\section{Introduction}

In recent years, the geometrical study of operator algebras and their homogeneous spaces has become a central topic in the study of infinite dimensional geometry. It is a source of examples and counterexamples, and the operator algebra techniques (Banach algebras and $C^*$ algebras, with their distinguished tools) are being used for obtaining results on abstracts infinite dimensional manifolds by studying their groups of automorphism, isometries, and their associated fiber bundles and $G$-bundles. See the recent book \cite{beltita} by D. Beltita for a full account of these objects and a comprehensive list of references.

In particular, what we are interested in here, is the extension of certain results on the geometric description of complexifications of homogeneous spaces of Banach-Lie groups studied by Beltita and Gal\'e in \cite{beltitagale} and also the decompositions of the acting groups by means of a series of chained reductive structures.

In Section 2 the reader can find the basic facts about Finsler symmetric spaces; these are spaces of the form $G/U$ endowed with a Finsler structure, where $G$ is a Banach-Lie group and $U$ is the fixed point set of an involution $\sigma$ on $G$.  A criteria that ensures that the spaces $G/U$ have semi-negative curvature is recalled from the work of Neeb \cite{neeb}.

In Section 3 we recall the definition of reductive structures, which can be interpreted as connection forms $E$ on homogeneous spaces of the form $G_A/G_B$. Examples in the context of operator algebras are given: conditional expectations, their restrictions to Schatten ideals and projections to corners of operator algebras. The Corach-Porta-Recht splitting theorem by Conde and Larotonda \cite{condelarotonda} is used to prove an extended CPR-splitting theorem in the context of several reductive structures.

In Section 4 the CPR splitting theorem is used to give a geometric description of homogeneous spaces of the form $G_A/G_B$ as associated principal bundles over $U_A/U_B$. Under additional hypothesis about the holomorphic character of $G_A$ and the involution $\sigma$ on $G_A$ it is possible to interpret $G_A/G_B$ as the complexification of $U_A/U_B$. Under these additional assumptions $G_A/G_B$ is identified with the tangent bundle of $U_A/U_B$ and it is shown that this identification has nice functorial properties related to the connection form $E$. Finally, we use the three examples of connection forms introduced in Section 3, to give a geometrical description of the complexifications of flag manifolds, coadjoint orbits in Schatten ideals and Stiefel manifolds respectively.

\section{Finsler symmetric spaces}

A connected Banach-Lie group $G$ with an involutive automorphism $\sigma$ is called a \textit{symmetric Lie group}. Let $\mathfrak g$ be the Banach-Lie algebra of $G$, and let $U=\{g\in G:\sigma(g)=g\}$ be the subgroup of fixed points of $\sigma$. Then the Banach-Lie algebra $\mathfrak{u}$ of $U$ is a closed and complemented subspace of $\mathfrak g$; a complement is given by the closed subspace
$$\mathfrak p=\{X\in \mathfrak g : \sigma_{*1}X=-X\},$$
where for a smooth map between manifolds $f:X\to Y$ we use the notation $f_*:T(X)\to T(Y)$ for the tangent map and $f_{*x}:T_x(X)\to T_{f(x)}(Y)$ for the tangent map at $x\in X$.

The Lie algebra $\mathfrak u$ is the eigenspace of $\sigma_{*1}$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $+1$ and $\mathfrak p$ is the eigenspace corresponding to the eigenvalue $-1$. Since $\mathfrak u$ is complemented $U$ is a Banach-Lie subgroup of $G$, and the quotient space $M=G/U$ has a Banach manifold structure. We denote by $q:G\to M$, $g\mapsto gU$ the quotient map which is a submersion, and by $Exp:\mathfrak g\to G$ the exponential map of $G$. We use the notation $e^X:=Exp(X)$ for $X\in \mathfrak g$.

We also define $G^+ := \{g\sigma(g)^{-1} : g \in G\}$ which is a submanifold of $G$ and note that there is a differential isomorphism $\phi: G/U\to G^+$, $gU\mapsto g\sigma(g)^{-1}$. See Section 5 in Chapter XIII of \cite{lang}. We use the notation $\sigma(g)^{-1}:=g^*$ for $g\in G$.

Let $L_g$ and $R_g$ stand for the left and right translation diffeomorphisms on $G$. For $h\in G$, let $\mu_h:M\to M$, $\mu_h(q(g))=q(hg)=q(L_hg)$. Then
$$(\mu_h)_{*q(g)} q_{*g}=q_{*hg}(L_{h})_{*g}.$$
The map $q_{*1}:\mathfrak p\to T_oM$ is an isomorphism so that a generic vector in $T_{q(g)}M$ will be denoted by $(\mu_g)_{*o}q_{*1} X$ with $X\in \mathfrak p$.
We use $I_h$ to denote the interior automorphisms of $G$ given by $I_h(g)=hgh^{-1}$, and $Ad_h$ to denote the differential $(I_h)_{*1}$, which is an element of ${\cal B}(\mathfrak g)$, the bounded linear maps that act on $\mathfrak g$. We note that $\sigma(I_ue^{tX})=I_u e^{-tX}$ for every $X\in \mathfrak p$ and $u\in U$, so that $\sigma_{*1}Ad_u X=-Ad_u X$ and $\mathfrak p$ is $Ad_U$-invariant.
Since $\sigma$ is a group automorphism, $\sigma_{*1}$ is an automorphism of Lie algebras and the following inclusions hold:
$$[\mathfrak u,\mathfrak u]\subseteq \mathfrak u,\quad [\mathfrak u,\mathfrak p]\subseteq \mathfrak p,\quad [\mathfrak p,\mathfrak p]\subseteq \mathfrak u.$$
In particular, $\mathfrak p$ is $ad_{\mathfrak u}$-invariant.

A way of giving $M$ the structure of a Finsler manifold is establishing the following norm on the tangent space $T_{q(g)}(M)$ for each $g\in G$
$$\|(\mu_g)_{*o}q_{*1}X\|_{q(g)}:=\|X\|_{\mathfrak p}$$
where $\|\cdot\|_{\mathfrak p}$ is any $Ad_U$-invariant norm $\mathfrak p$ compatible with any norm of $T_{o}(M)$ given by a local chart.
To make the dependence of $M$ with its underlying Banach-Lie group, involution and Finsler structure clear we shall write $M=G/U=Sym(G,\sigma,\|\cdot\|_{\mathfrak p})$ and we shall call $M$ a \textit{Finsler symmetric space}.

We say that $M=G/U$ has semi-negative curvature if for all $p\in M$ the operator between Banach spaces $(exp_p)_{*x}:T_p(M) \simeq T_x(T_p(M))\to T_{exp_p(x)}(M)$ is expansive and surjective.

What follows is a criteria for semi-negative curvature for Finsler symmetric spaces due to K.-H. Neeb, \cite[Prop. 3.15 and Th. 2.2]{neeb}:

\begin{teo}\label{csn}
Let $M=G/U=Sym(G,\sigma,\|\cdot\|_{\mathfrak p})$ be a Finsler symmetric space. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $M$ has semi-negative curvature.
\item The operator $-(ad_X)^2|_{\mathfrak p}$ is dissipative for all $X\in \mathfrak p$.
\item The operator $1+(ad_X)^2|_{\mathfrak p}$ is expansive and invertible for all $X\in \mathfrak p$.
\item The operator $X\in \mathfrak p$,  $\frac{\sinh ad_X}{ad_X}|_{\mathfrak p}$ is expansive and invertible for all $X\in \mathfrak p$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{teo}

\begin{ejem}\label{calg}
If $A$ is a unital $C^*$-algebra, $G$ is the group of invertible elements of $A$ endowed with the manifold structure given by the norm and $\sigma:G\to G$, $g\mapsto (g^{-1})^*$, then $U=\{g\in G:\sigma(g)=g\}$ is the group of unitary operators of $A$. In this case $\mathfrak p=A_s$ the set of self-adjoint elements of $A$ and the uniform norm on $A_s$ which we denote by $\|\cdot\|$ is $Ad_U$-invariant because it is unitarily invariant. We can identify the manifold $G/U$ with the manifold of positive invertible elements $G^+$. It was proven in \cite{cpr} that the manifold $M=G/U=Sym(G,\sigma,\|\cdot\|)$ has semi-negative curvature.
\end{ejem}

\begin{ejem}\label{ideal}
Let $A={\cal B}({\cal H})$ stand for the set of bounded linear operators on a separable complex Hilbert space ${\cal H}$, with the uniform norm denoted by $\|\cdot\|$. Let $A_p$ be the ideal of $p$-Schatten operators with $p$-norm $\|\cdot\|_p$. Let $G_p$ stand for the group of invertible operators in the unitized ideal, that is $G_p=\{g\in A^{\times}: \;g-1\in A_p\}$, then $G_p$ is a Banach-Lie group (one of the so-called classical Banach-Lie groups \cite{harpe}), and $A_p$ identifies with its Banach-Lie algebra. Consider the involutive automorphism $\sigma:G_p \to G_p$ given by $g\mapsto (g^{*})^{-1}$. Let $U_p\subseteq G_p$ stand for the unitary subgroup of fixed points of $\sigma$. In this case $\mathfrak p$ is the set of self-adjoint operators in $A_p$ and the norm $\|\cdot\|_p$ on $\mathfrak p$ is $Ad_{U_p}$-invariant. We can identify the manifold $G_p/U_p$ with the manifold of positive invertible operators in $G_p$. It was proven in Section 5 of \cite{condelarotonda} that the manifold $M_p=G_p/U_P=Sym(G_p,\sigma,\|\cdot\|_p)$ is simply connected and has semi-negative curvature.
\end{ejem}

\section{Splitting of Finsler symmetric spaces}

We recall some facts about the fundamental group of $M$ and polar decompositions \cite[Th. 3.14 and Th. 5.1]{neeb}

\begin{teo}\label{polar}
Let $M=G/U=(G,\sigma,,\|\cdot\|_{\mathfrak p})$ be a Finsler symmetric space of semi-negative curvature, then
\begin{enumerate}
\item The exponential map $q\circ Exp:\mathfrak p\to M$ is a covering of Banach manifolds and
$$\Gamma=\{X\in \mathfrak p: q(e^X)=q(1)\}$$
is a discrete and additive subgroup of $\mathfrak p \cap Z(\mathfrak g)$, with $\Gamma\simeq \pi_1(M)$ and $M\simeq \mathfrak p/\Gamma$. $Z(\mathfrak g)$ denotes the center of the Banach-Lie algebra $\mathfrak g$. If $X,Y\in\mathfrak p$ and $q(e^X)=q(e^Y)$, then $X-Y\in\Gamma$.
\item The polar map
$$m:\mathfrak p\times U \to G, \quad (X,u)\mapsto  e^X u$$
is a surjective covering whose fibers are given by the sets $\{ (X-Z,e^Z u):\, \, Z \in \Gamma \, \}$, $u\in U$, $X\in \mathfrak p$. If $M$ is simply connected the map $m$ is a diffeomorphism.
\end{enumerate}
\end{teo}

In the context of $C^*$-algebras (Example \ref{calg}), since $G/U$ is simply connected and has semi-negative curvature we get the usual polar decomposition of invertible elements as a product of a positive invertible element and a unitary.

\begin{coro}\label{exppos}
In the context of the previous theorem $G_A^+ = e^{\mathfrak p}$. Note that given $h\in G_A^+$ there is a $g\in G_A$ such that $h=g\sigma(g)^{-1}$. Using the polar decomposition in $G_A$ there are $X\in \mathfrak p$ and $u\in U$ such that $g=e^Xu$. Then $h=e^Xu\sigma(e^Xu)^{-1}=e^Xuu^{-1}e^X=e^{2X}\in e^{\mathfrak p}$. We note also that $e^X=e^{\frac{1}{2}X}\sigma(e^{\frac{1}{2}X})^{-1}\in G_A^+$ for every $X\in \mathfrak p$.
\end{coro}

The following decomposition theorem in the context of Finsler symmetric spaces of semi-negative curvature was proven by Conde and Larotonda in \cite{condelarotonda}.

\begin{teo}Corach-Porta-Recht decomposition (CPR)\label{cpr}

Let $M=G/U=(G,\sigma,,\|\cdot\|_{\mathfrak p})$ be a simply connected Finsler symmetric space of semi-negative curvature.
Let $p\in {\cal B}(\mathfrak p)$ be an idempotent, $p^2=p$. Let $\mathfrak s:=Ran(p)$, $\mathfrak s':=Ran(1-p)=Ker(p)$, so that $\mathfrak p=\mathfrak s\oplus\mathfrak s'$. If $ad^2_{\mathfrak s}(\mathfrak s)\subseteq \mathfrak s$, $ad^2_{\mathfrak s}(\mathfrak s')\subseteq \mathfrak s'$ and $\|p\|=1$, then the maps
$$\Phi: U \times \mathfrak s'\times \mathfrak s \to G, \qquad (u,X,Y)\mapsto ue^Xe^Y$$
$$\Psi: \mathfrak s'\times \mathfrak s \to G^+, \qquad (X,Y) \mapsto e^Ye^{2X}e^Y$$
are diffeomorphisms.
\end{teo}

The following two definitions are from Beltita and Gal\'e \cite{beltitagale2}.

\begin{defi} \label{estred}
A \textit{\textbf{reductive structure}} is a triple $(G_A,G_B;E)$ where $G_A$ is a real or complex connected Banach-Lie group with Banach-Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}_A$, $G_B$ is a connected Banach-Lie subgroup of $G_A$ with Banach-Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}_B$, and $E: \mathfrak{g}_A \to \mathfrak{g}_A$ is a $\mathbb{R}$-linear continuous transformation which satisfies the following properties: $E \circ E = E$; $RanE = \mathfrak{g}_B$, and for every $g \in G_B$ the diagram
$$
\xy
\xymatrix{
\mathfrak{g}_A \ar[d]_{Ad_g} \ar[r]^{E} & \mathfrak{g}_B \ar[d]^{Ad_g}
\\
\mathfrak{g}_A \ar[r]^{E} & \mathfrak{g}_B
}\endxy
$$
commutes.
\end{defi}

\begin{defi}
A \textit{\textbf{morphism of reductive structures}} from $(G_A,G_B;E)$ to $(\tilde{G_A},\tilde{G_B};\tilde{E})$ is a homomorphism of Banach-Lie groups $\alpha: G_A \to \tilde{G_A}$ such that $\alpha (G_B) \subseteq \tilde{G_B}$ and such that the diagram
$$
\xy
\xymatrix{
\mathfrak{g}_A \ar[d]_{\alpha_{*1}} \ar[r]^{E} & \mathfrak{g}_B \ar[d]^{\alpha_{*1}}
\\
\tilde{\mathfrak{g}_A} \ar[r]^{\tilde{E}} & \tilde{\mathfrak{g}_B}
}\endxy
$$
commutes.

For example, a family of automorphisms of any reductive structure $(G_A,G_B;E)$ is given by $\alpha_g : x \mapsto gxg^{-1}$, $G_A \to G_A$, $(g \in G_B)$.
\end{defi}

Now we introduce involutions in reductive structures:

\begin{defi}
If  $(G_A,G_B;E)$ is a reductive structure and $\sigma$ is an involutive morphism of reductive structures we call  $(G_A,G_B;E,\sigma)$ a \textit{\textbf{reductive structure with involution}}. If $(G_A,G_B;E,\sigma)$ and $(\tilde{G_A},\tilde{G_B};\tilde{E},\tilde{\sigma})$ are reductive structures with involution and $\alpha$ is a morphism of reductive structures from $(G_A,G_B;E)$ to $(\tilde{G_A},\tilde{G_B};\tilde{E})$ such that $\alpha \circ \sigma=\tilde{\sigma} \circ \alpha$ then we call $\alpha$ a \textit{\textbf{morphism of reductive structures with involution}} from $(G_A,G_B;E,\sigma)$ to $(\tilde{G_A},\tilde{G_B};\tilde{E},\tilde{\sigma})$.
\end{defi}

\begin{ejem}\label{condexp} Conditional expectations in $C^*$-algebras

Let $A$ and $B$ be two unital $C^*$-algebras, such that $B$ is a subalgebra of $A$ and let $E:A\to B$ be a conditional expectation. This means that $E$ is a linear projection on $A$ with $RanE=B$, $E(1_A)=1_B(=1_A)$ and norm $1$. By Tomiyama's theorem \cite{tomi} the following holds
$$E(b_1ab_2)=b_1E(a)b_2 \qquad \textrm{for all $a\in A;\quad b_1,b_2\in B$}$$
$$E(a^*)=E(a)^* \qquad \textrm{for all $a\in A$}.$$
Let $G_{\Lambda}$ for ${\Lambda}\in \{A,B\}$ be the Banach-Lie group of invertible operators in ${\Lambda}$ endowed with the topology given by the uniform norm. Then the Banach-Lie algebra of $G_{\Lambda}$ is $\mathfrak g_{\Lambda}={\Lambda}$. Since in this case we have $Ad_g(a)=gag^{-1}$ for each $g\in G_A$ and $a\in A$, the expectation $E$ satisfies the conditions of Def. \ref{estred}, so that $(G_A,G_B;E)$ is a reductive structure. In fact, this is a classical example that was the motivation of that definition in the paper \cite{beltitagale2}.

If $(G_A,G_B;E)$ is a reductive structure that is derived from an inclusion of $C^*$-algebras and a conditional expectation as above then $\sigma:G_A\to G_A$, $a\mapsto (a^{-1})^*$ defines an involutive morphism of reductive structures since $\sigma_{*1}:A\to A$, $a\mapsto -a^*$ and
$$
E(\sigma_{*1}(a))=E(-a^*)=-E(a)^*=\sigma_{*1}(E(a)),
$$
therefore $(G_A,G_B;E,\sigma)$ is a reductive structure with involution.

If for two triples $(A,B;E)$, $(\tilde{A},\tilde{B};\tilde{E})$ there is a bounded homomorphism $\phi:A\to \tilde{A}$ which satisfies $\phi \circ E=\tilde{E}\circ \phi$ then $\alpha := \phi|_{G_A}$ defines a morphism of reductive structures with involution from $(G_A,G_B;E,\sigma)$ to $(\tilde{G_A},\tilde{G_B};\tilde{E},\tilde{\sigma})$.
\end{ejem}

\begin{ejem}\label{idealcond}
We use the notation of Example \ref{ideal}. Let $B\subseteq A=\mathcal B(\mathcal H)$ be a $C^*$-subalgebra, and let $E:A\to B$ be a conditional expectation with range $A$ such that $E$ sends trace-class operators to trace-class operators and $E$ is compatible with the trace, that is $Tr(E(x))=Tr(x)$ for any trace-class operator $x\in A$. Let $p\geq 1$, $B_p=B\cap A_p$,
$$
G_{A,p}=\{g\in A^{\times}:g-1\in A_p\}\; \textrm{ and }\; G_{B,p}=\{g\in A^{\times}:g-1\in B_p\}.
$$
Then $\mathfrak g_{A,p}:=A_p$ and $\mathfrak g_{B,p}=B_p$ are the Banach-Lie algebras of $G_{A,p}$ and $G_{B,p}$ respectively. It was proven in Section 5 of \cite{condelarotonda} that $E_p=E\vrule_{A_p}:A_p \to B_p$ and that $\|E_p\|=1$. It easy to see that $(G_{A,p},G_{B,p}; E_p,\sigma)$ is a reductive structure with involution.
\end{ejem}

\begin{ejem}\label{corners} Corners

Let $\mathcal H$ be a Hilbert space, $n\geq1$ and $p_i$, $i=1,\dots ,n+1$ be pairwise orthogonal non-zero projections with range $\mathcal H_i$ and $\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}p_i =1$. Let $G_A$ be the group of invertible elements of $\mathcal B(\mathcal H)$ and let
$$
G_B=
\left\{ \begin{pmatrix}
g_1    & 0      & \hdots & 0    &   0 \\
0      & g_2    & \hdots &  0   &   0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots  &  \vdots \\
0      &  0     &  \hdots   &  g_n  & 0   \\
 0      &   0     &     \hdots      &   0    &  1
\end{pmatrix} :g_i \mbox{ invertible in } \mathcal B(\mathcal H_i) \mbox{ for } i=1,\dots ,n \right\};
$$
where we write operators in $\mathcal B(\mathcal H)=\mathcal B(\mathcal H_1\oplus \ldots \oplus \mathcal H_{n+1})$ as $(n+1)\times (n+1)$ matrices with the corresponding operator entries.

In this case $\mathfrak g_A=\mathcal B(\mathcal H)$ and
$$
\mathfrak g_B=
\left\{ \begin{pmatrix}
X_1    & 0      & \hdots & 0    &   0 \\
0      & X_2    & \hdots &  0   &   0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots  &  \vdots \\
0      &  0     &  \hdots   &  X_n  & 0   \\
 0      &   0     &     \hdots      &   0    &  0
\end{pmatrix} :X_i \mbox{ in } \mathcal B(\mathcal H_i) \mbox{ for } i=1,\dots ,n \right\}.
$$

If we consider the map $E:\mathfrak g_A \to \mathfrak g_B$, $X \mapsto \sum_{i=1}^{n}p_iXp_i$ and $\sigma=(\cdot)^{*-1}$ it is easily verified that $(G_A,G_B;E,\sigma)$ is a reductive structure with involution. Note that $\|E\|=1$.
\end{ejem}

\begin{defi}
If $(G_A,\sigma)$ is a symmetric Banach-Lie group we say that a connected subgroup $G_B\subseteq G_A$ is \textit{\textbf{involutive}} if $\sigma(G_B)=G_B$.
\end{defi}

\begin{rem}
If $G_B\subseteq G_A$ is an involutive Banach-Lie subgroup with Banach-Lie algebra $\mathfrak g_B\subseteq \mathfrak g_A$ and $\mathfrak g_A = \mathfrak p \oplus \mathfrak u$ is the eigenspace decomposition of $\sigma_{*1}$, we can write $\mathfrak g_B=\mathfrak p_B\oplus \mathfrak u_B$, where $\mathfrak p_B:=\mathfrak p\cap \mathfrak g_B$ and $\mathfrak u_B:=\mathfrak u\cap \mathfrak g_B$.
\end{rem}

\begin{prop}\label{subgrupoinv}
Given a Finsler symmetric space
$$
M_A=G_A/U_A=Sym(G_A,\sigma,\|\cdot\|_{\mathfrak p})
$$
of semi-negative curvature, if $G_B$ is an involutive subgroup, then
$$
M_B=G_B/U_B=Sym(G_B,\sigma|_{G_B},\|\cdot\|_{\mathfrak p_B})
$$
is a Finsler symmetric space of semi-negative curvature.
Also, the inclusion $\Gamma_B \subseteq \Gamma_A \cap \mathfrak p_B$ holds. In particular, if $M_A$ is simply connected then $M_B$ is also simply connected.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We can restrict the $Ad_{U_A}$-invariant norm of $M_A=G_A/U_A$ to $\mathfrak p_B$ to give $M_B=G_B/U_B$ a $Ad_{U_B}$-invariant norm. Since for each $X\in \mathfrak p$ the operator $-(ad_X)^2|_{\mathfrak p}$ is dissipative and $-(ad_X)^2|_{\mathfrak p}(\mathfrak p_B)\subseteq \mathfrak p_B$ for all $X\in \mathfrak p_B$, we conclude that the operator $-(ad_X)^2|_{\mathfrak p_B}$ is dissipative for all $X\in \mathfrak p_B$. Therefore $M_B=G_B/U_B=Sym(G_B,\sigma|_{G_B},\|\cdot\|_{\mathfrak p_B})$ has semi-negative curvature.

If $X \in \Gamma_B$ then $q_B \circ Exp_B (X) = o_B$ so that $Exp_A (X) = Exp_B (X) \in U_B \subseteq U_A$ and $q_A \circ Exp_A = o_A$. We conclude that $\Gamma_B \subseteq \Gamma_A \cap \mathfrak p_B$.
\end{proof}

\begin{rem}
If $(G_A,G_B;E)$ is a reductive structure, since $Ad_g\circ E=E\circ Ad_g$ for each $g\in G_B$ we see that $Ad_g(KerE)\subseteq KerE$ for every $g\in G_B$.
If $\sigma$ is an involutive automorphism of reductive structures and $\mathfrak g_A = \mathfrak u \oplus \mathfrak p$ is the decomposition into eigenspaces of $\sigma_{*1}$ then $Ad_{U_A}(\mathfrak p) \subseteq \mathfrak p$ and $Ad_{U_A}(\mathfrak u) \subseteq \mathfrak u$, so that the actions $Ad:U_B \to {\cal B}(\mathfrak p_E)$ and $Ad:U_B \to {\cal B}(\mathfrak u_E)$ are well defined, where we denote $\mathfrak p_E := KerE \cap \mathfrak p$ and $\mathfrak u_E := KerE \cap \mathfrak u$.
\end{rem}

\begin{teo} Extended CPR splitting \label{descpolext}

If for $n \geq 2$ we have the following inclusions of connected Banach-Lie groups, the following maps between its Banach-Lie algebras
$$G_1\subseteq G_2\subseteq \dots  \subseteq G_n$$
$$\mathfrak g_1 \xleftarrow{E_2} \mathfrak g_2 \xleftarrow{E_3} \dots  \xleftarrow{E_n} \mathfrak g_n$$
and a morphism $\sigma : G_n \to G_n$ such that:

\begin{itemize}
\item $(G_n,G_{n-1};E_n,\sigma)$,$(G_{n-1},G_{n-2};E_n,\sigma|_{G_{n-1}})$,\dots , $(G_2,G_1;E_2,\sigma|_{G_2})$ are reductive structures with involution.
\item $M_n=G_n/U_n=Sym(G_n,\sigma,\|\cdot\|)$ is a simply connected Finsler symmetric space of semi-negative curvature.
\item $\|{E_k}\vrule_{\,\mathfrak p_k}\|=1$ for $k=2,\dots ,n$, where the norm is the norm of the previous item restricted to $\mathfrak p_k:=\mathfrak p \cap \mathfrak g_k$.
\end{itemize}

Then the maps
$$\Phi_n: U_n \times \mathfrak p_{E_n} \times \dots  \times \mathfrak p_{E_2} \times \mathfrak p_1 \to G_n$$
$$(u_n,X_n,\dots ,X_2,Y_1) \mapsto u_ne^{X_n}\dots e^{X_2}e^{Y_1}$$

$$\Psi_n: \mathfrak p_{E_n} \times \dots  \times \mathfrak p_{E_2} \times \mathfrak p_1 \to G_n^+$$
$$(X_n,\dots ,X_2,Y_1) \mapsto e^{Y_1}e^{X_2}\dots e^{X_{n-1}}e^{2X_n}e^{X_{n-1}}\dots e^{X_2}e^{Y_1}$$
are diffeomorphisms, where $\mathfrak p_{E_k}:=KerE_k\cap \mathfrak p_k$ for $k=2,\dots ,n$.
\end{teo}

\begin{proof}
Note that Prop. \ref{subgrupoinv} implies that $M_k:=G_k/U_k$ are simply connected Finsler symmetric spaces of semi-negative curvature for  $k=2,\dots ,n$.
We prove the statement about the map $\Phi$ for the case $n = 2$ and then prove the statement for $n > 2$ by induction.

Since $E_2\circ\sigma_{*1}=\sigma_{*1}\circ E_2$, $E_2(\mathfrak p_2)\subseteq \mathfrak p_2$, we can consider $p:=E_2\vrule_{\,\mathfrak p_2}: \mathfrak p_2 \to \mathfrak p_2$. We see that $\|p\|=1$ and $Ker(p)=Ran(1-p)= \mathfrak p_{E_2}$. Also, since $E_2^2=E_2$ and $Ran(E_2)=\mathfrak g_1$, $Ran(p)= \mathfrak p_1$. The condition $ad^2_{\mathfrak p_1}(\mathfrak p_1)\subseteq \mathfrak p_1$ of the statement of the CPR splitting \ref{cpr} is trivial. Also note that for every $g\in G_1$ and for every $X\in \mathfrak g_2$, $Ad_g(E_2(X))=E_2(Ad_g(X))$. If $Y\in \mathfrak g_1$ and we differentiate $Ad_{e^{tY}}(E_2(X))=E_2(Ad_{e^{tY}}(X))$ at $t=0$ we get $ad_Y(E_2(X))=E_2(ad_Y(X))$ and therefore $ad_{\mathfrak g_1}(KerE_2) \subseteq KerE_2$. Since $ad^2_{\mathfrak p_2}(\mathfrak p_2)\subseteq \mathfrak p_2$ we conclude that $ad^2_{\mathfrak p_1}(\mathfrak p_{E_2})\subseteq \mathfrak p_{E_2}$.
The CPR splitting (Th. \ref{cpr}) implies the existence of a diffeomorphism
$$\Phi_2: U_2 \times \mathfrak p_{E_2} \times \mathfrak p_1 \to G_2$$
$$(u_2,X_2,Y_1) \mapsto u_2e^{X_2}e^{Y_1}.$$
Assume now that $n > 2$ and that the theorem is true for $k=n-1$ and $k=2$.
We prove that $\Phi_n$ is surjective. If $g_n \in G_n$ then the splitting theorem applied to the reductive structure $(G_n,G_{n-1};E_n)$ implies the existence of $u_n \in U_n$, $X_n \in \mathfrak p_{E_n}$ and $Y_{n-1}$ such that $g_n = u_ne^{X_n}e^{Y_{n-1}}$. Since $e^{Y_{n-1}} \in G_{n-1}$ applying the splitting theorem in the case $k=n-1$ we get $u_{n-1} \in U_{n-1}$, $X_{n-1}\in \mathfrak p_{E_{n-1}}$,\dots , $X_2 \in \mathfrak p_{E_2}$ and $Y_1 \in \mathfrak p_1$ such that $e^{Y_{n-1}} = u_{n-1}e^{X_{n-1}}\dots e^{X_2}e^{Y_1}$. Then
$$g_n= u_ne^{X_n}e^{Y_{n-1}}=u_ne^{X_n}u_{n-1}e^{X_{n-1}}\dots e^{X_2}e^{Y_1}=u_nu_{n-1}e^{Ad_{u_{n-1}^{-1}}X_n}e^{X_{n-1}}\dots e^{X_2}e^{Y_1}$$
is in the image of $\Phi_n$ because $Ad_{u_{n-1}^{-1}}X_n \in \mathfrak p_{E_n}$.

We prove that $\Phi_n$ is injective. Assume that
$$u_ne^{X_n}e^{X_{n-1}}\dots e^{X_2}e^{Y_1}=u_n'e^{X_n'}e^{X_{n-1}'}\dots e^{X_2'}e^{Y_1'}.$$
Since $e^{X_{n-1}}\dots e^{X_2}e^{Y_1}\in G_{n-1}$ there are $u_{n-1} \in U_{n-1}$ and $Y_{n-1} \in \mathfrak p_{n-1}$ such that
$$u_{n-1}e^{Y_{n-1}}=e^{X_{n-1}}\dots e^{X_2}e^{Y_1}.$$
Also there are $u_{n-1}' \in U_{n-1}$ and $Y_{n-1}' \in \mathfrak p_{n-1}$ such that
$$u_{n-1}'e^{Y_{n-1}'}=e^{X_{n-1}'}\dots e^{X_2'}e^{Y_1'}.$$
Then
$$u_nu_{n-1}e^{Ad_{u_{n-1}}^{-1}X_n}e^{Y_{n-1}}=u_n'u_{n-1}'e^{Ad_{{u'}_{n-1}^{-1}}X_n'}e^{Y_{n-1}'}$$
and because of the uniqueness of the splitting theorem for $k=2$ we conclude that
\begin{eqnarray} \label{ig}
u_nu_{n-1}&=&u_n'u_{n-1}' \nonumber \\
Ad_{u_{n-1}^{-1}}X_{n}&=&Ad_{{u'}_{n-1}^{-1}}X_{n}' \\
Y_{n-1}&=&Y_{n-1}'. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Since $u_{n-1}e^{Y_{n-1}}=e^{X_{n-1}}\dots e^{X_2}e^{Y_1}$ and $u'_{n-1}e^{Y_{n-1}'}=e^{X_{n-1}'}\dots e^{X_2'}e^{Y_1'}$
$$u_{n-1}^{-1}e^{X_{n-1}}\dots e^{X_2}e^{Y_1}=e^{Y_{n-1}}=e^{Y_{n-1}'}={u'}_{n-1}^{-1}e^{X_{n-1}'}\dots e^{X_2'}e^{Y_1'}$$
the uniqueness of the splitting theorem for $k = n-1$ implies that $u_{n-1}= u_{n-1}'$, $X_{n-1}=X_{n-1}' $,\dots , $X_2=X_2' $ and $Y_1=Y_1' $.
The equalities in (\ref{ig}) say that $u_n= u_n'$ and $X_n=X_n' $ also hold.

We prove that $\Psi_n$ is bijective based on the fact that $\Phi_n$ is bijective. If $p_n\in G^+_A$ then $p_n=g_ng_n^*$ for some $g_n\in G_n$. Because $\Phi_n$ is surjective there are $u_{n} \in U_{n}$, $X_{n}\in \mathfrak p_{E_{n}}$,\dots , $X_2 \in \mathfrak p_{E_2}$ and $Y_1 \in \mathfrak p_1$ such that $g_n^{*} = u_{n}e^{X_{n}}\dots e^{X_2}e^{Y_1}$. Then $p_n=g_ng_n^*=e^{Y_1}e^{X_2}\dots e^{2X_n}\dots e^{X_2}e^{Y_1}$ and we conclude that $\Psi_n$ is surjective.
To see that $\Psi_n$ is injective let assume that  $e^{Y_1}e^{X_2}\dots e^{2X_n}\dots e^{X_2}e^{Y_1}=e^{Y'_1}e^{X'_2}\dots e^{2X'_n}\dots e^{X'_2}e^{Y'_1}$. If $g_n:=e^{Y_1}e^{X_2}\dots e^{X_n}$ and ${g'}_n:=e^{Y'_1}e^{X'_2}\dots e^{X'_n}$ then $g_ng_n^*={g'}_n{g'}_n^*$ and therefore there is an $u_n\in U_n$ such that $g_nu_n=g'_n$. Then $u_ne^{X_{n}}\dots e^{X_2}e^{Y_1}=e^{X'_{n}}\dots e^{X'_2}e^{Y'_1}$ and we conclude that $(X_n,\dots ,X_2,Y_1)=(X'_n,\dots ,X'_2,Y'_1)$.

We prove that $\Phi_n$ is a diffeomorphism by induction. The CPR splitting states that $\Phi_2$ is a diffeomorphism. Assume that $n>2$ and that $\Phi_{n-1}$ is a diffeomorphism. If $g_n \in G_n$ then $g_n=u_n(g_n)e^{X_n(g_n)}e^{Y_{n-1}(g_n)}$, where $(u_n,X_n,Y_{n-1}): G_n \to U_n \times \mathfrak p_{E_n} \times \mathfrak p_{n-1}$ is smooth because the inverse of the CPR splitting is smooth in the case $n=2$. If we denote $f(g_n):=e^{Y{n-1}(g_n)}$ then $f$ is a smooth map and
$$f(g_n)=u_{n-1}(f(g_n))e^{X_{n-1}(f(g_n))}\dots e^{X_2(f(g_n))}e^{Y_1(f(g_n))}$$
where
$$(u_{n-1},X_{n-1},\dots ,X_{2},Y_1): G_{n-1}\to U_{n-1}\times \mathfrak p_{E_{n-1}} \times \dots  \times \mathfrak p_{E_2} \times \mathfrak p_1$$
is a smooth map. Since
$$g_n=u_n(g_n)e^{X_n(g_n)}u_{n-1}(f(g_n))e^{X_{n-1}(f(g_n))}\dots e^{X_2(f(g_n))}e^{Y_1(f(g_n))}=$$
$$u_n(g_n)u_{n-1}(f(g_n))e^{Ad_{u_{n-1}^{-1}(f(g_n))}X_n(g_n)}e^{X_{n-1}(f(g_n))}\dots e^{X_2(f(g_n))}e^{Y_1(f(g_n))}$$
we get that $\Phi_n^{-1}: G_n \to U_n \times \mathfrak p_{E_n} \times \dots  \times \mathfrak p_{E_2} \times \mathfrak p_1$
$$
g_n \mapsto (u_n(g_n)u_{n-1}(f(g_n)),Ad_{u_{n-1}^{-1}(f(g_n))}X_n(g_n),\dots ,X_2(f(g_n)),Y_1(f(g_n)))
$$
is smooth.

We prove next that $\Psi^{-1}=(\overline{X_n},\dots ,\overline{X_2},\overline{Y_1})$ is smooth. Let $g_n\in G_n$, then if $p_n=g_n^*g_n$,
$$
p_n=e^{(\overline{Y}_1(p_n))}e^{(\overline{X}_2(p_n))}\dots e^{(\overline{X}_{n-1}(p_n))}e^{(2\overline{X}_n(p_n))}e^{(\overline{X}_{n-1}(p_n))}\dots e^{(\overline{X}_2(p_n))}e^{(\overline{Y}_1(p_n))}.
$$
Since $g_n=u_n(g_n)e^{X_n(g_n)}\dots e^{X_2(g_n)}e^{Y_1(g_n)}$ where $\Phi^{-1}=(u_n,X_n,\dots ,X_2,Y_1)$, we get
$$p_n:=g_n^*g_n=e^{Y_1(g_n)}e^{X_2(g_n)}\dots e^{X_{n-1}(g_n)}e^{2X_n(g_n)}e^{X_{n-1}(g_n)}\dots e^{X_2(g_n)}e^{Y_1(g_n)}$$
so that
$$(\overline{X_n},\dots ,\overline{X_2},\overline{Y_1})=(X_n,\dots ,X_2,Y_1) \circ \pi$$
where $\pi: G_n \to G_n^+, g_n\to g_n^*g_n$. Since $\pi$ is a submersion we conclude that $\Psi^{-1}=(\overline{X}_n,\dots ,\overline{X}_2,\overline{Y}_1)$ is smooth.

\end{proof}

\begin{rem}
We note that in the context of the previous theorem, if $F_{k,j}:=E_{j+1} \circ \dots  \circ E_{k}$, then $(G_k,G_j;F_{k,j})$ is a reductive structure and $\|{F_{k,j}}\vrule_{\,\mathfrak p_k}\|=1$.
\end{rem}

\begin{rem}
The splitting theorem of Porta and Recht \cite{portarecht} asserts that if we have a unital inclusion of $C^*$-algebras $B \subseteq A$ and a conditional expectation $E: A\to B$ then the map
$$\Phi: U_A \times \mathfrak p_E \times \mathfrak p_B \to G_A$$
$$(u,X,Y) \mapsto ue^Xe^Y$$
is a diffeomorphism, where $\mathfrak p_E$ are the self-adjoint elements of $Ker E$ and $\mathfrak p_B$ are the self-adjoint elements of $B$.

Theorem \ref{descpolext} in the case $n=2$ is a formulation of the CPR splitting (Theorem \ref{cpr}) in the context of reductive structures. The Porta-Recht splitting theorem is a special case of the previous theorem if we consider $(G_A,G_B;E,\sigma)$ derived from the triple $(A,B;E)$ as in Example \ref{condexp} and verify that the conditions of the theorem are satisfied because of what was stated in Example \ref{calg}. The CPR theorem covers the case where the inclusion of algebras and the map $E$ are not unital, as in Example \ref{corners} of reductive structures. It also covers the case where the symmetric space and reductive structure are derived from unitized ideals of operators as in Example \ref{ideal} and Example \ref{idealcond}, see \cite{condelarotonda}.

The CPR theorem in the context of several reductive structures (Theorem \ref{descpolext}) covers for example the case of multiple unital inclusions of $C^*$-algebras and conditional expectations between them
$$A_1\subseteq A_2\subseteq \dots  \subseteq A_n$$
$$A_1 \xleftarrow{E_2} A_2 \xleftarrow{E_3} \dots  \xleftarrow{E_n} A_n.$$
\end{rem}

\section{Complexifications of homogeneous spaces}

Proposition \ref{comp} to Remark \ref{tan} here are extensions of Section 5 of \cite{beltitagale}, from the context of $C^*$-algebras to the context of Finsler symmetric spaces of semi-negative curvature with reductive structures.

\begin{defi}\label{defcom}
Let $X$ be a Banach manifold. A \textit{\textbf{complexification}} of $X$ is a complex Banach manifold Y endowed with an anti-holomorphic involutive diffeomorphism $\sigma$ such that the fixed point submanifold $Y_0 = \{y\in Y:\sigma(y)=y\}$ is a strong deformation retract of $Y$ and is diffeomorphic to $X$.
\end{defi}

\begin{ejem}
Let $M=G/U=Sym(G,\sigma,\|\cdot \|)$ be a simply connected Finsler symmetric space of semi-negative curvature. Theorem \ref{polar} guaranties that $U$ is a strong deformation retract of $G$. If $G$ is a complex analytic group and $\sigma$ is anti-holomorphic, then $G$ is a complexification of $U$.
In the context of $C^*$-algebras the group of invertible elements $G$ is a complexification of the group of unitary elements $U$ with $\sigma=(\cdot)^{-1*}$. Note that $U$ is not a complex analytic manifold.
\end{ejem}

\begin{defi}
Let $(G_A,\sigma)$ be a symmetric Banach-Lie group with involutive subgroup $G_B$. We define $\sigma_G: G_A/G_B \to G_A/G_B$, $uG_B \mapsto \sigma(u)G_B$ and $\lambda: U_A/U_B \hookrightarrow G_A/G_B$, $uU_B \mapsto uG_B$.
\end{defi}

We now give a criteria which implies that $U_A/U_B$ is diffeomorphic to the fixed point set of the involution $\sigma_G$.

\begin{prop}\label{pos}
If $M_A=G_A/U_A=Sym(G_A,\sigma,\|\cdot \|)$ is a Finsler symmetric space of semi-negative curvature, $G_B$ is an involutive subgroup of $G_A$, and  $\Gamma \subseteq \mathfrak p_B$, then $G_A^+ \cap G_B = G_B^+$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Since $G_B^+ \subseteq  G_A^+ \cap G_B$ always holds, it is enough to prove that $G_A^+ \cap G_B \subseteq G_B^+$. By Cor. \ref{exppos} $G_A^+ = e^{\mathfrak p}$ and $G_B^+ = e^{\mathfrak p_B}$.
If $g \in G_A^+ \cap G_B$ then there is an $X\in \mathfrak p$ such that $g=e^X$. Since $G_B$ is an involutive subgroup $G_B/U_B$ has semi-negative curvature and using the polar decomposition of Th. \ref{polar} in $G_B$ guaranties the existence of $u\in U_B$ and $Y\in \mathfrak p_B$ such that $g=ue^Y$. Then, Theorem \ref{polar} applied to $G_A$ tells us that for certain $Z\in \Gamma$, $u=e^Z$ and $Y=X-Z$. Since $\Gamma \subseteq \mathfrak g_B$ we conclude that $X \in \mathfrak g_B$ and therefore $g \in G_B^+$.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}\label{comp}
If $G_B^+ = G_A^+ \cap G_B$, then $\lambda(U_A/U_B) = \{s \in G_A/G_B : \sigma_G (s) = s\}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The inclusion $\subseteq$ is obvious. Given $s=uG_B$ such that $\sigma_G(s)=s$, $u^{-1}\sigma(u) \in G_B$. Since $u^{-1}\sigma(u) \in G_A^+$ the hypothesis $G_B^+ = G_A^+ \cap G_B$ implies that $u^{-1}\sigma(u) \in G_B^+$, and therefore there exists $w\in G_B$ such that $u^{-1}\sigma(u)=ww^*$. Then $uw=\sigma(u)w^{*-1}=\sigma(u)\sigma(w)=\sigma(uw)$, so that $uw\in U_A$ and $s=uG_B=uwG_B=\lambda(uwU_B)$.
\end{proof}

We give a geometric description of the complexification $G_A/G_B$ of $U_A/U_B$ in the context of reductive structures. This can be seen as an infinite dimensional version of Mostow fibration, see \cite{mostow,mostow2} and Section 3 of \cite{bielawski}.

\begin{rem}
Since the actions $Ad:U_B \to {\cal B}(\mathfrak p_E)$ and $Ad:U_B \to {\cal B}(\mathfrak u_E)$ are well defined we get the homogeneous vector bundles $U_A \times_{U_B} \mathfrak p_E \to U_A/U_B$ and $U_A \times_{U_B} \mathfrak u_E \to U_A/U_B$, $[(u,X)] \mapsto uU_B$, where the actions of $U_B$ on $U_A \times_{U_B} \mathfrak p_E$ and $U_A \times_{U_B} \mathfrak u_E$ are given by $v\cdot(u,X) = (uv^{-1},Ad_{v}X)$.
\end{rem}

\begin{teo}\label{com}
Let $M_A=G_A/U_A=Sym(G_A,\sigma,\|\cdot \|)$ be a simply connected Finsler symmetric space of semi-negative curvature  and $(G_A,G_B;E,\sigma)$ a reductive structure with involution such that $\|E\vrule_{\,\mathfrak p}\|=1$. Consider  $\Psi_0^E: U_A \times \mathfrak p_E \to G_A$, $(u,X)\mapsto ue^X$ and $\kappa: (u,X)\mapsto [(u,X)]$ the quotient map. Then there is a unique real analytic, $U_A$-equivariant diffeomorphism $\Psi^E: U_A \times_{U_B} \mathfrak p_E \to G_A/G_B$ such that the diagram
$$
\xy
\xymatrix{
U_A \times \mathfrak p_E \ar[d]_{\kappa} \ar[r]^{\Psi_0^E} &  G_A \ar[d]^{q}
\\
U_A \times_{U_B} \mathfrak p_E \ar[r]^{\Psi^E} & G_A/G_B
}\endxy
$$
commutes.

Therefore the homogeneous space $G_A/G_B$ has the structure of an $U_A$-equivariant fiber bundle over $U_A/U_B$ with the projection given by the composition
$$
\xy
\xymatrix{
G_A/G_B  \ar[r]^{(\Psi^E)^{-1}} &  U_A \times_{U_B} \mathfrak p_E \ar[r]^{\Xi} & U_A/U_B
}\endxy
$$
$$ue^XG_B \mapsto [(u,X)] \mapsto uU_B \qquad \textrm{for $u \in U_A$ and $X \in \mathfrak p_E$}$$
and typical fiber $\mathfrak p_E$.
\end{teo}

\begin{proof}
To prove that $\Psi^E$ is well defined we show that for $u\in U_A$, $v\in U_B$ and $X\in \mathfrak p_E$
\begin{eqnarray}
q(\Psi_0^E(u,X)) &=ue^XG_B=uv^{-1}e^{Ad_vX}vG_B=uv^{-1}e^{Ad_vX}G_B \nonumber \\
&=q(\Psi_0^E(uv^{-1},Ad_vX))=q(\Psi_0^E(v\cdot(u,X))) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

The uniqueness of $\Psi^E$ is a consequence of the surjectivity of $\kappa$.

Theorem \ref{descpolext} for the case $n=2$ implies the existence of a diffeomorphism
$$\Phi: U_A \times \mathfrak p_E \times \mathfrak p_B \to G_A$$
$$(u,X,Y) \mapsto ue^Xe^Y.$$
If $gG_B\in G_A/G_B$ there is $(u,X,Y) \in U_A \times \mathfrak p_E \times \mathfrak p_B$ such that $g=ue^Xe^Y$ and we get $gG_B=ue^Xe^YG_B=ue^XG_B$, proving the surjectivity of $\Phi$.

To see that $\Psi^E$ is also injective assume that $u_1e^{X_1}G_B=u_2e^{X_2}G_B$. Then there is a $b\in G_B$ such that $u_1e^{X_1}b=u_2e^{X_2}$. Since $G_B$ is an involutive connected subgroup of $G_A$ and $G_A/U_A$ has semi-negative curvature, Proposition \ref{subgrupoinv} states that $G_B/U_B$ has also semi-negative curvature and we can apply the polar decomposition (Proposition \ref{polar}) in $G_B$: there are unique $v\in U_B$ and $Y\in \mathfrak p_B$ such that $b=ve^Y$. Then
$$(u_1v)e^{Ad_{v^{-1}}X_1}e^Y=u_1e^{X_1}ve^Y=u_1e^{X_1}b=u_2e^{X_2}$$
and applying $(\Phi)^{-1}$ to this equality we get $(u_1v,Ad_{v^{-1}}X_1,Y)=(u_2,X_2,0)$, which implies that $v^{-1} \cdot (u_1,X_1)=(u_2,X_2)$.

Finally, we prove that $\Psi^E$ is an analytic diffeomorphism. Since $\kappa$ is a submersion and $\Psi^E \circ \kappa$ ($=q \circ \Psi_0^E$) is a real analytic map $\Psi^E$ is real analytic. Since the map $\Phi^{-1}: g\mapsto (u(g),X(g),Y(g))$ is analytic, the map $\sigma: g \mapsto [(u(g),X(g))]$, $G_A \to U_A \times_{U_B} \mathfrak p_E$ is also analytic. Since $q$ is a submersion and $\sigma = (\Psi^E)^{-1} \circ q$ we see that $(\Psi^E)^{-1}$ is analytic.
\end{proof}

\begin{coro}
If we analyse the diagram of the previous theorem in the tangent spaces using the following identifications $T_{(1,0)}(U_A \times \mathfrak p_E) \simeq \mathfrak u_A \times \mathfrak p_E$, $T_{[(1,0)]}(U_A \times_{U_B} \mathfrak p_E) \simeq \mathfrak u_E \times \mathfrak p_E$ and $T_o(G_A/G_B) \simeq KerE$ then
$$(\Phi_0^E)_{*(1,0)}: \mathfrak u_A \times \mathfrak p_E \to \mathfrak g_A, \qquad (Y,Z) \mapsto Y+Z$$
$$\kappa_{*(1,0)}: \mathfrak u_A \times \mathfrak p_E \to \mathfrak u_E \times \mathfrak p_E,\qquad (Y,Z) \mapsto ((1-E)Y,Z)$$
$$q_{*1}: \mathfrak g_A \mapsto KerE,\qquad W \mapsto (1-E)W$$
and therefore
$$(\Phi^E)_{*[(1,0)]}: \mathfrak u_E \times \mathfrak p_E \to KerE,\qquad ((1-E)Y,Z) \mapsto (1-E)(Y+Z)=(1-E)Y + Z.$$
We conclude that
$$(\Phi^E)_{*[(1,0)]}: \mathfrak u_E \times \mathfrak p_E \to KerE,\qquad (X,Z) \mapsto X + Z$$
is an isomorphism.
\end{coro}

\begin{coro}
If we assume the conditions of the previous theorem, the fixed point set of of the involution $\sigma_G$ on $G_A/G_B \simeq U_A \times_{U_B} \mathfrak p_E$ is diffeomorphic to $U_A/U_B$ and $U_A/U_B$ is a strong deformation retract of $G_A/G_B$. If $G_A$ is a complex analytic group and $\sigma$ is anti-holomorphic then $G_A/G_B$ is a complexification of $U_A/U_B$.

If we define $\tau_G : U_A \times_{U_B} \mathfrak p_E \to U_A \times_{U_B} \mathfrak p_E$, $[(u,X)] \mapsto [(u,-X)]$, then the following diagram
$$
\xy
\xymatrix{
U_A \times_{U_B} \mathfrak p_E \ar[d]_{\Psi^E} \ar[r]^{\tau_G} &  U_A \times_{U_B} \mathfrak p_E \ar[d]^{\Psi^E}
\\
G_A/G_B \ar[r]^{\sigma_G} & G_A/G_B
}\endxy
$$
commutes.
\end{coro}
\begin{proof}
Note that $\Gamma = \{0\}$ so that Prop. \ref{pos} implies  $G_B^+=G_B \cap G_A^+$ and Prop. \ref{comp} states that $U_A/U_B$ is diffeomorphic to the set of fixed points on $\sigma_G$.

Alternatively, the diagram tells us that the set of fixed points of the involution $\sigma_G$ is $\Psi^E(\{[(u,X)] \in U_A \times_{U_B} \mathfrak p_E: \tau_G([(u,X)])=[(u,X)]\})=\Psi^E(\{[(u,0)]: u \in U_A \})=\{uG_B: u \in U_A\}=\lambda(U_A/U_B)$.

If we define $F: (U_A \times_{U_B} \mathfrak p_E) \times [0,1] \to U_A \times_{U_B} \mathfrak p_E, ([(u,X)],t) \mapsto [(u,tX)]$ we see that $\{[(u,0)]: u \in U_A \}$ is a strong deformation retract of $U_A \times_{U_B} \mathfrak p_E$ and $\{[(u,0)]: u \in U_A \}$ is diffeomorphic to $U_A/U_B$.

If $\sigma$ is anti-holomorphic then $\sigma_G$ is anti-holomorphic (see \cite{neeb2}) and it follows from Definition \ref{defcom} that $G_A/G_B$ is a complexification of $U_A/U_B$.
\end{proof}

\begin{teo}\label{tang}
If we assume that the conditions of Theorem \ref{com} are satisfied then there is a $U_A$-equivariant diffeomorphic vector bundle map from the associated vector bundle $U_A \times_{U_B} \mathfrak u_E \to U_A/U_B$ to the tangent bundle $T(U_A/U_B) \to U_A/U_B$ given by $\alpha^E:U_A \times_{U_B} \mathfrak u_E \to T(U_A/U_B)$, $[(u,X)] \mapsto (\mu_u)_{*o}q_{*1}X$, where the action of $U_A$ on $T(U_A/U_B)$ is given by $u \cdot - = (\mu_u)_*-$ for every $u \in U_A$.
\end{teo}
\begin{proof}
Let $\alpha : U_A \times U_A/U_B \to U_A/U_B$ be given by $(u,vU_B) \mapsto uvU_B$, then $\partial_2\alpha : U_A \times T(U_A/U_B) \to T(U_A/U_B)$, $(u,V) \mapsto (\mu_u)_*V$. Since $E \circ \sigma_{*1} = \sigma_{*1} \circ E$ $E(\mathfrak u) \subseteq \mathfrak u$, and since $E(\mathfrak g_A) = \mathfrak g_B$ we get the decomposition $\mathfrak u = \mathfrak u_B \oplus \mathfrak u_E$. Then $\mathfrak u_E \simeq T_o(U_A/U_B)$, $X \mapsto q_{*1}X$ and restricting $\partial_2\alpha$ to $U_A \times T_o(U_A/U_B)$ we get a map $\alpha_0^E: U_A \times \mathfrak u_E \to T(U_A/U_B)$, $(u,X) \mapsto (\mu_u)_{*o}q_{*1}X$.

We assert that there is a unique $U_A$-equivariant diffeomorphism $\alpha^E:U_A \times_{U_B} \mathfrak u_E \to T(U_A/U_B)$ such that $\alpha^E \circ \kappa = \alpha_0^E$, where $\kappa$ is the quotient map $(u,X) \mapsto [(u,X)]$.

To prove that $\alpha^E$ is well defined we see that for every $u \in U_A$, $v \in U_B$ and $X \in \mathfrak u_E$
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha_0^E(v \cdot(u,X))&=& \alpha_0^E(uv^{-1},Ad_vX)=(\mu_{uv^{-1}})_{*o}q_{*1}Ad_vX \nonumber \\
&=&(\mu_{uv^{-1}})_{*o}q_{*1}(I_v)_{*1}X=(\mu_{uv^{-1}}qI_v)_{*1}X \nonumber \\
&=&(\mu_u\mu_{v^{-1}}qL_vR_{v^{-1}})_{*1}X=(\mu_uqL_{v^{-1}}L_vR_{v^{-1}})_{*1}X \nonumber \\
&=&(\mu_uqR_{v^{-1}})_{*1}X=(\mu_uq)_{*1}=(\mu_u)_{*o}q_{*1}X=\alpha_0^E(u,X) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The uniqueness of $\alpha^E$ is a consequence of the surjectivity of $\kappa$.
$\alpha^E$ is surjective because $(\mu_u)_{*o}:T_o(U_A/U_B) \to T_{q(u)}(U_A/U_B)$ is bijective for every $u \in U_A$.
To see that $\alpha^E$ is injective assume that $(\mu_{u_1})_{*o}q_{*1}X_1=(\mu_{u_2})_{*o}q_{*1}X_2$. Then
$q(u_1)=q(u_2)$ and therefore there is a $v \in U_B$ such that $u_1v=u_2$. Then
\begin{eqnarray}
(\mu_{u_1})_{*o}q_{*1}X_1 &=&(\mu_{u_2})_{*o}q_{*1}X_2=(\mu_{u_1v}q)_{*1}X_2=(\mu_{u_1}\mu_vq)_{*1}X_2 \nonumber \\
&=&(\mu_{u_1}\mu_vqR_{v^{-1}})_{*1}X_2=(\mu_{u_1}qL_vR_{v^{-1}})_{*1}X_2 \nonumber \\
&=&(\mu_{u_1}qI_v)_{*1}X_2=(\mu_{u_1})_{*o}q_{*1}Ad_vX_2 \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
so that $Ad_vX_2=X_1$ and we conclude that $v \cdot (u_2,X_2) = (u_1,X_1)$.
\end{proof}

\begin{lem}
If $\sigma$ is a anti-holomorphic involutive automorphism of a complex Banach-Lie group $G_A$ then $i\mathfrak u=\mathfrak p$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
If $X\in \mathfrak u$, $\sigma_{*1}X=X$ and $\sigma_{*1}(iX)=-i\sigma_{*1}X=-iX$ so that $iX\in \mathfrak p$. The other inclusion is proved in a similar way.
\end{proof}

\begin{ejem}
If $G_A$ is the group of invertible elements of a $C^*$-algebra $A$ then the previous lemma applies and we get $\mathfrak p=A_s$ the set of self-adjoint elements of $A$ and $\mathfrak u=i\mathfrak p=iA_s=A_{as}$ the set of skew-adjoint elements of $A$.
\end{ejem}

\begin{rem}\label{tan}
Assume the conditions of Theorem \ref{com} are satisfied and that $G_A$ is a complex analytic group, $\mathfrak u =i\mathfrak p$, and $E$ is $\mathbb{C}$-linear. Since $Ad_g(iX)=iAd(X)$ for every $g\in G_A$ and $X\in \mathfrak g_A$ we conclude that $\Theta: U_A \times_{U_B} \mathfrak p_E \to U_A \times_{U_B} \mathfrak u_E$, given by $[(u,X)] \mapsto [(u,iX)]$ is well defined. Theorem \ref{com} and Theorem \ref{tang} imply that the composition
$$G_A/G_B \xrightarrow{(\Psi^E)^{-1}} U_A \times_{U_B} \mathfrak p_E \xrightarrow{\Theta} U_A \times_{U_B} \mathfrak u_E \xrightarrow{\alpha^E} T(U_A/U_B)$$
is a $U_A$-equivariant diffeomorphism between the complexification $G_A/G_B$ and the tangent bundle $T(U_A/U_B)$ of the homogeneous space $U_A/U_B$. Under the above identification the involution $\sigma_G$ is the map $V\mapsto -V$, $T(U_A/U_B)\to T(U_A/U_B)$.
\end{rem}

The isomorphism in the last remark gives the tangent bundle of $U_A/U_B$ a complex manifold structure which depends on the map $E$.

\medskip

The following proposition shows that the diffeomorphism between $G_A/G_B$ and $T(U_A/U_B)$ respects the natural morphisms that can be defined between homogeneous spaces of the form $G_A/G_B$ and tangent bundles of homogeneous spaces given by $T(U_A/U_B)$.

\begin{prop}
Let $(G_A,G_B;E;\sigma)$ and $(\tilde{G_A},\tilde{G_B};\tilde{E};\tilde{\sigma})$ be reductive structures with involution that satisfy the conditions of the previous remark and let $\alpha: G_A \to \tilde{G_A}$ be a holomorphic morphism of reductive structures with involution. If we define $\alpha_G:G_A/G_B \to G_A/G_B$, $gG_B \mapsto \alpha(g)\tilde{G_B}$ and $\alpha_U:U_A/U_B \to U_A/U_B$, $uU_B \mapsto \alpha(u)\tilde{U_B}$ then the diagram
$$
\xy
\xymatrix{
\ G_A/G_B \ar[d]_{\alpha_G} & U_A \times_{U_B} \mathfrak u_E \ar[l]_{\sim} \ar[r]^{\sim} & T(U_A/U_B) \ar[d]^{\alpha_{U*}}
\\
\tilde{G_A}/\tilde{G_B} & \tilde{U_A} \times_{\tilde{U_B}} \tilde{\mathfrak u_E} \ar[l]_{\sim} \ar[r]^{\sim} & T(\tilde{U_A}/\tilde{U_B})
}\endxy
$$
commutes, where the horizontal arrows correspond to the morphisms of Rem. \ref{tan}.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Since $\alpha \circ \sigma = \tilde{\sigma} \circ \alpha$, $\alpha(U_B)\subseteq \tilde{U_B}$ and $\alpha_U$ is well defined.
Since $\alpha_{*1} \circ \sigma_{*1} = \tilde{\sigma}_{*1} \circ \alpha_{*1}$, $\alpha_{*1}(\mathfrak u) \subseteq \tilde{\mathfrak u}$. Also $E \circ \alpha_{*1} = \alpha_{*1} \circ E$ implies $\alpha_{*1}(KerE) \subseteq Ker\tilde{E}$ so that $\alpha_{*1}(\mathfrak u_E) \subseteq \tilde{\mathfrak u_E}$.
Given $u \in U_A$ and $X\in \mathfrak u_E$, $\alpha(u)\in \tilde{U_A}$ and $\alpha_{*1}X \in \tilde{u_E}$  and we have the following diagram
$$
\xy
\xymatrix{
\ ue^{iX}G_B  \ar@{|->}[d]_{\alpha_G} & [(u,X)] \ar@{|->}[l]^{} \ar@{|->}[r]^{} & (\mu_u)_{*o}q_{*1}X \ar@{|->}[d]^{\alpha_{U*}}
\\
\ \alpha(u)e^{i\alpha_{*1}(X)}\tilde{G_B} & [(\alpha(u),\alpha_{*1}(X))]  \ar@{|->}[l]^{} \ar@{|->}[r]^{} & (\tilde{\mu}_{\alpha(u)})_{*o}\tilde{q}_{*1}\alpha_{*1}X
}\endxy
$$
It is enough to verify that the values in the vertical arrows correspond to the stated morphisms.
$\alpha_G(ue^{iX}G_B)=\alpha(u)e^{\alpha_{*1}(iX)}\tilde{G_B}=\alpha(u)e^{i\alpha_{*1}(X)}\tilde{G_B}$ since $\alpha_{*1}(iX)=i\alpha_{*1}(X)$ because $\alpha$ is holomorphic.
Since $\alpha_U \circ \mu_{u} = \tilde{\mu}_{\alpha(u)} \circ \alpha_U$ and $\tilde{q} \circ \alpha = \alpha_U \circ q$ we get $\alpha_{U*q(u)} (\mu_u)_{*o} q_{*1}X = (\tilde{\mu}_{\alpha(u)})_{*o}  \alpha_{U*o} q_{*1}X = (\tilde{\mu}_{\alpha(u)})_{*o}\tilde{q}_{*1}\alpha_{*1}X$.
\end{proof}

There are two basic examples of homogeneous spaces $U_A/U_B$ in the infinite dimensional context, the flag manifolds and the Stiefel manifolds. Coadjoint orbits are examples of flag manifolds.

\begin{ejem}Flag manifolds

Let $\mathcal H$ be a Hilbert space and let $p_i$, $i=1,\dots ,n$ be pairwise orthogonal projections in $\mathcal B(\mathcal H)$ each with range $\mathcal H_i$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{n}p_i =1$. If we consider the action of the unitary group $U_A$ of $\mathcal B(\mathcal H)$ on the set of $n$-tuples of pairwise orthogonal projections with sum $1$ given by $u \cdot (q_1,\dots ,q_n)=(uq_1u^*,\dots ,uq_nu^*)$ then the orbit of $(p_1,\dots ,p_n)$ can be considered as an infinite dimensional version of a flag manifold. This orbit is isomorphic to $U_A/U_B$ where
$$
U_B=
\left\{ \begin{pmatrix}
u_1    & 0      & \hdots & 0      \\
0      & u_2    & \hdots &  0     \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0      &  0     &  \hdots   &  u_n
\end{pmatrix} :u_i \mbox{ unitary in } \mathcal B(\mathcal H_i) \mbox{ for } i=1,\dots ,n \right\};
$$
and we write the operators in $\mathcal B(\mathcal H)=\mathcal B(\mathcal H_1 \oplus \dots  \oplus \mathcal H_n)$ as $n\times n$-matrices with corresponding operator entries. If we consider the group $G_A$ of invertible operators in $\mathcal B(\mathcal H)$ with the usual involution $\sigma$, the involutive subgroup
$$
G_B=
\left\{ \begin{pmatrix}
g_1    & 0      & \hdots & 0      \\
0      & g_2    & \hdots &  0     \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0      &  0     &  \hdots   &  g_n
\end{pmatrix} :g_i \mbox{ invertible in } \mathcal B(\mathcal H_i) \mbox{ for } i=1,\dots ,n \right\};
$$
and the conditional expectation $E:\mathfrak g_A \to \mathfrak g_B$, $X\mapsto \sum_{i=1}^{n}p_iXp_i$ then we are in the context of Example \ref{condexp} and Th. \ref{com}, Th. \ref{tang} and Rem. \ref{tan} give a geometric description of the complexification of the flag manifold.
\end{ejem}

Other examples of flag manifolds in the infinite dimensional context are coadjoint orbits in operator ideals, which now can be described geometrically.

\begin{ejem}Coadjoint orbits

In the setting of Example \ref{idealcond} let $1\le p <\infty$ and $q$ such that $1/p+1/q=1$. The Banach-Lie algebra of the Banach-Lie group $G_{A,p}$ is $\mathfrak g_{A,p}=A_p$, the ideal of p-Schatten operators ($A_\infty$ is the ideal of compact operators). The Banach-Lie algebra of the real Banach-Lie group $U_{A,p}$ is $\mathfrak u_{A,p}$, the skew-adjoint p-Schatten operators. The trace provides strong duality pairings $\mathfrak g_{A,p}^*\simeq \mathfrak g_{A,q}$ and $\mathfrak u_{A,p}^*\simeq \mathfrak u_{A,q}$.

We denote by $Ad^*:G_{A,p}\mapsto \mathcal B(\mathfrak g_{A,p})$, $Ad^*_g(X)=(Ad_{g^{-1}})^*(X)=gXg^{-1}$ for $g\in G_{A,p}$ and $X\in \mathfrak g_{A,p}^*\simeq \mathfrak g_{A,q}$, the coadjoint action of $G_{A,p}$ and by $Ad^*:U_{A,p}\mapsto \mathcal B(\mathfrak u_{A,p})$, $Ad^*_u(X)=(Ad_{u^{-1}})^*(X)=uXu^{-1}$ for $u\in U_{A,p}$ and $X\in \mathfrak u_{A,p}^*\simeq \mathfrak u_{A,q}$, the coadjoint action of $U_{A,p}$.

For a fixed $X \in \mathfrak u_{A,q}\subseteq \mathfrak g_{A,q}$ let ${\cal O}_G(X)=\{Ad^*_g(X):g\in G_{A,p}\}$ be the coadjoint orbit of $X$ under the action of $G_{A,p}$ and ${\cal O}_U(X)=\{Ad^*_u(X):g\in U_{A,p}\}$ be the coadjoint orbit of $X$ under the action of $U_{A,p}$. Since $X$ is a compact skew-adjoint operator it is diagonalizable, i.e. there is a finite or countable sequence of pairwise orthogonal projections $(p_i)_{i=1}^N$ with $N\in \mathbb{N}\cup\{\infty\}$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{N}p_i=1$ and $X= \sum_{i=1}^{N}\lambda_ip_i$, where $\lambda_i\neq \lambda_j$ for $i\neq j$ and $(\lambda_i)_{i=1}^N\subseteq i\mathbb{R}$. The map $E:Y\mapsto \sum_{i=1}^{N}p_iYp_i$ is a conditional expectation from $A$ onto the $C^*$-subalgebra $B=\{Y\in A: p_iY=Yp_i \mbox{ for all } i\geq 1\}$. This conditional expectation sends trace-class operators to trace-class operators and preserves the trace, so the conditions on $E$ in Example \ref{idealcond} are satisfied.  The coadjoint isotropy group of $X$ for the action of $G_{A,p}$ is $\{g\in G_{A,p}:gXg^{-1}=X\}=G_{B,p}$ and the coadjoint isotropy group of $X$ for the action of $U_{A,p}$ is $\{u\in U_{A,p}:uXu^{-1}=X\}=U_{B,p}$. This follows from the fact that an operator commutes with a diagonalizable operator if and only if it leaves all the eigenspaces of the diagonalizable operator invariant. Thus, making the identifications ${\cal O}_G(X)\simeq G_{A,p}/G_{B,p}$ and ${\cal O}_U(X)\simeq U_{A,p}/U_{B,p}$, Th. \ref{com}, Th. \ref{tang} and Rem. \ref{tan} give a geometric description of the complexification of the flag manifold; there is a $U_{A,p}$-equivariant diffeomorphic fiber bundle map between ${\cal O}_G(X)$ and $T({\cal O}_U(X))$ covering the identity map of ${\cal O}_U(X)$.

For further reading on the coadjoint orbits in the infinite dimensional setting, see Section 7 in \cite{oratiu}.
\end{ejem}

Likewise, it is now possible to give a geometric description of the complexification of the Stiefel manifolds.

\begin{ejem}Stiefel manifolds

Let $\mathcal H$ be a Hilbert space and let $p_i$, $i=1,2$ be pairwise orthogonal projections in $\mathcal B(\mathcal H)$ each with range $\mathcal H_i$ such that $p_1+p_2=1$. If we consider the action of the unitary group $U_A$ of $\mathcal B(\mathcal H)$ on the set of partial isometries given by by $u \cdot v=uv$ then the orbit of $p_1$ can be considered as an infinite dimensional version of a Stiefel manifold. This orbit is isomorphic to $U_A/U_B$ where
$$
U_B=
\left\{ \left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
\\
0 & u
\end{array}\right):u\mbox{ is unitary in }\mathcal B(\mathcal H_2) \right\}.
$$
and we write the operator in $\mathcal B(\mathcal H)=\mathcal B(\mathcal H_1 \oplus \mathcal H_2)$ as $2\times 2$-matrices with corresponding operator entries. If we consider the group $G_A$ of invertible operators in $\mathcal B(\mathcal H)$ with the usual involution $\sigma$, the involutive subgroup
$$
G_B=
\left\{ \left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
\\
0 & g
\end{array}\right):g\mbox{ is invertible in }\mathcal B(\mathcal H_2) \right\}.
$$
and the map $E:\mathfrak g_A\to \mathfrak g_B$, $X\mapsto (1-p)X(1-p)$ then we are in the context of Example \ref{corners} and Th. \ref{com}, Th. \ref{tang} and Rem. \ref{tan} give a geometric description of the complexification of the Stiefel manifold.
\end{ejem}

\begin{rem}
The case of the flag manifold with two projections is the infinite dimensional Grassmannian. The case of the Grassmannian where the decomposition of $\mathcal H$ is $\mathcal H= \mathbb{C}\eta \oplus (\mathbb{C}\eta)^{\perp}$ for a non-zero vector $\eta \in \mathcal H$ is the projective space $\mathbb{P}(\mathcal H)$.

The special case of the Stiefel manifold where the decomposition of $\mathcal H$ is $\mathcal H= \mathbb{C}\eta \oplus (\mathbb{C}\eta)^{\perp}$ for a non-zero vector $\eta \in \mathcal H$ is the unit sphere in the Hilbert space $\mathcal H$.
\end{rem}

\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
I would like to thank Gabriel Larotonda for many useful suggestions and comments.


\section*{Introduction}

Optical Tweezers (OT) have been often employed to measure the elastic properties of polymers tethered between dielectric beads.
A direct measurement of the tether stiffness is possible through fluctuation analysis \cite{Prl.meiners.2000}.
This kind of measurements are appealing from the experimental point of view because they require the measurement of a single
quantity, either force or extension, so that they do not need a prior determination of the trap stiffness.
One major source of error in these measurements is the coupling of fluctuations along different
spatial directions, mainly in and out of the focal plane. This is a nontrivial effect which is expected to affect,
although to different extents, any OT setup. The relevance of such effect is not limited to fluctuation measurements: it can also affect
the correct measurement of force-extension curves, especially for short tethers.
A clear understanding of the physical basis of such couplings is useful to determine under which conditions they
lead to systematic errors in the measurements.
In this paper we study fluctuation coupling in Double-Trap Optical Tweezers (DTOT) setups which are currently used in
high resolution force spectroscopy. The most important coupling sources are misalignmnt effects affecting both traps and tether.
Through theoretical modeling we establish a criterion to identify the kind of misalignment which causes the coupling and give explicit formulas
to quantify its effect on the basis of the parameters characterizing the experimental setup. These considerations are also
relevant for Single Trap Optical Tweezers (STOT).
Moreover we show that, if coupling effects are negligible, the analysis of the variance of the measured signals, either
force or position, may be used to simultaneously measure the tether and trap stiffnesses, including possible asymmetries between the
two traps. This kind of measurements can be used as a calibration technique, suitable for any DTOT, which works beyond the linear region of the traps.
When instead couplings are non-negligible we show how to include them in the data analysis.
To illustrate this methodology we carried out measurements in a novel DTOT setup which uses counterpropagating
beams and measures forces directly using linear momentum conservation. This system is especially well suited for
stiffness measurements as the force measurement calibration is independent of the shape and size of the trapped object.
This is not true when using other techniques, e.g. back focal plane interferometry, which require a specific calibration of the position measurement for
each bead. We performed direct measurements of the stiffness of ds-DNA tethers whose contour length spans two decades.

\section*{Materials and Methods}
\begin{small}
\subsection*{Optical Tweezers Setup}

The DTOT setup is shown in Figure \ref{Figure:opts} and is very similar to the one designed by Smith et al. \cite{MEnzy.smith.2003}
and described in \cite{PNAS.huguet.2010}, which operates with a single trap and a pipette.
Force measurement is based on the
conservation of linear momentum \cite{MEnzy.smith.2003}, making force calibration very robust. Calibration factors are determined by the optical setup
and the detector response but they are independent of other details of the experimental setup, such as the index of refraction of the trapped object, its size or shape, the refractive
index of the buffer medium and laser power. Unless the optics or the detector are changed, there is no need for continued calibration \cite{MEnzy.smith.2003}.
Fluctuation measurements were performed using an acquisition board (Agilent Technologies) with a 50 kHz bandwidth, which is higher than corner frequencies
of the measured signals. In a typical experiment fluctuations were measured for 10 seconds, by increasing the force in 2 pN steps between subsequent measurements.

\subsection*{Molecular synthesis}

For our experiments we used ds-DNA tethers of four different lengths.
The 24 kb tether was obtained by digesting the phage-$\lambda$ plasmid with the XbAI restriction enzyme.
The tether was then ligated to a biotin-labeled oligo on one side and with a dig labeled oligo on the other side.
The 3 kb tether was obtained by PCR amplification of a section of the phage-$\lambda$ plasmid using biotin-modified primers. The amplified segment
was then restricted with Xba I and ligated to a dig-modified oligo.
The 1.2 kb and 58 b tethers were synthesized according to the protocol described in \cite{BiophysJ.forns.2011}.
Experiments were performed in a microfluidic chamber formed by two coverslips interspaced with parafilm. Anti-dig coated beads
were first incubated with the molecule of interest and then introduced one at a time in the microfluidics chamber trough a dispenser tube. Once the
anti-dig coated bead was trapped a streptavidin coated bead was introduced through a second dispenser tube and trapped in the second trap.
The connection was then formed directly inside the microfluidics chamber.
All experiments on DNA tethers were performed in PBS buffer solution at pH 7.4, NaCl 1M, at $25^\text{o}$C.
This buffer solution was found to greatly reduce the nonspecific adsorption of DNA on silica.
We dissolved $1mg/\mu l$ Bovine Serum Albumin in the buffer in order to reduce  non-specific
silica-silica interactions.

\end{small}

\section*{Results}

\subsection*{Coupled fluctuations in a plane.}\label{coupletwo}

In order to introduce the main subject of this paper it is useful to consider a pedagogical example that shows how a small coupling between two fluctuating degrees of freedom can have a large effect on their variances.
Let us consider a particle moving on a plane while constrained by two harmonic springs (Fig. \ref{Fig.s} A). The position of the particle is given by a vector $\vct{p}=(y,z)$
and the springs are oriented along the coordinate axes ($\hat y,\hat z$) (Fig.\ref{Fig.s}A).
The stiffness matrix $\tnsr{k}$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
 \tnsr{k}=\left(\begin{array}{c c}
             k_y & 0 \\
             0 & k_z
            \end{array}\right)=k_y \left(\begin{array}{c c}
             1 & 0 \\
             0 & \alpha
            \end{array}\right),\, \alpha=k_z/k_y,
\end{equation}
where $k_y$,$k_z$ are the stiffnesses along $y$,$z$ respectively.
The equilibrium Boltzmann distribution for $\vct{p}$ can be written in compact form as:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{pocci}
\rho(\vct{p})&=&\frac{1}{Z}\exp\left(-\frac{\vct{p}\cdot \tnsr{k}\vct{p}}{2k_BT}\right)\\
Z&=&\int dzdy \exp\left(-\frac{\vct{p}\cdot \tnsr{k}\vct{p}}{2k_BT}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, $T$ the absolute temperature and $Z$ the partition function. The variance of $\vct{p}$ is thus:
\begin{equation}
\langle\vct{p}^2\rangle =k_BT  \tnsr{k}^{-1}\simeq\frac{k_BT}{k_y}\left(\begin{array}{c c} 1 & 0\\
                                                                  0 & \frac 1 \alpha
                                                                  \end{array}\right).
\end{equation}
In the case $k_y\gg k_z$ ($\alpha\ll 1$) the variance of spatial fluctuations along $z$ is much bigger than the variance along $y$ and the level curves
of the probability distribution in Eq. \eqref{pocci} are highly eccentric ellipses (Fig. \ref{Fig.s} C, red solid curves).

If the springs are misaligned by an angle $\theta$ with respect to the reference frame (Fig. \ref{Fig.s} B), the stiffness tensor changes as:
\begin{equation}\label{sannio}
\begin{split}
&\tnsr{k}'=\tnsr{R}(\theta) \tnsr{k} \tnsr{R}^T(\theta)=\\
=&\left(\begin{array}{c c} k_y \cos^2\theta+k_z \sin^2\theta & (k_y-k_z)\cos\theta\sin\theta \\  (k_y-k_z)\cos\theta\sin\theta &
k_z \cos^2\theta+k_y \sin^2\theta
                                                                  \end{array}\right).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\tnsr{k}'$ is the new stiffness and $\tnsr{R}(\theta)$ is a rotation of angle $\theta$.
In this situation, since $k_y\neq k_z$, the off--diagonal terms in Eq. \eqref{sannio} couple the motion of the particle along $y$ and $z$. We
 define $\epsilon=\sin\theta$ as the coupling parameter.
To lowest order in $\epsilon$ we get:
\begin{equation}\label{reppa}
\begin{split}
 \langle\vct{p}^2\rangle &=k_BT  \tnsr{k'}^{-1}\simeq\\
&\simeq \frac{k_BT}{k_y}\left(\begin{array}{c c} 1+\left(\frac 1 \alpha-1 \right)\epsilon^2 & \epsilon\left(1-\frac 1 \alpha\right) \\
                                                                  \epsilon\left(1 -\frac 1 \alpha\right) & \frac 1 \alpha \left(1-\epsilon^2\right)+\epsilon^2
                                                                  \end{array}\right).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
For a small coupling $\epsilon$ the variance of $y$ is increased to:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
 \langle y^2\rangle&= \frac{k_BT}{k_y}\left(1+\left(\frac{1}{\alpha}-1\right){\epsilon^2}\right)\simeq\\
&\simeq \frac{k_BT}{k_y}\left(1+\frac{\epsilon^2}{\alpha}\right),\qquad (\alpha \ll 1).
\end{split}
\end{equation}

This shows that the effect of a small coupling $\epsilon$ (small misalignment of the springs) on the variance of $y$
can be large if $\frac{\epsilon^2}{\alpha}\sim 1$. In other words, the small $\alpha$ value acts as a lever arm, amplifying the effect of
a small rotation (Fig. \ref{Fig.s} C).
Only when
\begin{equation}\label{condition}
\epsilon^2\ll \alpha\qquad,
\end{equation}
the coupling of fluctuations can be ignored.
So far we gave the general picture of the effect of a coupling between two fluctuating degrees of freedom.
In the next section we will show how this simple model
can be extended to study fluctuations in a DTOT. Generally speaking, when a molecule is pulled at high forces the rigidity of the
tether is much higher along the pulling direction ($y$)
than in the perpendicular direction ($z$) and Eq.\eqref{condition} can be violated even if $\epsilon$ is very small ($\simeq 0.1$).
At low forces and for long tethers Eq.\eqref{condition} is instead fulfilled and the coupling can be ignored.
A quantitative treatment of these effects and the corresponding data analysis are described next.

\subsection*{Coupled fluctuations in a DTOT setup}

Correlation functions of fluctuation measurements in a DTOT do often show a double exponential nature. This
is usually interpreted in terms of a coupling of the fluctuations in the optical plane and along the optical axis
\cite{Prl.meiners.1999,CSP.bustamante.2009}. Couplings affect the variance of the
measured force (or position) signal and the spurious contribution must be removed from the measurements. Yet, coupling effects reflect
some defect in the design of the experimental setup and their study can provide valuable diagnostic tools for the fine
tuning of a DTOT setup, crucial for high resolution measurements. Most prominent coupling sources are misalignment effects, due to at least two causes.
A first cause is tether misalignment, i.e.
a configuration in which the centers of the traps lie in different planes (Fig. \ref{Fig:setup}C). A second case is trap misalignment, when the principal
axes of the traps are tilted with respect to the direction along which the tether is stretched (Fig. \ref{Fig:setup}D).
Remarkably these two scenarios lead to different coupling structures making possible the identification of misalignment effects.
To discuss coupling effects it is necessary to consider a 4-dimensional configuration space, describing the position of the beads  both along the optical
axis and the pulling direction.
The laser beams (black arrows in Fig. \ref{Fig:setup}A) define the optical axis, which we identify with the $\hat{z}$ direction
in our reference frame.
In the optical plane (perpendicular to the optical axis), we shall use the coordinate $\hat{y}$ to denote the direction along which the tether is oriented.
The coordinate $\hat{x}$, perpendicular to both $\hat{y}$ and $\hat{z}$, will play no role in our analysis.
The effect of both traps and tether on the dynamics of the beads can be modeled by a potential energy function,
which depends on the positions of the beads in the $y-z$ plane.
When considering equilibrium fluctuations at constant trap--to--trap distance, a linear approximation around the equilibrium positions can be used:
\begin{equation}
U(y_1,y_2,z_1,z_2)=\frac{1}{2} \vct{p}^T\tnsr{K'}\vct{p},
\end{equation}
with $\vct{p}=(y_1,y_2,z_1,z_2)$, and $\tnsr{K'}$ the stiffness tensor (tensors are primed when they are represented in the $y-z$ coordinate system).
In the ideal case (Fig. \ref{Fig:setup}B), the stiffness tensor, which is now $4\times4$, reads:
\begin{equation}\label{r}
 \tnsr{K'}=\bordermatrix{~ & y_1 & y_2 & z_1 & z_2 \cr
                  y_1 & k_y+k_m & -k_m & 0 & 0 \cr
                  y_2 & -k_m & k_y+k_m & 0 &0 \cr
                  z_1 & 0 & 0 & k_z+\frac{f}{r_0} &-\frac{f}{r_0} \cr
                  z_2 & 0 & 0 & -\frac{f}{r_0} & k_z+\frac{f}{r_0} \cr
                }.
\end{equation}

The stiffness tensor is two-block diagonal, with the first block describing the effect of traps and tether along the $y$ axis,
and the second block describing the effect of traps
and tether in the $\hat z$ direction, sharing the same structure. Here $k_y$ is the stiffness of the trap in the $\hat y $ direction (the two traps
are assumed identical for simplicity), $k_z$ is the trap stiffness in the $\hat z$ direction, $k_m$ is the stiffness of the tether connecting the
two beads, $f$ is the mean force and $r_0$ the mean distance between the centers
of the beads.
In this case the stiffness tensor can be diagonalized switching to the coordinate system defined by:
\begin{eqnarray}
y_+=\frac{y_1+y_2}{\sqrt{2}},\qquad y_-=\frac{y_1-y_2}{\sqrt{2}}\\
z_+=\frac{z_1+z_2}{\sqrt{2}},\qquad z_-=\frac{z_1-z_2}{\sqrt{2}},
\end{eqnarray}
where $y_+,z_+$ represent the center of mass position and $y_-,z_-$ represent the differential coordinate.
In this second coordinate system, the stiffness tensor reads:
\begin{equation}\label{casoideale}
 \tnsr{K}= \bordermatrix{~ & y_+ & y_- & z_+ & z_- \cr
                  y_+ & k_y & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
                  y_- & 0 & k_y+2k_m & 0 &0 \cr
                  z_+ & 0 & 0 & k_z &0 \cr
                  z_- & 0 & 0 & 0 & k_z+2\frac{f}{r_0} \cr
                },
\end{equation}
which shows that the four different fluctuation modes are uncoupled (we dropped the prime because we switched to a different reference frame).
The tensor $\tnsr{K}$ can be written as the sum of two contributions:
\begin{equation}
\tnsr{K}=\tnsr{K}_T+2\tnsr{K}_m,
\end{equation}
with:
\begin{equation}
\tnsr{K}_T=\left( \begin{array}{ c c c c} k_y & 0 & 0 & 0\\
                    0 & k_y & 0 & 0 \\
                    0 & 0 & k_z & 0\\
                    0 & 0 & 0 & k_z
                   \end{array} \right),
\end{equation}
which accounts for the trap contribution to the stiffness, and:
\begin{equation}\label{cappaemme}
\tnsr{K}_m=\left( \begin{array}{ c c c c} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
                    0 & k_m & 0 & 0 \\
                    0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
                    0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{f}{r_0}
                   \end{array} \right),
\end{equation}
which accounts for the tether contribution to the stiffness.
\subsubsection*{Tether misalignment effects}

In the presence of tether misalignment, i.e. if the two traps are focused at different depths along the optical axis (Fig. \ref{Fig:setup}C), the tether forms an angle $\theta$
with respect to the $y$ axis. This can be incorporated in the stiffness tensor through a rotation of $\tnsr{K}_m$, Eq. \eqref{cappaemme}, of the same angle:
\begin{equation}
\tnsr{K}_m(\epsilon)=\left( \begin{array}{ c c c c} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
                    0 & u(\epsilon) & 0 & \epsilon w(\epsilon) \\
                    0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
                    0 & \epsilon w(\epsilon) & 0 & v(\epsilon)\end{array} \right),
\end{equation}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
u(\epsilon)&=&k_m (1-\epsilon^2)+\frac{f}{r_0} \epsilon^{2}\\
v(\epsilon)&=&\frac{f}{r_0} (1-\epsilon^2)+k_m \epsilon^2\\
w(\epsilon)&=&\left(k_m-\frac{f}{r_0}\right) \sqrt{1-\epsilon^2},
\end{eqnarray}
and $\epsilon=\sin(\theta)$.

The total stiffness tensor is now:
\begin{equation}\label{fort}
 \tnsr{K}(\epsilon)= \bordermatrix{ ~    & y_+   & y_-                  &  z_+  &   z_-                  \cr
                          y_+   & k_y   & 0                    &  0    &   0                    \cr
                          y_-   &  0    & k_y+2u(\epsilon)     &  0    &   \epsilon w(\epsilon) \cr
                          z_+   &  0    & 0                    &  k_z  &   0                    \cr
                          z_-    &  0    & \epsilon w(\epsilon) &  0    &   k_z+2 v(\epsilon)    \cr
                          },
\end{equation}
which must be compared to Eq. \eqref{casoideale}.
Looking at the non diagonal terms of this tensor it is evident that the coupling will only affect the two differential modes, $y_-,z_-$
leaving the motion of the center of mass, $y_+,z_+$, unchanged.

\subsubsection*{Trap misalignment effect}
In the second configuration the trap stiffness tensor is rotated (Fig. \ref{Fig:setup}D), and the stiffness tensor becomes:
\begin{equation}
 \tnsr{K}(\epsilon)= \bordermatrix{~ & y_+ & y_- & z_+ & z_- \cr
                  y_+ & p(\epsilon) & 0 &  \epsilon q(\epsilon) & 0 \cr
                  y_- & 0 & p(\epsilon)+2k_m & 0 & \epsilon q(\epsilon) \cr
                  z_+ & \epsilon q(\epsilon) & 0 & m(\epsilon) & 0 \cr
                 z_- & 0 & \epsilon q(\epsilon) & 0 & m(\epsilon)+2\frac{f}{r_0} \cr
                }.
                \end{equation}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
p(\epsilon)&=&k_y (1-\epsilon^2)+k_z \epsilon^{2}\\
m(\epsilon)&=&k_z (1-\epsilon^2)+k_y \epsilon^2\\
q(\epsilon)&=&\left(k_y-k_z\right) \sqrt{1-\epsilon^2},
\end{eqnarray}
and $\epsilon=\sin(\theta)$.
In contrast to the previous case, the non-diagonal terms show that the coupling will affect both the differential and center of mass coordinates.
This important difference provides a simple tool to distinguish between tether and trap misalignments.

\subsection*{On the relevance of coupling effects}
In the case of tether misalignment the off diagonal terms in Eq. \eqref{fort} couple the fluctuations along the $y_-$ and $z_-$
directions. A reduced description, addressing these two coordinates is possible using a subtensor of $\tnsr{K}(\epsilon)$, \eqref{fort}:
\begin{equation}\label{fortx}
 \tnsr{K}_-(\epsilon)= \bordermatrix{ ~    & y_-     &   z_-           \cr
                          y_-   & k_y+2u(\epsilon)      &   \epsilon w(\epsilon) \cr
                          z_-    & \epsilon w(\epsilon) &   k_z+2 v(\epsilon)    \cr
                          }.
\end{equation}
The variance of $y_-$ is given by:
\begin{equation}\label{cozza}
 \langle y_-^2\rangle=k_BT\left(\tnsr{K}'_-(\epsilon)^{-1}\right)_{y_-y_-},
\end{equation}

which, to leading order in $\epsilon$, is:
\begin{equation}\label{gg}
\frac{\langle y_-^2\rangle}{\langle y_-^2\rangle_{\epsilon=0}}=1+\frac{\epsilon^2}{\alpha}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\alpha=\frac{(k_y+2k_m)(k_z+2f/r_0)}{(2 k_m+k_z)(2 k_m-2f/r_0)}.
\end{equation}

The value of $\alpha$ can be computed if the stiffnesses are known. In Fig. \ref{Fig:setup} E we show the behavior of $\alpha$ as a function of the
force for two different ds-DNA tethers (3kbp and 24 kbp) and for two different trap stiffnesses. The continuous curves show the value of $\alpha$ computed
in a low stiffness  setup ($k_y=0.02$ pN/nm, $k_z=0.001$ pN/nm, the condition in which our DTOT operates)
while the dotted lines show the value of $\alpha$ for high trap stiffness
($k_y=0.2$ pN/nm, $k_z\simeq0.01$ pN/nm, as reported for the DTOT in \citep{PNAS.gebhardt.2010,Nature.comstock.2011}).
Even in the case of high trap stiffness the attained value of $\alpha$ is small ($\simeq 10^{-1}$) at high forces for the shorter tether. In Fig. \ref{Fig:setup} E
the shaded area shows the
values of $\alpha$ for which a misalignment $\epsilon\simeq 0.1$ causes a 10\% error in the measurements of $y_-$ fluctuations Eq. \eqref{gg}. In our DTOT setup such coupling in negligible when
using long molecules (8 $\mu$m) at low and moderate forces (up to $\simeq$10 pN).

In the case of trap misalignment both the variances of $y_-$ and $y_+$ are affected and similar formulas hold:
\begin{equation}
 \frac{\langle y_-^2\rangle}{\langle y_-^2\rangle_{\epsilon=0}}=1+\frac{\epsilon^2}{\gamma}\qquad\frac{\langle y_+^2\rangle}{\langle y_+^2\rangle_{\epsilon=0}}=1+\frac{\epsilon^2}{\delta}
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}\label{rr}
\gamma=\frac{(k_y+2k_m)(k_z+2f/r_0)}{(k_y-k_z)(k_y+2f/r_0)}
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}\label{tt}
\delta=\frac{k_z}{k_y-k_z}.
\end{equation}

Equations \eqref{gg},\eqref{rr},\eqref{tt} estimate the error due to misalignment as a function of the stiffnesses contributing to the
experimental setup (Fig. \ref{Fig:setup}E). As such they are useful to understand in which force regimes misalignment is going to be important.

\subsection*{Neglecting coupling effects: variance analysis}\label{stifres}

In experimental setups where force is
directly measured, the trap stiffness is used to measure the extension of the fiber. Conversely, when the bead displacement is measured
(e.g. by video microscopy or by back focal plane interferometry \citep{RevSciInst.neuman.2004}), the stiffness
is used to measure force. In both cases the trap stiffness depends on the details of the experimental setup i.e. laser power, bead size and shape or buffer medium
(via its refraction index). Optical traps are assumed to be linear close to the trap center, so that a stiffness measurement at zero force can be used
to characterize the trap shape in this region. This kind of calibration has been shown to achieve 1\% accuracy \cite{RevSciInst.tolic.2006}. Nevertheless when one needs
to do measurements at high forces, nonlinear effects may become relevant, especially at low trap power and the full force field of the trap should be measured \cite{OptLett.jahnel.2011}.
When the coupling is negligible, motions along the $\hat y$ and $\hat z$ directions are uncoupled and the stiffnesses of traps and tethers can be obtained
from a straightforward analysis of the experimental force (or position) variances.
We will model traps and thether by the dumbbell shown in Fig. \ref{Fig:DNAstiff}. It consists of three serially connected
harmonic springs. In this setting we allow for a different stiffness in the two traps: $k_1$, $k_2$ (Fig. \ref{Fig:DNAstiff} A).
Together with the tether stiffness $k_m$ we get the stiffness tensor:
\begin{equation}
 \tnsr{K}'=\left( \begin{array}{ c c } k_1+k_m & -k_m \\
                    -k_m & k_2+k_m
                   \end{array} \right),
\end{equation}
which is just the first block of Eq. \eqref{r}, and the potential energy of the system is written as:
\begin{equation}
 U(y_1,y_2)=\frac{1}{2}(y_1,y_2)\cdot \tnsr{K}'(y_1,y_2)
\end{equation}
where $(y_1,y_2)$ have the same meaning as in the previous sections.
The equilibrium distribution for $(y_1,y_2)$ is related to $\tnsr{K}'$ by:
\begin{equation}
P(y_1,y_2)=\frac{1}{Z}\exp\left(- \frac{U(y_1,y_2)}{k_BT}\right).
\end{equation}
The variances and covariance of $(y_1,y_2)$ are linked to the inverse of the stiffness tensor.
In terms of the experimentally measured variances and covariances:
\begin{eqnarray}
k_1 &=&\kappa\frac{\langle y_2^2\rangle-\langle y_1 y_2\rangle}{k_BT},\label{p1}\\
k_2 &=&\kappa\frac{\langle y_1^2\rangle-\langle y_1 y_2\rangle}{k_BT},\label{p2}\\
k_m &=&\kappa\frac{\langle y_1 y_2\rangle}{k_BT}\label{p3},
\end{eqnarray}
with $\kappa^{-1}=\frac{\langle y_1^2\rangle \langle y_2^2\rangle- \langle y_1 y_2\rangle ^2}{(k_BT)^2}$.

In experimental set-ups which directly measure forces different formulas apply: the experimental values ($\sigma^{2}_{11},\sigma^{2}_{22},\sigma^{2}_{12}$, $\sigma^2_{ij}=\langle f_if_j\rangle-\langle f_i\rangle \langle f_j\rangle,\,\, i=1,2$) and the model parameters ($k_1,k_2,k_m$) are related by:
\begin{eqnarray}
 k_1&=&\frac{\sigma_{11}^2+\sigma_{12}^2}{k_B T}\label{ia}\\
k_2&=&\frac{\sigma_{22}^2+\sigma_{12}^2}{k_BT}\label{ib}\\
k_m&=&\frac{1}{k_BT}\frac{\sigma_{12}^2\left( \sigma_{11}^2+\sigma_{12}^2\right)\left(  \sigma_{22}^2+\sigma_{12}^2\right)} { \sigma_{11}^2\sigma_{22}^2-\sigma_{12}^4}\label{ic}.
\end{eqnarray}

The method we have introduced in this section is similar to the one used by Meiners and Quake \citep{Prl.meiners.2000}, the difference being that here we use equal--time
force covariance whereas \citep{Prl.meiners.2000} uses time--dependent correlation functions. Both methods can be
affected by the presence of extraneous noise sources. The effect of  low frequency noises (such as line noise, drift or air flows) can be
minimized by computing the variance of the force (or distance) signal on traces which are much longer than the corner frequency of the dumbbell, but short
enough so that the low frequency noise sources never dominate the power spectrum (Fig. \ref{Fig:DNAstiff}B).
The method just presented can be used in any DTOT setup to calibrate the two traps (by measuring $k_1,k_2$) at different forces. Equations \eqref{p1},\eqref{p2} and
\eqref{p3} are useful in experimental set-ups which directly measure bead positions, while Equations \eqref{ia},\eqref{ib},\eqref{ic} refer to set-ups
which directly measure forces.
Fig. \ref{Fig:DNAstiff}C shows the results of direct stiffness measurements, based on equations \eqref{ia},\eqref{ib},\eqref{ic} on a 24kbp ds-DNA molecule,
in the shaded region misalignment effects gain importance and the measured stiffness departs from the WLC fit obtained at low forces.
Note that the effect of tether misalignment on trap stiffness measurements is negligible (Fig. \ref{Fig:DNAstiff}D). This happens
because the measurement of trap stiffness, in the absence of large asymmetries between the traps, does only depend on the variance of the center-of-mass coordinate.
In our setup a force dependent trap stiffness calibration appears to be crucial if we want to measure the force vs molecular
extension curve as the trap response is strongly non-linear (Fig. \ref{Fig:DNAstiff}). This is also the case for many other DTOT and STOT set-ups, especially at high enoughforces.

\subsection*{Measurement of the molecular stiffness}

The method discussed in the previous section is only useful if coupling effects are negligible, i.e. for long molecules ($10^4$ bp) at small forces ($<10$ pN).
To extend the applicability of direct stiffness measurements to shorter molecules or wider force ranges coupling effects must be taken into account.
Since removing couplings while performing experiments is generally unpractical, it may be convenient to include them data analysis.
To illustrate how this is done we will use fluctuation  measured on ds--DNA tethers of four different lengths: two sections
of the phage--$\lambda$ genome of 24 kb and 3 kb respectively, and two tethers (1.2 kb and 58 b) which are used as handles in single molecule experiments
\cite{BiophysJ.forns.2011}.
The differential, $y_-$ and center-of-mass coordinate $y_+$ correlation functions, measured in our counter propagating DTOT setup are shown in Fig. \ref{Fig:2}.

While the correlation function for the center of mass
shows a single exponential behavior (upper panels), the differential coordinate displays a double exponential behavior which derives from the
coupling of fluctuations (lower panels). This is the expected phenomenology for tether misalignment, which is the dominant effect in our setup.
On the contrary, in the case of trap misalignment, both the differential and center of mass coordinates would be affected.
According to Eq \eqref{cozza},\eqref{gg} and neglecting the trap stiffness with respect to the molecular stiffness ($k_m\gg k_y,k_z;f/r_0\gg k_z$), we have that,
in presence of tether misalignment, the variance of the differential coordinate $y_-$ changes to:
\begin{equation}\label{rmod}
\langle y_-^2\rangle \simeq\frac{k_BT}{2k_m}\left(1+\left(\frac{r_0 k_m}{f}-1\right)\epsilon^2\right).
\end{equation}
As the value of $\epsilon$ is not known the derivation of the molecular stiffness cannot be performed on the basis of variance analysis.
Fortunately, as already noted in \cite{Prl.meiners.1999}, the decay rate of fluctuations in the optical plane $\omega_+$ is much
bigger than that of fluctuations along the optical axis $\omega_-$. The correlation function for $y_-$ (derived in the Supplementary
Material) reads:
\begin{equation}
\langle y_-(0)y_-(t)\rangle=\left(1-\epsilon^{2}\right)\frac{e^{-2\omega_+ t}}{2 k_m}+\epsilon^2 \frac{r_0e^{-2\omega_- t}  }{2f},
\end{equation}
and the molecular stiffness can still be recovered by selecting the amplitude of the fast decaying component of the correlation function (Fig. \ref{Fig:3}).
Using this data analysis technique we measured the force dependent stiffness of the different tethers (Fig. \ref{pot}).

The nonlinear elasticity of ds-DNA is usually modeled with the Worm Like Chain (WLC) model.
When a contribution for enthalpic stretching  and overwinding \citep{Nature.gore.2006} is added, the so--called Extensible WLC (EWLC) \citep{Macromol.marko.1995} model is obtained.
The Marko-Siggia approximation formula for the force dependent stiffness of a EWLC is:
\begin{equation}\label{EWLC}
 k_m(f)=\frac{1}{\ell_0}\left(\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{\frac{k_bT}{P}}\left(\frac{1}{f}\right)^{3/2}+\frac{1}{S} \right)^{-1},
\end{equation}
where $P$ is the persistence length of the polymer, $\ell_0$ its contour length and $S$ is the stretch modulus.
This approximation is valid for molecules whose countour length is larger than the persistence length, ($l_0 > P$) \citep{Macromol.marko.1995}.
The EWLC model was fitted to the data letting the persistence length $P$ and the stretch modulus $S$ vary.
Fit results are shown in Table \ref{tab.1}.
In all cases, the results are compatible with the existing literature, although they were derived in a different force range. In particular the 3kbp molecule shows a decrease in persistence length which is compatible with
theoretical predictions based on finite-size effects as recently shown in \citep{BiophysJ.seol.2007}.
Data for the 1.2 kbp and 58 bp tethers are instead consistent with measurements performed in a STOT \citep{BiophysJ.forns.2011}.
In principle, 58 bp data should not be fitted with the Marko-Siggia approximation ($l_0<P$) and a semiflexible rod model is required.
Nevertheless we decided to include the results for such short tether in Figure \ref{pot} to stress the agreement between our dual trap measurements and those reported in
Ref. \citep{BiophysJ.forns.2011} for a STOT.

Several recent measurements on ds-DNA suggest a strong reduction of the persistence length as the
contour length of the molecule decreases. This could be the result of scale dependent DNA elasticity, as already found in microtubules \citep{PNAS.pampaloni.2006}, or a finite-size effect due to the boundary conditions
\cite{BiophysJ.seol.2007}.
Here we carry out persistence length measurements in the highly stretched regime ($2-15$ pN), i.e. when the molecule is almost fully stretched and
the enthalpic contribution is important \cite{Macromol.marko.1995,Epl.marko.1997}. In this regime and in contrast to low force measurements \cite{BiophysJ.seol.2007,Pre.chen.2009,BiophysJ.chen.2009}, excluded volume effects between the trapped beads are negligible.
Moreover the effect of fluctuating boundary conditions on the force-extension curve should become less and less relevant as $fR_b$ grows,
with $f$ the mean tension along the tether and $R_b$ the bead radius ($\simeq$2 $\mu$m in our experiments).
Seol {\it et al.} propose a phenomenological scaling equation:
\begin{equation}\label{pheno}
P(\ell_0)=\frac{P_\infty}{1+a\frac{P_\infty}{\ell_0}}.
\end{equation}
We fitted such empirical formula to our persistence length measurements, leaving out the shortest thether whose persistence length cannot be correctly measured using
the Marko-Siggia appriximation.  The parameters obtained from the fit are $P_\infty=49\pm2$ nm, in accordance to what measured in
\cite{BiophysJ.seol.2007} and $a=4\pm1$ which is bigger than the value $(2.78)$  measured in \cite{BiophysJ.seol.2007} and
later confirmed in \cite{Pre.chen.2009}. It must be stressed that our experiments are performed in a dumbbell configuration, while both \cite{BiophysJ.seol.2007} and
\cite{Pre.chen.2009} have one of the ends of the molecule attached to a surface, and the boundary conditions imposed on the molecule are different in the two cases.
The finite size WLC theory \cite{BiophysJ.seol.2007} does indeed predict a faster decrease of the effective presistence length with the contour length in the
dumbbell configuration.

\section*{Conclusions}

Misalignment effects may affect any optical tweezers setup and the effect of a small misalignment can be enhanced by the large difference in stiffness
between fluctuations along the pulling direction and along the optical axis. Analyzing these effects we have provided tools to estimate their relevance,
we have shown that trap and tether misalignments lead to different coupling structures and explained how to include couplings in the data analysis.
When misalignment is negligible, it is possible to measure the stiffnesses of traps and tether from a straightforward analysis of the measured variance
of force (or position) signals. This technique may be used as a calibration technique, valid beyond the linear trap region, in any DTOT. Otherwise it
is possible to include misalignment effects in data analysis.
Such techniques have been used to measure the stiffness of ds-DNA tethers of three different lengths, from 24 kbp to 1200 bp.
The stiffness was interpreted in the framework of EWLC model and we confirmed the decrease in apparent persistence length previously reported in \cite{BiophysJ.seol.2007,Pre.chen.2009},
although our measurements were performed in a wider force range and with a different set-up.

\section*{Financial Support}

FR is supported by  MICINN FIS2007-3454, HFSP Grant No. RGP55-2008, and ICREA Academia grants. MR is supported by HFSP Grant No. RGP55-2008.