For forms on a Riemannian $n$-manifold $(M,g)$ there is a notion of a codifferential $\delta$, which is adjoint to the exterior derivative:

$$\int \langle d \alpha, \beta \rangle \operatorname{vol} = \int \langle \alpha, \delta \beta \rangle \operatorname{vol} $$

$\langle \alpha, \beta \rangle$ is a scalar product of two differential forms induced by $g$, $\operatorname{vol}$ is a volume form, corresponding to $g$. Moreover, $\delta$ is defined through a Hodge star $*$ and exterior derivative $d$:

$$ \delta : \Omega^k(M) \to \Omega^{k-1}(M) \\ \delta = (-1)^{n(k+1)+1}*d* $$

But since $M$ is Riemannian, $d$ can be extended with a Levi-Civita connection $\nabla$ to an exterior covariant derivative $d^\nabla$ to act on tensor-valued differential forms.

Is there such a codifferential for $d^\nabla$ in such case, when scalar product of tensor-valued forms is considered? Is there an analogue of Hodge decomposition? And what happens in the special case of $M$ being Einstein manifold?

Weaker question What is the adjoint $\nabla^*$ of Levi-Civita connection $\nabla : \Gamma(TM) \to \Gamma(TM \otimes T^*M)$ when acting on vector fields?

$$\int \langle \nabla u, A \rangle \operatorname{vol} = \int \langle u, \nabla^* A \rangle \operatorname{vol} $$

$u \in \Gamma(TM)$ --- smooth vector fields, $A \in \Gamma(TM \otimes T^*M)$ --- a linear operator on vector fields. All the required conditions assumed on the boundary to get rid of boundary terms in integration by parts.


1 Answer 1


I think the answers to your first two questions are yes, there is always a codifferential; and no, there is not always a Hodge decomposition. I don't know anything about the Einstein manifold case.

Let's say $E$ is a vector bundle over $M$ with metric and compatible connection $\nabla$. ($E$ could be some tensor bundle with $\nabla$ induced from the Levi-Civita connection, for example.) As you say, $\nabla$ gives an exterior derivative $d^\nabla$ on $E$-valued differential forms that obeys the Leibniz rule $$ d^\nabla (\omega \otimes e) = d\omega \otimes e + (-1)^{\text{deg} \omega} \omega \wedge \nabla e ,$$ where $\omega$ is a homogeneous form and $e$ is a section of $E$, and $\omega \wedge \nabla e$ means $\sum_i (\omega \wedge dx^i) \otimes \nabla_{\partial_i} e$.

For each degree of forms $k$, you can view $d^\nabla$ as a map $d^\nabla: C^\infty( \Lambda^k \otimes E) \to C^\infty( \Lambda^{k+1} \otimes E)$. Using the metrics, each of those spaces of sections are endowed with $L^2$ inner products. Then $d^\nabla$ always has a formal $L^2$-adjoint $\delta^\nabla$ going the other way: $\delta^\nabla: C^\infty( \Lambda^{k+1} \otimes E) \to C^\infty( \Lambda^k \otimes E)$. (Note the space of smooth sections can be completed to the space of $L^2$ sections, but $d^\nabla$ and $\delta^\nabla$ are unbounded operators and can generally only be defined on some dense subspace of that $L^2$ space.)

So you can always define $d^\nabla$ and its formal adjoint $\delta^\nabla$. The issue is that $d^\nabla$ squares to zero if and only if the connection $\nabla$ on $E$ is flat, meaning its curvature is zero. (Flat vector bundles $E$, i.e., bundles on which there exists a flat connection, are relatively scarce.) We need $d^\nabla$ to square to zero to even attempt to define the de Rham cohomology of $E$-valued forms, and to have nice properties like the Hodge decomposition. (I want to say that the "Dirac operator" $D = d^\nabla + \delta^\nabla$ and the "Laplacian" $\Delta = D^2$ are not elliptic unless $d^\nabla$ squares to zero, but I need to think about that.)

I don't have a good reference for this at hand, although the Wikipedia article on bundle-valued forms might be useful.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you. Right now even flat case would be nice. Do you have an explicit expression for $\delta^\nabla$? (it would probably require an extension of Hodge star operator). $\endgroup$
    – Yrogirg
    Oct 3, 2014 at 13:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, I think one can define the Hodge star appropriately in this setting, and the formula for $\delta^\nabla$ should be the usual one. I will try to elaborate on this later. $\endgroup$ Oct 3, 2014 at 13:52
  • $\begingroup$ mathoverflow.net/questions/142913/… seems to be related $\endgroup$
    – Yrogirg
    Oct 3, 2014 at 15:55
  • $\begingroup$ as well as math.stackexchange.com/questions/116554/… $\endgroup$
    – Yrogirg
    Oct 3, 2014 at 16:01
  • $\begingroup$ @PhillipAndreae: Is it possible to give a rigorous meaning to the statement that "flat vector bundles are relatively scarce"? $\endgroup$
    – Alex M.
    Sep 16, 2018 at 15:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.