Arxiv:2102.02076V2 [Math.GT] 14 Feb 2021 4-Manifolds with Contact Boundary 11 3

AN ADJUNCTION INEQUALITY FOR THE BAUER–FURUTA TYPE INVARIANTS, WITH APPLICATIONS TO SLICENESS AND 4-MANIFOLD TOPOLOGY

NOBUO IIDA, ANUBHAV MUKHERJEE, AND MASAKI TANIGUCHI

Abstract. We give infinitely many knots in S3 that are not smoothly H-slice (that is, bounding a null-homologous disk) in many 4-manifolds but they are topologically H-slice. In particular, we give such knots in punctured elliptic surfaces E(2n). In addition, we give obstructions to codimension-0 embedding of weak symplectic fillings with b3 = 0 into closed symplectic 4-manifolds with + b1 = 0 and b2 ≡ 3 mod 4. We also show that any weakly symplectically fillable 3-manifold bounds a 4-manifold with at least two smooth structures. All of these results follow from our main result that gives an adjunction inequality for embedded surfaces in certain 4-manifolds with contact boundary under a non-vanishing assumption on Bauer–Furuta type invariants.

Contents 1. Introduction 2 1.1. Obstruction to sliceness of knots 2 1.2. Obstruction to codimension-0 embeddings 3 1.3. Study of exotic 4-manifolds with boundary 5 1.4. Adjunction inequality and non-vanishing results of Bauer–Furuta type invariants 6 2. Preliminaries 10 2.1. Contact Geometry 10 2.2. Symplectic Geometry 10 2.3. Bauer–Furuta version of Kronheimer–Mrowka’s invariant for arXiv:2102.02076v2 [math.GT] 14 Feb 2021 4-manifolds with contact boundary 11 3. Adjunction-Inequality for Iida’s invariant 13 3.1. Proof of Theorem 1.19(i) 13 3.2. Proof of Theorem 1.19(ii) 17 4. Adjunction inequality for relative Bauer–Furuta invariant 17 4.1. Seiberg–Witten Floer homotopy type and relative Bauer–Furuta invariant 18 4.2. Proof of Theorem 1.24 20 4.3. Proof of Theorem 1.25 21 5. Proof of Applications 23 References 29 1 2 NOBUO IIDA, ANUBHAV MUKHERJEE, AND MASAKI TANIGUCHI

1. Introduction In Subsection 1.4, we will discuss an adjunction inequality involving the Bauer– Furuta reﬁnement of the Kronheimer–Mrowka’s invariant for 4-manifolds with contact boundary. But ﬁrst we will discuss several results that follow from this inequality.

1.1. Obstruction to sliceness of knots. Studying various notions of sliceness for knots in S3 is a fundamental problem in low dimensional topology. A knot K in S3 is smoothly (resp. topologically) slice if K bounds a smooth (resp. locally flat) properly embedded 2-disk in D4. The first example of a knot in S3 that was topologically slice in D4 but not smoothly slice was found by Casson [4] by combining work of Donaldson [8] and Freedman [16]. Endo [11] proved that there are infinitely many topologically slice knots which are linearly independent in the knot concordance group by using Furuta’s result [20]. Obstructions to smoothly slicing a knot in D4 have been obtained via Heegaard Floer theory [1, 7, 24, 25, 28, 51, 56, 58–60], Khovanov homology [63], and gauge theory [5, 42, 44]. We study the the existence of slice disks in general 4-manifolds with S3-boundary. In particular, let X be a closed, oriented, connected, smooth 4-manifold. And let K be a knot in S3. In [50, Definition 6.2], Manolescu, Marengon, Sarkar and Willis defined K to be smoothly (resp. topologically) H-slice in X if K bounds a properly embedded smooth (resp. locally flat) null-homologous disc in X◦ = X − Int B4. Note that the H-sliceness depends on 4-manifolds. For example, Schneiderman [67] proved that for any knot K ⊂ S3 whose Arf invariant is zero, there exists a positive 2 2 integer n such that K is smoothly H-slice in #n(S × S ). There are several known obstructions to smooth H-sliceness in both definite 4-manifolds [42, 50, 56] and indefinite 4-manifolds [49]. For topological obstructions, see [21, 35, 49, 64]. In this paper, we treat both types of 4-manifolds. First, we focus on symplectic + 4-manifolds with b2 ≡ 3 mod 4 and the connected sums of them. Since S3 has a unique tight contact structure proved by Eliashberg [10], we use TB(K) defined as the maximal value of Thurston–Bennequin numbers with 3 respect to Legendrian representations of K in (S , ξstd), for more details, check Subsection 2.1.

Theorem 1.1. Let X be a closed, symplectic 4-manifold with b1(X) = 0 and + 3 b2 (X) ≡ 3 mod 4. If K is a knot in S with TB(K) > 0, then it is not smoothly H-slice in X. Remark 1.2. Notice that X◦ is a symplectic cap for the standard contact structure on S3 and this is the result that obstructs H-sliceness in symplectic caps. On the other hand, there has been a lot of work proving such results for symplectic fillings. For example, Mrowka–Rollin’s generelized Bennequin inequality [53, Theorem A], which is valid only when the Kronheimer–Mrowka’s invariant m(X, s, ξ) is non- trivial (which is defined in [41]). However, the virtual dimension of Kronheimer– 3 Mrowka’s moduli spaces for any symplectic cap X of (S , ξstd) is odd. (This is confirmed in Remark 5.1.) The invariant m(X, s, ξ) is defined to be zero when the virtual dimension is non-zero since there is no appropriate cohomology class to be evaluated on the moduli space. Hence, we use the Bauer–Furuta type stable homotopy refinement of m(X, s, ξ) constructed by the first author [30] in order to obtain the desired non-vanishing result. ADJUNCTION INEQUALITY, BF-TYPE REFINEMENT OF KM-INVARIANT 3

3 Theorem 1.3. There is an infinite family of knots Ki, i ∈ Z in S that are linearly independent in the knot concordance group such that are topologically H-slice but not smoothly H-slice in any closed symplectic 4-manifold X with b1(X) = 0 and + b2 (X) ≡ 3 mod 4. Remark 1.4. We will also show that Theorems 1.1 and 1.3 are true when X is replaced with X1,X1#X2, or X1#X2#X3, where Xi, i = 1, 2, 3, are manifolds satisfying the hypothesis of X in the above theorems. Also, notice that we can take 4 Ki as topologically H-slice knots in S . For the explicit examples when X is the elliptic surface E(2n) we can do even better. We state our result for the K3 = E(2). Theorem 1.5. Let X be K3,K3#K3, or K3#K3#K3. There is an infinite family 3 of knots Ki, i ∈ Z in S that are • linearly independent in the knot concordance group, • topologically H-slice in S4, and in particular in X, • smoothly slice in X, but • not smoothly H-slice in X. Remark 1.6. Note that, in [49, Corollary 1.7], it is proved that there is a topologically H-slice knot in K3 but not smoothly H-slice in K3 by using the 10/8-theorem [18,29,49]. To authors best knowledge this is the first linearly independent infinite sequence of such examples known. Our techniques can also be useful to obstruct a knot in S3 from being rationally slice, i.e. from it bounding a disk in some rational homology 4-ball with boundary S3. Similar results have been proven before using Heegaard Floer techniques. In 2004, Plamenevskaya [62] proved tb(K) + |r(K)| ≤ 2τ(K) − 1 3 for any Legendrian knot K in (S , ξstd), where τ(K) is a concordance invariant called the tau-invariant introduced in [56], tb(K) is the Thurston–Bennequin number of K and r(K) is the rotation number of K. Since τ(K) can obstruct H-sliceness in any definite 4-manifold with b1 = 0 [56], TB(K) also can be useful to study H- sliceness. We give an alternative proof of such a result using the first author’s invariant which is defined later in this Section: Theorem 1.7. Let K be a knot in S3 with either TB(K) > 0 or TB(K) > 0, here K is the mirror image of K. Then K is not slice in any rational homology ball W with boundary S3. 3 Corollary 1.8. There is an infinite family of knots Ki, i ∈ Z in S that are linearly independent in the knot concordance group that are topologically H-slice but not smoothly H-slice in any closed negative definite 4-manifold X with b1(X) = 0. A stronger result is also proved in [65] for both positive and negative 4-manifolds. 1.2. Obstruction to codimension-0 embeddings. Next, we will focus on codimension- 0 embeddings of manifolds into closed symplectic 4-manifolds and their connected sums. Definition 1.9. Let X be a compact 4-manifold with connected boundary Y . We say X has a geometrically isolated 2-handle if there exists a 2-handle h in a handle decomposition of X such that 4 NOBUO IIDA, ANUBHAV MUKHERJEE, AND MASAKI TANIGUCHI

(1) h does not intersect any 1-handles in that handle decompositon. (2) h generates a non-trivial element in H2(X; Z)/ Tor. Remark 1.10. A manifold is called geometrically simply-connected if it has a handle decomposition with no 1-handle. Any geometrically simply-connected manifold with b2 6= 0 has geometrically isolated 2-handles. Theorem 1.11. Let (W, ω) be a connected, weak symplectic ﬁlling of a given contact 3-manifold (Y, ξ) with b3(W ) = 0. We consider the following two types of 4-manifolds:

• X1, X2 and X3 are closed sympectic 4-manifolds with b1(Xi) = 0 and + b2 (Xi) ≡ 3 mod 4, and • X is a closed negative definite 4-manifold with b1(X) = 0. In addition, if W has a geometrically isolated 2-handle, then there is no orientation preserving embedding of W into X#X1#X2#X3. In particular, there is no orientation preserving embedding from W to X, X1, X1#X2, X1#X2#X3, X1#X and X1#X2#X. + Remark 1.12. Notice that b2 (Xi) ≡ 3 mod 4 in Theorem 1.11 is important. If Xn(K) is an n-trace of a knot which is obtained by attaching a 2-handle on the 3 4-ball along a knot K ⊂ S with framing n, then Xn(K) can be embedded in CP2#2CP2. To see this let us assume the case that n is an odd integer. Let X be the result of attaching a 2-handle to Xn(K) along a meridian of the knot K with framing 0. It is not difficult to show using Kirby calculus that X has a handle decomposition where two 2-handles are attached on the boundary of B4 along two disjoint unknots with framing 1 and −1. By capping off X with a copy of B4 we get CP2#CP2. And in the case n is an even integer, if we blow up the meridian of K once, the framing of K becomes odd. Now if we follow the previous process, we 2 2 will get CP #2CP . If n < T B(K), then Xn(K) admits a symplectic structure with convex boundary by Theorem 2.1. But Xn(K) = X−n(K) can still be embedded in CP2#2CP2. This observation shows that the same statement as Theorem 1.11 + does not hold for 4-manifolds with b2 = 1. + Although, we imposed b2 (Xi) ≡ 3 mod 4 in Theorem 1.11, we can also treat sym- + + plectic 4-manifolds with b2 (Xi) ≡ 1 mod 4 and b2 (Xi) ≥ 2 if Y has an additional condition. Theorem 1.13. Let W be a connected, weak symplectic filling of a given contact rational homology 3-sphere (Y, ξ) with b3(W ) = 0. Suppose Y has a positive scalar curvature metric and W admits a geometrically isolated 2-handle. For a closed + symplectic 4-manifold (X, s) with b1(X) = 0 and b2 (X) ≥ 2, there is no orientation preserving embedding of W into X. There are several known constraints on the topology of symplectic fillings of a contact 3-manifold (Y, ξ), but not much is known about the topology of symplectic caps which are defined in Subsection 2.1. For example, −Σ(2, 3, 5) does not admit any symplectic filling [45], but a surprising result of Etnyre and Honda [12] says that a symplectic cap always exists for a given contact 3-manifold. Our technique also can be used to give constraints on the topology of symplectic caps. Theorem 1.14. The following results hold: ADJUNCTION INEQUALITY, BF-TYPE REFINEMENT OF KM-INVARIANT 5

3 (i) The contact 3-manifold (S , ξstd) does not have any positive definite symplectic cap having a geometrically isolated 2-handle such that b1 = 0 and + b2 ≥ 2. (ii) The contact 3-manifold Σ(2, 3, 5) with the unique tight contact structure does not have any positive definite symplectic cap having a geometrically + isolated 2-handle such that b1 = 0 and b2 ≥ 2, and there is no 2-torsion on its homology. 2 4 3 + Note that CP \ int D gives a symplectic cap of (S , ξstd) so b2 (X) > 1 is necessary. Remark 1.15. Notice that, since geometrically simply connected closed 4-manifold + 4 with b2 > 1 has a geometrically isolated 2-handle, after removing (D , ωstd), we can recover the result by using Theorem 1.14(i) that any positive definite geometri- + cally simply connected closed 4-manifold with b2 > 1 does not admit a symplectic structure [27, Theorem 1.1], [72, Corollary 1.6]. In the proof of Theorem 1.14, we use classification results for intersection forms of negative definite 4-manifolds with boundary S3 and Σ(2, 3, 5) proven by Donaldson [8] and Scaduto [66]. In fact, we can generalize Theorem 1.14 for any contact 3-manifold (Y, ξ) having a positive scalar curvature as follows. Theorem 1.16. Let (Y, ξ) be a contact 3-manifold with a symplectic filling that has b1 = 0. If b1(Y ) = 0 and Y admits a positive scalar curvature metric, then (Y, ξ) + does not have positive definite symplectic cap X with b1 = 0 and b2 ≥ 2 having a c geometrically isolated 2-handle and a Spin structure sX such that −c2(s ) + b (X) 1 X 2 = δ(Y, s ), 8 ξ where δ(Y, s) is Frøyshov invariant of (Y, s) with the convention δ(Σ(2, 3, 5)) = 1. Given these evidences we can propose the following Conjecture. Conjecture 1.17. A contact manifold (Y, ξ), where Y is an L-space and ξ is symplectically fillable, does not have a simply connected positive definite symplectic + cap with b2 > 1. 1.3. Study of exotic 4-manifolds with boundary. We now consider exotic structures on 4-manifolds with connected boundary. Recently the study of exotic structures on 4-manifolds with connected boundary has gotten a lot of attention. One interesting such problem is whether all 3-manifolds bound a 4-manifold that admits exotic structures. This problem has been studied by Yasui [71] and independently Etnyre, Min and the second author [14]. In their work, they used versions of Seiberg–Witten theory and Heegaard Floer theory to study the exotic behavior of 4-manifolds. The techniques we have developed in this paper can also be useful to study such exotic behaviour. Theorem 1.18. If Y is an oriented, connected, closed 3-manifold such that either Y or Y admits a weak-fillable contact structure with b3 = 0 filling, then there exists a pair of compact oriented smooth 4-manifolds X and X0 with boundary Y such that X and X0 are homeomorphic but not diffeomorphic. The result was first proven by Yasui [71] and later independently by Etnyre, Min and the second author [14]. By using Iida’s invariant which is defined later in this 6 NOBUO IIDA, ANUBHAV MUKHERJEE, AND MASAKI TANIGUCHI

Section, we are presenting another different proof for the case b3 = 0 here although the original results do not require b3 = 0. Our examples are different from the earlier ones [14,71] in a sense that the invariants developed in [14] and [71] vanishes on these examples. So those earlier techniques cannot detect the exotic behaviour of such 4-manifolds with boundary. Also, note that, in [14] and [71], infinitely many exotic 4-manifolds are constructed for a given boundary 3-manifold.

1.4. Adjunction inequality and non-vanishing results of Bauer–Furuta type invariants. All the above applications can be proven by putting together various results from this Subsection. Recently, the ﬁrst author [30] introduced a Bauer–Furuta type reﬁnement of Kronheimer–Mrowka’s invariant [41] for a compact oriented 4-manifold W with a contact boundary (Y, ξ) and b3(W ) = 0. This invariant is a stable homotopy class of a map between spheres

+ (1) Ψ(W, ξ, s): She(S ,Φ0),[W,∂W ]i → S0, up to sign, where s is a Spinc structure on W compatible with ξ on the boundary + and e(S , Φ0) is the relative Euler class of the pair of the positive spinor and the + section Φ0 of S |Y coming from ξ. The mapping degree of Ψ(W, ξ, s) recovers Kronheimer–Mrowka’s invariant [41] for 4-manifolds with contact boundary when + he(S , Φ0), [W, ∂W ]i = 0. This is a variant of the Bauer–Furuta invariant [3], in the sense that the invariant Ψ(W, ξ, s) is obtained by a method called ﬁnite dimensional approximation of the perturbed Seiberg–Witten map on a 4-manifold with conical end associated to (W, ξ), for details see Subsection 2.3. We prove an adjunction type inequality for the invariant Ψ(W, ξ, s) as one of the main results of this paper. The adjunction inequality for CP2 has been proven by Kronheimer–Mrowka [38] using wall-crossing technique in Seiberg–Witten theory. This argument has several generalizations [6, 36, 68]. Also, for closed 4-manifolds with non-vanishing Seiberg–Witten invariants (Heegaard Floer invariants), there are several generalizations of adjunction inequality [17, 19,33, 52,53,55, 57]. Before above results, Kronheimer–Mrowka showed similar inequalities for 4-manifolds with non-trivial Donaldson polynomial invariants in [37, 39, 40]. Moreover, there are several relative versions (i.e. for surfaces with boundary in 4-manifolds with boundary) of adjunction inequalities [23, 49, 53]. In [53], using the Kronheimer–Mrowka’s invariant [41] of 4-manifolds with a contact boundary, a version of relative adjuntion type inequality called generalized Bennequin inequality has been proven. We give a generalization of adjuntion type inequality in [53, Proposition 4.2.4] under the assumption b3 = 0. We follow the method of [17] and [38] to obtain an adjunction type inequality for the invariant Ψ(W, ξ, s). Our main theorem is: Theorem 1.19. Let (W, s) be an oriented Spinc compact 4-manifold whose boundary is a contact 3-manifold (Y, ξ) with b3(W ) = 0 and s|Y = sξ. If Ψ(W, ξ, s) 6= 0, then the following results hold: (i) There are no closed oriented 3-dimensional submanifolds M ⊂ int(W ) satisfying the following three conditions. (1) M admits a Riemann metric with positive scalar curvature. (2) H2(W, ∂W ; R) → H2(M; R) is non-zero. (3) M separates W . ADJUNCTION INEQUALITY, BF-TYPE REFINEMENT OF KM-INVARIANT 7

(ii) Non-torsion homology class in H2(W, ∂W ; Z) cannot be realized by an embedded 2-sphere whose self-intersection number is non-negative. (iii) For any connected, orientable, embedded, closed surface Σ ⊂ W with g(Σ) > 0 and [Σ] · [Σ] ≥ 0, we have

|hc1(s), [Σ]i| + [Σ] · [Σ] ≤ 2g(Σ) − 2. Remark 1.20. Note that Theorem 1.19(ii) follows from Theorem 1.19(i). Suppose a non-torsion class c ∈ H2(W, ∂W ; Z) is realized by an embedded 2-sphere with non- negative self-intersection. Then we can find a smoothly embedded 2-sphere S with self-intersection zero (i.e. with trivial normal bundle) in the blown-up manifold 2 Z = W #nCP . Let M ⊂ Z be the boundary of a closed tubular neighborhood N of S. Since M is diffeomorphic to S2 × S1, it admits a Riemannian metric with positive scalar curvature. The restriction H2(Z, ∂Z; R) → H2(N; R) is nonzero because its dual H2(N; R) → H2(Z, ∂Z; R) is nonzero by the assumption that c 2 2 (and thus [S] ∈ H2(Z)) is non-torsion and H (N; R) → H (M; R) is isomorphism. We review several non-vanishing results of the invariant Ψ(W, ξ, s). In order to ensure non-vanishing results for Ψ(W, ξ, s) we focus on Bauer–Furuta invariant, which is defined for a closed Spinc 4-manifold (X, s),

c2(s )−σ(X) −b+(X) 1 X + 0 (2) BF (X, s):(R 2 ⊕ C 8 ) → S 1 as an S -equivariant stable homotopy class when b1(X) = 0. The invariant BF (X, s) + recovers the usual Seiberg–Witten invariant when b2 (X) ≥ 2 [3]. Theorem 1.21 (Bauer, [2]). We consider the following two types of Spinc-4- manifolds: + • (X, s) is closed sympectic 4-manifolds with b1(X) = 0 and b2 (X) ≡ 3 mod 4, and 0 0 c 0 • (X , s ) is a closed negative deﬁnite Spin 4-manifold with b1(X ) = 0 and d(s0) = −1. Then as non-equivariant stable homotopy classes of maps, BF (X, s) is a generator S ∼ 0 0 of the 1-st stable homotopy group π1 = Z2 and BF (X , s ) is a generator of the S ∼ 0-th stable homotopy group π0 = Z. Using Theorem 1.21 and the connected sum formula below, we can prove a certain non-vanishing result. c Theorem 1.22 (Iida, [30]). Let (W, sW ) be an oriented Spin compact 4-manifold whose boundary is a contact 3-manifold (Y, ξ) with b3(W ) = 0, sW |Y = sξ and let c (X, sX ) be a closed Spin 4-manifold with b1(X) = 0. Then, we have

Ψ(W #X, ξ, sW #sX ) = Ψ(W, ξ, sW ) ∧ BF (X, sX )(3) 1 in the stable homotopy group up to sign. Here we forget the S action of BF (X, sX ).

Since Iida’s invariant (1) is ± Id for any weak symplectic ﬁlling with b3 = 0 [30, Corollary 4.3], thus by combining Theorem 1.21, Theorem 1.22, we obtain the following non-vanishing results. Theorem 1.23 (Iida, [30]). Let (W, ω) be a weak symplectic ﬁlling of a contact c 3-manifold (Y, ξ) with b3(W ) = 0. We consider the following two types of Spin -4- manifolds. 8 NOBUO IIDA, ANUBHAV MUKHERJEE, AND MASAKI TANIGUCHI

• (X1, ω1), (X2, ω2) and (X3, ω3) are closed sympectic 4-manifolds with b1(Xi) = + 0 and b2 (Xi) ≡ 3 mod 4, and c • (X, s) is a closed negative deﬁnite Spin 4-manifold with b1(X) = 0 and d(s) = −1. Then, the invariant Ψ(X0, ξ, s0) does not vanish for  (W #X, sω#s)  (W #X#X , s #s#s ) (X0, s0) = 1 ω ω1 (W #X#X #X , s #s#s #s )  1 2 ω ω1 ω2  (W #X#X1#X2#X3, sω#s#sω1 #sω2 #sω3 ). This theorem follows from the connected sum formula of Ψ(X, ξ, s) and Bauer’s computations of Bauer–Furuta invariants. + Although, we imposed the conditions b2 (Xi) ≡ 3 mod 4 in Theorem 1.23, if Y satisﬁes some nice conditions, we can also treat symplectic 4-manifolds with + b2 (Xi) ≡ 1 mod 4. To this end we use the gluing result proved in [31, Theorem 1.2] relating Iida’s invariant (1), the relative Bauer–Furuta invariant [32, 46], and Seiberg–Witten Floer homotopy contact invariant [31]. We now review the relative Bauer–Furuta invariant. For a rational homology 3-sphere Y equipped with a spinc structure s, Manolescu [46] associated a (formal desuspension of ) pointed S1-stable homotopy type SWF (Y, s), which is called the Seiberg–Witten Floer homotopy type. c 1 He also assigned to a spin 4-manifold (X, sX ) bounding (Y, s) an S -equivariant stable homotopy class

c2(s )−σ(X) −b+(X) 1 X + BF (X, sX ):(R 2 ⊕ C 8 ) → SWF (Y, s), which is called the relative Bauer–Furuta invariant which was sophisticated later by Khandhawit [32]. We now state a non-vanishing result for the relative Bauer–Furuta invariant, which is a consequence of the non-vanishing result [30, Corollary 4.3] of (1) and gluing results [31, 33, 47]. Before that recall a Spinc rational homology 3-sphere (Y, s) is a (Floer) homotopy L-space if δ + SWF (Y, s) =∼ (C ) c for some δ ∈ Q. It is known that if Y is homotopy L-space for any Spin -structure, then Y is an L-space [31, Deﬁnition 5.1]. For example, any rational homology 3- spheres with positive scalar curvature metric are homotopy L-spaces for any Spinc structures. Theorem 1.24. Let (W, ω) be a weak symplectic ﬁlling of a contact 3-manifold c (Y, ξ). Suppose (Y, sξ) is a homotopy L-space. We also consider a closed Spin 1 4-manifold (X, sX ) with b1(X) = 0 such that the S -equivariant Bauer–Furuta 1 invariant BF (X, sX ) is not S -null-homotopic. Then, the relative Bauer–Furuta invariant c2(s #s)−σ(W #X) −b+(W #X) 1 ω + BF (W #X, sω#sX ):(R 2 ⊕ C 8 ) → SWF (Y, sξ) 1 is equal to BF (X, sX ) and in particular does not vanish as an S -equivariant stable homotopy class. The proof of this result uses Seiberg–Witten Floer homotopy contact invariant introduced in [31]. ADJUNCTION INEQUALITY, BF-TYPE REFINEMENT OF KM-INVARIANT 9

In the end of this section, we give an adjunction inequality of the relative Bauer– Furuta invariants for 4-manifolds with a homotopy L-space boundary.

c Theorem 1.25. Let (W, sW ) be an oriented Spin compact 4-manifold whose bound- c ary is a Spin rational homology 3-sphere (Y, sY ) with b1(W ) = 0. Suppose (Y, sY ) is a homotopy L-space. If the relative Bauer–Furuta invariant satisﬁes BF (W, s) 6= 0 as an S1-equivariant stable homotopy class, then the following results hold: (i) There are no closed oriented 3-dimensional submanifolds M ⊂ int(W ) satisfying the following three conditions. (1) M admits a Riemann metric with positive scalar curvature. (2) H2(W, ∂W ; R) → H2(M; R) is non-zero. (3) M separates W . (ii) Non-torsion homology class in H2(W, ∂W ; Z) cannot be realized by an embedded 2-sphere whose self-intersection number is non-negative. (iii) For any connected, orientable, embedded, closed surface Σ ⊂ W with g(Σ) > 0 and [Σ] · [Σ] ≥ 0, we have

|hc1(sW ), [Σ]i| + [Σ] · [Σ] ≤ 2g(Σ) − 2. Note that the case (ii) is also proved by Khandhawit, Lin, and Sasahira [33]. We put the following table of invariants which we will use in this paper.

Counting Finite dimensional approximation closed 4-manifolds SW-invariant ∈ Z BF-invariant m n + m0 n0 + BF (X):(R ⊕ C ) → (R ⊕ C ) 4-manifolds with KM-invariant ∈ Z/{±1} Iida’s invariant (1) M + M0 + contact boundary Ψ(W, ξ):(R ) → (R ) closed 3-manifolds monopole Floer homology group SW Floer homotopy type ”HM •(Y )” SWF (Y ) 4-manifolds with relative SW invariant relative BF invariant m n +

boundary ”ψ(X) ∈ HM •(∂X)” BF (X):(R ⊕ C ) → SWF (∂X) contact 3-manifolds contact invariantd homotopy contact invariant M + ψ(Y, ξ) ∈ HM •(−Y ) Ψ(Y, ξ):(R ) → SWF (−Y )

The structure of paper is as follows: In Section 2, we review several notions in contact geometry, symplectic geometry and Bauer–Furuta type refinement of Kronheimer–Mrowka’s invariant that are used in the proof of main theorems. In Section 3, we give a proof of our main theorem Theorem 1.19: an adjunction type inequality for Iida’s invariant (1). We follow the methods given in [17] and [38] to prove Theorem 1.19. In Section 4, we prove an adjunction inequality for relative Bauer–Furuta invariant of 4-manifolds with homotopy L-space-boundary. Again, we also follow the methods given in [17] and [38] to prove such an adjunction inequality. In this section, we also prove Theorem 1.24. In Section 5, we finally give proofs of applications including Theorem 1.1, Theorem 1.5, Theorem 1.11, Theorem 1.13 and Theorem 1.18. Acknowledgement. The authors are grateful to Ciprian Manolescu whose online research talk in the Regensburg low-dimensional geometry and topology seminar inspired this project. The authors would like to express their appreciation to Mikio Furuta for answering their questions on the relative Bauer–Furuta invariants. The 10 NOBUO IIDA, ANUBHAV MUKHERJEE, AND MASAKI TANIGUCHI authors would like to express their deep gratitude to John Etnyre and Marco Moren- gon for their kind and generous offer improving this paper. The authors also wish to thank Hokuto Konno, Ciprian Manolescu, Maggie Miller, Kouki Sato, O˘guzS¸avk, Yuichi Yamada, Kouichi Yasui for giving many helpful comments on the drafts. The authors also thank Francesco Lin, Lisa Piccirillo and Ian Zemke for showing interest in this project. The first author was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 19J23048 and the Program for Leading Graduate Schools, MEXT, Japan. The second author was partially supported by NSF grant DMS-1906414. The third author was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 17H06461 and 20K22319 and RIKEN iTHEMS Program.

2. Preliminaries 2.1. Contact Geometry. Recall that a (co-orientable) contact structure ξ on an oriented 3-manifold Y is the kernel of 1-form θ ∈ Ω1(Y ) such that θ ∧dθ is positive. Darboux’s theorem says that every contact 3-manifold (Y, ξ) is locally contacto- morphic to the standard contact structure on R3 3 (R , ξstd = Ker(dz − ydx)). All orientable 3-manifolds admit contact structures. A knot K ⊂ (Y, ξ) is called Legendrian if at every point of K, the tangent line to L lies in the contact plane at that point. A Legendrian knot K in a contact manifold (Y, ξ) has a standard neighborhood N and a framing frξ given by the contact planes. If K is null- homologous, then frξ relative to the Seifert framing is the Thurston–Bennequin invariant of K, which is denoted by tb(K). If one does frξ − 1-surgery on K by removing N and gluing back a solid torus so as to effect the desired surgery, then there is a unique way to extend ξ|Y −N over the surgery torus so that it is tight on the surgery torus. The resulting contact manifold is said to be obtained from (Y, ξ) by Legendrian surgery on K. 3 A Legendrian knot K in (R , ξstd) projects to a closed curve γ in the xz–plane, which is known as a front projection of K. The curve γ uniquely determines the Legendrian knot K which can be reconstructed by setting y(t) as the slope of γ(t). Thus, at a crossing, the most negative slope curves always stay at front. There are two types of possible cusp singularities corresponding to points where dz/dx = 0 which are called left cusps and right cusps. From the front diagram, we can compute the Thurston–Bennequin invariant by the formula tb(K) = Writhe(K) − #{Left cusps}. For a knot K in R3, we define the maximum Thurston–Bennequin number of K by 0 0 3 TB(K) = max { tb(K ) | K :Legendrian representation of K in (R , ξstd) } . Since R3 (or S3) has the unique tight contact structure up to isotopy proven by Eliashberg [10], TB(K) is an invariant of smooth knot type. 2.2. Symplectic Geometry. Let (Y, ξ) be a closed oriented 3-manifold equipped with a contact structure. We recall that a compact symplectic manifold (X, ω) is a strong symplectic filling of (Y, ξ) if ∂X = Y and there is a vector field v defined near ∂X such that the Lie derivative of ω satisfies Lvω = ω, v points out of X and ιvω is a contact form for ξ. Moreover, (X, ω) is a strong symplectic cap for (Y, ξ) if it satisfies all the properties above, except ∂X = −Y and v points into X. We ADJUNCTION INEQUALITY, BF-TYPE REFINEMENT OF KM-INVARIANT 11 also say (X, ω) is a weak symplectic filling of (Y, ξ) if ∂X = Y and ω|ξ > 0 (here all our contact structures are co-oriented). Similarly, (X, ω) is a weak symplectic cap of (Y, ξ) if ∂X = −Y and ω|ξ > 0. We shall say that (Y, ξ) is (strongly or weakly) semi-fillable if there is a connected (strong or weak) filling (X, ω) whose one boundary component is (Y, ξ). (Y, ξ) is (strongly or weakly) fillable if there is a connected (strong or weak) filling of it. While symplectic fillings do not necessarily exist for a contact 3-manifold, Etnyre and Honda [12] showed that there always exist symplectic caps for any contact 3- manifolds. This in particular implies that semi-fillability is equivalent to fillablity. A symplectic cobordism from the contact manifold (Y−, ξ−) to (Y+, ξ+) is a compact symplectic manifold (W, ω) with boundary −Y− ∪ Y+ where Y− is a concave boundary component and Y+ is convex, this means that there is a vector field v near ∂W which points transversally inwards at Y− and transversally outwards at

Y+, Lvω = ω and ιvω|Y± is a contact form of ξ±. The first result we will need con- cerns when symplectic cobordisms can be glued together. If we have two symplectic cobordisms (W1, ω1) and (W2, ω2) with ∂W1 = −Y0 ∪ Y1 and ∂W2 = −Y1 ∪ Y2, we can glue the symplectic forms so that the glued manifold W := W1 ∪Y1 W2 a structure of symplectic cobordism with concave component Y0 and convex component Y2. Another way to build cobordisms is by Weinstein handle attachment [70]. One may attach a 0, 1, or 2-handle to the convex end of a symplectic cobordism to get a new symplectic cobordism with the new convex end described as follows. For a 0-handle attachment, one merely forms the disjoint union with a standard 4–ball and so the new convex boundary will be the old boundary disjoint union with the standard contact structure on S3. For a 1-handle attachment, the convex boundary undergoes, possibly internal, a connected sum. A 2-handle is attached along a Legendrian knot L with framing one less that the contact framing, and the convex boundary undergoes a Legendrian surgery. Theorem 2.1. Given a contact 3-manifold (Y, ξ = Ker θ) let W be a part of its symplectization, that is (W = [0, 1] × Y, ω = d(etθ)). Let L be a Legendrian knot in (Y, ξ) where we think of Y as Y × {1}. If W 0 is obtained from W by attaching a 2-handle along L with framing one less than the contact framing, then the upper boundary (Y 0, ξ0) is still a convex boundary. Moreover, if the 2-handle is attached to a strong symplectic filling (respectively weak filling) of (Y, ξ) then the resultant manifold would be a strong symplectic filling (respectively weak filling) of (Y 0ξ0). The theorem for Stein fillings was proven by Eliashberg [9], for strong fillings by Weinstein [70], and was first stated for weak fillings by Etnyre and Honda [13].

2.3. Bauer–Furuta version of Kronheimer–Mrowka’s invariant for 4-manifolds with contact boundary. In this subsection, we summarize the definition of the Bauer–Furuta version of Kronheimer–Mrowka’s invariant Ψ(W, ξ, sW ) introduced by the first author [30]. The geometric setting is the same as that given in [41] 1 except for the condition b3(W ) = dim H (W, ∂W ; R) = 0. Let W be a compact oriented 4-manifold with nonempty boundary. We assume H1(W, ∂W ; R) = 0, in particular, Y = ∂W is connected. Let ξ be a contact structure on Y = ∂W compatible with the boundary orientation. Pick a contact 1-form θ on Y and a complex structure J of ξ compatible with the orientation. There is now an unique Riemannian metric g1 on Y such that θ 12 NOBUO IIDA, ANUBHAV MUKHERJEE, AND MASAKI TANIGUCHI satisfies that |θ| = 1, dθ = 2 ∗ θ, and J is an isometry for g|ξ, where ∗ is the Hodge ≥1 star operator with respect to g1. Define a symplectic form ω0 on R × Y by the 1 2 ≥1 formula ω0 = 2 d(s θ), where s is the coordinate of R . We define a conical metric on R≥1 × Y by 2 2 (4) g0 := ds + s g1. ≥1 c c On R × Y , we have a canonical Spin structure s0, a canonical Spin connection A0, a canonical positive Spinor Φ0. These are given as follows. The pair ≥1 c (g0, ω0) determines an almost complex structure J on R ×Y . This defines a Spin structure on R≥1 × Y : + 0,0 0,2 − 0,1 1 + − s0 := (S = ΛJ ⊕ ΛJ ,S = ΛJ , ρ :Λ → Hom(S ,S )), where √ ∗ ρ = 2 Symbol(∂ + ∂ ).

(See Lemma 2.1 in [41].) The notation Φ0 denotes 0,0 0,2 + (1, 0) ∈ Ω ≥1 ⊕ Ω ≥1 = Γ(S | ≥1×Y ). R ×Y R ×Y R c Then the canonical Spin connection A0 on s0 is uniquely defined by the equation D+ Φ = 0(5) A0 0 on R≥1 × Y . Let W + be a non-compact 4-manifold with conical end + ≥1 W := W ∪Y (R × Y ). + c Pick a Riemann metric g + on W such that g + | ≥1 = g . Fix a Spin W W R ×Y 0 ± + structure sW + = (SW + , ρW + ) on W equipped with an isomorphism sW + → s0 on W + \ W . We will omit this isomorphism in our notation. Fix a smooth extension + ≥1 of (A0, Φ0) on W . We also fix a nowhere zero proper extension σ of s ∈ R coordinate to all of W + which is 0 on W \ ν(∂W ), where ν(∂W ) is a small color neighborhood of ∂W in W . On W +, weighted Sobolev spaces 2 1 + U + = L (iΛ + ⊕ S ) and bW k,α,A0 W W + 2 0 + − V + = L (iΛ + ⊕ iΛ ⊕ S ) bW k−1,α,A0 W W + W + + are defined using σ for a positive real number α ∈ R and k ≥ 4, where SW + and − SW + are positive and negative spinor bundles and the Sobolev spaces are given as completions of the following inner products: k Z X 2ασ i i (6) hs1, s2i 2 := e h∇ s1, ∇ s2i dvol + , Lk,α,A A A W + i=0 W i where the connection ∇A is the induced connection from A and the Levi-Civita connection. Fix a sufficiently small positive real number α. The invariant Ψ(W, ξ, sW,ξ)([30]) is obtained as a finite-dimensional approximation of the Seiberg–Witten map (7)

FbW + : UbW + → VbW + (a, φ) 7→ (d∗α a, d+a − ρ−1(φΦ∗ + Φ φ∗) − ρ−1(φφ∗) ,D+ φ + ρ(a)Φ + ρ(a)φ). 0 0 0 0 A0 0 ADJUNCTION INEQUALITY, BF-TYPE REFINEMENT OF KM-INVARIANT 13

The ﬁnite-dimensional approximation goes as follows. We decompose FbW + as LbW + + CbW + where

∗α + −1 ∗ ∗ + L + (a, φ) = (d a, d a − ρ (φΦ + Φ φ ) ,D φ + ρ(a)Φ ) bW 0 0 0 A0 0 and −1 ∗ CbW + (a, φ) = (0, −ρ (φφ )0, ρ(a)φ).

Then LbW + is linear Fredholm and CbW + is quadratic, compact. (Here we used α > 0. ) Pick an increasing sequence of ﬁnite-dimensional subspaces VbW +,n ⊂ ≥1 VW + (n ∈ Z ) such that

• For any γ ∈ VbW + , kpr (γ) − γk → 0 as n → ∞ VbW +,n VbW + and ⊥L2 • Coker LbW + := (Im LbW + ) k−1,α ⊂ VbW +,1. Let −1 UbW +,n = Lb (VbW +,n) ⊂ UbW + , and FW +,n := pr ◦ FW + : UbW +,n → VbW +,n. VbW +,n We can show that for a large R > 0, a small ε and a large n, we have a well-deﬁned map FW +,n : B(UbW +,n,R)/S(UbW +,n,R) → B(VbW +,n, ε)/S(VbW +,n, ε).

The stable homotopy class of FW +,n defines the Bauer–Furuta version of Kronheimer– Mrowka’s invariant S Ψ(W, ξ, sW ) ∈ π + he(SW ,Φ0),[(W,∂W )]i S defined in [30], where πi is the i-th stable homotopy group of the spheres and + + e(SW , Φ0) is the relative Euler class of SW with respect to the section Φ0|Y . 3. Adjunction-Inequality for Iida’s invariant In this section, we give a proof of Theorem 1.19. There are several proofs of adjunction inequalities for the usual Seiberg–Witten invariants of closed 4-manifolds [15, 17, 38, 43]. In this paper, we follow the method given in [17] and [38]. 3.1. Proof of Theorem 1.19(i). First, as in the previous section, we fix the data ± gW + , sW + , SW + , A0,Φ0, UbW + and VbW + . In addition, suppose there is an embedded codimension-1 manifold M ⊂ int(W ). We can suppose that such data gW + , ± sW,ξ, SW + , A0, and Φ0 are translation invariant on some product neighborhood + ◦ ◦ on M. We set W := W + \ ν(M), where ν(M) is an even smaller open tubular + neighborhood of M. Then ∂W = M ∪ (−M). Let T be a non-negative real number and W +(T ) be a Riemannian manifold obtained from W + by inserting a neck [−T,T ] × M with a product metric: + + W (T ) = [−T,T ] × M ∪M∪(−M) W + such that the restriction of the metric of W +(T ) on W coincides with a given metric. We set W (T ) := W +(T ) \ R≥1 × Y . Note that W +(T ) and W + are diffeomorphic as manifolds. We will identify W +(0) with W + as Riemann manifolds. c + We fix the obvious Spin structures and reference configuration (A0, Φ0) on W (T ) 14 NOBUO IIDA, ANUBHAV MUKHERJEE, AND MASAKI TANIGUCHI which are product on the smaller neck [−T,T ] × M and coincide outside the neck with those of W +(0) = W +. We define σ : W +(T ) → R to be 0 on the neck and to coincide outside the neck with those of W +(0) = W +. On W +(T ), weighted Sobolev spaces 2 1 + UbW +(T ) = Lk,α(iΛW +(T ) ⊕ SW +(T )) and 2 0 + − VbW +(T ) = Lk−1,α(iΛW +(T ) ⊕ iΛW +(T ) ⊕ SW +(T )) are defined as before for a positive real number α ∈ R and k ≥ 4. Fix a sufficiently small positive real number α. We also have a family of Seiberg–Witten maps

FbW +(T ) = LbW +(T ) + CbW +(T ) : UbW +(T ) → VbW +(T ). Since we have the condition 2 2 Im(H (W, ∂W ; R) → H (M; R)) 6= 0, we can take a non-exact closed 2-form η on M and a 2-formη ˆ on W +(T ) whose support is contained in W +(T ) \ R≥1 × Y and which extends the 2-form on the neck which is the pull-back of η by the projection [−T,T ] × M → M. For each T ≥ 0, deﬁne the η-perturbed Seiberg–Witten map (8)

FbW +(T ),η : UbW +(T ) → VbW +(T ) (a, φ) 7→ (d∗α a, d+a − ρ−1(φΦ∗ + Φ φ∗) − ρ−1(φφ∗) +η ˆ+,D+ φ + ρ(a)Φ + ρ(a)φ). 0 0 0 0 A0 0 and the Seiberg–Witten moduli space for the η-perturbed equation by −1 Mη(T ) := FbW +(T ),η(0) For any T , we fix an increasing sequence of finite dimensional vector subspaces VbW +(T ),n of VbW +(T ) such that we have a well-defined map (9)

+ + + + fT : B(UbW (T ),nT ; RT )/S(UbW (T ),nT ; RT ) → B(VbW (T ),nT ; εT )/S(VbW (T ),nT ; εT ), as a finite dimensional approximation of FbW +(T ),η, where −1 UbW +(T ),n := LbW +(T )VbW +(T ),n for sufficiently large RT , nT and a sufficiently small εT . Standard arguments show that (9) represents the homotopy class Ψ(W, ξ, s) by finite dimensional approximation of this perturbed equation.

Lemma 3.1. If Ψ(W, ξ, s) is not stably null-homotopic, then Mη(T ) is non-empty for all T ≥ 0 Proof. We ﬁx an arbitary T . Finite dimensional approximation gives a sequence of maps

L + +pr C + : B(U + ; RT )/S(U + ; RT ) → B(V + , εT )/S(V + , εT ). bW (T ) Vbn bW (T ) bW (T ),n bW (T ),n bW (T ),n bW (T ),n The assumption implies that, for suﬃciently large n, these maps are not null homotopic, and in particular surjective. Thus, we can take a sequence γn ∈ UbW +(T ) such that

kγnkL2 = RT and (LbW +(T ) + pr CbW +(T ))(γn) = 0. k,α VbW +(T ),n ADJUNCTION INEQUALITY, BF-TYPE REFINEMENT OF KM-INVARIANT 15

Since γn is a bounded sequence, we can take a weakly convergent subsequence. We denote the weak limit by γ∞ ∈ UbW +(T ). We can also assume that CbW +(T )(γn) → CbW +(T )(γ∞) as n → ∞ with ﬁxed T by taking a subsequence since CbW +(T ) : 2 2 Lk,α → Lk−1,α is compact for α > 0, here we used Sobolev multiplication theorem for 4-manifolds with conical ends, see [30, Lemma 2.1]. We have

(LbW +(T ) + CbW +(T ))(γn) = (LbW +(T ) + pr CbW +(T ))(γn) + (1 − pr )C(γn) Vbn VbW +(T ),n

= (1 − pr )C(γn) → 0 as n → ∞. VbW +(T ),n

Thus, γ∞ satisﬁes (LbW +(T ) + CbW +(T ))(γ∞) = 0. In other words, γ∞ ∈ Mη(T ). This completes the proof.

Using Lemma 3.1, we take a 1-parameter family of solutions (AT , ΦT ) ∈ Mη(T ) for each T ≥ 0. In order to show Theorem 1.19 (i), we prove the following proposition as a preliminary, which is essentially proved in [38, Proposition 8], see also [53, Proposition 4.2.4].

Proposition 3.2. Suppose Mη(T ) 6= ∅ for all suﬃciently large T . Consider the c Spin structure on the cylinder R × M obtained as the pull back of s|M by the projection R × M → M Then, there exists a solution to the η-perturbed Seiberg–Witten equation

1 + −1 ∗ + F t − ρ (ΦΦ )0 = 2iηˆ (10) 2 A + DAΦ = 0 which is translation invariant and in a temporal gauge. Here, ηˆ is the pull back of η by the projection R × M → M and the word temporal gauge means that the dt-component of the Spinc connection vanishes. Proof. The proof is essentially the same as that of [38, Proposition 8]. Suppose we have [AT , ΦT ] ∈ Mη(T ) for each suﬃciently large T . Recall that for a pair c (B, Ψ) where B is a Spin connection and Ψ is a Spinor of s|M = (SM , ρM ), the η-perturbed Chern-Simons-Dirac functional is deﬁned by Z Z Z 1 t t t t 1 L (B, Ψ) = − (B −B )∧(F t +F t )+ (B −B )∧(iη)+ hΨ,D Ψid vol . η 0 B B0 0 B M 8 M M 2 M Note that 2 Lη(u · (B, Ψ)) − Lη(B, Ψ) = h(2π c1(SM ) − 4π[η]) ∪ [u], [M]i, where u : M → S1 is a gauge transformation and 1 [u] = u−1du 2πi is an element of H1(M; Z) determined by u. The following boundedness result is a key lemma of our proof:

Lemma 3.3. Let (AT , ΦT ) be an element in Mη(T ) for each T ≥ 0. Then the diﬀerence

Lη((AT , ΦT )|{−T }×M ) − Lη((AT , ΦT )|{T }×M ) is bounded by a constant which is independent of T . 16 NOBUO IIDA, ANUBHAV MUKHERJEE, AND MASAKI TANIGUCHI

Proof. Since the perturbation here is compactly supported, from [41], there is a T + T gauge transformation u on W (T ) such that u · (AT , ΦT ) − (A0, Φ0), its ﬁrst T 2 + derivatives are uniformly bounded with respect to T , du ∈ Lk,α(W (T )) and 2 lims→∞ u(s, y) = 1 for any y ∈ Y . Since 2π c1(sM ) − 4π[η] is obtained as a restriction of a cohomology class on W +(T ), we have

T 2 T Lη(u ·(AT , ΦT )|{±T }×M )−Lη((AT , ΦT )|{±T }×M ) = h(2π c1(SM )−4πη)∪[u |{±T }×M ], [M]i. Now we prove

2 T h(2π c1(SM ) − 4πη) ∪ [u |{±T }×M ], [M]i = 0.

T + 1 Note that since u converges to 1 on the end of W (T ), [uT ] belongs to H (W (T ), ∂W (T ); Z). 2 T Thus, (2π c1(SM ) − 4πη) ∪ [u |{±T }×M ] is equal to the restriction of the class 2 + T 3 (2π c1(SW (T )) − 4πηˆ) ∪ [u ] ∈ H (W (T ), ∂W (T ); Z). So the following commutative diagram implies the desired equation:

∂=0 H1(W (T ); Z) −−−−→ H0({T } × M; Z)   ∼ ∼ PDy= PDy= H3(W (T ), ∂W (T ); Z) −−−−→ H3({T } × M; Z). (The case of −T is similar.) Here, the top row

∂ : H1(W (T ); Z) → H0({T } × M; Z) is the Mayer-Vietoris connecting homomorphism and it vanishes because of the assumption that M separates W .

Now, we consider a 1-parameter family of solutions (AT , ΦT )|[−T +1,T −1]×M for T ≥ 2. Then, by applying the argument of the end of the proof of [38, Proposition 8], we obtain a solution to the η-perturbed Seiberg–Witten equation on R × M which is translation invariant in a temporal gauge. This completes the proof. By applying Proposition 3.2, we obtain a translation invariant solution to (23) in a temporal gauge. However, this is a contradiction to the following result. Proposition 3.4. Let M be a closed oriented 3-manifold with a positive scalar c curvature metric and a non-exact closed 1-form η. Then, for any Spin structure sM on M, we can ﬁnd a real number s such that sη-perturbed version of the equations (23) have no translation-invariant solutions in temporal gauge.

Proof. Since η is non-exact, there exists a positive real number s0 > 0 such that for any real number s satisfying 0 < s ≤ s0, 2s (11) c (S ) + [η] 6= 0 ∈ H2(M; ). 1 M π R Suppose there exists a translation invariant solution (A, Φ) in temporal gauge for (sη)-perturbed version of (23). Then, (B, Ψ) = (A, Φ)|{t}×M satisﬁes

1 ∗ ρ(F t − 4isη) − (ΨΨ ) = 0 (12) 2 B 0 DBΨ = 0. ADJUNCTION INEQUALITY, BF-TYPE REFINEMENT OF KM-INVARIANT 17

From the Weitenb¨ock formula, we obtain 2 ∗ 2 ∆|Ψ| = 2RehΨ, ∇B∇BΨi − |∇BΨ| ∗ ≤ 2RehΨ, ∇B∇BΨi

2 Scal 2 = 2RehΨ,D Ψi − hΨ, ρ(F t )Ψi − |Ψ| B B 2 Scal = −2hΨ, ((ΨΨ∗) + 2sρ(iη))Ψi − |Ψ|2 0 2 Scal = −|Ψ|4 − 4shΨ, ρ(iη)Ψi − |Ψ|2 2 2 Scal 2 ≤ − |Ψ| + − 4skηk 0 |Ψ| . 2 C (M) We conclude that Ψ ≡ 0 on M for s suﬃciently small, otherwise |Ψ|2 achieves a local maximum at some point p ∈ M and ∆|Ψ|2(p) ≥ 0 holds, which implies

2 Scal(p) 0 < |Ψ| (p) ≤ − + 4skηk 0 2 C (M) and contradicts the positive scalar curvature assumption. Thus the equation (12) implies

FBt − 4isη = 0 which implies i 2s F t + η = 0 2π B π and that contradicts (11). This completes the proof of Theorem 1.19(i).

3.2. Proof of Theorem 1.19(ii). By considering blow-up, we can assume that a connected orientable embedded closed surface Σ ⊂ W satisﬁes g(Σ) > 0 and [Σ] · [Σ] = 0. Then we need to prove

|hc1(S), [Σ]i| ≤ 2(g(Σ) − 1). We take a tubular neighborhood ν(Σ) = Σ × D2 of Σ. Put M := ∂(ν(Σ)) ⊂ W . ± First, as in the previous section, we ﬁx data sW + , SW + , A0,Φ0, UW + and VW + . + Similarly, we consider the same thing W (T ), FbW +(T ),η : UbW +(T ) → VbW +(T ) and

fT : B(UbW +(T ),n ; RT )/S(UbW +(T ),n ; RT ) (13) T T + + → B(VbW (T ),nT ; εT )/S(VbW (T ),nT ; εT ), given in the previous subsection. By the assumption Ψ(W, ξ, s) 6= 0, we can see that Mη(T ) 6= ∅. Using Proposition 3.2, we obtain a translation invariant solution to (23) in a temporal gauge. Then one can use [41, Lemma 9] and obtain the conclusion.

4. Adjunction inequality for relative Bauer–Furuta invariant In this section, we prove an adjunction inequality for relative Bauer–Furuta invariant of 4-manifolds with homotopy L-space-bounday. 18 NOBUO IIDA, ANUBHAV MUKHERJEE, AND MASAKI TANIGUCHI

4.1. Seiberg–Witten Floer homotopy type and relative Bauer–Furuta invariant. In this subsection, we review Manolescu’s construction of the Seiberg– Witten Floer homotopy type. For the details, see [46]. Let Y be a rational homology 3-sphere equipped a Spinc-structure s and g a Riemann metric on Y . The spinor bundle with respect to s is denoted by S. ∗ The map ρ :ΛY ⊗ C → End(S) denotes the Clifford multiplication induced by c c s. The notation B0 denotes a fixed flat Spin -connection. Then the set of Spin connections can be identified with iΩ1(Y ). The configuration space is defined by

2 1 2 Ck− 1 (Y ) := L 1 (iΛY ) ⊕ L 1 (S), 2 k− 2 k− 2 2 2 here L 1 denotes the completion with respect to L 1 -norm. k− 2 k− 2 We have the Chern-Simons-Dirac functional

(14) L : C 1 (Y ) → k− 2 R given as 1 Z 1 Z L(b, ψ) = − b ∧ db + hψ, DB0+bψid vol, 2 Y 2 Y c c where DB0+b is the Spin -Dirac operator with respect to the Spin -connection B0 + b. The gauge group n o ξ 2 Gk+ 1 (Y ) := e ξ ∈ L 1 (Y ; iR) 2 k+ 2 acts on C 1 (Y ) by k− 2 u · (b, ψ) := (b − u−1du, uψ). Since the normalized gauge group Z 0 ξ G 1 (Y ) := e ∈ G 1 (Y ) ξd vol = 0 k+ k+ 2 2 Y freely acts on C 1 (Y ), one can take a slice. The slice is given by k− 2

∗ 2 1 2 0 2 Vk− 1 (Y ) := Ker d : L 1 (iΛY ) → L 3 (iΛY ) ⊕ L 1 (S). 2 k− 2 k− 2 k− 2 The formal gradient ﬁeld of the Chen-Simons Dirac functional with respect to a norm, introduced by Manolescu, is the sum

l + c : V 1 (Y ) → V 3 (Y ), k− 2 k− 2 where

l(b, ψ) = (∗db, DB0 ψ) and −1 ∗ c(b, ψ) = (prKer d∗ ρ ((ψψ )0), ρ(b)ψ − ξ(ψ)ψ). Here ξ(ψ) ∈ iΩ0(Y ) is determined by the conditions Z −1 ∗ dξ(ψ) = (1 − prKer d∗ ) ◦ ρ ((ψψ )0) and ξ(ψ) = 0. Y Note that l + c is S1-equivariant, where the S1-action is coming from 1 0 S = Gk+ 1 (Y )/G 1 (Y ). 2 k+ 2 ADJUNCTION INEQUALITY, BF-TYPE REFINEMENT OF KM-INVARIANT 19

For a subset I ⊂ , a map x = (b, ψ): I → V 1 (Y ) is called a Seiberg–Witten R k− 2 trajectory if ∂ (15) x(t) = −(l + c)(x(t)). ∂t

Definition 4.1. A Seiberg–Witten trajectory x = (b, ψ): I → V 1 (Y ) is finite k− 2 type if sup kψ(t)kY < ∞ and sup |L(x(t))| < ∞. t∈I t∈I µ We consider subspaces Vλ (Y ) defined as the direct sums of eigenspaces whose 2 eigenvalues of l are in (λ, µ] for λ < 0 < µ and denote L -projection from Vk− 1 (Y ) µ µ 2 to Vλ (Y ) by pλ. Then the finite dimensional approximation of (15) is given by ∂ (16) x(t) = −(l + pµc)(x(t)), ∂t λ µ where x is a map from I ⊂ R to Vλ (Y ). Manolescu([46]) proved the following result: Theorem 4.2. The following results hold.

• There exists R > 0 such that all finite type trajectories x : → V 1 (Y ) R k− 2 ◦ ◦ are contained in B(R; V 1 (Y )), where B(R; V 1 (Y )) is the open ball with k− 2 k− 2 radius R in V 1 (Y ). k− 2 • For sufficiently large µ and −λ and the vector field µ β(l + pλc) ◦ µ µ 1 on Vλ (Y ), B(2R; Vλ (Y )) is an isolating neighborhood, where β is S - invariant bump function such that β| ◦ = 0 and β| ◦ = 1. B(3R)c B(2R) 1 µ µ Then an S -equivariant Conley index Iλ depending on Vλ (Y ), the flow (16), an ◦ isolating neighborhood B(2R) and its isolated invariant set is defined. Then the Seiberg–Witten Floer homotopy type is defined by 0 µ −n(Y,s,g)C−Vλ SWF (Y, s) := Σ Iλ , as a stable homotopy type of a pointed S1-space, where n(Y, s, g) is given by c2(s ) − σ(X) n(Y, s, g) := indAP S(D+) − 1 X . C A 8 c Here (X, sX ) is a compact Spin bounding of (Y, s), the used Riemann metric of X is product near the boundary, indAP S(D+) is the Atiyah-Patodi-Singer index of C A + c c the operator DA and a Spin connection A is a Spin connection on X which is an extension of B0. For the meaning of formal desuspensions, see [46]. Next, we summarize the definition of the relative Bauer–Furuta invariant BF (X, sX ) following [32], [46] and [47]. Let X be a compact oriented Riemannian 4-manifold with ∂X = Y is a rational homology 3-sphere. Assume the collar neighborhood of c ∂X is isometric to the product. Let sX be a Spin structure on X and give Y the c Spin structure s obtained by restricting sX to Y . We denote the spinor bundles + − of sX by SX = SX ⊕ SX and the spinor bundle of s by S. For simplicity, assume b1(X) = 0 20 NOBUO IIDA, ANUBHAV MUKHERJEE, AND MASAKI TANIGUCHI

1 Let ΩCC (X) be the space of 1-forms a on X in double Coulomb gauge. The relative Bauer–Furuta invariant BF (X, sX ) arises as the ﬁnite-dimensional approximation of the Seiberg–Witten map (17) λ 2 1 2 + 2 + − λ FX : Lk(iΛX )CC ⊕ Lk(SX ) →Lk−1(iΛX ⊕ SX ) ⊕ V−∞(Y ) (18) (a, φ) 7→(d+a − ρ−1(φφ∗) ,D+ φ + ρ(a)φ, pλ ◦ r(a, φ)) 0 A0 −∞ for λ ∈ R. We will denote 2 1 2 + 2 + − UX = Lk(iΛX )CC ⊕ Lk(SX ) and VX = Lk−1(iΛX ⊕ SX ).

We will also sometimes denote the map to the first two factors by LX + CX , where L = d+ + D+ + pλ r and C is compact. The finite-dimensional approximation X A0 −∞ X goes as follows. Pick an increasing sequence λn → ∞ and an increasing sequence of finite-dimensional subspaces VX,n ⊂ VX with prVX,n → 1 pointwise. Let U = (L + pλn r)−1(V × V λn ) ⊂ U , X,n X −∞ X,n −λn X and F := P ◦ F λn : U → V ⊕ V λn , X,n n X X,n X,n −λn where P := pr × pr λ . Let n VX,n V n −λn K1 = (F )−1(B(V ; ε ) × V λn ) ∩ B(U ,R), eX,n X,n X,n n −λn X,n K2 = (F )−1(B(V ; ε ) × V λn ) ∩ S(U ,R) eX,n X,n X,n n −λn X,n 1 1 2 2 KX,n = prV λn ◦ FX,n(KeX,n),KX,n = prV λn ◦ FX,n(KeX,n) −λn −λn 1 for some R > 0. One can find an S -equivariant index pair (NX,n,LX,n) which represents the Conley index for V λn in the form N /L such that K1 ⊂ −λn X,n X,n X,n 2 NX,n and KX,n ⊂ LX,n. Now, for a sufficiently large n, we have a map c FX,n : B(UX,n,R)/S(UX,n,R) → (VX,n/(B(VX,n, ε) )) ∧ (NX,n/LX,n).

This gives the relative Bauer–Furuta invariant BF (X, sX ) constructed by Khand- hawit([32]) and Manolescu([46]). 4.2. Proof of Theorem 1.24. In order to prove non-vanishing result in Theo- rem 1.24, we need to introduce Seiberg–Witten Floer homotopy contact invariant 1 0 −d3(−Y ;ξ) Ψ(Y, ξ): S → SWF 2 (Y, sξ)(19) for a contact 3-manifold (Y, ξ) with b1(X) = 0. For this invariant, the following lemma is proved: Lemma 4.3. [31, Lemma 5.20] Let Y be a rational homology 3-sphere with a positive scalar curvature gY and a fillable contact structure ξ whose filling satisfies 1 ( −d3(−Y,ξ)) 0 b3 = 0. Then Σ 2 RSWF (−Y, sξ) is stably homotopy equivalent to S and Ψ(Y, ξ): S0 → S0 S is a homotopy equivalence. (The map Ψ(Y, ξ) is a generator of π0 .) Moreover, for a symplectic filling (W, ω) of (W, ξ), the non-equivariant relative Bauer–Furuta invariant of (W, sω) 0 0 BF (W, sω): S → S is also a homotopy equivalence. ADJUNCTION INEQUALITY, BF-TYPE REFINEMENT OF KM-INVARIANT 21

Note that, in the proof of [31, Lemma 5.20], we only use the fact δ + SWF (Y, s) = (C ) for a rational number δ ∈ Q. We improve Lemma 4.3 as the following result: Lemma 4.4. Let (Y, ξ) be a contact rational homology 3-sphere with the condition ∼ δ + SWF (Y, sξ) = (C ) for some δ ∈ Q and (W, ω) be a symplectic filling of (Y, ξ) and b3(W ) = 0. 1 Then, BF (W, sω) is an S -equivariant homotopy equivalence. Proof. Suppose Y admits a fillable contact structure ξ with a filling (W, ω). We set b1(W ) = 0. Then, Lemma 4.3 implies the Bauer–Furuta invariant 0 0 BF (W, sω): S → S is a homotopy equivalence as non-equivariant stable homotopy classes. By [31, Theorem 5.3], we can conclude that b+(W ) = 0. In general, the restriction of the relative Bauer–Furuta invariant BF (W, sω) of c connected compact Spin 4-manifold (W, sω) with b1(W ) = 0 and b1(∂W ) = 0 to the S1-invariant part S1 m + m+b+(W ) + BF (W, sω) :(R ) → (R ) S1 is coming from linear inclusion [46,48]. In our situation, BF (W, sω) is a homotopy equivalence since we have b+(W ) = 0. It is proved in [69] (used in [2]) that such an S1-equivariant map is S1-homotopic to the identity. So, we can conclude that 1 BF (W, sω) is an S -equivariant homotopy equivalence. 1 Now, we give a proof of Theorem 1.24. By Lemma 4.4, BF (W, sω) is an S - equivariant homotopy equivalence. By applying the gluing formula for relative Bauer–Furuta invariants [2, 47], we can conclude that

Ψ(W #X, sω#sX ) = Ψ(W, sω) ◦ BF (X, sX ). Here we actually used the following computations as S1-equivariant maps: • BF (D4) = Id (This is a special case of Lemma 4.4), o o 4 • BF (X , s|Xo ) = BF (X, s), where X is X \ int D , and o o • BF (X #X , s #s ) = BF (X , s | o ) ◦ BF (X , s | o ). 1 2 1 2 1 1 X1 2 2 X2 1 This completes the proof of Theorem 1.24. Since BF (W, sω) is an S -equivariant homotopy equivalence and Ψ(X, s) is not null homotopic as an S1-equivariant map, 1 Ψ(W #X, sω#s) is not null homotopic as an S -equivariant map. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.24. 4.3. Proof of Theorem 1.25. In this subsection, we prove adjunction inequality Theorem 1.25 for the relative Bauer–Furuta invariant. As in the case of Theo- rem 1.11, we can see that (ii) follows from (i). The proof is essentially the same as in the proof of Theorem 1.11. Proof of Theorem 1.25(i). We ﬁx a Riemann metric on W which is product near the boundary ∂W = Y . In addition, suppose there is an embedded codimension-1 manifold M ⊂ int(W ). ◦ ◦ We set W := W \ν(M), where ν(M) is an even smaller open tubular neighborhood of M. Then ∂W = M ∪ (−M). 22 NOBUO IIDA, ANUBHAV MUKHERJEE, AND MASAKI TANIGUCHI

Let T be a non-negative real number and W (T ) be a Riemannian manifold obtained from W by inserting a neck [−T,T ] × M with a product metric:

W (T ) = [−T,T ] × M ∪M∪(−M) W such that the restriction of the metric of W (T ) on W coincides with a given metric. For each T , we have the η-perturbed Seiberg–Witten map λ λ FW (T ),η : UW (T ) → VW (T ) ⊕ V−∞(Y ) (20) (a, φ) 7→ (d+a − ρ−1(φφ∗) + η, D+ φ + ρ(a)φ, pλ ◦ r(a, φ)) 0 A0 −∞ for a ﬁxed closed two form η on W (T ) such that supp η ⊂ int W (T ). Pick an increasing sequence λn → ∞ and an increasing sequence of ﬁnite- dimensional subspaces V ⊂ V with pr → 1 pointwise for each W (T ),n W (T ) VW (T ),n T . Let U = (L + pλn r)−1(V × V λn ) ⊂ U , W (T ),n W (T ) −∞ W (T ),n −λn W (T ) and F := P ◦ F λn : U → V ⊕ V λn . W (T ),n n W (T ) W (T ),n W (T ),n −λn Also, as it is mentioned in the previous section, we can obtain (21) c FW (T ),n : B(UW (T ),n,R)/S(UW (T ),n,R) → (VW (T ),n/(B(VW (T ),n, ε) )) ∧ (NT,n/LT,n) for some index pairs (NT,n,LT,n).

0 0 00 00 Lemma 4.5. Let U = Rm ⊕ Cn, V = Rm ⊕ Cn , W = Rm ⊕ Cn be finite dimensional vector spaces with S1 action. Here, the S1-action on R is trivial and 1 1 the S = U(1) action on C is standard. Let (I, y0) be a pointed S -space equipped with an S1-equivariant pointed homotopy equivalence h : I → W +. Suppose an S1-equivariant pointed map f : U + → V + ∧ I is given and f −1(0, y) is empty for all y ∈ I. Then, f is S1-null-homotopic. Proof. Define 0 + + + f := (idV + ∧ h) ◦ f : U → V ∧ W . Then, we have the following commutative diagram up to based homotopy: U + −−−−→ V + ∧ I   (22) = id + ∧h y V y U + −−−−→ V + ∧ W +, It is sufficient to show that (f 0)−1(0, 0) = ∅, but this is obvious since the image of + + f is contained in V ∧ {y0} by assumption and h sends y0 ∈ I to + ∈ W . The following lemma is the key lemma to prove Theorem 1.25.

Lemma 4.6. For any T , there exists a solution xT to Seiberg–Witten equation on W such that

Lη(xT |{−T }×M ) − Lη(xT |{T }×M ) ≤ C. ADJUNCTION INEQUALITY, BF-TYPE REFINEMENT OF KM-INVARIANT 23

Proof. Apply the above lemma with U = UW (T ),n, V = VW (T ),n,

(I, y0) = (NT,n/LT,n,LT,n/LT,n),

1 and f = FW (T ),n. Since FW (T ),n is not S stable homotopy equivalent to the constant map and we are assuming

δ + SWF (Y, s) =∼ (C ) , the above lemma implies that there is some element yn,T ∈ NT such that

−1 xn,T ∈ FW (T ),n(0, yn,T ) 6= ∅.

0 (Note that f = FW (T ),n itself is not necessarily surjective, unlike FW (T ),n.) Using

[32], there is a subsequence {xnj ,T } of {xn,T } such that

2 xnj ,T → xT in Lk(W (T )) as j → ∞.

The proof of boundedness of Lη(xT |{−T }×M ) − Lη(xT |{T }×M ) is essentially the same as in the proof of Lemma 3.3. Then, the following proposition can be also proved using the same argument in Proposition 3.2

Proposition 4.7. For each T , we have a solution xT to the η-perturbed Seiberg– Witten equation on W (T ) with

Lη(xT |{−T }×M ) − Lη(xT |{T }×M ) ≤ C. c Consider the Spin structure on the cylinder R × M obtained as the pull back of s|M by the projection R × M → M Then there exists a solution to the η-perturbed Seiberg–Witten equation

1 + ∗ + F t − ρ(ΦΦ )0 = 2iηˆ (23) 2 A + DAΦ = 0 which is translation invariant and in a temporal gauge. Here, ηˆ is the pull back of η by the projection R × M → M and the word temporal gauge means that the dt c component of the Spin connection vanishes. However, this contradicts Proposition 3.4. This completes the proof of Theo- rem 1.24(i). The proof of Theorem 1.24(iii) is essentially the same as that of Theorem 1.23(ii). So we omit it.

5. Proof of Applications In this section, we will ﬁrst prove Theorem 1.11 which obstructs codimension-0 + embeddings of 4-manifolds in symplectic 4-manifolds with b2 ≡ 3 mod 4 and their connected sums. Part of this proof is inspired by the idea to ﬁnd embedded 2- spheres given in [72] by Yasui. 24 NOBUO IIDA, ANUBHAV MUKHERJEE, AND MASAKI TANIGUCHI

Proof of Theorem 1.11. Let us assume that W can be embedded in X. In order to kill the homology of the boundary, we obtain a new 4-manifold W1 from W with boundary a rational homology sphere Y1 by attaching Weinstein 2-handles on the boundary Y along the generators of b1(Y ). By Theorem 2.1, W1 is a (weak) symplectic 4-manifold with convex boundary (Y1, ξ1). Notice that W\W is embedded in W1#X, see Figure 1.

W W

W1 X

Figure 1. This is an analogous picture of W\W embedded in W1#X.

Since W has a geometrically isolated 2-handle, there exists a handle decomposition of W with a 2-handle h that doesn’t intersect any 1-handles of W and ∼ in particular of W1. And moreover h is non-trivial in H2(W1, ∂W1; Z)/ Tor = H2(W1; Z)/ Tor. (Here we used b1(∂W1) = 0.) Now in W\W , by sliding the 2-handle h over h we obtain a new 2-handle h0, where h is a 2-handle of W corresponding to h. Since h and h doesn’t intersect any 1-handles of W\W , the attaching sphere of h0 bounds a disk in the complement of the core of the 2-handle h0, see Figure 2. And thus after attaching the core of h0 we get a self-intersection 0 2-sphere S embedded in W1#X. Notice that the projection map from H2(S; Z) to H2(W1; Z)/ Tor is non-trivial. And thus S represent a non-trivial element in H2(W1#X; Z)/ Tor . So by Theorem 1.19, Ψ(W1#X, ξ1, s1#sX ) = 0. But this contradicts the Theroem 1.23. Similar arguments work for X1#X2 and X1#X2#X3, since we have non-vanishing result Theorem 1.23 of Iida’s invariant Ψ for such manifolds. Now we will obstruct codimension-0 embeddings in symplectic 4-manifolds. Proof of Theorem 1.13. The proof of Theorem 1.13 is the same as that of Theo- + rem 1.11. Notice that if X is symplectic 4-manifold with b1 = 0, then b2 (X) ≡ + 3 or 1 mod 4. We have already proved the case for b2 (X) ≡ 3 mod 4. For the later case, if we assume that W is embedded in X, then following the same strategy of handle-slides in the proof of Theorem 1.11 one can construct a self-intersection 0-sphere S which is non-trivial in H2(W #X; Z)/ Tor. But this contradicts the adjunction inequality, Theorem 1.25. Next we will prove Theorem 1.16. This proof uses relative Bauer–Furuta invariant but doesn’t use Iida’s invariant (1). ADJUNCTION INEQUALITY, BF-TYPE REFINEMENT OF KM-INVARIANT 25 h h −→

W\W

Handle slide h over h

W\W

Figure 2. After siding h over h we get a self-intersection 0 sphere S in W\W .

Proof of Theorem 1.16. Suppose, on the contrary, there exists such a positive definite symplectic cap X. We can take a strong symplectic ﬁlling W with b1 = 0 of (Y, ξ) by the assumption. The closed manifold W ∪ X obtained by gluing W and X along the boundaries has the glued symplectic structure, which we denote by Ω. Let us denote X with the opposite orientation by X, which is negative deﬁnite and whose oriented boundary is Y . By assumption, we can take a Spinc structure sX on X such that −c2(s ) + b (X) 1 X 2 = δ. 8 c We regard sX also as a Spin structure on X. By the assumption that Y has a positive scalar curvature metric, the Seiberg–Witten Floer homotopy type of (Y, sξ) is given by δ + SWF (Y, sξ) = (C ) , where δ = δ(Y, sξ) is the Frøyshov invariant. Now the relative Bauer–Furuta invariant of (X, sX ) is a morphism

−c2(s ) +b (X) 0 1 X X 2 + 0 δ + BF (X, sX ):(R ⊕ C 8 ) → (R ⊕ C ) . Note that the domain and the codomain have the same dimension here. 1 The S -invariant part of BF (X, sX ) is induced by a linear isomorphism and thus 1 homotopy equivarence, so BF (X, sX ) is S equivariant homotopy equivalence by [3, Lemma 3.8]. On the other hand, since W ∪ X is a closed symplectic 4-manifold + + with b ≥ 2 and b1 = 0 (We use the assumption b (X) ≥ 2, b1(X), b1(W ) = 0 1 here.), its S -equivariant Bauer–Furuta invariant BF (W ∪ X, sΩ) is non-trivial. 26 NOBUO IIDA, ANUBHAV MUKHERJEE, AND MASAKI TANIGUCHI

Combined with the gluing result of [33, 47], the relative Bauer–Furuta invariant of (W ∪ X)#X is given by

BF ((W ∪ X)#X, sΩ#sX ) = BF (W ∪ X, sΩ) ∧ BF (X, sX ) = BF (W ∪ X, sX ).

Thus BF ((W ∪ X)#X, sΩ#sX ) is non-trivial. However, as given in the proof of Theorem 1.11, we can construct an embedded 2-sphere S inside (W ∪ X)#X as a non-torsion element of H2((W ∪ X)#X, ∂((W ∪ X)#X); Z) with self intersection number 0. So, using Theorem 1.23, one can conclude that

BF ((W ∪ X)#X, sΩ#sX ) = 0.

This gives a contradiction. Now we will prove Theorem 1.14 which is giving some constrains on the topology of symplectic caps of S3 and Σ(2, 3, 5).

Proof of Theorem 1.14. We prove the case of S3 and that of Σ(2, 3, 5) respectively: • It is sufficient to show that any compact oriented positive definite 4-manifold 3 c X with b1(X) = 0 and ∂X = −S admits a Spin structure sX satisfying −c2(s ) + b (X) 1 X 2 = 0. 8 By Donaldson’s theorem A [8], we can conclude that the intersection form ⊕b2(X) of X is isomorphic to (+1) . We write by {vi}1≤i≤b2(X) a basis of the intersection form of X representing (+1)⊕b2(X). c Since v1 + ··· + vb2(X) is a characterisic vector, there exist a Spin structure sX such that its first Chern class is equal to it. Obviously 2 c c1(sX ) = b2(X) holds, so this is a desired Spin structure. • It is sufficient to show that any compact oriented positive definite 4-manifold X with b1(X) = 0 and ∂X = −Σ(2, 3, 5), and having no 2-torsion on its c homology admits a Spin structure sX satisfying 2 −c1(sX ) + b2(X) = 8. By Scaduto’s theorem [66, Theorem 1.3], we can conclude that the in- ⊕(b2(X)−8) tersection form of X is isomorphic to E8 ⊕ (+1) . We write

by {vi}1≤i≤b2(X) a basis of the intersection form of X representing E8 ⊕ ⊕(b2(X)−8) (+1) . Since v9 + ··· + vb2(X) is a characterisic vector, there exist c a Spin structure sX such that its ﬁrst Chern class is equal to it. Obviously 2 c c1(sX ) = b2(X) − 8 holds, so this is a desired Spin structure. Now we will prove Theorem 1.1 which is giving an obstruction for a knot being H-slice in a 4-manifold with boundary S3.

◦ Proof of Theorem 1.1. Notice that if K is H-slice in X then X0(K), which has an geometrically isolated 2-handle, embedded in X. But follows from Theorem 2.1 X0(K) has a symplectic structure with convex boundary since TB(K) > 0. Thus it is contradicting Theorem 1.11. Same arguments work for X1#X2 and X1#X2#X3. ADJUNCTION INEQUALITY, BF-TYPE REFINEMENT OF KM-INVARIANT 27

Remark 5.1. As it is mentioned in Remark 1.2, for a Spinc 4-manifold with contact boundary, the generalized Bennequin inequality holds when the Kronheimer– Mrowka’s invariant is not zero. Theorem 1.1 can be seen as results for symplectic caps. Here we conﬁrm that Kronheimer–Mrowka’s invariant always vanishes for 3 any symplectic cap with (S , ξstd)-boundary. Recall that Kronheimer–Mrowka’s invariant is deﬁned to be zero unless the virtual dimension of the moduli space is 3 zero. We show that for any symplectic cap X with (S , ξstd)-boundary, the virtual dimension is odd. 4 4 This follows from the following two facts by regarding X = (X ∪S3 D )#D : (1) For any closed oriented 4-manifold X, the parity of the virtual dimension of the Seiberg–Witten moduli space is independent of the Spinc structure. Moreover, they are even if there exists an almost complex structure on X. c c (2) Let (X1, s1) be a closed oriented Spin 4-manifold and (X2, ξ, s2) be a Spin

4-manifold with contact boundary with s|∂X2 = sξ. Then he(S+ , Φ ), [X #X , ∂(X #X )]i = he(S+ ), [X ]i+he(S+ , Φ ), [X , ∂X ]i+1, X1#X2 0 1 2 1 2 X1 1 X1 0 2 2

where Φ0 is a non-vanishing section on ∂(X1#X2) = ∂X2 constructed as in Section 2. We first prove (1). Recall that the virtural dimension is the sum of the index for Spinc Dirac operator and Atiyah–Hitchin–Singer (AHS) operator. The former is even since Spinc Dirac operator is complex operator and AHS operator does not involve Spinc structure. This implies the first part of (1). The virtual dimension of Seiberg–Witten moduli space for a closed Spinc 4- manifold (X, s) is given by 1 he(S+), [X]i = (c (s)2 − 2χ(X) − 3σ(X)) 4 1 (See [43, lemma 28.2.3],for example). If s comes from an almost complex structure, we can give a non-vanishing section of S+ (See [41, lemma 2.1], for example). Thus e(S+) = 0. This implies the second claim of (1). ◦ We next prove (2). We denote Xi the manifold obtained from Xi by removing a small 4-ball from the interior and regard ◦ ◦ X1#X2 = X1 ∪S3 X2 . We also consider 4 4 4 S = D+ ∪S3 D−. equipped with the unique Spinc structure. We fix a non-vanishing section of the c 3 3 ◦ spinor bundle of the unique Spin structure on S . We identify this S with ∂X1 4 and ∂D+ at the same time, so we obtained a non-vanishing section of the positive spinor bundle on 4 ◦ 4 ◦ ◦ ∂D+ q ∂X1 q ∂X2 ⊂ S q (X1 ∪S3 X2 ).

We can extend this section to X1#X2 so that the zero set is isolated. This section can be also regarded as a section on ◦ 4 4 ◦ (X1 ∪S3 D−) q (D+ ∪S3 X2 ) = X1 q X2. in the obvious way. The number of zero points counted with sign gives the desired equality. Here, we use the fact that the contribution from S4 is −1. Alternatively, we can deduce the same equality from excision principle of index. 28 NOBUO IIDA, ANUBHAV MUKHERJEE, AND MASAKI TANIGUCHI

Now we will prove Theorem 1.3 by constructing inﬁnitely many topologically H-slice but not smoothly H-slice knots.

Proof of Theorem 1.3. Let K be a knot in S3 with TB(K) > 0. It is easy to see that + + the untwisted positive Whitehead double W h0 (K) of K has TB(W h0 (K)) > 0. + 4 Since W h0 (K) is topologically slice in B , it is topologically H-slice in X. But it is not smoothly H-slice in X by Theorem 1.1. Now, we take a concrete fam-

n ily of knots as torus knots {T2,2 −1}n∈Z>0 . In [22], Hedden-Kirk proved that + n {W h0 (T2,2 −1)}n∈Z>0 are linearly independent in the knot concordance group. Remark 5.2. There are many preceding studies of linear independence of inﬁnitely many topologically slice knots in the knot concordance group. Let T be the subgroup of the knot concordance group generated by topologically slice knots. Endo [11] proved that T contains Z∞ (a certain class of preztel knots) as a subgroup by using Furuta’s result [20]. There are many developments of studies of Z∞- subgroups in T : In Yang-Mills gauge theory side, there are several related studies of Z∞-subgroups in T [22, 54, 61]. In Heegaard Floer theory, several concordance invariants were constructed: the tau-invariant τ : C → Z [56], the nu+ invariant + ν : C → Z≥0 [28], and the upsilon invariant Υ : C → PL([0, 2], R) [58]. Moreover, there are several studies ﬁnding Z∞-subgroup or summands in T in Heegaard Floer theory [1, 26, 34, 58]. Now we will prove Theorem 1.5 which focuses on knots in K3◦.

+ Proof of Theorem 1.5. For a knot K with TB(K) > 0 if we prove that W h0 (K) is smoothly slice in K3 then by using Theorem 1.3 we can prove that it is topologically H-slice and smoothly slice but not smoothly H-slice. Since the unknotting number + of W h0 (K) is 1, by [49, Corollary 2.8], it is smoothly slice in K3. Now, we take n a concrete family of knots as torus knots {T2,2 −1}n∈Z>0 . Again, in [22], Hedden- + Kirk proved that {W h0 (T2,2n−1)} are linearly independent in the knot concordance group. Now we will use our techniques to obstruct knots in S3 from being rationally slice.

Proof of Theorem 1.7. Let K be a slice knot in a rational homology ball W with boundary S3 and TB(K) > 0. We obtained X, a closed rational homology 4- sphere, by capping-oﬀ W with a 4-ball. If K is slice in W then Xn(K) can be embedded in X for some n ∈ Z. We will ﬁrst show that n = 0. If not, then boundary of Xn(K) is a rational homology sphere. By Mayer–Vietoris formulation, b2(X) ≥ b2(Xn(K)) = 1. But X is a rational homology 4-sphere, so contradiction. Since TB(K) > 0, X0(K) has a symplectic structure by Theorem 2.1. Attach a Weinstein 2-handle on X0(K) along the meridian of K to obtain a new symplectic 4-manifold X1 with convex boundary (Y1, ξ1). Note that X1 has an isolated 2-handle and b3(X1) = 0 by the construction. But similar to the proof of Theorem 1.11 we can prove that there exists a self intersection 0 sphere which represent a non-trivial element of H2(X1#X; Z)/ Tor. So Ψ(X1#X, ξ1) = 0 by Theorem 1.19. But this contradicts Theorem 1.23. Finally we will use our invariant to detect exotic structures on compact 4- manifolds with boundary. ADJUNCTION INEQUALITY, BF-TYPE REFINEMENT OF KM-INVARIANT 29

Proof of Theorem 1.18. Notice that if a 3-manifold Y bounds an exotic pair of 4- manifolds X and X0 then by reversing orientation, Y bounds an exotic pair X and X0. So, without loss of generality, we assumed that (W, ω) is a weak-symplectic 2 ﬁlling of (Y, ξ) with b3(W ) = 0 by Corollary 1.23. If X = W #K3#CP then Ψ(X, ξ, s) 6= 0. So by the result of Freedman, [16] K3#CP2 is homeomorphic to 3CP2#20CP2 and thus X is homeomorphic to X0 = W #3CP2#20CP2. Now notice that there exists a smooth self-intersection 0 2-sphere representing the element 2 2 0 0 α + α ∈ H2(CP #CP ; Z) ⊂ H2(X ; Z)/ Tor . So by Theorem 1.19, Ψ(X , ξ) = 0. 0 Thus X and X are not diﬀeomorphic.

References [1] Antonio Alfieri, Sungkyung Kang, and AndrásI. Stipsicz, Connected Floer homology of cov- ering involutions, Math. Ann. 377 (2020), no. 3-4, 1427–1452. MR4126897 [2] Stefan Bauer, A stable cohomotopy refinement of Seiberg-Witten invariants. II, Invent. Math. 155 (2004), no. 1, 21–40. MR2025299 [3] Stefan Bauer and Mikio Furuta, A stable cohomotopy refinement of Seiberg-Witten invariants. I, Invent. Math. 155 (2004), no. 1, 1–19. MR2025298 [4] Tim D. Cochran and Robert E. Gompf, Applications of Donaldson’s theorems to classical knot concordance, homology 3-spheres and property P , Topology 27 (1988), no. 4, 495–512. MR976591 [5] Aliakbar Daemi and Christopher Scaduto, Equivariant aspects of singular instanton floer homology (2019), available at arXiv:1912.08982. [6] Bo Dai, Chung-I Ho, and Tian-Jun Li, Minimal genus for 4-manifolds with b+ = 1, J. Topol. 9 (2016), no. 1, 5–26. MR3465838 [7] Irving Dai, Jennifer Hom, Matthew Stoffregen, and Linh Truong, More concordance homomorphisms from knot Floer homology (2019), available at arXiv:1902.03333. [8] S. K. Donaldson, An application of gauge theory to four-dimensional topology, J. Differential Geom. 18 (1983), no. 2, 279–315. MR710056 [9] Yakov Eliashberg, Topological characterization of Stein manifolds of dimension > 2, Internat. J. Math. 1 (1990), no. 1, 29–46. MR1044658 [10] , Contact 3-manifolds twenty years since J. Martinet’s work, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 42 (1992), no. 1-2, 165–192. MR1162559 [11] Hisaaki Endo, Linear independence of topologically slice knots in the smooth cobordism group, Topology Appl. 63 (1995), no. 3, 257–262. MR1334309 [12] John B. Etnyre and Ko Honda, On symplectic cobordisms, Math. Ann. 323 (2002), no. 1, 31–39. MR1906906 [13] , Tight contact structures with no symplectic fillings, Invent. Math. 148 (2002), no. 3, 609–626. MR1908061 [14] John B. Etnyre, Hyunki Min, and Anubhav Mukherjee, On 3-manifolds that are boundaries of exotic 4-manifolds (2020), available at 1901.07964. [15] Ronald Fintushel and Ronald J. Stern, Immersed spheres in 4-manifolds and the immersed Thom conjecture, Turkish J. Math. 19 (1995), no. 2, 145–157. MR1349567 [16] Michael Hartley Freedman, The topology of four-dimensional manifolds, J. Differential Ge- ometry 17 (1982), no. 3, 357–453. MR679066 [17] Kim A. Frø yshov, Monopoles over 4-manifolds containing long necks. I, Geom. Topol. 9 (2005), 1–93. MR2115668 11 [18] M. Furuta, Monopole equation and the 8 -conjecture, Math. Res. Lett. 8 (2001), no. 3, 279– 291. MR1839478 [19] M. Furuta, Y. Kametani, and N. Minami, Stable-homotopy Seiberg-Witten invariants for rational cohomology K3#K3’s, J. Math. Sci. Univ. Tokyo 8 (2001), no. 1, 157–176. MR1818910 [20] Mikio Furuta, Homology cobordism group of homology 3-spheres, Invent. Math. 100 (1990), no. 2, 339–355. MR1047138 [21] Patrick M. Gilmer, Configurations of surfaces in 4-manifolds, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 264 (1981), no. 2, 353–380. MR603768 30 NOBUO IIDA, ANUBHAV MUKHERJEE, AND MASAKI TANIGUCHI

[22] Matthew Hedden and Paul Kirk, Instantons, concordance, and Whitehead doubling, J. Dif- ferential Geom. 91 (2012), no. 2, 281–319. MR2971290 [23] Matthew Hedden and Katherine Raoux, Knot Floer homology and relative adjunction inequalities (2020), available at arXiv:2009.05462. [24] Kristen Hendricks and Ciprian Manolescu, Involutive Heegaard Floer homology, Duke Math. J. 166 (2017), no. 7, 1211–1299. MR3649355 [25] Jennifer Hom, The knot Floer complex and the smooth concordance group, Comment. Math. Helv. 89 (2014), no. 3, 537–570. MR3260841 [26] , Correction to the article An infinite-rank summand of topologically slice knots, Geom. Topol. 23 (2019), no. 5, 2699–2700. MR4019902 [27] Jennifer Hom and Tye Lidman, A note on positive-definite, symplectic four-manifolds, J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 21 (2019), no. 1, 257–270. MR3880209 [28] Jennifer Hom and Zhongtao Wu, Four-ball genus bounds and a refinement of the Ozváth- Szabótau invariant, J. Symplectic Geom. 14 (2016), no. 1, 305–323. MR3523259 [29] Michael J. Hopkins, Jianfeng Lin, XiaoLin Danny Shi, and Zhouli Xu, Intersection forms of spin 4-manifolds and the pin(2)-equivariant mahowald invariant (2018), available at arXiv: 1812.04052. [30] Nobuo Iida, A Bauer-Furuta type refinement of Kronheimer-Mrowka’s invariant for 4- manifolds with contact boundary (2019), available at arXiv:1906.07938. [31] Nobuo Iida and Masaki Taniguchi, Seiberg-Witten Floer homotopy contact invariant (2020), available at arXiv:2010.02132. [32] Tirasan Khandhawit, A new gauge slice for the relative Bauer-Furuta invariants, Geom. Topol. 19 (2015), no. 3, 1631–1655. MR3352245 [33] Tirasan Khandhawit, Jianfeng Lin, and Hirofumi Sasahira, Unfolded seiberg-witten floer spec- tra, ii: Relative invariants and the gluing theorem (2018), available at arXiv:1809.09151. [34] Min Hoon Kim and Kyungbae Park, An infinite-rank summand of knots with trivial Alexan- der polynomial, J. Symplectic Geom. 16 (2018), no. 6, 1749–1771. MR3934241 [35] Michael Klug and Benjamin Ruppik, Deep and shallow slice knots in 4-manifolds (2020), available at arXiv:2009.03053. [36] Hokuto Konno, Bounds on genus and configurations of embedded surfaces in 4-manifolds, J. Topol. 9 (2016), no. 4, 1130–1152. MR3620461 [37] P. B. Kronheimer and T. S. Mrowka, Gauge theory for embedded surfaces. I, Topology 32 (1993), no. 4, 773–826. MR1241873 [38] , The genus of embedded surfaces in the projective plane, Math. Res. Lett. 1 (1994), no. 6, 797–808. MR1306022 [39] , Embedded surfaces and the structure of Donaldson’s polynomial invariants, J. Dif- ferential Geom. 41 (1995), no. 3, 573–734. MR1338483 [40] , Gauge theory for embedded surfaces. II, Topology 34 (1995), no. 1, 37–97. MR1308489 [41] , Monopoles and contact structures, Invent. Math. 130 (1997), no. 2, 209–255. MR1474156 [42] , Gauge theory and Rasmussen’s invariant, J. Topol. 6 (2013), no. 3, 659–674. MR3100886 [43] Peter Kronheimer and Tomasz Mrowka, Monopoles and three-manifolds, New Mathematical Monographs, vol. 10, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007. MR2388043 [44] Peter B. Kronheimer and Tomasz S. Mrowka, Instantons and some concordance invariants of knots (2019), available at arXiv:1910.11129. [45] Paolo Lisca, Symplectic fillings and positive scalar curvature, Geom. Topol. 2 (1998), 103– 116. MR1633282 [46] Ciprian Manolescu, Seiberg-Witten-Floer stable homotopy type of three-manifolds with b1 = 0, Geom. Topol. 7 (2003), 889–932. MR2026550 [47] , A gluing theorem for the relative Bauer-Furuta invariants, J. Differential Geom. 76 (2007), no. 1, 117–153. MR2312050 [48] , On the intersection forms of spin four-manifolds with boundary, Math. Ann. 359 (2014), no. 3-4, 695–728. MR3231012 [49] Ciprian Manolescu, Marco Marengon, and Lisa Piccirillo, Relative genus bounds in indefinite four-manifolds (2020), available at 2012.12270. ADJUNCTION INEQUALITY, BF-TYPE REFINEMENT OF KM-INVARIANT 31

[50] Ciprian Manolescu, Marco Marengon, Sucharit Sarkar, and Michael Willis, A generalization of rasmussen’s invariant, with applications to surfaces in some four-manifolds (2019), available at arXiv:1910.08195. [51] Ciprian Manolescu and Brendan Owens, A concordance invariant from the Floer homology of double branched covers, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 20 (2007), Art. ID rnm077, 21. MR2363303 [52] John W. Morgan, ZoltánSzabó,and Clifford Henry Taubes, A product formula for the Seiberg-Witten invariants and the generalized Thom conjecture, J. Differential Geom. 44 (1996), no. 4, 706–788. MR1438191 [53] Tomasz Mrowka and Yann Rollin, Legendrian knots and monopoles, Algebr. Geom. Topol. 6 (2006), 1–69. MR2199446 [54] Yuta Nozaki, Kouki Sato, and Masaki Taniguchi, Filtered instanton Floer homology and the homology cobordism group (2019), available at arXiv:1905.04001. [55] Peter Ozsváthand ZoltánSzabó, The symplectic Thom conjecture, Ann. of Math. (2) 151 (2000), no. 1, 93–124. MR1745017 [56] , Knot Floer homology and the four-ball genus, Geom. Topol. 7 (2003), 615–639. MR2026543 [57] , Holomorphic triangles and invariants for smooth four-manifolds, Adv. Math. 202 (2006), no. 2, 326–400. MR2222356 [58] Peter S. Ozsváth,AndrásI. Stipsicz, and ZoltánSzabó, Concordance homomorphisms from knot Floer homology, Adv. Math. 315 (2017), 366–426. MR3667589 [59] Peter S. Ozsváthand ZoltánSzabó, Knot Floer homology and integer surgeries, Algebr. Geom. Topol. 8 (2008), no. 1, 101–153. MR2377279 [60] , Knot Floer homology and rational surgeries, Algebr. Geom. Topol. 11 (2011), no. 1, 1–68. MR2764036 [61] Juanita Pinzón-Caicedo, Independence of satellites of torus knots in the smooth concordance group, Geom. Topol. 21 (2017), no. 6, 3191–3211. MR3692965 [62] Olga Plamenevskaya, Bounds for the Thurston-Bennequin number from Floer homology, Al- gebr. Geom. Topol. 4 (2004), 399–406. MR2077671 [63] Jacob Rasmussen, Khovanov homology and the slice genus, Invent. Math. 182 (2010), no. 2, 419–447. MR2729272 [64] Raymond A. Robertello, An invariant of knot cobordism, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 18 (1965), 543–555. MR182965 [65] Kouki Sato, Topologically slice knots that are not smoothly slice in any definite 4-manifold, Algebr. Geom. Topol. 18 (2018), no. 2, 827–837. MR3773740 [66] Christopher Scaduto, On definite lattices bounded by a homology 3-sphere and yang-mills instanton floer theory (2018), available at arXiv:1805.07875. [67] Rob Schneiderman, Stable concordance of knots in 3-manifolds, Algebr. Geom. Topol. 10 (2010), no. 1, 373–432. MR2602841 [68] SaˇsoStrle, Bounds on genus and geometric intersections from cylindrical end moduli spaces, J. Differential Geom. 65 (2003), no. 3, 469–511. MR2064429 [69] Tammo tom Dieck, Transformation groups, De Gruyter Studies in Mathematics, vol. 8, Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1987. MR889050 [70] Alan Weinstein, Contact surgery and symplectic handlebodies, Hokkaido Math. J. 20 (1991), no. 2, 241–251. MR1114405 [71] Kouichi Yasui, Nuclei and exotic 4-manifolds (2012), available at 1111.0620. [72] , Geometrically simply connected 4-manifolds and stable cohomotopy Seiberg-Witten invariants, Geom. Topol. 23 (2019), no. 5, 2685–2697. MR4019901

Graduate School of Mathematical Sciences, the University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro, Tokyo 153-8914, Japan Email address: [email protected]

School of Mathematics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia Email address: [email protected]

2-1 Hirosawa, Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan Email address: [email protected]