuration pair : the weighted distributions correspond to the fraction of the cross section coming from configuration pairs with a certain @xmath86 , and one sees that the typical saturation has increased to be in the range @xmath93 .
there are two main reasons why configuration pairs with larger cross sections are associated with larger saturation .
firstly if one of the onia has a high density of dipoles in some region , then the interaction of that region with a second onium will be enhanced .
a second possibility , which we will consider in more detail later , is that configurations which lead to a large interaction ( e.g. those with large dipoles ) are most likely to be produced through branching sequences which pass through a high density stage .
there remains the problem of assessing the effect that this degree of saturation would have .
one can assume that saturation will start to become important when @xmath94 , but this is a very approximate condition , being uncertain to within at least a factor of two .
this factor of two is critical : if the condition for saturation is @xmath95 then there will be no problem with saturation at @xmath88 , on the other hand if it is @xmath96 then saturation could significantly alter the results at this rapidity .
if saturation is important then one wants to know how it will affect the evolution : for example the saturation might be large in one region of impact parameter , but the bulk of the cross section might come from different regions , not affected by saturation .
the next sections address these and other issues .
one approach to the problem is again from the toy model , using the condition that the scattering amplitude must be independent of the frame in which calculation is performed .
equivalently , it should nt matter which of the two onia one chooses to evolve . starting with a state containing @xmath14 dipoles ,
the rate of branching into a state containing @xmath97 dipoles is defined to be @xmath98 , while the interaction between two states with @xmath14 and @xmath55 dipoles respectively is @xmath99 .
if the evolution is partitioned such that for an increase @xmath100 in total rapidity , the onium with @xmath14 dipoles evolves by @xmath101 and the one with @xmath55 dipoles evolves by @xmath102 , then the evolution of the amplitude @xmath103 will be    @xmath104 +               ( 1-\xi ) r_m \left[f(n , m+1 ) - f(n , m ) \right ] \label{eq : toyinv1p}\ ] ]    in the case of one pomeron exchange , one has @xmath105 and @xmath106 ( where @xmath107 sets the strength of the interaction ) , giving    @xmath108   { \ensuremath{({\ensuremath{\alpha_{\mathcal{p}}}}-1)}}f { \ensuremath{\alpha_s}}^2 nm\ ] ]    which is clearly independent of @xmath54 .
if for @xmath99 one uses the form which includes unitarity corrections , @xmath109 $ ] , one obtains the following expression for the evolution of the interaction :    @xmath110      e^{-{\ensuremath{\alpha_s}}^2 mn } \label{eq : toyinv}\ ] ]    where the superscript @xmath111 indicates that saturation is being taken into account . the condition that the growth of the cross section be independent of @xmath54 , as well as one s knowledge of the branching rate for small @xmath14 ( where saturation should be unimportant ) leads to the following expression for the rate of branching :    @xmath112    note that though the interaction with a second onium was used in the determination of this branching rate , the result is independent of the state of the second onium .    to see what effect saturation will have on the final probability distribution of dipoles , one can use the following arguments .
first take the case without saturation , in the continuum limit for @xmath14 .
the probability distribution satisfies    @xmath113    changing variables to @xmath114 , @xmath115 and @xmath116 , one has    @xmath117    whose solution ( from our knowledge that @xmath118 $ ] ) is    @xmath119    in the case with saturation one has    @xmath120    by an appropriate change of variables , @xmath121 , @xmath115 and @xmath122 $ ] , one can obtain an equation identical to eq .
( [ eq : qnu ] )    @xmath123    because , in the limit of small @xmath14 and @xmath124 , @xmath125 and @xmath126 , the equation for @xmath127 will have the same initial conditions as that for @xmath128 and therefore their solutions will be the same . translating this back to the variables @xmath129 and @xmath14 , one has    @xmath130 .
\label{eq : pssln}\ ] ]    for @xmath131 this approximates to the solution without saturation .
the main feature of this solution though is that at large @xmath27 , instead of there being an exponential distribution in @xmath14 with mean @xmath132 , one now has a solution which has a maximum at    @xmath133 , \label{eq : strnmaxn}\ ] ]    and which dies off quickly beyond that .
the solution eq .
( [ eq : pssln ] ) breaks down because the continuum limit used in its derivation is no longer valid ( @xmath129 varies too rapidly over a range @xmath134 ) .
numerical solution shows though that there is still a rapid fall off beyond the maximum , having roughly a poisson distribution , since the branching rate @xmath135 becomes independent of @xmath14 . ]    one effect of this modified probability distribution is to increase the value of the @xmath136-matrix at very large rapidities .
if one calculates the @xmath136-matrix in a centre of mass frame ( rapidity @xmath6 divided equally between the two onia ) neglecting saturation one obtains @xcite :    @xmath137 .
\label{eq : toy_cm_ns}\ ] ]    note that this is much larger than the value of the @xmath136-matrix that one obtains from typical configurations ( namely @xmath138 ) .
this difference arises because the @xmath136-matrix is dominated by a small fraction of configurations which have few dipoles .
calculating the @xmath136-matrix including saturation ( done in the lab frame , to reduce sensitivity to the use of the continuum limit , though the result is of course independent of frame ) , one obtains    @xmath139 .
\label{eq : toy_cm_st}\ ] ]    when @xmath140 , eqs .
( [ eq : toy_cm_ns ] ) and ( [ eq : toy_cm_st ] ) give the same result , consistent with the idea that saturation should not be important in the centre of mass frame for that energy range .
however for @xmath141 , eqs .
( [ eq : toy_cm_ns ] ) and ( [ eq : toy_cm_st ] ) do differ ( the saturated case has a logarithmic dependence on energy , absent from the calculation without saturation ) , because saturation then matters in the evolution of the onium wave functions , even in the centre of mass frame .
while this approach works well for the toy model , in the real case , an analogous method will turn out to be too complex to be useful .
nevertheless one can also make use of the effect of a change of frame on the average ( unitarised ) amplitude .
the simplest pair of frames to examine would be centre of mass and lab frames for onium - onium scattering .
however one finds that , except for logarithmic factors , the @xmath136-matrix behaves in a very similar way in the two .
consider instead collisions between a toy onium and a toy `` nucleus '' consisting of @xmath15 onia .
two frames will be used : a lab frame @xmath142 where the onium is at rest , and a lab frame @xmath143 where the nucleus is at rest .
at high energies ( neglecting saturation ) , in frame @xmath143 , with the onium being evolved , the matrix is approximately    @xmath144    except for logarithmic terms ( and the factor @xmath15 ) this has the same leading energy behaviour as the centre of mass onium - onium @xmath136-matrix , and is similarly dominated by those rare configurations of the onium which have few dipoles ( the common configurations have such a large number of dipoles that their contribution to the @xmath136-matrix can be neglected ) .    in the @xmath142 frame
, it is the nucleus which it is evolved . assuming for the sake of the argument that the constituent onia evolve independently ( consistent with our neglect of saturation ) , configurations with few dipoles will be much rarer , because they require that none of the @xmath15 constituent onia should have evolved much . accordingly , when one calculates the @xmath136-matrix , one finds    @xmath145    which is much smaller than the result in the @xmath143 frame .
one way of restoring the correspondence is by requiring that saturation alter the probability distribution of the number of dipoles so that the value of the @xmath136-matrix for a _ typical _ configuration of the nucleus is now    @xmath146    equivalently the typical number of dipoles must be of the order of @xmath147/ ( f{\ensuremath{\alpha_s}}^2)$ ] .
note that this is just the result of eq .
( [ eq : strnmaxn ] ) ( except for the @xmath148 term which is a result of the use of nuclei ) .
the advantage of examining the effect of frame changes on the average @xmath136-matrix is that one can transfer the arguments fairly straightforwardly to the case of scattering with transverse dimensions .
the real case , including transverse dimensions , is very much more complicated , to a large extent because the dipole picture breaks down at high dipole densities and one needs to take into account quadrupoles , hexapoles , and other more complicated colour structures @xcite .
this section will deal with various approaches that one can nevertheless try in order to deduce more information about the effects of saturation in the real case , still using the requirement of frame independence .
it is simple to write down the equation which must be satisfied for frame independence to hold
. this will be the equivalent ( with transverse dimensions ) of the independence of eqs .
( [ eq : toyinv1p ] ) and ( [ eq : toyinv ] ) on @xmath54 .
let @xmath31 be a particular gluon configuration and @xmath149 be the set of all colour configurations with an extra gluon added at transverse position @xmath25 , with @xmath150 being any particular one of these . in the dipole approximation ( large @xmath7 ) , a particular @xmath150 corresponds to the gluon having originated from a particular dipole .
define also @xmath151 to be the interaction between configurations @xmath31 and @xmath32 ( moving in opposite directions ) when they have a relative separation in impact parameter of @xmath24 .
then for the scattering to be frame independent ( or equivalently for it not to matter which onium is evolved ) the rate of evolution @xmath152 must satisfy    @xmath153    in the case of of the one - pomeron approximation for the scattering amplitude @xmath103 , and the normal dipole evolution kernel for @xmath74 , if one can show that eq .
( [ eq : realinv ] ) holds for a single dipole in each onium , then because dipoles in each onium interact ( and evolve ) independently of one another eq .
( [ eq : realinv ] ) automatically holds for any collection of dipoles in each onium . the fact that eq .
( [ eq : realinv ] ) holds for the 1-pomeron case is a result of the conformal invariance of the dipole - dipole interaction and of the dipole evolution kernel .
the details are given in the appendix .
the effect of including multi - pomeron interactions is to connect the interaction of different dipoles within the same onium , and as a result dipoles no longer necessarily evolve independently of one another : this is the breakdown of the dipole picture of evolution which necessitates that one take into account quadrupoles and more complicated terms .
unfortunately it has not so far been possible to solve eq .
( [ eq : realinv ] ) to obtain detailed information on the effects of saturation .
one can nevertheless use frame independence to deduce some limited information .
we will first examine the effect of saturation on central impact parameters .
the argument will be along similar lines to the toy - model approach discussed at the end of the last section , except that now it will just be sufficient to consider simple onium - onium scattering in lab ( @xmath154 ) and centre of mass ( @xmath155 ) frames .
it has been shown in @xcite that there is a close correspondence between toy model and real results for the probability distribution of the number of dipoles when this number is high compared to the mean .
however the arguments used here depend on the probabilities of having unusually low dipole densities , where the toy model is a poor approximation to the real case . in a lab frame one
finds that the @xmath136-matrix is approximately @xmath156 instead of @xmath157 in the toy model .
qualitatively , the difference can be understood as coming from the extra dynamics associated with the diffusion in dipole sizes . in the toy model ,
the probability of having no evolution is just the exponentially suppressed probability of a single dipole not branching over a rapidity @xmath6 . in the real case the probability ( @xmath158 ) of a dipole of size @xmath159 not producing any new dipoles larger than a small size @xmath160
is    @xmath161    the extra element which arises is in the choice of @xmath160 , since in the rapidity interval @xmath6 one must also require that none of the dipoles produced below size @xmath160 branch back up into ones of size @xmath159 . forcing the probability of producing an extra large dipole from the small dipoles to be small ( approximately @xmath162 ) , one obtains the condition @xmath163 which leads to the observed dependence of the @xmath136-matrix on @xmath164 ( since the @xmath136-matrix is dominated by the configurations with small interactions and therefore few dipoles ) .
the behaviour in the centre of mass frame will be similar , except that the condition for a small interaction will be that both onia should be unevolved , so    @xmath165   = \exp\left[-c\frac{(y - y_0')^2}{2 } \right]\ ] ]    the value of @xmath166 is different from @xmath167 because it depends on the interaction between the two onia , the details of which are different in the lab and centre of mass frames .
figure  [ fig : smat_lgdrv ] shows results from the monte carlo simulation , plotting the derivative of @xmath168 .
the clear straight line behaviour at the higher values of @xmath6 is the signal of the @xmath164 term in the exponent .
fits to the slopes of the derivatives show exactly the predicted factor of two between the lab and centre of mass frames . for @xmath169 ,
the value of @xmath17 is @xmath170 .
if one performs similar calculations for onium - nucleus collisions , one expects ( and sees ) very similar behaviour : in the @xmath143 frame , the slope is identical to the onium - onium lab frame results , and the @xmath142 slope is twice the @xmath143 slope ( where the nucleus consists of two onia ) .
since , for onium - onium collisions , the asymptotic value of the @xmath136-matrix is much smaller in the lab frame than in the centre of mass frame , one concludes that saturation in the lab frame will increase the @xmath136-matrix , and so that the _ typical _ value of the @xmath136-matrix , including saturation will be    @xmath171    very different from the typical value without saturation , @xmath172 $ ] .
this behaviour of the @xmath136-matrix can related to the typical fields in an evolved onium or nucleus and this is done in @xcite .      a second approach to saturation in the real case
is intended to give some information on what happens at non - zero impact parameters .
first one can compare the unitarised amplitude for the lab and centre of mass frames as a function of @xmath18 ( the amplitudes have been multiplied by @xmath173 to indicate which regions contribute most to the total cross section ) .
this is shown , used for the unitarised interaction from a pair of configurations which give an interaction @xmath107 with one pomeron exchange , breaks down when the number of interacting dipoles in either of the onia is small and also when the fields in either onium become too strong . ] in figure  [ fig : unit_nosat ] .
the slight mismatch between the 1-pomeron curves at moderate @xmath18 is due to statistical error ( the amplitude at larger values of @xmath18 comes from very rare configurations ) .
as one expects , due to the neglect of saturation , the unitarity corrections in the lab frame are significantly smaller than in the centre of mass frame .
note in particular though that whereas at small impact parameters the difference between the two frames is only a small fraction of the unitarisation corrections , at large impact parameters , most of the unitarity corrections present in the centre of mass frame are absent in the lab frame .
this suggests that in the lab frame , saturation effects will in fact be considerably larger than the unitarity corrections at large @xmath18 .
one way of investigating this further is to try to include some simulation of the effects of saturation .
the problem is that one does nt know how to include saturation effects .
our approach will be to use a very simple model of saturation which retains the basic properties of normal dipole evolution and where saturation changes only the rate of dipole branching , not the spatial distribution .
this is not expected to give accurate quantitative information on evolution with saturation , only to produce some understanding of the types of effects which are liable to be important if one does take saturation into account properly . in analogy with the toy model
, we will use a rate of branching , @xmath174 , of a dipole @xmath175 of size @xmath159 into two , of sizes @xmath83 ( the smaller ) and @xmath84 ( the larger ) including saturation , of    @xmath176    and where @xmath177 is the normal rate of branching ( i.e.without saturation ) .
the overlap measure of saturation , @xmath178 , is used because it is much faster to calculate , and during the monte carlo evolution , it will be the calculation of the saturations for each dipole which will be the limiting factor .
since the functional form of this saturation is taken from the toy model , one does not know what normalisation @xmath179 to use for the overlaps .
the procedure used for choosing @xmath179 will be to find a value which gives a frame independent result for @xmath180 ( @xmath18 is the relative impact parameter between the colliding onia ) at a single value of rapidity ( which is always possible ) , and then to see whether this also works at other values of @xmath18 and rapidity .
this has been done for @xmath181 , where we take @xmath182 .
reexpressing this in terms of the a more natural quantity , the probe interaction @xmath183 , this corresponds to a modification of the branching rate by a factor @xmath184 , which seems reasonable .
figure  [ fig : unit_sat ] shows the scattering amplitudes for centre of mass and lab frames , including saturation for @xmath88 .
the one - pomeron and unitarised centre of mass results are also plotted for reference .
the procedure has worked insofar as the results in the two frames agree for small @xmath18 for the second rapidity . at larger @xmath18
there is still a small discrepancy between the two frames : the lab frame result is too low  there is a little bit too much saturation at large @xmath18  this discrepancy is however small compared to the overall effect of saturation at those values of @xmath18 .
the same is found at all other values of rapidity ( including @xmath181 ) .
other implementations of saturation ( i.e.  with different forms for eq .
( [ eq : rlmdlstrn ] ) ) , give very similar results , as long as the effect of saturation on branching rates is linear for small overlaps .    as a second check on this form of saturation
, one can examine onium - nucleus collisions . as well as the two lab frames discussed earlier
we examine also a `` centre of mass '' frame ( or more accurately , a frame in which the mean number of central dipoles is the same for the onium and the nucleus ) . neglecting saturation
one expects the @xmath142 frame to have the lowest unitarity corrections ( since with the nucleus containing all the rapidity , it will have the largest saturation corrections ) , followed by the @xmath143 and cm frames .
figure  [ fig : us_nclr ] shows this ordering of the amplitudes .
once saturation is included ( using exactly the same procedure as for onium - onium collisions ) , the three frames give very similar amplitudes , though again there is a small discrepancy at larger @xmath18 .
it would be interesting to examine how this implementation of saturation affects the typical @xmath136-matrix for small impact parameters , and whether this is in accord with the arguments presented earlier .
however the asymptotic @xmath185 behaviour sets in only for relatively large rapidities ( one needs @xmath186 ) , and calculation of the saturation corrections at these rapidities is extremely time consuming ( because the calculation time is proportional to the square of the number of dipoles ) and therefore not feasible .    considering the difference between the amplitude in the centre of mass frame with and without saturation , at small @xmath18 , saturation seems to have a fairly small effect on the centre of mass amplitude .
this is as expected from the basic argument that each onium has half the rapidity , and should be well away from saturation when unitarity corrections start to set in . at large @xmath18 , however , the effect of saturation is bigger , and in fact of the same order as the unitarisation correction ( which relates to the observation for figure  [ fig : unit_nosat ] that at larger @xmath18 there is a big difference between the centre of mass and lab frame results , indicating that saturation must have a significant effect at large @xmath18 ) .
the dynamics involved in producing the effects saturation at large @xmath18 are complex : because the unitarisation corrections are small , the densities of dipoles must be small , and one might be misled into thinking that saturation corrections should unimportant .
one reason why this argument fails is that there are a variety of ways in which large @xmath18 interaction can occur .
a large dipole can be produced early in the evolution , which can then evolve to produce many other dipoles of similar size and the final density of dipoles will be indicative of the relevant saturation corrections ( these evolution paths tend to also have significant unitarity corrections ) .
another evolution path involves only small dipoles for most of the rapidity and a branching to larger dipoles at a late stage .
the evolution of the small dipoles may have been subjected to significant saturation ; but once the branching occurs to large dipoles , unitarity corrections and any further saturation corrections ( at the large scale ) are no longer affected by what is happening on the small scale .
the history of saturation can therefore have an important effect on the evolution , even though the diluteness of the final configuration might make one think one could neglect saturation .
this is illustrated in the upper part of figure  [ fig : strn_pths ] : at two values of rapidity ( @xmath187 and @xmath188 ) , the maximum dipole size , @xmath189 is determined .
the maximum overlap , @xmath87 is then calculated for all dipoles with size @xmath17 , where @xmath190 , in effect giving the saturation on the scale of the largest dipole .
the figure shows the ratio @xmath191 , the increase in saturation ( on the largest scale ) , as a function of @xmath192 , the increase in the largest dipole size .
the main point is that when there is a large increase in dipole size , the ratio of the saturations drops to below one , confirming that if one looks only at the final configuration , the history of the saturation can be hidden .
a similar reduction of saturation with increasing rapidity can probably also take place for the small dipoles produced from large ones ( since the small ones will be more dilutely spread out ) .
a second effect is shown in the lower part of figure  [ fig : strn_pths ] : the production of a large dipole tends to be a rare event . by a simple probabilistic argument , the larger the number of dipoles on a small scale , the greater the likelihood that at least one of them will branch to give a large dipole , which means that evolution paths that produce a large dipole are more likely to include an intermediate high saturation stage .
the lower plot of figure  [ fig : strn_pths ] demonstrates this by showing the maximum saturation ( again on the largest scales ) at @xmath193 as a function of the ratio of the largest scales at @xmath188 and @xmath193 .
as the ratio of the scales increases so does the maximum intermediate saturation .    finally in the centre of mass frame , one has the possibility of situations where one of the onia is small and moderately dense , while the other has a dilute distribution of small dipoles ( the only ones which will interact with the small dense onium ) at large @xmath18 .
the saturation corrections in the evolution of the small dense onium will then be of the same order as the unitarity corrections between the two at large @xmath18 onia , i.e.  there is an asymmetry between the two onia ( and arguments for neglecting saturation when unitarity corrections set in , rely on the symmetry between the two onia ) .
this is distinct from the @xmath89 case where moderate densities of dipoles in _ each _ onium led to strongly unitarised amplitude .    the conclusions therefore , from the simple simulation of saturation effects , and from the other arguments presented above ,
is that at large impact parameters , it is not necessarily safe to neglect saturation corrections compared to unitarity corrections , and further that large dipoles , even when dilute , may have been produced via a high saturation stage .
this might be of some concern when determining the corrections to the total cross section , which has a significant component coming from moderate to large @xmath18 .
however , to the extent that it is possible to gain any quantitative information from our simple simulation of saturation , one finds that in the total cross section , saturation corrections ( up to @xmath194 ) are no more than a third of the unitarity corrections .
we are grateful to b.r .
webber for many useful discussions .
one of the authors ( am ) wishes to thank peter landshoff and bryan webber for their kind hospitality and pparc for a visiting fellowship during his visit to cambridge , in june of 1995 , where this work began .
this section demonstrates the invariance of the one - pomeron scattering amplitude on the choice of frame .
we show that it is invariant for a single dipole in each onium . because each dipole evolves independently , and because its interaction with the other onium is independent of the other dipoles in the onium to which it belongs , this will imply that the onium - onium scattering amplitude is invariant under changes of frames at the one - pomeron level .
let the first dipole have sources at @xmath195 and @xmath196 , and the second dipole have sources at @xmath197 and @xmath198 ( with the @xmath199 being complex variables , and @xmath200 their complex conjugates ) .
the condition for invariance of the scattering amplitude on the division of a small amount of rapidity between them is , eq .
( [ eq : realinv ] ) , which can be written as              has the property of mapping @xmath205 , @xmath206 , @xmath207 and @xmath208 , thus converting the lower integral in eq .
( [ eq : onedipinv ] ) to the upper integral ( and vice - versa ) .
since the integrands are invariant under conformal transformations , this proves the equality , and therefore the invariance of the one - pomeron onium - onium scattering amplitude on the frame in which the calculation is performed , if the evolution is carried out using the dipole kernel and the interaction is by two gluon exchange .


in [ 18 ] tierney and vogel for any functor @xmath0 , where @xmath1 is a category with finite limits and with a projective class @xmath2 , and @xmath3 is an abelian category , have constructed derived functors and investigated relationships of their theory with other theories of derived functors .
namely , they have shown that if @xmath1 is abelian and @xmath4 is additive , then their theory coincides with the classical relative theory of eilenberg - moore [ 7 ] , whereas if @xmath1 is abelian and @xmath4 is an arbitrary functor , then it gives a generalization of the theory of dold - puppe [ 6 ] . besides , they showed that their derived functors are naturally isomorphic to the cotriple derived functors of barr - beck [ 3 ] if there is a cotriple in @xmath1 that realizes the given projective class @xmath2 .
the key point in the construction of the derived functors by tierney and vogel is that , using @xmath2-projective objects and simplicial kernels , for every @xmath5 from @xmath1 a @xmath2-projective resolution can be constructed , which is an @xmath5-augmented pseudosimplicial object in @xmath1 and which for a given @xmath5 is unique up to a presimplicial homotopy ( according to the comparison theorem for @xmath2-projective resolutions ) .
a natural question arises about constructing a cubical analog of the theory of tierney and vogel .
exactly this is the purpose of this paper .    before turning to the content of the paper itself ,
let us say few words about cubical objects and techniques .
as it is well known , simplicial methods are developed for long time and are successfully used in algebra and topology . with less success , but still also cubical techniques have been developed , which was initiated on one hand by the systematic use of singular cubes in the singular homology theory of topological spaces ( see , for example , [ 14 ] ) , and , on the other hand , by the papers of kan [ 12 , 13 ] which have related cubical sets to homotopy theory .
further research ( see e.  g. [ 1,2,4,5,8 - 11,16,17,19 ] ) has also shown that the cubical approach is interesting and important .
cubical objects have a number of advantages compared to the simplicial ones .
for example , a ( pre)cubical homotopy is given by a single morphism in each dimension , whereas a ( pre)simplicial homotopy requires `` many '' morphisms . on the other hand ,
significant disadvantages of the cubical technique with respect to the simplicial one are also apparent .
for example , a cubical group , in fact even a cubical abelian group , can fail to satisfy the kan condition [ 16,17 ] . in the context of elimination of these and other disadvantages of the cubical theory , of extreme importance
are cubical objects with connections introduced by brown and higgins [ 4 ] .
these objects are cubical objects with extra degeneracies , called connections .
to stress importance and naturality of cubical objects with connections it suffices to name e.  g. the following three facts .
the singular cubical complex of any topological space has naturally defined connections .
next , tonks in [ 19 ] has shown that any cubical group with connections satisfies the kan condition .
finally , brown and higgins [ 5 ] have recently proved that the category of cubical objects with connections in an abelian category is equivalent to the category of nonnegative chain complexes in the same category .    in this paper
we introduce pseudocubical objects with pseudoconnections , obtained from the brown - higgins structure of a cubical object with connections by suitably relaxing their identities .
projective precubical resolutions which we are using to construct cubical derived functors possess pseudodegeneracies and pseudoconnections and this fact is essentially used in the construction of derived functors defined by us .
now let us list the contents of the paper by sections .
in section [ prelim ] we recall the notions of presimplicial , pseudosimplicial and simplicial objects , precubical , cubical objects and cubical objects with connections , their morphisms , and the respective augmented versions of these notions .
we also recall the definitions of normalization functors in the simplicial setting by moore , and in the cubical setting by wiatek [ 16 ] .
furthermore we recall the kan cubical sets and their homotopy groups .    for any presimplicial object @xmath6 in an abelian category @xmath1 the normalized chain complex of @xmath6 , denoted by @xmath7 in this paper , is a chain subcomplex of the unnormalized chain complex of @xmath6 , denoted by @xmath8 .
the well known moore theorem says that if @xmath6 is a simplicial object in @xmath1 , then this inclusion is a chain homotopy equivalence ( in fact this is valid for any pseudosimplicial object in @xmath1 ) . on the other hand , for any precubical object @xmath9 in an abelian category @xmath1 , one has the canonical inclusion @xmath10 of chain complexes @xmath11 and @xmath12 in @xmath1 which are cubical analogs of @xmath7 and @xmath8 ( see [ 16 , 17 ] ) respectively , and which functorially depend on @xmath9 . in section 2
we introduce pseudocubical objects with pseudoconnections and prove that @xmath13 is a chain homotopy equivalence for any pseudocubical object @xmath9 with pseudoconnections ( in particular for any cubical object @xmath9 with connections ) .
thus we obtain a cubical analog of the moore theorem .
then we establish some results which are not needed later on ; however they seem interesting by themselves .
let us mention some of them .
we indicate an alternative proof of the aforementioned brown - higgins equivalence . furthermore , we point out that this equivalence is realized by the above functor @xmath14 .
next , we show that if @xmath15 is a kan cubical group , then @xmath16 , the @xmath17-th homotopy group of @xmath15 , coincides with @xmath18 , the @xmath17-th homology group of @xmath19 ( note that @xmath19 and @xmath18 are defined for any cubical group @xmath15 as well ) . using this and the cubical analog of the moore theorem together with the aforementioned result of tonks
, we get that @xmath16 is naturally isomorphic to @xmath20 for any cubical abelian group @xmath15 with connections .
let @xmath1 be a category with finite limits and a projective class @xmath2 , @xmath3 an abelian category , and @xmath0 an arbitrary ( covariant ) finctor . in section 3
we construct left cubical derived functors @xmath21 , @xmath22 , @xmath23 , as follows .
first we show how to build for any object @xmath5 from @xmath1 an @xmath5-augmented @xmath2-projective precubical resolution , denoted @xmath24 , by means of cubical kernels and @xmath2-projective objects
. then we prove the comparison theorem which in particular says that @xmath24 is unique up to precubical homotopy for a given @xmath5 .
furthermore , it is shown that any @xmath2-projective precubical resolution @xmath24 is in fact an augmented pseudocubical object with pseudoconnections .
we define @xmath25 , @xmath23 , to be the @xmath17-th homology of @xmath26 .
besides the comparison theorem , the fact that @xmath27 has pseudodegeneracies is crucial in proving that @xmath25 are well - defined and functorially depend on @xmath5 .
this contrasts with the construction of the derived functors by tierney and vogel which does not use existence of pseudodegeneracies in @xmath2-projective presimplicial resolutions ( pseudodegeneracies of @xmath2-projective presimplicial resolutions are essentially used when the theory of tierney and vogel is compared with other theories of derived functors ) .
further , we define @xmath28 , @xmath23 , to be the @xmath17-th homology group of @xmath29 .
now this construction essentially uses the fact that @xmath27 is a pseudocubical object with pseudoconnections , i.  e. , this is crucial for proving that @xmath30 are well - defined and functorial in @xmath5 .
the cubical analog of the moore theorem proved in the previous section shows that in fact there are isomorphisms @xmath31 , @xmath23 , which are natural in @xmath5 and @xmath4 .
suppose @xmath1 is an abelian category with a projective class @xmath2 , @xmath3 an abelian category , and @xmath0 an additive ( covariant ) functor .
then one constructs , with respect to @xmath2 , the left derived functors @xmath32 ( @xmath23 ) of @xmath4 in the sense of eilenberg - moore [ 7 ] . on the other hand ,
since any abelian category admits finite limits , we can build @xmath2-projective precubical resolutions , and therefore can construct the cubical left derived functors @xmath33 , @xmath23 . in section 4 , using once again the cubical analog of the moore theorem , we prove that if @xmath2 is closed [ 7 ] or , more generally , is closed with respect to retracts , then there are isomorphisms @xmath34 , @xmath35 , @xmath23 , which are natural in @xmath5 and @xmath4 .
we begin with the following known definitions .
a presimplicial object @xmath6 in a category @xmath1 is a family of objects @xmath36 together with face @xmath1-morphisms @xmath37    a morphism @xmath38 between presimplicial objects in a category @xmath1 is a family of @xmath1-morphisms @xmath39 which commute with the face operators .
if @xmath9 and @xmath40 are ( pseudo)simplicial objects , then the @xmath1-morphisms @xmath41 must commute with the face and ( pseudo)degeneracy operators .    a precubical object @xmath9 in a category @xmath1 is a family of objects @xmath42 together with @xmath1-morphisms @xmath43 satisfying @xmath44 the @xmath1-morphisms @xmath45 and @xmath46 are called face operators .    a cubical object @xmath9 in a category @xmath1 is a family of objects @xmath47 together with @xmath1-morphisms @xmath48 as above and @xmath49 which satisfy @xmath50 where @xmath51 .
the @xmath1-morphisms @xmath52 are called degeneracy operators .
[ [ 4 ] ] a cubical object @xmath9 in a category @xmath1 is said to have connections if there are given @xmath1-morphisms @xmath53 satisfying @xmath54    the singular cubical complex @xmath55 of a topological space @xmath9 is a cubical object with connections in the category of sets .
the connections @xmath56 are defined by @xmath57^n\to x\right)(t_1,t_2, ... ,t_{n+1})=f(t_1, ... ,t_{i-1},\max(t_i , t_{i+1}),t_{i+2}, ... ,t_{n+1}).\ ] ]    a morphism @xmath38 between precubical objects in a category @xmath1 is a family of @xmath1-morphisms @xmath39 which commute with the face operators . if @xmath9 and @xmath40 are cubical objects , then the @xmath1-morphisms @xmath41 must commute with the face and degeneracy operators ; and if @xmath9 and @xmath40 are cubical objects with connections , then the @xmath1-morphisms @xmath41 must commute with the faces , degeneracies and connections .    for any category @xmath1 ,
let us denote by @xmath58 the category of presimplicial objects in @xmath1 , by @xmath59 the category of precubical objects in @xmath1 , by @xmath60 the category of cubical objects in @xmath61 , and by @xmath62 the category of cubical objects with connections in @xmath1 .
let @xmath1 be an abelian category , and @xmath63 the category of non - negatively graded chain complexes in @xmath1 .
we essentially use the normalization functor @xmath64 of wiatek [ 16 , 17 ] which is constructed as follows .
if @xmath65 and @xmath66 is a precubical morphism , then define @xmath67    of less importance for us is the functor @xmath68 which is defined for arbitrary abelian category @xmath1 by @xmath69 ( see [ 16 , 17 ] ) .
let @xmath1 be again an abelian category .
recall the definition of the moore normalization functor @xmath70 assume @xmath6 , @xmath71 and @xmath72 is a presimplicial morphism .
then @xmath73 one also has the functor @xmath74 assigning to @xmath75 its unnormalized chain complex .
more precisely , @xmath76    an augmented precubical ( resp .
presimplicial ) object in a category @xmath1 is a precubical ( resp .
presimplicial ) object @xmath9 in @xmath1 together with an object @xmath35 and an @xmath1-morphism @xmath77 satisfying @xmath78 ( resp .
@xmath79 ) .
such an object is denoted by @xmath80 .
a morphism between @xmath80 and @xmath81 is a morphism @xmath82 between @xmath9 and @xmath40 together with an @xmath1-morphism @xmath83 satisfying @xmath84 .
denote the category of augmented precubical ( resp .
presimplicial ) objects in @xmath1 by @xmath85 ( resp .
@xmath86 ) , by @xmath87 the category of augmented pseudosimplicial objects in @xmath1 , and by @xmath88 the category of augmented simplicial objects in @xmath1 .
assume @xmath1 is abelian .
then a nonnegative chain complex in @xmath1 augmented over @xmath35 is a nonnegative chain complex @xmath9 in @xmath1 together with an @xmath1-morphism @xmath77 satisfying @xmath89 .
denote the category of augmented nonnegative chain complexes in @xmath1 by @xmath90 .
for any abelian category @xmath1 , the functor @xmath91 , respectively the functors @xmath92 , @xmath93 extend in an obvious way to @xmath94 respectively @xmath95    let @xmath1 be an abelian category . using the shifting functor @xmath96 ( assigning to @xmath97 the nonnegative chain complex @xmath98 defined by @xmath99 , @xmath100 , @xmath101 , @xmath102 ) , we get functors @xmath103 and @xmath104 the restrictions of which to the category of augmented pseudosimplicial objects are used in the next section .
next recall [ 12 ] the definition of the homotopy groups of a kan cubical set .
a cubical set @xmath9 is said to be kan if for any @xmath105 , any @xmath106 and any collection of @xmath107 elements @xmath108 , @xmath109 , @xmath110 , @xmath111 , satisfying @xmath112 there exists @xmath113 such that @xmath114    let @xmath9 be a cubical set , @xmath115 and @xmath108 , @xmath102 , @xmath109 , @xmath110 .
we write @xmath116 iff @xmath117 , @xmath109 , @xmath110 .
suppose now that @xmath118 is a kan cubical set with a basepoint @xmath119 .
let @xmath120 and define an equivalence relation @xmath121 on @xmath122 @xmath123 by @xmath124 or equivalently , by @xmath125 [ 12 , theorem 6 ] .
denote @xmath126 , @xmath127 .
let @xmath128,[y]\in\pi_n(x,\psi)$ ] @xmath129=cl_\sim(x))$ ] , @xmath102 .
since @xmath9 is kan , there is @xmath130 with @xmath131 clearly , @xmath132 .
define @xmath128\bl[y]=[\pa_1 ^ 1z]$ ] .
this definition depends only on the equivalence classes of @xmath133 and @xmath134 and , with this multiplication , @xmath135 , @xmath102 , is a group , called the @xmath17-th homotopy group of @xmath118 .
finally let us note that in the text we will freely make use of the freyd - mitchell embedding theorem ( see e.  g. [ 20 , p.25 ] ) when applying various results in the literature about modules to objects in general abelian categories .
let @xmath15 be a cubical group and define @xmath136 then :    1 .
@xmath137 , @xmath127 .
2 .   @xmath138 , @xmath139 .
3 .   @xmath140 is a normal subgroup of @xmath141 and of @xmath142 , @xmath127 .
let @xmath143 . by definition @xmath144 consequently , @xmath145 .
hence ( a ) is proved .
. then @xmath146 . using this we get @xmath147 .
hence ( b ) is proved .
suppose @xmath148 and @xmath149 .
obviously one has @xmath150 and @xmath151 .
this proves ( c ) .
thus , for any cubical group @xmath15 , @xmath152 is a chain complex of ( not necessarily abelian ) groups .
we call @xmath19 the moore chain complex of @xmath15 .
it is obvious that @xmath19 and its homology groups @xmath153 functorially depend on @xmath15 .
obviously , in the construction of @xmath19 one may replace @xmath15 by a precubical object @xmath9 in an abelian category ( in [ 16 ] @xmath19 is introduced for cubical objects in an abelian category ) .
in this case we redefine the differential @xmath154 on @xmath11 by @xmath155 .
then @xmath11 is a chain subcomplex of @xmath12 and one has a natural monomorphism @xmath156 .
+ 4 mm    now let us introduce pseudocubical objects and pseudocubical objects with pseudoconnections .
+ 4 mm    a pseudocubical object @xmath9 in a category @xmath1 is a family of objects @xmath42 together with face @xmath1-morphisms @xmath157 for @xmath51 .
we say that a pseudocubical object @xmath9 in a category @xmath1 has pseudoconnections if there are given @xmath1-morphisms @xmath53 which satisfy @xmath158    morphisms of pseudocubical objects and pseudocubical objects with pseudoconnections are defined in an obvious way , just as for cubical objects and cubical objects with connections .    for a category @xmath1 ,
let us denote by @xmath159 the category of pseudocubical objects with pseudoconnections in @xmath1 .
let @xmath1 be an abelian category .
define the functor @xmath160 as follows : @xmath161 on the other hand , we have the functors @xmath162 and @xmath163 from @xmath87 to @xmath164 .
one can easily see that @xmath165    let @xmath15 be a simplicial object in an abelian category @xmath1 .
then the normalized chain complex @xmath166 of @xmath15 is a chain subcomplex of the unnormalized chain complex @xmath167 of @xmath15 .
the moore theorem says that this inclusion is a chain homotopy equivalence .
the proof of this theorem [ 15 , p.94 ] does not use the simplicial identity : @xmath168 , @xmath169 .
therefore one may assert that for any augmented pseudosimplicial object @xmath6 in an abelian category @xmath1 , the natural monomorphism @xmath170 is a chain homotopy equivalence .
replacing now @xmath6 by @xmath171 , where @xmath9 is a pseudocubical object with pseudoconnections in @xmath1 , and using @xmath172 and @xmath173 , we get a cubical analog of the moore theorem :    [ normtheo ] let @xmath9 be a pseudocubical object with pseudoconnections in an abelian category . then the natural monomorphism @xmath156 is a chain homotopy equivalence and , therefore , @xmath174 is an isomorphism for all @xmath23 .
in fact @xmath156 has a natural homotopy inverse @xmath175 with @xmath176 ( see the proof of theorem 22.1 of [ 15 ] ) .
note that the natural monomorphism @xmath177 need not be a chain homotopy equivalence for a cubical object @xmath9 with connections in an abelian category .
as is known the prime examples of pseudosimplicial objects are the projective resolutions used by tierney and vogel to define their derived functors . in the next section we construct cubical analogs of tierney - vogel s projective resolutions ( in order to define our cubical derived functors ) and show that they have pseudodegeneracies and pseudoconnections .
the material in the rest of this section is not needed in what follows ; however we believe it is interesting for its own sake .
suppose that @xmath9 is a cubical object with connections in an abelian category @xmath1 .
then @xmath171 is an augmented simplicial object .
denote by @xmath178 the chain subcomplex of @xmath12 generated by the images of the degeneracies of @xmath171 .
since the degeneracy morphisms of @xmath171 are defined by @xmath179 , @xmath102 , @xmath180 , one has @xmath181 besides , @xmath182 and @xmath183 .
let @xmath9 be a cubical object with connections in an abelian category @xmath1 .
then :    1 .
@xmath184 and hence @xmath11 is isomorphic to @xmath185 .
the canonical projection @xmath186 is a chain homotopy equivalence .    as @xmath171 is an augmented simplicial object , one has @xmath187 ( where @xmath188 is the chain subcomplex of @xmath189 generated by the degenerate elements of @xmath171 ) , and the canonical projection @xmath190 is a chain homotopy equivalence ( see corollary 22.2 and 22.3 of [ 15 ] ) . but
@xmath191 , @xmath192 and @xmath193 . hence (
a ) and ( b ) hold .
suppose @xmath9 is a cubical set with connections .
an n - cube @xmath194 is said to be folded if there exists @xmath195 such that @xmath196 for some @xmath197 ( see [ 1 ] ) .
when we define the singular cubical homology @xmath198 of a topological space @xmath4 , it is necessary to factor out the degenerate singular cubes .
it easily follows from theorem 2.5 that the folded singular cubes can be ignored in addition when we calculate @xmath198 .
let @xmath1 be an abelian category .
restricting @xmath14 and @xmath199 to the category @xmath62 , and @xmath200 to the category @xmath88 , we get the following commutative diagram @xmath201 ^ -{m}\ar[rd]_-{\ol{n}}&&ch_{\ge 0}(\sa)\\ & as(\sa)\ar[ru]_-{\wh{i}}}\ ] ] in which , by the dold - kan theorem , @xmath200 is an equivalence of categories .
moreover , the functor @xmath202 is also an equivalence .
the proof is very similar to the proof of the dold - kan theorem [ 20 , p.270 ] .
thus we have got an alternative proof of the result by brown and higgins [ 5 ] about the equivalence of the categories @xmath62 and @xmath164 .
furthermore , we have pointed out the functor @xmath203 which realizes this equivalence .    in
what follows , for pointed kan cubical monoids @xmath15 , we will always take the unit 1 of @xmath204 as basepoint , and denote @xmath205 by @xmath16 .
[ moorekan ]
let @xmath15 be a kan cubical monoid and suppose that @xmath105 . then :    \(a ) for any @xmath206 ,  @xmath128\bullet[y]=[xy]$ ] .
\(b ) @xmath16 is abelian .    to prove this proposition , we need the following well known    [ twoopers ] let @xmath207 and @xmath208 be binary operations on a set @xmath209 .
assume that they have units and satisfy @xmath210 for all @xmath211 .
then these operations coincide and @xmath212 is an abelian monoid .
the proofs of propositions 17.2 and 17.3 of [ 15 ] ) . using the monoid structure on @xmath15
, a binary operation may be defined on @xmath16 by @xmath128*[y]=[xy]$ ] .
this is well - defined . indeed ,
if @xmath206 then @xmath213 , and if @xmath214 and @xmath215 , @xmath216 , i.  e. , @xmath217 then @xmath218 i.e. , @xmath219 .
next , assume that @xmath128,[y],[u],[v]\in\pi_n(g)$ ] . by the kan condition , there are @xmath220 with @xmath221 whence @xmath222 then , by the definitions of @xmath223 and @xmath208 , we can write @xmath224\bl[y]\right)*\left([u]\bl[v]\right)=[\pa_1 ^ 1w_1]*[\pa_1 ^ 1w_2][\pa_1 ^ 1w_1\cdot\pa_1 ^ 1w_2]=\\ = [ xu]\bl[yv]=\left([x]*[u]\right)\bl\left([y]*[v]\right).\end{gathered}\ ] ] besides , @xmath128\bl[1]=[x]=[1]\bl[x]$ ] and @xmath128*[1]=[x]=[1]*[x]$ ] .
consequently , we conclude , by lemma [ twoopers ] , that @xmath207 and @xmath208 coincide and @xmath16 is abelian .
[ kanpimoore ] for any _ kan _ cubical group @xmath15 , @xmath225    let us use the following notations : @xmath226 it is evident that @xmath227 for all @xmath127 .
therefore , in view of proposition [ moorekan ] , it suffices to show that @xmath228 if and only if @xmath229 , @xmath230 .
suppose that @xmath206 and @xmath228 .
then @xmath231 this gives @xmath128*[y^{-1}]=[xy^{-1}]=[1]$ ] , whence @xmath128=[y]$ ] , i.  e. , @xmath228 .
any cubical group with connections is kan [ 19 ] .
combining this with theorem [ normtheo ] and proposition [ kanpimoore ] , we get    for any cubical abelian group @xmath15 with connections , @xmath16 is naturally isomorphic to @xmath20 for all @xmath23 .
let @xmath1 be a category and @xmath232 a sequence of @xmath1-morphisms , @xmath102 .
a cubical kernel of the sequence @xmath233 is a sequence @xmath234 of @xmath1-morphisms such that    * @xmath235 for @xmath236 , @xmath237 ; *   * if @xmath238 is any other sequence satisfying identities @xmath239 for @xmath236 , @xmath237 , then there exists a unique @xmath1-morphism @xmath240 with @xmath241 , @xmath242 , @xmath243 .
it immediately follows from the definition that cubical kernels are unique up to isomorphism if they exist .
suppose @xmath1 has finite limits and let @xmath244 ^ -{f_1 ^ 0}\ar@<-0.5ex>[r]_-{f_1 ^ 1}&b}$ ] be a pair of @xmath1-morphisms .
consider the diagram @xmath245_-{f_1 ^ 1}\ar[r]^-{f_1 ^ 0}&b\\ a\ar[u]^-{f_1 ^
0}\ar[d]_-{f_1 ^ 1}&&a\ar[u]_-{f_1 ^ 0}\ar[d]^-{f_1 ^ 1}\\ b&a\ar[l]_-{f_1 ^ 1}\ar[r]^-{f_1 ^ 0}&b.}\ ] ] by assumption , we have the limit diagram @xmath245_-{f_1 ^ 1}\ar[r]^-{f_1 ^ 0}&b\\ a\ar[u]^-{f_1 ^
0}\ar[d]_-{f_1 ^ 1}&k\ar[l]_-{k_2 ^ 1}\ar[u]^-{k_1 ^ 0 } \ar[r]^-{k_2 ^ 0}\ar[d]_-{k_1 ^ 1}&a\ar[u]_-{f_1 ^ 0}\ar[d]^-{f_1 ^ 1}\\ b&a\ar[l]_-{f_1 ^ 1}\ar[r]^-{f_1 ^ 0}&b,}\ ] ] i.e. the sequence @xmath246 is a cubical kernel of the pair @xmath247 ^ -{f_1 ^
0}\ar@<-0.5ex>[r]_-{f_1 ^ 1}&b}.\ ] ] clearly , in fact , one has    if @xmath1 admits finite limits , then cubical kernels exist in @xmath1 for any sequence @xmath248 and any @xmath102 .
let @xmath2 be a class of objects of @xmath1 .
recall [ 7 ] that an @xmath1-morphism @xmath83 is said to be @xmath2-epimorphic iff @xmath249 is surjective for all @xmath250 . also recall that @xmath2 is called a projective class if for each @xmath35 there exists a @xmath2-epimorphism @xmath251 with @xmath250 .
let @xmath2 be a projective class in @xmath1 , @xmath252 ^ -\pa&a}$ ] an augmented precubical object over @xmath35 , and suppose that @xmath1 has finite limits . by proposition 3.2
, we have a factorization @xmath253 ^ -{\pa_1 ^ 0}\ar@<-.9ex>[rr]_-{\pa_{n+1}^1 } \ar[dr]_-{e_{n+1 } } & { { } ^{{}^{\vdots}}}&\ x_n\ \ar@<1.5ex>[rr]^-{\pa_1 ^ 0}\ar@<-.9ex>[rr]_-{\pa_n^1}\ar[dr]_-{e_n } & { { } ^{{}^{\vdots}}}&**[r]x_{n-1}\ \cdots&\ \
x_1\ar@<.5ex>[rr]^-{\pa_1 ^ 0}\ar@<-.5ex>[rr]_-{\pa_1 ^ 1}\ar[dr]_-{e_1 } & & x_0\ar[r]^-{\pa}&a \\ & k_{n+1}\ar@<1.2ex>[ur]^-{k_1 ^ 0}\ar@{}[ur]|-\ddots\ar@<-1.5ex>[ur]_-{k_{n+1}^1 } & & k_n\ar@<1.2ex>[ur]^-{k_1 ^ 0}\ar@{}[ur]|-\ddots\ar@<-1.5ex>[ur]_-{k_n^1 } & & & k_1\ar@<.5ex>[ur]^-{k_1 ^ 0}\ar@<-.5ex>[ur]_-{k_1 ^ 1}}\ ] ] where @xmath254 ^ -{k_1 ^ 0}\ar@<-0.5ex>[r]_-{k_1 ^ 1}&x_0}$ ] is a kernel pair of @xmath255 ^ -\pa&a}$ ] , and-1em @xmath256 a cubical kernel of @xmath257 for @xmath258 .
we say that    * @xmath252 ^ -\pa&a}$ ] is @xmath2-projective iff each @xmath259 ; * @xmath252 ^ -\pa&a}$ ] is @xmath2-exact iff @xmath154 and @xmath260 @xmath261 are @xmath2-epimorphic ; * @xmath252 ^ -\pa&a}$ ] is @xmath2-projective resolution of @xmath5 iff it is @xmath2-projective and @xmath2-exact .
obviously , if @xmath1 is a category with finite limits and a projective class @xmath2 , then each @xmath35 has a @xmath2-projective resolution .
moreover , the following comparison theorem shows that such a resolution is unique up to precubical homotopy equivalence .
[ precm ] let @xmath252 ^ -\pa&a}$ ] be @xmath2-projective and @xmath262 ^ -{\pa'}&a'}$ ] be @xmath2-exact .
then any @xmath1-morphism @xmath83 can be extended to a precubical morphism @xmath263 ^ -\pa\ar[dd]_-{\ol{f}}&&a\ar[dd]^-f\\ & & & & \\
x'\ar[rr]^-{\pa ' } & & a'}\ ] ] over @xmath264 @xmath265i .
e. , @xmath266 and @xmath264 form a morphism of augmented precubical objects@xmath267 .
furthermore , any two such extensions are precubically homotopic .
that is , if @xmath268 are two extensions of @xmath264 , then there exist @xmath1-morphisms @xmath269 , @xmath127 , such that @xmath270    we construct the extension @xmath271 and show its uniqness up to precubical homotopy by induction on @xmath17 .
since @xmath272 is @xmath2-projective and @xmath273 is @xmath2-epimorphic , there is @xmath274 with @xmath275 .
next , one has @xmath276 .
therefore @xmath277 and @xmath278 for a uniquely defined @xmath279 .
as @xmath280 is @xmath2-projective and @xmath281 is @xmath2-epimorphic , there exists @xmath282 with @xmath283 , and we have @xmath284 and @xmath285 .
thus @xmath286 and @xmath287 are constructed .
inductively , suppose given @xmath1-morphisms @xmath288 for @xmath289 so that @xmath290 , @xmath291 , @xmath243
. then @xmath292 , @xmath236 , @xmath237 .
hence there is a unique @xmath293 such that @xmath294 , @xmath242 , @xmath243 .
since @xmath295 is @xmath2-projective and @xmath296 is @xmath2-epimorphic , there exists @xmath297 with @xmath298 .
then we have @xmath299 , @xmath300 , @xmath243 .
this completes the inductive step and proves the existence of @xmath266 .
now suppose @xmath301 is another extension of @xmath83 .
we want to construct @xmath302 with @xmath303 , @xmath304 , @xmath127 , and @xmath305 , @xmath306 , @xmath110 . for @xmath307 consider diagram @xmath308{\ x_0}\ar@{-->}[ddll]_-{h_0}\ar@{-->}[dddl]_-{q_0 } \ar[rr]^-\pa\ar@<1.2ex>[dd]^-{g_0}\ar@<.2ex>[dd]_-{f_0}&&a\ar[dd]^-f\\ \\
x'_1\ar[dr]_-{e_1}&&**[r]{\ x'_0}\ar[rr]^-{\pa'}&&**[r]a'\;\;.\\ & * * [ r]k'_1\ar@<-1ex>[ur]^-{k_1 ^ 0}\ar@<-2ex>[ur]_-{k_1 ^ 1 } & & } \ ] ] as @xmath309 , there exists @xmath310 such that @xmath311 and @xmath312 .
next , since @xmath272 is @xmath2-projective and @xmath313 is @xmath2-epimorphic , there is @xmath314 with @xmath315 .
this and the two previous equalities give @xmath316 and @xmath317 . thus @xmath318 is constructed .
inductively , suppose given @xmath319 with the required properties .
@xmath320x_n\ar@{-->}[ddll]_-{h_n}\ar@{-->}[dddl]_-{q_n } \ar@<1.5ex>[rr]^-{\pa_1 ^ 0}\ar@<-1ex>[rr]_-{\pa_n^1 } \ar@<1.4ex>[dd]^-{g_n}\ar@<-0.2ex>[dd]_-{f_n } & { { } ^{{}^{\vdots}}}&**[r]x_{n-1 } \ar@<-.2ex>[dd]_-{f_{n-1}}\ar@<1.4ex>[dd]^-{g_{n-1 } } \ar@<0.7ex>[ddll]_{h_{n-1}}\\ \\ * * [ r]x'_{n+1}\ar[dr]_-{e_{n+1}}&&**[r]x'_n \ar@<1.5ex>[rr]^-{\pa_1 ^ 0}\ar@<-1ex>[rr]_-{\pa_n^1 } & { { } ^{{}^{\vdots}}}&**[r]x'_{n-1}\ .\\ & * * [ r]k'_{n+1 } \ar@<1.1ex>[ur]^-{k_1 ^ 0}\ar@{}[ur]|-\ddots\ar@<-1.6ex>[ur]_-{k_{n+1}^1 } } \ ] ] define @xmath321 , @xmath242 , @xmath110 , as follows : @xmath322 by the induction assumption , @xmath323 that is @xmath324 for @xmath236 , @xmath325 .
therefore @xmath326 , @xmath242 , @xmath110 , for a uniquely defined @xmath327 . since @xmath328 is @xmath2-projective and @xmath329 is @xmath2-epimorphic ,
there is @xmath269 with @xmath330 .
now we have @xmath331 this finishes the inductive step and completes the proof of the theorem .
the following theorem is crucial for constructing our cubical derived functors .
[ resdeg ] suppose that @xmath332 ^ -{\pa_1 ^ 0}\ar@<-.9ex>[rr]_-{\pa_{n+1}^1 } \ar[dr]_-{e_{n+1 } } & { { } ^{{}^{\vdots}}}&\ p_n\ \ar@<1.5ex>[rr]^-{\pa_1 ^ 0}\ar@<-.9ex>[rr]_-{\pa_n^1}\ar[dr]_-{e_n } & { { } ^{{}^{\vdots}}}&**[r]p_{n-1}\ \cdots&\ \
p_1\ar@<.5ex>[rr]^-{\pa_1 ^ 0}\ar@<-.5ex>[rr]_-{\pa_1 ^ 1}\ar[dr]_-{e_1 } & & p_0\ar[r]^-{\pa}&a \\ & k_{n+1}\ar@<1.2ex>[ur]^-{k_1 ^ 0}\ar@{}[ur]|-\ddots\ar@<-1.5ex>[ur]_-{k_{n+1}^1 } & & k_n\ar@<1.2ex>[ur]^-{k_1 ^ 0}\ar@{}[ur]|-\ddots\ar@<-1.5ex>[ur]_-{k_n^1 } & & & k_1\ar@<.5ex>[ur]^-{k_1 ^ 0}\ar@<-.5ex>[ur]_-{k_1 ^ 1}}\ ] ] is a @xmath2-projective resolution of @xmath35 .
then :    \(a )  @xmath27 has pseudodegeneracy operators , i.e. , there exist @xmath333 ,  @xmath127 ,  @xmath242 , satisfying @xmath334    as an immediate consequence we have    [ psec ] any @xmath2-projective resolution @xmath335 ^ -{\pa}&a}$ ] is an augmented pseudocubical object with pseudoconnections .
\(a ) as @xmath336 ^ -{k_1 ^ 0}\ar@<-0.5ex>[r]_-{k_1
^ 1}&p_0}$ ] is a kernel pair of @xmath337 , there is @xmath338 such that @xmath339 and @xmath340 . on the other hand ,
since @xmath341 is @xmath2-projective and @xmath313 is @xmath2-epimorphic , @xmath342 for some @xmath343 and we have @xmath344 and @xmath345 .
thus @xmath343 is constructed .
inductively , suppose given @xmath343 , @xmath346 with the required properties .
fix @xmath347 , @xmath348 , and define @xmath349 , @xmath242 , @xmath110 , by @xmath350 using the induction assumption , one checks that @xmath351 for @xmath352 , @xmath353
. then there exists @xmath354 such that @xmath355 , @xmath242 , @xmath110 .
since @xmath356 is @xmath2-projective and @xmath329 is @xmath2-epimorphic , there is @xmath357 with @xmath358 .
according to this , for @xmath359 and @xmath110 , one has @xmath360 thus we have constructed @xmath361 with the desired properties .
\(b ) define @xmath362 by @xmath363 , @xmath364 , @xmath365 and @xmath366 .
one verifies that @xmath367 , @xmath110 .
hence there exists @xmath368 such that @xmath369 , @xmath370 , @xmath110 .
as @xmath371 is @xmath2-projective and @xmath372 is @xmath2-epimorphic , @xmath373 for some @xmath374 , and we have @xmath375 next , assume that @xmath374 , @xmath376 with the required properties are constructed , and for any fixed @xmath347 , @xmath109 , define @xmath377 , @xmath242 , @xmath110 , as follows : @xmath378 by the induction assumption , @xmath379 , @xmath352 , @xmath353 .
consequently , there is @xmath380 such that , @xmath381 , @xmath242 , @xmath110 .    since @xmath356 is @xmath2-projective and @xmath329 is @xmath2-epimorphic , there exists @xmath382 with @xmath383
then , for @xmath359 and @xmath110 , one has @xmath384 thus we have constructed @xmath385 satisfying the desired properties .
let @xmath1 be an abelian category .
it is shown in [ 16 ] that the functor @xmath386 sends cubically homotopic morphisms to chain homotopic morphisms .
the proof , which we repeat here because of the completeness , shows that in fact one has    [ prechn ] let @xmath9 be a pseudocubical object and @xmath387 a precubical object in an abelian category @xmath1 , and @xmath388 precubical morphisms . if @xmath264 and @xmath389 are precubically homotopic @xmath265see theorem @xmath390 , then @xmath391 and @xmath392 are chain homotopic .
let @xmath393 be a precubical homotopy from @xmath264 to @xmath389 , and let @xmath394 denote the canonical monomorphism from @xmath395 to @xmath328 , @xmath127 .
one checks that @xmath396 , @xmath348 , @xmath127 . consequently
, we have morphisms @xmath397 clearly , @xmath398 further , for all @xmath102 , we have @xmath399 hence @xmath400 is a chain homotopy from @xmath391 to @xmath401 .
this proposition together with theorem 2.4 implies    [ prechm ] let @xmath9 and @xmath387 be pseudocubical objects with pseudoconnections in an abelian category @xmath1 , and @xmath388 precubical morphisms . if @xmath264 and @xmath389 are precubically homotopic , then @xmath402 and @xmath403 are chain homotopic .
we are now ready to introduce cubical derived functors .
let @xmath1 be a category with finite limits and a projective class @xmath2 , @xmath404 an abelian category , and @xmath405 an arbitrary ( covariant ) functor .
we construct the left cubical derived functors @xmath406 , @xmath127 , of @xmath4 as follows . if @xmath35 , choose ( once and for all ) a @xmath2-projective resolution @xmath407 and define @xmath408 theorem 3.3 and propositions 3.4(a ) and 3.6 show that the objects @xmath25 are independent ( up to natural isomorphism ) of the resolution chosen ( if @xmath409 is a second @xmath2-projective resolution and @xmath410 a precubical morphism extending @xmath411 , then @xmath412 are isomorphisms ) .
moreover , by the same statements , it is immediately clear that @xmath21 are defined on morphisms and are functors from @xmath1 to @xmath404 . besides , functoriality in the variable @xmath4 is obvious .
similarly , in view of theorem 3.3 , corollary 3.5 and proposition 3.7 , one can define functors @xmath413 by @xmath414 it follows from theorem 2.4 that in fact there are isomorphisms @xmath415 which are natural in @xmath5 and in @xmath4 .    as one sees the construction of @xmath21 essentially uses [ resdeg](a ) , and similarly @xmath416 essentially uses [ psec ] .
this contrasts with the fact that the construction of the derived functors by tierney and vogel does not use existence of pseudodegeneracies in @xmath2-projective presimplicial resolutions . on the other hand , as shown in [ 16 ] , the functor @xmath417 ( see section 1 ) sends precubically homotopic morphisms of precubical objects to chain homotopic morphisms ( cf .
propositions [ prechn ] and [ prechm ] ) .
this together with theorem [ precm ] allows us to conclude that one does not need proposition [ resdeg](a ) to prove that the functors @xmath418 where @xmath27 is a @xmath2-projective precubical resolution augmented over @xmath35 , are correctly defined .
but in this way one obtains `` bad '' derived functors by the following reason .
one can easily see that @xmath419 for any @xmath250 and any @xmath23 .
thus in general the higher ( @xmath139 ) derived functors @xmath420 do not vanish on @xmath2-projectives , i.  e. , the crucial property of derived functors is not satisfied .
in particular , there is no chance for @xmath420 to coincide with the classical derived functors for additive functors @xmath4 between abelian categories . at the same time , the derived functors @xmath21 and @xmath416 certainly vanish on @xmath2-projectives for @xmath139 , and in particular coincide with the classical derived functors for additive @xmath4 , as we will show below in theorem [ coinc ] .
suppose that @xmath1 is an abelian category and @xmath405 an additive functor . our aim is to compare @xmath421 @xmath123 with the derived functors of @xmath4 in the sense of eilenberg - moore [ 7 ] .
let @xmath1 be an abelian category with a projective class @xmath2 and suppose that @xmath252 ^ -{\pa}&a}$ ] is a precubical object in @xmath1 augmented over @xmath35 . if @xmath252 ^ -{\pa}&a}$ ] is @xmath2-exact , then its augmented moore chain complex @xmath422 is @xmath2-exact in the sense of eilenberg - moore @xmath423 $ ] .
that is , the sequence of abelian groups @xmath424 where @xmath425 and @xmath426 @xmath261 , is exact for any @xmath250 .
evidently , @xmath427 , @xmath127 .
besides , since @xmath77 is @xmath2-epimorphic , @xmath428 is surjective .
let @xmath429 be an @xmath1-morphism with @xmath430 and consider the diagram @xmath431_-{g'}\ar@{-->}@`{(-60,-20)}[dddl]_-\varphi\ar@<-1ex>[dd]_-{g}\ar@<1ex>[dd]^-0\\ \\
x_1\ar@<0.8ex>[rr]^-{\pa_1 ^ 0}\ar@<-0.9ex>[rr]_-{\pa_1 ^ 1 } \ar[dr]_-{e_1}&&x_0\ar[r]^-\pa&a,\\ & k_1\ar@<1ex>[ur]^-{k_1 ^ 0}\ar@<-1ex>[ur]_-{k_1 ^ 1 } } \ ] ] where @xmath336 ^ -{k_1 ^ 0}\ar@<-0.5ex>[r]_-{k_1 ^ 1}&x_0}$ ] is a kernel pair of @xmath77 , and @xmath313 is @xmath2-epimorphic . as @xmath432
, there exists a unique @xmath433 such that @xmath434 and @xmath435 .
but @xmath436 for some @xmath437 , and we have @xmath438 and @xmath439 .
it then follows from the construction of @xmath11 that @xmath440 , where @xmath441 denotes the inclusion @xmath442 and @xmath443 is a uniquely defined @xmath1-morphism from @xmath444 to @xmath445 .
clearly , @xmath446 .
thus the sequence is exact at @xmath447 .
now assume that @xmath139 and @xmath448 is an @xmath1-morphism with @xmath449 .
denote the inclusion @xmath450 by @xmath451 and consider the diagram @xmath431_-{f'}\ar@{-->}@`{(-100,-20)}[dddl]_-\varphi\ar@<-1.4ex>[dd]_-{\varphi_1 ^ 0 } \ar@<1ex>[dd]^-{\varphi_{n+1}^1}&&\\ & & { { } ^{{}^{\dots}}}\\ x_{n+1}\ar@<1.6ex>[rr]^-{\pa_1 ^ 0}\ar@<-.9ex>[rr]_-{\pa_{n+1}^1 } \ar[dr]_-{e_{n+1}}&{{}^{{}^{\vdots } } } & x_n\ar@<1.6ex>[rr]^-{\pa_1 ^ 0}\ar@<-.9ex>[rr]_-{\pa_n^1}&{{}^{{}^{\vdots } } } & x_{n-1}\\ & k_{n+1}\ar@<1.1ex>[ur]^-{k_1 ^ 0}\ar@<-1.9ex>[ur]_-{k_{n+1}^1}\ar@{}[ur]|-\ddots } \ ] ] where @xmath452 is a cubical kernel of @xmath453 , @xmath329 is @xmath2-epimorphic , and @xmath454 one checks that @xmath455 consequently , there exists a unique @xmath456 such that @xmath457 , @xmath242 , @xmath110 .
since @xmath329 is @xmath2-epimorphic and @xmath250 , one has @xmath458 for some @xmath459 .
but then @xmath460 from this we conclude , by the construction of @xmath11 , that @xmath461 for a uniquely defined @xmath1-morphism @xmath462 . clearly , @xmath463 , whence @xmath464 .
let @xmath1 be an abelian category with a projective class @xmath2 and suppose that @xmath252 ^ -\pa&a}$ ] is a pseudocubical object with pseudoconnections in @xmath1 augmented over @xmath35 . if @xmath465 is @xmath2-exact , then the augmented chain complex @xmath466 ^ -\pa&a}$ ] is @xmath2-exact in the sense of eilenberg - moore .    for any pseudocubical object @xmath9 in an abelian category @xmath1 , one has @xmath1-morphisms @xmath467 defined by @xmath468 it is immediate that @xmath469 , @xmath139 , @xmath109 .
therefore , by the construction of @xmath12 , each @xmath470 factors as @xmath471 ^ -{\sg_n^x}\ar[dr]_-{\tau_n^x}&&x_n\\ & n_n(x)\ar@{^{(}->}[ur]_-{\nu_n^x}}\ ] ] where @xmath472 is the inclusion .
one can easily see that @xmath473 , i.e. , @xmath474 is a retraction for each @xmath17 ( see [ 16 , 17 ] ) .
this together with corollary 3.5 and proposition 4.2 gives    [ retr ] let @xmath1 be an abelian category with a projective class @xmath2 which is closed with respect to retracts . if @xmath335 ^ -\pa&a}$ ] is a @xmath2-projective precubical resolution of @xmath35 , then the augmented chain complex @xmath475 ^ -\pa&a}$ ] is a @xmath2-projective resolution of @xmath5 in the sense of eilenberg - moore @xmath423 $ ] .
now let @xmath1 be an abelian category with a projective class @xmath2 , @xmath404 an abelian category , and @xmath405 an additive ( covariant ) functor .
then one constructs , with respect to @xmath2 , the classical left derived functors @xmath476 , @xmath127 . on the other hand ,
since any abelian category admits finite limits , we can build @xmath2-projective precubical resolutions , and therefore can construct the cubical left derived functors @xmath406 , @xmath127 .
let @xmath478^\pa&a}$ ] be a @xmath2-projective precubical resolution of @xmath35 . by proposition 3.4(a ) , @xmath27 has pseudodegeneracy operators .
then , as noted above , we have @xmath1-morphisms @xmath479 , @xmath480 with @xmath481 and @xmath482 .
the latter gives @xmath483 .
hence @xmath484 is an epimorphism and @xmath485 is a monomorphism . since @xmath4 is additive , @xmath486 .
consider the commutative diagram @xmath487 ^ -{\nu_n^{t(p)}}\\ t(p_n)\ar[ur]^-{\tau_n^{t(p)}}\ar[dr]_-{t(\tau_n^p)}\ar[rr]^-{t(\sg_n^p)\sg_n^{t(p)}}&&t(p_n)\;\;\;\\ & t(n_n(p))\;\;.\ar[ur]_-{t(\nu_n^p ) } } \ ] ] as @xmath488 and @xmath489 are epimorphisms , @xmath490 .
but @xmath491 is an inclusion and @xmath492 is a monomorphism .
hence @xmath493 and @xmath494 is an isomorphism for each @xmath17 .
one can easily see that these isomorphisms commute with the differentials and induce natural isomorphisms on the homologies . in view of proposition [ retr ] , @xmath475 ^ -\pa&a}$ ]
is a @xmath2-projective resolution of @xmath5 in the sense of eilenberg - moore .
consequently , @xmath495 . on the other hand , by the definition of @xmath21 ,
thus we have isomorphisms @xmath497 which are natural in @xmath5 and in @xmath4 .
there remains an open question here .
we do not know whether the cubical derived functors introduced by us coincide with the tierney - vogel derived functors in full generality , or at least , with the dold - puppe derived functors in the particular case of an arbitrary ( not necessarily additive ) functor on an abelian category .