\section{Introduction}

The realization of spin squeezed states \cite{Kitagawa-1993} of atomic ensembles is an important subject in quantum science. Such states  play a central role in studies of many-body entanglement \cite{Lewenstein05,Briegel09,Guhne09}. In addition, they may lead to the practical improvements of state-of-the-art atomic clocks and frequency standards \cite{Preskill-2000,Hammerer-2010,Ma-review}. In a spin-squeezed-state the atoms are entangled in such a way that the fluctuations of their total spin are smaller than the sum of the fluctuations of the individual atoms. As a rule, such entangled states are extremely fragile and spin squeezing is destroyed due to  dissipation or decoherence.

In this Letter we propose a new approach for the realization of spin squeezing using recently developed ideas on quantum-bath engineering \cite{Cirac-QC,Zoller-purestate,Cirac-ent,Kastroyano,Watanabe} and show how to realize squeezing in the steady state of a dissipative atom-cavity system. In our scheme, the steady state is unique and is reached by the system starting from any initial state, without the need to adiabatically follow a particular path in the parameter space. Because the spin squeezing is achieved by optical pumping, our approach can be considerably more robust against noise as compared to existing preparation methods \cite{Kuzmich98,AndrePRL,Wasilewski-2010,AndrePRA,Polzik,Vuletic,VuleticPRA,Thompson,Mitchell} that produce short-lived spin squeezed states, limited by decoherence processes. Moreover, using properly selected atomic transitions allows to continously pump the atoms into the desired states and consequently avoid population losses due to scattering into states not not participating in the squeezing. A similar approach to continously entangle two remote atomic ensemble using free space scattering has been experimentally demonstrated in Ref.~\cite{Krauter-2011}.

The central idea of our work can be understood by considering an ensemble of $N$ atoms interacting with a single radiation mode of an open optical cavity (Fig. 1a) and externally driven by a pair of coherent laser fields. The cavity mode and laser fields are tuned to excite a pair of two-photon Raman transitions, each involving one laser field with Rabi frequency $\Omega_\pm$ and a single cavity photon $a$ ($a^\dagger$) (Fig. 1b).  Assuming that the coupling of atoms to the cavity mode is uniform, the unitary time-evolution of such cavity-atom system is described by the effective Hamiltonian
\begin{align}
H_{\rm int} = \frac{g}{\Delta}a^\dagger\left(\Omega_+ S^+ + \Omega_- S^-\right)  + {\rm H.c.}\;,\label{eq:Hint}
\end{align}
where  $S^{+}$ ($S^-$) is the spin raising (lowering) operator of the collective spin, $g$ is the single atom-field coupling strength and $\Delta$ is the single-photon detuning from the excited state.
The coupling $g\Omega_\pm/\Delta$ is therefore an effective Rabi frequency corresponding to off-resonant Raman scattering (cf. Fig. \ref{fig:scheme}).
Direct examination of the Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:Hint}) shows that it has a dark-state $\ket{D}=\ket{\psi_{\rm spin}}\ket{0_{\rm cav}}$, where $\ket{0_{\rm cav}}$ is the cavity vacuum and $\ket{\psi_{\rm spin}}$ satisfies
\hat b
\left(\Omega_+S^+ + \Omega_-S^-\right) \ket{\psi_{\rm spin}} = 0\;.
\label{eq:dark}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
(a) \includegraphics[scale=0.25]{Figure1}
\hspace*{.1cm}
(b) \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Figure2}
\caption{(a) Schematic experimental setup of atoms with a spontaneous emission rate $\gamma$ in a cavity with line-width $\kappa$ supporting a single cavity mode $a$. (b) Effective linkage pattern consisting of two degenerate ground states ($\ket{\pm}$) encoding the effective atomic spin and two excited state $\ket{e_\pm}$. The system is driven via classical control fields $\Omega_\pm$ with large detuning $\Delta$ and a single global cavity mode $a$ coupling homogeneously to all atoms. {The orientation of the arrows does not necessarily correspond to the actual polarization of the fields in a specific physical realization. We give an example of such an implementation in the Supplementary Material.}
}
\label{fig:scheme}
\end{figure}
The interesting features of this state are (i) that it is a pure state not containing any photons and consequently is not affected by the cavity decay, i.e. $\ket{\psi_{\rm spin}}$ is a \textit{dark-state} of the cavity decay, and (ii) it describes a highly correlated atomic state containing a high degree of spin squeezing. The latter can be seen by computing the ratio between the spin fluctuations in the $x$ and $y$ direction: $\expv{S_x^2}/\expv{S_y^2} = \expv{(S^+ + S^-)^2}/\expv{(S^+ - S^-)^2} = (\Omega_- - \Omega_+)^2/(\Omega_- + \Omega_+)^2$. For any $\Omega_+\neq\Omega_-$ this ratio is smaller than one, indicating that the dark state is spin squeezed.

To quantify the degree of useful spin squeezing,  we use the phase sensitivity introduced by Wineland \textit{et al.} \cite{Wineland,Ma-review}
\hat b
\delta \phi = \frac{\sqrt{\av{S_x^2}}}{|\av{S_z}|}\;.
 \label{eq:sens}
\end{equation}
We first focus on symmetric states with the total spin $S=N/2$, i.e. an initially spin-polarized ensemble, and expand the dark-state into eigenstates of $S_z$ as $\ket{\psi_{\rm spin}}=\sum_m c_m \ket{S=N/2,S_z=-N/2+m}$. Substituting this into (\ref{eq:dark}) results in a recursion relation between $c_{m}$ and $c_{m+2}$, in close analogy with squeezed light \cite{Yuen75}
\hat b
c_{m=2n} =\left(\frac{\Omega_+}{\Omega_-}\right)^n \left(\begin{array}{c} N/2\\ n\textit{et al.}\right) \left(\begin{array}{c} N\\ 2n\textit{et al.}\right) ^{-1/2} c_0.
\label{eq:exact}
\end{equation}
Here $(:)$ are the binomial coefficients and $c_0$ is determined by the normalization condition $\sum_m |c_m|^2=1$. The phase sensitivity $\delta\phi$ of $\ket{\psi_{\rm spin}}$ is shown by the blue solid curve in Fig. \ref{fig:singlemode} as function of the ratio $\Omega_+/\Omega_-$ between the control fields. For $\Omega_+/\Omega_-=0$, the dark-state is fully polarized along the $z$-axis, giving a phase sensitivity of $1/\sqrt{N}$ corresponding to the \textit{Standard Quantum Limit} (SQL). In the opposite limit of $\Omega_+ \to \Omega_-$, the phase sensitivity approaches the \textit{Heisenberg limit} \cite{Ou-1997,AndrePRA} $\delta\phi =1/\sqrt{N(N/2+1)}$, indicating that the dark state corresponds to an almost maximally squeezed atomic state. A related method to generate spin squeezing in the weak coupling regime, i.e. $\Omega_+/\Omega_-\ll1$, has been recently proposed in Ref.~\cite{zheng12}.

\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.3]{Figure3}
\includegraphics[scale=.3]{Figure4}
\caption{Phase sensitivity of the dark-state $\ket{\psi_{\rm spin}}$: exact numerical solution (solid curve) and mean-field approximation (dashed curve) for $N=10$ (left) and $N=100$ (right) atoms. The optimal squeezing is obtained for $\Omega_+\to\Omega_-$ and approaches the Heisenberg limit $\delta\phi=1/\sqrt{N(N/2+1)}\sim 1/N$.}
\label{fig:singlemode}
\end{figure}

We now turn to the preparation of the dark-state (\ref{eq:Hint}) and study the corresponding quantum dynamics, focusing first on the effect of the cavity decay. To this end, consider an ensemble of $N$ four-state atoms, consisting of two (meta-)stable states $\ket{+}$, $\ket{-}$ serving as our effective spin-states and two excited states $\ket{e_\pm}$. The atoms are coupled to a single mode of an open cavity (cf. Fig.\ref{fig:scheme}) with resonance frequency $\omega_a$, volume $V$ and photon escape rate $\kappa$ driving the transitions $\ket{\pm}\rightarrow\ket{e_\pm}$ and strong control fields $\Omega_\pm$ with frequency $\omega_c$ driving the transitions $\ket{\mp}\rightarrow\ket{e_\pm}$, respectively. The atom-cavity field coupling strength is given by $g=\wp/\hbar\sqrt{\hbar\omega_a/2\varepsilon_0 V}$, where $\wp$ is the dipole matrix element of the transition. We assume the control fields and the cavity mode to be far detuned from the resonant transition frequency $\omega_\text{res}=\omega_{\pm}-\omega_{e_\pm}$ between ground state and excited state manifold.
This allows us to adiabatically eliminate the excited states and we obtain the effective Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:Hint}) with $S^+ = \sum_j^N \sigma^+ = \sum_j^N \ket{+}_{jj}\bra{-}$, $S^- = \left(S^+\right)^\dagger$ and $|\Delta|=|\omega_\text{res}-\omega_{a,c}|$. For simplicity of the calculation we assumed here that we can realize two independent $\Lambda$-schemes according to Fig. (\ref{fig:scheme}) and neglect
any possible hyper-fine structure in the excited states. While this approximation is only true if the detunings from the respective excited state is smaller than the hyperfine-splitting in the excited state manifold, Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:Hint}) is valid for more general conditions, when Raman processes mediated by multiple virtual states, can be added up \cite{Harris1997,Harris1999}. A more detailed derivation of the Hamiltonian, also including different detunings, can be found in the supplementary material \cite{Supplementary}. Assuming $\kappa\gg|\Delta|$, we can neglect the occupation of the cavity mode and using standard techniques \cite{Gardiner-2010} we obtain the master equation in Lindblad form after tracing over the cavity modes
\begin{align}
 \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\rho=&-\gamma_{\rm cav}\left[\left\lbrace\mathcal{I}^\dagger\mathcal{I},\rho\right\rbrace_+-2\mathcal{I}\rho\mathcal{I}^\dagger\right].
 \label{eq:master2}
\end{align}
Here $\{\cdot ,\cdot\}_+$ denotes the anti-commutator, $\gamma_{\rm cav} = g^2\Omega^2/\Delta^2\kappa$ with $\Omega^2=\Omega_+^2+\Omega_-^2$, $\mathcal{I}=\sin\theta S_++\cos\theta S_-$ is the Lindblad-operator accompanying the emission of a cavity photon, and we defined $\tan\theta=\Omega_-/\Omega_+$.

To compute the phase sensitivity $\delta\phi$, we use (\ref{eq:master2}) to determine the time evolution of the expectation values of the spin operators $S_z$ and $S_x^2$
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d \av{S_z}}{dt} &&= -\gamma_{\rm cav} \left[\cos^2(\theta)\av{S^+S^-} - \sin^2(\theta)\av{S^- S^+}\right]\label{eq:cavity_SZ}\\
\frac{d\av{S_x^2}}{dt} &&= -\gamma_{\rm cav} (\sin(\theta)-\cos(\theta))\label{eq:cavity_SX}\\&&\av{\left(\sin(\theta)S^- + \cos(\theta)S^+\right)(S_xS_z+S_zS_x) + {\rm H.c.}}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the dark state $\ket{\psi_{\rm spin}}$, defined by (\ref{eq:dark}), is indeed a steady state of (\ref{eq:cavity_SZ}-\ref{eq:cavity_SX}). Equations (\ref{eq:cavity_SZ}-\ref{eq:cavity_SX}) involve higher moments of the spin, whose time evolution should be computed independently. To avoid this complication and obtain an analytic solution, we linearize the equations of motion around $\langle S_z\rangle\approx-N/2$. Defining the small fluctuations as $\delta S_z = S_z+N/2$ and using the approximation $\langle S_x^2+S_y^2\rangle=\langle\mathbf{S}^2\rangle-\langle S_z^2\rangle \approx N\langle \delta S_z\rangle +N/2$, we find
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d \av{\delta S_z}}{dt} &=& - \gamma_{\rm cav}N\left[\cos(2\theta)\av{\delta S_z} - \sin^2(\theta)\right],\label{eq:cavity2_SZ}\\
\frac{d \av{S_x^2}}{dt} &=& -\gamma_{\rm cav}N\left[\cos(2\theta)\av{S_x^2} + (1-\sin(2\theta))\frac{1}4\right].\label{eq:cavity2_SX}
\end{eqnarray}
The solutions to these equations decay exponentially in time with an effective rate $\gamma_{\rm eff} = \gamma_{\rm cav}\cos(2\theta) N$. From eqs. (\ref{eq:cavity2_SZ}-\ref{eq:cavity2_SX}) we obtain the phase sensitivity in the steady state as
\hat b
\delta\phi^2 = \frac{N(1-\sin(2\theta))\cos(2\theta)}{\left(N\cos(2\theta)-2\sin^2(\theta)\right)^2}.
\label{eq:singlemode}
\end{equation}
In Fig.\ref{fig:singlemode} we compare this approximate expression (dashed curve) with the exact result obtained from Eq.~(\ref{eq:exact}) (solid curve). The two curves significantly deviate only for $\Omega_+/\Omega_- \approx 1 - {\mathcal O}(1/N)$, or equivalently $\theta \approx \pi/4 - {\mathcal O}(1/N)$. In this regime the present linearized approximation fails because $\av{\delta S_z} = \sin^2(\theta)/\cos(2\theta) \approx {\mathcal O}(N)$. Note that, as approaching the $\Omega_+=\Omega_-$ limit, the steady-state spin squeezing reaches its maximal Heisenberg-limited value. But, at the same time, the effective dark-state pumping rate $\gamma_{\rm eff}$ tends to zero, making the spin squeezing process extremely slow. This renders competing processes, as e.g. spontaneous Raman scattering of individual atoms, very important as will be discussed below.

Up to this point, we have restricted ourselves to the manifold of total spin $S=N/2$. This approach is valid if the system is initially prepared in the maximally polarized state $\ket{S=N/2,S_z=N/2}$ because Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:Hint}) commutes with the total spin $\mathbf{S}^2$. Consequently, if the system is initially prepared in a state with a different total spin, the final steady state will be different and will in general contain a smaller amount of spin squeezing. This is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:dynamics}(a), where we compare the linearized solution with the exact numerical solution of the Lindblad equation $(\ref{eq:master2})$ for $N=10$ spins with different initial conditions. The linearization works well only when the spins are initially polarized, as would be expected.

So far our analysis completely disregarded the effect of spontaneous Raman scattering of the individual atoms into free space. Being a single atom process, it breaks the conservation of the total spin and thus competes with the squeezing process. To investigate the effect of spontaneous Raman scattering we introduce a spontaneous decay rate $\gamma\ll|\Delta|$ to the states $\ket{e_\pm}$. The corresponding master equation is easily obtained using standard techniques and reads
\begin{align}
 &\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\rho=-\gamma_{\rm cav}\left[\left\lbrace\mathcal{I}^\dagger\mathcal{I},\rho\right\rbrace_+-2\mathcal{I}\rho\mathcal{I}^\dagger\right] \label{eq:master3}\\
&\;-\gamma_{\rm spont}\sum_{\alpha=\sigma^\pm,\pi}\sum_{j=1}^{N}\left[\left\{{\mathcal{L}_{j,\alpha}}^\dagger\mathcal{L}_{j,\alpha},\rho\right\}_+-2\mathcal{L}_{j,\alpha}\rho{\mathcal{L}_{j,\alpha}}^\dagger\right],\nonumber
\end{align}
The first term on the RHS of (\ref{eq:master3}) is equivalent to (\ref{eq:master2}), whereas the second term describes the spontaneous Raman scattering of atom $j$ into free space with rates $\gamma_{\rm spont}=\gamma\Omega^2/\Delta^2$. The Lindblad-operators are given by $\mathcal{L}_{j,\sigma^\pm} = (\cos\theta\sigma^+ + \sin\theta\sigma^-)\sigma^\mp$ and $\mathcal{L}_{j,\pi} = \cos\theta\sigma^+ + \sin\theta\sigma^-$. The numerical solution of (\ref{eq:master3}) is shown in Fig. (\ref{fig:dynamics}b) for different initial conditions and $N=10$ spins. The spontaneous Raman scattering couples different  total spin-$S$ manifolds and, as expected, lifts the degeneracy between them. Consequently it leads to a mixed but nevertheless unique steady state, characterized by a unique density matrix, independent of the initial state, and hence presents rather a feature than a detrimental problem.

\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{Figure5}
\caption{Time evolution of the phase sensitivity for $N=10$ spins and $\Omega_-/\Omega_+=0.2$. Numerical solution of the master equation, with fully polarized (solid curves) or randomly generated (dashed-dotted curves) initial state, and mean-field approximation (dashed curves). (a) The atoms are coupled only to the cavity, i.e. $\gamma=0$. (b) Finite scattering rate $\gamma\neq 0$ with single-atom cooperativity $\chi=1$. Observe that the steady state does not depend on the initial state.}
\label{fig:dynamics}
\end{figure}

Still, Raman scattering leads to a reduction of the achievable phase sensitivity. To quantify this effect we obtain the contribution of the single-spin decay to the time evolution of the collective variables, by using the second row of (\ref{eq:master3}) and obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d\av{\delta S_z}}{dt} &=& -\gamma_{\rm spont} \left[\av{\delta S_z} - \sin^2(\theta) N\right],\label{eq:decay_SZ} \\
\frac{d\av{S_x^2}}{dt} &=& - 2\gamma_{\rm spont}\left(1-{\frac{1}{2}}\sin(2\theta)\right) \left[\av{S_x^2} - \frac{1}4\right],\label{eq:decay_SX}
\end{eqnarray}
Adding (\ref{eq:decay_SZ}-\ref{eq:decay_SX}) to the contribution of the collective coupling to the cavity, eqs. (\ref{eq:cavity2_SZ}-\ref{eq:cavity2_SX}), we find that in the steady state the competition between the two processes leads to:
\begin{eqnarray}
\av{\delta S_z}_{\infty} &=&  \frac{\sin^2(\theta)\left(\frac{N g^2}{\kappa}+ N \gamma\right)}{\frac{N g^2}{\kappa}\cos(2\theta) + \gamma}\label{eq:steadystate_SZ}\,,\\
\av{S_x^2}_{\infty} &=& \frac{1}4 \frac{\frac{N g^2}{\kappa}\left(1-\sin(2\theta)\right)+2\gamma\left(1-{\frac{1}{2}} \sin(2\theta)\right)}{\frac{N g^2}{\kappa}\cos(2\theta) + 2\gamma\left(1-{\frac{1}{2}} \sin(2\theta)\right)}\label{eq:steadystate_SX}\,.
\end{eqnarray}

For a given single-atom cooperativity $\chi=\gamma_{\rm cav}/\gamma_{\rm spont} = g^2/\kappa\gamma$, the optimal value of the phase sensitivity $\delta\phi$ can be obtained by numerically minimizing the corresponding expression with respect to the mixing angle $\theta$ while keeping $\chi$ fixed. The resulting curve is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:analytic1M} for $N=10^6$. To gain insight into this result, we will now separately investigate the limits of small and large single-atom cooperativity.

If single-atom cooperativity is small, but $\chi N\sim1$, the optimal spin squeezing is obtained for $\theta\ll\pi/4$. Expanding eqs. (\ref{eq:steadystate_SZ}-\ref{eq:steadystate_SX}) around $\theta\approx 0$ we obtain a phase sensitivity $\delta\phi^2 \approx \frac1N\left(1- N \chi \theta +4\theta^2\right)$ with the optimum value obtained for $\theta=N\chi/8$
\hat b
\delta\phi_{\rm opt} = \frac1{\sqrt{N}}\left(1-\frac{\chi^2 N^2}{32}\right)\;.
\label{eq:small}
\end{equation}
It should be noted that due to the collective enhancement by a factor of $N$, one gains a quadratic improvement in the phase sensitivity even for small cooperativities.

If the cooperativity is larger, i.e. $\chi N\gg 1$, the optimal squeezing is obtained for $\Omega_+\approx\Omega_-$ and one may na\"{\i}vely expect the linearization to fail. However, to render the problem tractable we nevertheless perform the large-$N$ expansion and explicitly check the validity of the obtained results below. To obtain the scaling of the phase sensitivity we expand eqs. (\ref{eq:steadystate_SZ}-\ref{eq:steadystate_SX}) around $\theta  = \pi/4-\epsilon$. For small $\epsilon\sim 1/\sqrt{N}\ll 1$ and neglecting terms of order $1/N$ we find $\delta \phi^2 = \frac{1}{N}\frac{1+2N\chi\epsilon^2}{2N\chi\epsilon}$, which has a minimum at $\epsilon=\sqrt{1/2N\chi}$. This leads to a sensitivity
\hat b
\delta\phi =\left(\frac{2}{\chi N^3}\right)^{1/4}\;.
\label{eq:large}
\end{equation}
{ Note that, for the optimal value of $\theta$, the ensemble is still mostly polarized, as can be checked by explicitly computing $\av{\delta S_z}\approx\frac{\chi+1}{4\chi\epsilon} \sim \sqrt{N}$. This observation provides a self-consistency check for our linearization procedure in the limit of a large ensemble, where $\sqrt{N}\ll N$. Eq. (\ref{eq:large}) shows that the achievable phase sensitivity scales as $\delta\phi\sim N^{-3/4}$ and thus offers a significant improvement over the SQL. With respect to other proposals with a similar scaling \cite{AndrePRA,Molmer,VuleticPRA}, our approach deterministically generates spin squeezing in a steady state by optical pumping and can thus potentially be more robust against external perturbations.}

\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figure6}
\caption{Optimal phase sensitivity in the steady state, in the presence of single spin decay for $N=10^6$. The solid curve is given by the numerical minimization of eqs.(\ref{eq:steadystate_SZ}-\ref{eq:steadystate_SX}). The dashed-dotted and dashed curves are eqs. (\ref{eq:small}-\ref{eq:large}), respectively.}
\label{fig:analytic1M}
\end{figure}
A possible experimental realization could be set up in $^{87}$Rb using the clock states $\ket{F=1, m_F=0}$ and $\ket{F=2, m_F=0}$ in the $5S_{1/2}$ ground-state manifold. Circularly $\sigma_+$-polarized cavity and control fields couple these states to the states $\ket{F=1, m_F=+ 1}$ and $\ket{F=2, m_F=+ 1}$ of the $5P_{1/2}$-manifold. In this case the inclusion of the hyper-fine structure leads to an effectively larger Raman rate, as the scattering path-ways via the two hyper-fine state interfere constructively for suitably chosen detunings (see Supplementary Material \cite{Supplementary}). For current experiments \cite{Vuletic}, we have $N\approx 10^6$ and $\chi \approx 0.1$, predicting a phase sensitivity $\delta\phi/\delta\phi_{\rm SQL}\approx 0.07$, i.e. an improvement of more than one order of magnitude with respect to the SQL.

We now discuss two additional effects related to the experimental realization of the proposed model. First, in a multi-level atom (such as the suggested $^{87}$Rb), the spontaneous Raman scattering can lead to states outside of the effective four-state system. Because, as shown above, the squeezed steady state is (mixed but) unique and is achieved from any intial state, we can use additional optical pumping fields to repump the atoms into the correct configuration. In the case of $^{87}$Rb this can be achieved through linearly polarized fields resonantly driving the $F=1\rightarrow F'=1$, $F=2\rightarrow F'=2$ and $\Delta m_F=0$ transition. These fields do not couple directly to the clock states $\ket{F=1, m_F=0}$ and $\ket{F=2, m_F=0}$ and therefore act as a repumping field for the proposed four-state scheme. The repump processes can be easily incorporated in our formalism in the form of additional single-atom scattering channels \cite{Supplementary}. These processes effectively increase the single-atom scattering rate and reduce the cooperativity $\chi$. In addition, the use of a large detuning $\Delta$ makes possible to obtain repumping-rates that are much larger than the decay-rate into the external states and to minimize the loss of atoms into these states. We conclude that our results, and in particular (\ref{eq:large}), are valid even in the presence of additional repumped decay channels, provided that the cooperativity rate $\chi$ is computed with respect to the total linewidth of the excited states.

Second, in the ideal model (\ref{eq:Hint}), we assumed a spatially homogeneous coupling of the atoms to the cavity mode, which can be approximately achieved only in a ring cavity.  { In a standing-wave cavity the  off-resonant Raman coupling $g\Omega_\pm/\Delta$ depends on the position of the atoms and can be either positive or negative, leading to a cancellation of spin-squeezing. This can be solved by localizing the atoms in space and choosing an appropriate geometry for the control fields and the cavity mode, such as to make all coupling-constants having the same sign, as experimentally shown in Ref.~\cite{Vuletic}. In this case, the symmetry of the collective state is preserved, leading only to a small reduction of the effective spin cooperativity.}

To summarize, we presented a method for the deterministic generation of spin squeezed states in a driven ensemble of effective two-state atoms in a strongly dissipative cavity. The generating process can be understood as optical pumping into a non-equilibrium steady state of the atom that at the same time is a dark-state with respect to the cavity decay. Introducing spontaneous Raman scattering we showed that the squeezed steady state is unique and does not depend on the initial state of the system. We discussed the effect of the single atom spontaneous Raman scattering on the achievable phase-sensitivity and found that it scales favorably with the single-atom cooperativity, indicating that the present method can be of direct importance for, e.g., optical atomic clocks.

We thank  S. Bennett, M. Fleischhauer, M. Hafezi, N. Yao, and P. Zoller for useful discussions and NSF, CUA, DARPA, ARO MURI and Packard for financial support. J.O. acknowledges support by the Harvard Quantum Optics Center. The numerical solution of the master equations were performed on the Odyssey cluster supported by the FAS Science Division Research Computing Group at Harvard University.

\section{Introduction}

\section{Experimental implementations and optical repumping}

In this section we investigate in detail the proposed experimental realization. Fig. \ref{fig:Rb-linkage} shows the relevant level-scheme of the $^{87}$Rb $5S_{1/2}$ and $5P_{1/2}$ manifolds \cite{Steck-Data}. The cavity mode is a circularly polarized mode, which can be achieved using a running wave cavity with an optical element breaking the symmetry between the two degenerate polarization. Alternatively one can use a non-polarized cavity mode and apply a magentic field that lifts the Zeeman degeneracy. In this way, the relevant scheme can be made two-photon resonant, while keeping the complementary one (i.e. with opposite polarizations) two-photon off-resonant and thus strongly suppressed. If the control fields propagate along the cavity axis, the free spectral range of the cavity has to be choosen such that the cavity-mode and the control-fields are supported, or the power of the control-fields has to be made sufficiently large.

To derive the effective Hamiltonian (1) of the main text, we employ the Heisenberg-Langevin formalism \cite{Louisell}. Working far off single-photon resonance, i.e. $|\Delta|,|\Delta'|\gg \gamma$, we can neglect the spontaneous decay and consequently also the Langevin-noise forces. For simplicity of the calculation we assume that we can realize two independent $\Lambda$-schemes according to Fig. (\ref{fig:Rb-linkage}) and can neglect the respective second state. While this approximation is only true if the detunings from the respective excited state is smaller than the hyperfine-splitting in the excited state manifold, Hamiltonian (1) is valid for more general conditions, when Raman processes mediated by multiple virtual states, can be added up \cite{Harris1997, Harris1999}. The validity of this approximation will be further discussed below. With these approximations the equations of motion of the atomic variables are given by
\begin{align}
 \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\S{+e_+} =& -i\Delta' \S{+e_+}+i\Omega_- \S{+-}+ig\S{++}\a \label{eq:eom_spin_0}\\
 \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\S{+e_-} =& i\Delta \S{+e_-}+i\Omega_+ \S{++}+ig\S{+-}\a \\
 \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\S{-e_+} =& -i\Delta' \S{-e_+}+i\Omega_- \S{--}+ig\S{-+}\a \\
 \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\S{-e_-} =& i\Delta \S{-e_-}+i\Omega_+ \S{-+}+ig\S{--}\a \\
 \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\S{+-} = & -i\Omega_+\S{e_- -}+i\Omega_-\S{+\text{e}+} \nonumber \\&-ig\S{e_+ -}\a+ig\hat a^\dagger \S{+e_-} \label{eq:eom_spin_1}
\end{align}
Adiabatic elimination of all variables involving the excited states and subsequent insertion into Eq. (\ref{eq:eom_spin_1}) yields
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\S{+-}= &\; i\left(\frac{\Omega_+^2}{\Delta}+\frac{\Omega_-^2}{\Delta'}\right)\S{+-}\\
&+ig\left(\frac{\Omega_+}{\Delta}\a -\frac{\Omega_-}{\Delta'}\hat a^\dagger \right)\S{z} -i\left(\frac{g^2}{\Delta}+\frac{g^2}{\Delta'}\right) \hat a^\dagger\a\S{z} \nonumber
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[t]
 \centering
 \epsfig{file=Fig1_supplement,width=.45\textwidth}
 \caption{Experimental level-scheme in $^{87}$Rb using the clock states.}
 \label{fig:Rb-linkage}
\end{figure}
We see that the off-resonant Raman coupling leads to an additional Stark-shift $\sim\left(\frac{\Omega_+^2}{\Delta}+\frac{\Omega_-^2}{\Delta'}\right)$ which, however, can be compensated by engineering a properly chosen two-photon detuning. The shift of the cavity resonance $\sim\left(\frac{g^2}{\Delta}+\frac{g^2}{\Delta'}\right)$ can be neglected as in the steady state the photon number in the cavity is zero. Neglecting these two frequency shifts, the above equation is equivalent to the effective single particle Hamiltonian
\begin{align}
 h_{\rm eff}=-ig\left(\frac{\Omega_+}{\Delta}\a -\frac{\Omega_-}{\Delta'}\hat a^\dagger \right)\S{-+}+\text{h.c.}
\end{align}
Defining the collective operators $\hat{S}_+ = \sum_j \S{+-}^{(j)}$, where the sum runs over all atoms, we find the final result
\begin{align}
 H_{\rm eff} = \sum_j h^{(j)}_{\rm eff} = \frac{g}{\Delta}\hat a^\dagger \left(\Omega_-\frac{\Delta}{\Delta'}\hat{S}_--\Omega_+\hat{S}_+ \right)+\text{h.c.}
\end{align}
Redefining $\Omega_-\frac{\Delta}{\Delta}'\rightarrow -\Omega_-$ results in Hamiltonian (1) of the main text. Hence, by adjusting relative phase and strength of the control fields the proposed Hamiltonian can be engineered.

In the derivation of Eqs. (\ref{eq:eom_spin_0}-\ref{eq:eom_spin_1}) we assumed the two Raman transitions involving $\Omega_+$ and $\Omega_-$ to be independent. This approximation is valid only if both the detunings $\Delta$ and $\Delta'$ are smaller than the hyperfine-splitting $\delta_{\rm HFS}$ in the excited state manifold. However, for the proposed realization in $^{87}$Rb, the above condition cannot be fulfilled since the frequency of the cavity fixes the difference of the detunings to be equal to the difference of the hyperfine-splittings in the ground and excited state. Hnece we can at most choose one of the detunings to be smaller than $\delta_{\rm HFS}$. Nevertheless, as we will show now, in the system under consideration the coupling to the additional state interferes constructively giving rise to an effectively larger Raman scattering rate and thus rendering valid our approach.

We first consider the Raman transition involving $\Omega_-$ and denote the cavity dipole matrix-elements associated with the transitions $\ket{-}\rightarrow\ket{e_-}$ and $\ket{-}\rightarrow\ket{e_+}$, respectively, as $g$ and $g_2$. Analogously, we define the Rabi frequency of the control field driving the transitions $\ket{+}\rightarrow\ket{e_-}$ and $\ket{+}\rightarrow\ket{e_+}$, respectively, as $\Omega_-$ and $\Omega_{-,2}$. Generalizing the above approach we find that the total Raman scattering rate is then given by
\begin{align}
 \Omega_{-,\rm tot} = \frac{g\Omega_-}{\Delta}+\frac{g_2\Omega_{-,2}}{\Delta+\delta_{\rm HFS}}\;.\label{eq:omegatot}
\end{align}
The coupling matrix-elements can be expressed as $g=\wp_{-,e_-}\sqrt{\omega_c/2\hbar\epsilon_0 V}$ and $g_2=\wp_{-,e_+}\sqrt{\omega_a/2\hbar\epsilon_0 V}$ where $\wp_{-,e_\pm}$ is the dipole matrix-element of the respective transition. For the $^{87}$Rb D1 line these matrix-elements are given by $\wp_{-,e_-} =\sqrt{1/4}\langle J=1/2||er||J'=1/2\rangle $, $\wp_{-,e_+} =\sqrt{1/12} \langle J=1/2||er||J'=1/2\rangle $, with $\langle J=1/2||er||J'=1/2\rangle$ being the reduced matrix-element  \cite{Steck-Data}. Analogously, the Rabi frequencies of the control fields are given by $\Omega_- = \wp_{+,e_-} E_-/\hbar$ and $\Omega_{-,2} = \wp_{+,e_+} E_-/\hbar$, where $E_-$ is the electric field amplitude of the control field. The matrix-elements are given by $\wp_{+,e_-} =-\sqrt{1/4}\langle J=1/2||er||J'=1/2\rangle $, $\wp_{+,e_+} =-\sqrt{1/12} \langle J=1/2||er||J'=1/2\rangle$. Plugging these results into Eq.~(\ref{eq:omegatot}) we find
\begin{align}
 \Omega_{-,\rm tot} = &\left(\frac{1}{4\Delta}+\frac{1}{12(\Delta+\delta_{\rm HFS})}\right) \times \nonumber \\
 &\;\frac{E_-}{\hbar}\sqrt{\frac{\omega_c}{2\hbar\epsilon_0 V}}\langle J=1/2||er||J'=1/2\rangle
\end{align}
Thus as long as $\Delta$ and $\Delta+\delta_{\rm HFS}$ are of equal sign the two Raman rates constructively interfere giving rise to an effectively larger total Raman scattering rate. An analogous calculation for the transition involving the second control field $\Omega_+$ yields a similar result. This shows, that as long as we choose the detunings such that we are always outside the hyper-fine structure, i.e. either blue or red detuned with respect to all hyperfine-states, we can always find a Raman scheme that gives rise to the effective Hamiltonian (1) of the main text.

\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\epsfig{file=Fig2_supplement,width=.45\textwidth}
\caption{Alternate experimental level-scheme using the stretched states of $^{87}$Rb.}
\label{fig:Rb-linkage-2}
\end{figure}

As an alternate coupling scheme one could use the strechted states $\ket{F=1, m_F=1}$ and $\ket{F=2, m_F=2}$ in the $5S_{1/2}$ ground-state manifold as implementation of the spin-system (cf. Fig.\ref{fig:Rb-linkage-2}). Using linear polarized cavity fields along with circular polarization for the control fields results in the same effective Hamiltonian, once relative phase and strength of the control fields are chosen. However, this setup needs a different experimental geometry with the pump-beams entering the cavity from the side and the atoms trapped in a $\lambda$-lattice, to ensure that the spatial variations of the coupling matrix-elements have the same sign for all atoms.

Let us now address the question of spontaneous decay of the atoms into state outside the effective spin-system. This leads to two effects (i) a renormalization of the single atom cooperativity and (ii) to a slow decay of the number of atoms contributing to the spin-system. To see the first effect we note, that the presence of additional decay channels gives rise to a larger bandwidth of the excited states $\ket{e_\pm}$. Hence we have to replace the original decay rate $\gamma$ by a decay-rate that also incorporates the decay rate $\gamma_0$ into other states, i.e. $\gamma\rightarrow\gamma+\gamma_0$, which, in turn, renormalizes the single-atom cooperativity to smaller values. To circumvent the second effect, we propose to optically pump the states outside the spin-system back into the spin-states. For the realization involving a clock transition (cf. Fig \ref{fig:Rb-linkage}), we note that the transition between the two clock-states $\ket\pm = \ket{F=1,2,m_F=0}$ to the excited states $\ket{F'=1,2,m_F=0}$ is forbidden. Hence any resonant linearly polarized light will bring the population back into the two clock states in analogy to optical pumping with linearly polarized light. Similar schemes can also be found for an experimental implementation using the strechted states of $^{87}$Rb.
The population in the external states is then given by the ratio between the decay-rates leading out of the spin-system and the repumping rate. In the limit of weak driving, i.e. $\Omega_{\rm repump}\lesssim \gamma_0$, where $\Omega_{\rm repump}$ is the Rabi frequency of the repump, and $\Omega_+\lesssim |\Delta'|$, $\Omega_-\lesssim |\Delta|$, these rates are given by $\Gamma_{\rm out,\pm}=\gamma_0 (\Omega_\pm/\Delta_\pm)^2$ and $\Gamma_{\rm repump}= \Omega_{\rm repump}^2/(\gamma_++\gamma_-)$. For large detuning, i.e. $\Delta^2\gg\gamma_0(\gamma_++\gamma_-)$, this ratio can be made arbitrarily small, thus leaving only a small population in the external state.

\bibliographystyle{plain}


\section{Introduction}

The problem of recognizing whether two homotopy equivalent manifolds $M$ and $N$ are homeomorphic,
 diffeomorphic or PL-isomorphic, depending on the category we work in, is of fundamental
importance in modern  geometric topology. Typically, in each category this problem is approached in three steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[i.] Showing that $M$ and $N$ are cobordant
\item[ii.] Improving the cobordism to an $h$-cobordism
\item[iii.] Showing that the Whitehead torsion of the constructed $h$-cobordism is trivial.
\end{enumerate}
The $s$-cobordism theorem of Barden-Mazur-Stallings then yields an equivalence between $M$ and $N$,
provided the dimension is at least 5, see \cite{mazur}, \cite{KiSi}, \cite{R}.\par
Mainly for convenience we will work with topological manifolds in this paper.  See, however, section \ref{sec:diff} for comments
on the other categories.\par
Showing that the Whitehead torsion is trivial is often the most difficult step in the above program.
However, the triviality of the Whitehead torsion is not always necessary for $M$ and $N$ to be homeomorphic:  there are many examples of non-trivial $h$-cobordisms such that the ends are homeomorphic.
We call $h$-cobordisms with homeomorphic ends {\em inertial}, and  a central problem is to determine the subset of elements of the
Whitehead group $Wh(\pi_1(M))$ that  can be realized as Whitehead torsions of inertial $h$-cobordisms. This is
in general very difficult, and only partial results in this direction are known --- see
\eg \cite{mwt}, \cite{H75, H80}, \cite{L74, L77}.\par
The following  important observation was made by Hatcher and Lawson in \cite{HL}:\medskip

\noindent{\bf Stability criterion.} {\em Let $M$ be a manifold of dimension $n\geqslant 5$ with fundamental group $G$.  If $\tau\in Wh(G)$ can
 be represented by a $d\times d$-matrix, then every $h$-cobordism with one end homeomorphic to
$M\#_d (S^p\times S^{n-p})$ is inertial, if $2\leqslant p\leqslant n-2$.}\bigskip

(Here $M\#_d (S^p\times S^{n-p})$ denotes the connected sum of $M$ and $d$ copies of products of
spheres $S^p\times S^{n-p}$.)\par
Since  Whitehead groups of {\em finite} groups are much better understood than those of infinite groups,
in what follows we will mostly concentrate on the finite group case.
For example, it turns out that if $G$ is finite, we can choose $d=2$ for all $\tau$ in the above proposition \cite{V}, and it
follows that  {\em every} $h$-cobordism from $M\#(S^p\times S^{n-p})\#(S^p\times S^{n-p})$ is inertial.
\smallskip

On the other hand, results by Milnor for lens spaces \cite{mwt} and \cite{KS99} for  general spherical space forms show
that for these manifolds, no non-trivial $h$-cobordism is inertial. Hence, for some manifolds, stabilization by
one or two copies of $S^p\times S^{n-p}$ is necessary for $h$-cobordant manifolds to become
homeomorphic, except in the the trivial case. In fact, for lens spaces (and also many other space forms),
one copy of $S^p\times S^{n-p}$ will always suffice. More generally, by Hatcher-Lawson's stability criterion the same is true for
all manifolds with fundamental groups such that every element in the Whitehead group is represented
by units in the group ring.  This argument breaks down for general groups, but to the best of our knowledge,
until now no example has been known where one copy of $S^p\times S^{n-p}$ in the stabilization is not enough.  Therefore
a starting points of our investigation was the following question:
\begin{quote}
Is there a manifold $M$ with finite fundamental group and  an $h$-cobordism
from $M \#(S^p\times S^{n-p})$ which is not inertial?
\end{quote}
One of our main results is a positive  answer to this question, in the following equivalent form:

\begin{thm}\label{thm:noninertial}
In every  dimension $n=4k+3\geqslant 7$ we can find  $h$-cobordant manifolds $M$ and $N$ with finite fundamental groups such that
$M\#(S^p\times S^{n-p})$ and $N\#(S^p\times S^{n-p})$ are not homeomorphic for any $p$ such that
$2\leqslant p\leqslant n-2$.
\end{thm}

In contrast to the problem of inertial $h$-cobordisms one can also ask how often realization of Whitehead torsion leads to
{\em non}--inertial $h$-cobordisms, \ie how many different homeomorphism classes of manifolds  that are $h$-cobordant to
a given manifold $M$.  For example, Milnor proved that for even--dimensional manifolds with finite fundamental group, only finitely
many homeomorphism classes can be realized \cite[Thm. 11.5]{mwt}, but   in the odd case he proves that there sometimes
can be infinitely many \cite[Cor. 12.9]{mwt}.  We will generalize this result and prove

\begin{thm}\label{thm:infex}Let $G$ be a finite group such that $Wh(G)$ is infinite.  Then in every odd dimension $\geqslant 5$ there are manifolds $M$ with
fundamental group $G$  such that there are infinitely many distinct homeomorphism classes of manifolds $h$-cobordant to $M$.
\end{thm}
This theorem and its proof are motivated by Milnor's notion of {\em special manifolds} \cite[\S 12]{mwt}, and we show that between
manifolds satisfying certain conditions there are only finitely many different $h$-cobordisms. For some manifolds $M$
(\eg spherical space forms) a much stronger statement is true:  there is at most one such
$h$-cobordism between two of them.    However, we  also show (end of Section \ref{sec:abelian}) that there are groups such that
from any odd-dimensional manifold with these fundamental groups there are non-trivial inertial $h$-cobordisms.   Thus the conclusion of Theorem \ref{thm:infex} is in some sense best possible.\par
The notion of special manifolds was based on an algebraic assumption that
turned out to be incorrect (see Remark after Example 1.6 of \cite{mwt}), although it holds for cyclic groups, which were
Milnor's main examples.  In Section \ref{sec:special} we make some more comments on this, and we suggest a variant
 that circumvents the algebraic problem, thus rendering Milnor's discussion basically correct, with
appropriate modifications.\par
Milnor's special manifolds were assumed to have finite abelian fundamental groups, and the most striking assertions were for
the odd-dimensional case. This prompted us to look closer at $h$-cobordisms between  {\em arbitrary} orientable, odd-dimensional
manifolds with a finite abelian fundamental group.  In view of examples \ref{ex:lens} and  \ref{ex:K2} below, our Theorem \ref{thm:abelian},
asserting the triviality of "strongly inertial" such $h$-cobordisms, seems to be the best and most general substitute
for Theorem 12.8 in \cite{mwt}.

\section{General remarks on  $h$-cobordism and torsion}\label{sec:general}

We use the notation $(W;M,M')$ for an $h$-cobordism $W$ with boundary manifolds $M$ and $M'$. Recall that this means that
$W$ is a manifold with two boundary components $M$ and $M'$, each of which is a deformation retract of $W$. More
specifically, we will
think of this as an $h$-cobordism {\em from} $M$ {\em to} $M'$, thus distinguishing it from the {\em dual} $h$-cobordism
$(W;M',M)$. Since the pair $(W,M)$ obviously determines $M'$, we will also sometimes use the simpler notation $(W,M)$ for
$(W;M,M')$. One may allow $M$ to have boundary and require everything to be fixed along  $\partial M$, but to keep the
notation simpler  we will assume $M$ and $M'$  closed in this paper.\par
Let $\mathcal H(M)$ be the set of homeomorphism classes relative $M$ of $h$-cobordisms from $M$.\par

For a path connected space $X$, denote by $Wh(X)$ the Whitehead group $Wh(\pi_1(X))$.  Note that this is
independent of choice of base point of $X$, up to unique isomorphism.
The $s$-cobordism theorem says that if $M$ is compact, connected and of dimension at least 5 there is a one-one correspondence between $\H(M)$ and $Wh(M)$, associating to the $h$-cobordism $(W;M,M')$ the Whitehead torsion $\tau(W,M)\in Wh(M)$ of the pair of spaces.  Note that Milnor \cite{mwt} places the torsion in the canonically isomorphic group $Wh(W)$, but as our emphasis will
be on the set of $h$-cobordisms from a fixed manifold $M$, it is more natural for us to follow the convention in \cite{cohen}.\par
One advantage of having all the torsion elements in the same group, is that it makes it easier to give a geometric description of the group operation in $Wh(M)$.
Given an element $(W;M,M')\in \mathcal H(M)$, define a homotopy equivalence $h:M'\to M$ as the composition of the inclusion
$M'\subset W$ and a retraction $W\to M$.  The homotopy class of $h$ is uniquely defined, hence so is also the induced isomorphism
$h_*:Wh(M') \to Wh(M)$. Even though $h$ is only well-defined up to homotopy, we will refer to it as the "natural homotopy
equivalence" asociated to $(W,M)$ (or $(W;M,M')$).\par
 Now let $\tau$ and $\sigma$ be two elements
of the Whitehead group, and represent $\tau$ as $\tau(W;M,M')$ for an $h$-cobordism $(W;M,M')$.  Similarly, represent
the element $h_*^{-1}(\sigma)\in Wh(M')$ as $\tau(W';M',M'')$, and let $W''=W\cup W'$, glued along $M'$.  Then
\begin{lm}\label{lm:add}
$\tau(W'';M,M'')=\tau+\sigma.$
\end{lm}
\begin{proof} This follows from (20.2) and (20.3)  in \cite{cohen}.
\end{proof}
Henceforth we will often tacitly identify $\H(M)$ with the abelian group $Wh(M)$.\smallskip

Recall that there is an involution $\tau\mapsto \bar \tau$ on $Wh(M)$, induced by transposition of matrices and inversion of
group elements \cite[\S 6]{mwt}.
 An observation of great importance to us is the following relation between the Whitehead torsions of $(W;M,M')$ and $(W;M',M)$,
where $M$ is orientable and has dimension $n$ \cite[p.\,394]{mwt}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dual}
h_*(\tau(W,M'))=(-1)^n\overline{\tau(W,M)}.
\end{equation}

A consequence of (\ref{eq:dual}) and Lemma \ref{lm:add} is the usual formula for the torsion of the {\em double} of
an $h$-cobordism $(W;M,M')$ with torsion $\tau$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:double}
\tau(W\cup_{M'}W)=\tau+(-1)^n\bar \tau.
\end{equation}

\section{Inertial sets}

We are principally interested in computing the {\em inertial set} of a manifold $M$, defined as
$$I(M)=\{(W;M,M')\in \H(M)\,|\, M'\approx M\},$$
or the corresponding subset of $Wh(M)$.
As already noted by Hausmann \cite[Remark 6.2]{H80}, this set does not have good algebraic properties.  In particular, it
is not a subgroup of $Wh(M)$. From Lemma \ref{lm:add} we see that this means that the induced maps $h_*$ in general do not preserve inertial sets. However, there is a smaller set which does behave better.\par

\begin{defn}
 The $h$-cobordism $(W;M,M')$ is called {\em strongly inertial} if the natural homotopy equivalence $h:M'\to M$ is homotopic
to a homeomorphism.

The set of strongly inertial $h$-cobordisms from $M$ is denoted $SI(M)$.
\end{defn}

 It is easy to see directly that this is a subgroup of
$Wh(M)$, but the following digression puts this into the perspective of surgery theory.\par

Recall the structure sets   $\SH(M)$  (or $\SS(M)$) given by  arbitrary (or simple)  homotopy equivalences  $f:N\to M$ modulo
$h$-cobordisms ($s$-cobordisms).  Define an intermediate structure set $\SHS(M)$ as the set of arbitrary homotopy
equivalence $f:N\to M$, modulo $s$-cobordisms. Then the forgetful map $\SS(M)\to \SH(M)$ factors as an inclusion
$\SS(M)\subset \SHS(M)$ followed by a surjection $\SHS(M)\to \SH(M)$. \par
Define an action of $Wh(M)$ on $\SHS(M)$ as follows:  Let $\tau\in Wh(M)$ and let $f:N\to M$ be a homotopy equivalence. Then
$f_*^{-1}(\tau)\in Wh(N)$ is the torsion of a unique $h$-cobordism $(W;N,N')$ which defines a natural
 homotopy equivalence $h:N'\to N$.  Let $\tau\cdot [f]= [f\circ h]$.\par
It is easily checked that this defines an action with quotient set $\SH(M)$. Moreover, the isotropy subgroup of the trivial
element $id:M\to M$ is precisely $SI(M)$.\smallskip

For any $h$-cobordism $(W;M,M')$, the double $(W\cup_{M'}W;M,M)$ is obviously strongly inertial. Thus, from formula
(\ref{eq:double}) we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:inertinc}\{\tau+(-1)^n\bar \tau|\tau\in Wh(M)\}\subset SI(M)\subset I(M).
\end{equation}
One of our aims is to examine how these sets differ.

\section{Stabilization and proof of Theorem \ref{thm:noninertial}}

The proof is based on following lemma, which can be seen as a partial converse to Hatcher-Lawson's stability criterion  in the case $d=1$.

\begin{lm}\label{lm:MNhcob}Let $M$ be a manifold of dimension  $n$ with finite fundamental group $G$, and assume that $\pi_p(M)=0$ for some $p$ with
$2\leqslant p< n/2$. Suppose that $N$ is another manifold, such that $M\#(S^p\times S^{n-p})\approx N\#(S^p\times S^{n-p})$.
Then $M$ and $N$ are $h$-cobordant by an $h$-cobordism with Whitehead torsion represented by a unit in $\Z(\pi_1(M))$.
\end{lm}

\begin{proof}  Let $f:N\#(S^p\times S^{n-p})\to M\#(S^p\times S^{n-p})$ be a homeomorphism. Let
$W_1=(M\times I)\cup (D^p\times D^{n-p+1})$ be $M\times I$ with a $p$--handle attached trivially inside a disk in $M\times\{1\}$.
Then $W_1$ is a cobordism between $M$ and $M\#(S^p\times S^{n-p})$, and the pair $(W_1,M)$ is homotopy equivalent to
$(M\vee S^p,M)$. Dually, we can also think of $W_1$ as obtained from  $M\#(S^p\times S^{n-p})$ by adding an $(n-p+1)$--handle to
 $(M\#(S^p\times S^{n-p}))\times I$ attached along a neighborhood of  $\{y\}\times S^{n-p}\times \{1\}$, for some $y\in S^p$.\par

 Similarly we get a cobordism
$W_2=N\times I\cup D^{p+1}\times D^{n-p}$ from $N$  to $N\#(S^p\times S^{n-p})$ by adding a trivial $(n-p)$--handle to
$N\times I$, {\em or} a $(p+1)$--handle to $(N\#(S^p\times S^{n-p}))\times I$ . Now glue $W_1$ and $W_2$ using the
homeomorphism $f$ to obtain a cobordism $W$ between $M$ and $N$.  We claim that under conditions as in the Lemma, $W$ is an $h$-cobordism with torsion represented by a unit.\par

In fact, as we have just observed, we can think of  $W$ as built up from $M\times I$ by
adding one handle of index $p$ and then one of index $p+1$. Since $p\geqslant 2$, all inclusion relations between the cobordisms
and their boundaries are  $\pi_1$--isomorphisms. Denote this common fundamental group by $G$. \smallskip

\begin{rem} Here, and several places in the following, there is an issue of choice of basepoint. Thus, the fundamental groups involved
are not "the same", but it is not hard to see that basepoints can be chosen coherently such that there are canonical isomorphisms between the
groups.
More specifically, in $M$ and $N$ and the corresponding connected sums we can choose basepoints lying in the connecting $(n-1)$-spheres.
The homeomorphism $f$ can be isotoped to one preserving the basepoints, and then an obvious curve in  $W$ containing all the basepoints
can be used to compare the various groups in the standard manner. Finally, a choice of lifting of this curve to $\widetilde W$ gives compatible
coherent choices of basepoints and isomorphisms for the universal covers.  Henceforth we choose to drop these choices from the notation and identify all the fundamental groups with $G=\pi_1(M)$.
\end{rem}

The relative homology of the pair $(\widetilde W,\widetilde M)$  of universal covering spaces can be computed (as $\Z G$-module) as the
homology of the chain complex
\begin{equation}
\cdots\to 0\to C_{p+1}\xrightarrow{d_{p+1}} C_p\to0\to\cdots,
\end{equation}
where $C_p=H_p(\widetilde W_1,\widetilde M)$ and $C_{p+1}=H_{p+1}(\widetilde W,\widetilde W_1)$. These are both free $\Z G$-modules
of rank one with bases given by (liftings of) the cores of the two handles. Consequently, if we show that $d_{p+1}$ is an isomorphism, it is given by multiplication by a unit  $u\in \Z G$.  Then  $W$ will be an $h$-cobordism with Whitehead torsion represented by $u$,
up to sign.\par

Recall that $d_{p+1}$ is a connecting homomorphism in the long, exact homology sequence of the triple $(\widetilde W, \widetilde W_1,
\widetilde M)$ and factors as
$$H_{p+1}(\widetilde W,\widetilde W_1)\to H_{p}(\widetilde W_1)\to H_{p}(\widetilde W_1,\widetilde M).$$

Via the excision isomorphism $H_{p+1}(\widetilde W,\widetilde W_1)\approx H_{p+1}(\widetilde W_2,\widetilde{N\#(S^p}\times S^{n-p}))$,
this is easily seen to be the same as the composition
\begin{multline} H_{p+1}(\widetilde W_2,\widetilde{N\#(S^p}\times S^{n-p}))\to H_{p}(\widetilde{N\#(S^p}\times S^{n-p}))\to\\
\xrightarrow{f_*}
H_{p}(\widetilde{M\#(S^p}\times S^{n-p}))\xrightarrow{i_*} H_p(\widetilde W_1)\to H_p(\widetilde W_1,\widetilde M),
\end{multline}
where $i$ is the obvious inclusion. We want to prove that the composite map is an isomorphism, although the intermediate maps may not be.
\par
The following diagram compares this with the corresponding maps on homotopy groups, via the Hurewicz homomorphisms for
the universal covering spaces:

\begin{multline}{\xymatrix{ H_{p+1}(\widetilde W_2,\widetilde{N\#(S^p}\times S^{n-p}))\ar[r] & H_{p}(\widetilde{N\#(S^p}\times S^{n-p}))\ar[r]& \\
\pi_{p+1}(W_2, N\#(S^p\times S^{n-p}))\ar[u]_{h_1}\ar[r]^{\delta} & \pi_p({N\#(S^p}\times S^{n-p}))\ar[u]\ar[r]&
}}\\
{\xymatrix{&\ar[r]^<<<<{f_*}&H_{p}(\widetilde{M\#(S^p}\times S^{n-p}))\ar[r]^>>>>{i_*}& H_p(\widetilde W_1)\ar[r]& H_p(\widetilde W_1,\widetilde M)\\
&\ar[r]^<<<<{f_*}& \pi_{p}({M\#(S^p}\times S^{n-p}))\ar[u]\ar[r]^>>>>{i_*} &\pi_p( W_1)\ar[r]^{j_*}\ar[u]&
\pi_p(W_1,M)\,.\ar[u]_{h_2}
}}\end{multline}

First, note that since the pair $(\widetilde W_2,\widetilde{N\#(S^p}\times S^{n-p}))$ is  $p$-connected and
$(\widetilde W_1,\widetilde M)$ is $(p-1)$-connected, the maps denoted $h_1$ and $h_2$ are isomorphisms, by the relative Hurewicz theorem.
Therefore we are done if we can prove that each of the lower horizontal maps are isomorphisms.\par

We start from the right,  with $j_*$.  Since $W_1\simeq M\vee S^p$ with $p\ge2$, the long exact homotopy sequence for the pair $(W_1,M)$ splits up into split, short exact pieces
$$0\to \pi_k(M)\to \pi_k(W_1)\xrightarrow{j_*} \pi_k (W_1,M)\to 0.$$
 By the assumption $\pi_p(M)=0$, $j_*$ is an isomorphism for $k=p$.\par

To see that $i_*: \pi_{p}({M\#(S^p}\times S^{n-p}))\to\pi_p( W_1)$ is an isomorphism, we  first observe that  we can think
of $W_1$ as obtained from ${M\#(S^p}\times S^{n-p})$ by attaching an $(n-p+1)$-handle. Then the assertion follows since,
by the assumption on $p$,  we have $n-p>p$.\par

Since $f$ is a homeomorphism, $f_*$ is automatically an isomorphism.\par
It remains to consider $\delta$. We now know that both source and target are free $\Z G$-modules of rank 1. Moreover, it is clear that
we can choose a generator
of $\pi_{p+1}(W_2, N\#(S^p\times S^{n-p}))$ which is mapped to the element in $\pi_p({N\#(S^p}\times S^{n-p}))$ represented by
a map of the form
$$g:S^p=S^p\times\{y\}\subset N\#(S^p\times S^{n-p}),$$
for some $y\in S^{n-p}$. We need to show that $\pi_p({N\#(S^p}\times S^{n-p}))$ is generated by $[g]$.\par

Just as for $M\#(S^p\times S^{n-p})$ we have isomorphisms
$$\pi_p({N\#(S^p}\times S^{n-p}))\approx \pi_p(N\vee S^p)\approx \pi_p(N)\times \pi_p(N\vee S^p, N)\approx \pi_p(N)\times \Z G,$$
with the $\Z G$--factor  generated by the image of $[g]$. But  this is an isomorphism of the form
$\Z G\approx \pi_p(N)\times \Z G$, and it follows by the classification of
finitely generated abelian groups that $\pi_p(N)$ must vanish. Hence $[g]$ generates  $\pi_p({N\#(S^p}\times S^{n-p}))$.
\end{proof}

To obtain examples of manifolds as in Theorem \ref{thm:noninertial}, we can now take $M$ to be a spherical space form with fundamental
group $G$ such that not every element of $Wh(G)$ is represented by a unit.  Examples of such groups include \eg quaternion groups
$Q_{16p}$ with $p\equiv -1\mod 8$, or $Q_{4p}$ with $p$ a prime with even class number $h_p$ \cite[Thm. 10.8]{oliver}.  These groups are
fundamental groups of spherical space forms of every dimension $4k+3$, and spherical space forms of dimension at least 5 certainly satisfy the conditions of Lemma \ref{lm:MNhcob}. By \cite{KS99} they also have trivial  inertial sets $I(M)$, and we claim that two such manifolds which are $h$-cobordant with Whitehead torsion not represented by a unit cannot also be $h$-cobordant
with Whitehead torsion which is represented by unit.\par
To verify this claim, let $\tau_1= \tau(W_1;M,M_1)$  and $\tau_2= \tau(W_1;M,M_2)$ be such that $\tau_2$ is represented by a unit and $\tau_1$ is not, and suppose $f:M_1\to M_2$ is a homeomorphism.  Also, let $h_1:M_1\subset W_1\to M$ and
$h_2:M_2\subset W_2\to M$ be the natural homotopy equivalences.
Now we construct an inertial $h$-cobordism $(V;M,M)$ by gluing $W_1$ and $W_2$ along $M_1$ and $M_2$ using the homeomorphism $f$.  By the discussion in Section \ref{sec:general} the torsion of $V$ is
$$\tau(V,M)=\tau_1+(-1)^n {h_1}_*f_*{h_2}_*^{-1}(\bar\tau_2),$$
which must be trivial by the choice of $M$.  Thus
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tau12}\tau_1=-(-1)^n {h_1}_*f_*{h_2}_*^{-1}(\bar\tau_2).
\end{equation}

But if $\tau_2$ is represented by a unit, then  $\pm{h_1}_*f_*{h_2^{-1}}_*(\bar\tau_2)$ is also represented by a unit.
Hence  equation (\ref{eq:tau12}) is impossible.
\qed

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:infex}}

The idea is to use $R$--torsion as in Milnor's proof of Theorem 12.9 in \cite{mwt}, applied to certain manifolds constructed using work
by Pardon \cite{P}.
We start with a short discussion of the aspects of $R$--torsion that we need.  \par
The $R$--torsion is an invariant defined for finite CW-complexes $X$ with finite fundamental group, such that $\pi_1(X)$
acts trivially on rational homology of the universal covering $\widetilde X$.  Write $\pi_1(X)=G$ and let $\Sigma\in \Q G$ be the
sum of the group elements of $G$.   Then there is a splitting of rings $\Q G\approx (\Sigma)\oplus \Q_G$, where
$(\Sigma)$ is the (two-sided) ideal generated by
$\Sigma$ and $\Q_G=\Q G/(\Sigma)$. This splitting induces splittings
$$C(\tilde X)\approx \Sigma C\oplus C_G$$
of cellular chain complexes, where $C_G$ is acyclic by the assumption on $X$. It is also free and based over the ring $\Q_G$, and so
has a torsion well defined in $K_1(\Q_G)/(\pm G)$.  This is the $R$--torsion $\Delta(X)$.
We will denote $K_1(\Q_G)/(\pm G)$ by $Wh(\Q_G)$.  There is an obvious homomorphism from $Wh(G)$ to $Wh(\Q_G)$ which factors
through an injection $Wh'(G)\to Wh(\Q_G)$, where, as usual, $Wh'(G)$ denotes the image of $Wh(G)$ in $K_1(\Q G)/(\pm G)$.  \par
Now suppose $Y$ is a space homotopy equivalent to $X$, and let $h:Y\to X$ be a homotopy equivalence. Then we can define the
$R$--torsions of $Y$ and $X$, and the same procedure gives a torsion class $\Delta(M_h,Y)\in Wh(\Q_G)$ which is the image of
the torsion $\tau(h)\in Wh(G)$ of the homotopy equivalence $h$. We will keep the notation $\tau(h)$ for $\Delta(M_h,Y)$.
(Here $M_h$ is the mapping cylinder of $h$.)\par
Now we can compare the $R$--torsions, using \cite[Theorem. 3.1]{mwt}, applied to the short exact sequence of chain complexes
of $\Q_G$--modules
$$0\to C_{G}(Y)\to C_G(M_h)\to C_G(M_h,X)\to 0.$$

Note that the $\Q_G$--module structures on the last two chain complexes is given by the obvious identification of the fundamental groups
of $M_h$ and $X$, and on $C_{G}(Y)$ the identification is given by $h_*$.  Taking this into account,  \cite[Theorem. 3.1]{mwt} gives:

\begin{lm}\label{lm:deltatau} If $h:Y\to X$ is a homotopy equivalence, then
$$h_*(\Delta(Y))=\Delta(X)-\tau(h).$$
\end{lm}

A corollary is the following version of \cite[Lemma 12.5]{mwt}:
\begin{cor}\label{cor:delta} Assume $h:Y\to X$ be a homotopy equivalence between spaces as above.\par
If $h$ is a simple homotopy equivalence, then $h_*(\Delta(Y))=\Delta(X)$.\par
If  $Wh(\pi_1(X))$ is torsion free, the converse is also true.
\end{cor}

Now let $W$ be an $h$--cobordism between the $n$-manifolds $M$ and $M'$ with Whitehead torsion $\tau(W,M)=\tau$.
Let $j:M'\subset W$ be the inclusion and let $r:W\to M$ be a (deformation) retraction, and  set $h=r\circ j$. Then the
Whitehead torsion of the composition $h=r\circ j$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tauh}
\tau(h)=-\tau + (-1)^n\bar\tau.
\end{equation}

Using Lemma \ref{lm:deltatau} we get Milnor's formula for the relation between $\tau$ and the $R$--torsions of
$M$ and $M'$ \cite[p. 405]{mwt}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:deltatau}
h_*(\Delta(M'))=\Delta(M)+\tau-(-1)^n\bar \tau.
\end{equation}

(Milnor writes this multiplicatively, but we choose an additive notation, emphasizing that this takes place in an abelian group. He
also only gives the formula for $n$ odd.)\smallskip

From now on we assume $n$ is odd and write $\pi_1(M)=G$.  Recall the result of Wall (\cite[7]{Wu}, see also \cite[Cor. 7.5]{oliver})  that  for
a finite group the standard involution acts trivially on  $Wh'(G)$.  Hence formula (\ref{eq:deltatau}) now reduces to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:delta}
h_*(\Delta(M'))=\Delta(M)+2\tau.
\end{equation}

Since $Wh'(G)$ is a nontrivial, free abelian group if $Wh(G)$ is infinite, it follows that given
$M$ (with the property that the fundamental group acts trivially on the rational homology of its universal cover)
 we can realize infinitely many elements of the form $h_*(\Delta(M'))$.  We claim that these must represent infinitely many
homeomorphism types of manifolds $M'$.\par

Let $(M_1,h_1)$ and $(M_2,h_2)$ be two such choices, and assume $f:M_1'\to M_2'$ is a homeomorphism.
Then $f_*(\Delta(M_1)=\Delta(M_2)$ and hence ${h_2}_*(\Delta(M_2))=(h_2f)_*(\Delta(M_1))$ --- \ie
${h_1}_*(\Delta(M_1))$ and ${h_2}_*(\Delta(M_2))$ are both images of the same element under homomorphisms
induced by isomorphisms $\pi_1(M_1')\approx \pi_1(M)$.  But there are only finitely many isomorphisms between given
finite groups.  Thus only finitely many elements ${h_2}_*(\Delta(M_2))$ can be realized by manifolds homeomorphic to
$M_1$. It follows that infinitely many homeomorphism types (in fact, simple homotopy types) occur at the other end of
 $h$--cobordisms from $M$.\smallskip

It remains to construct such manifolds $M$, given a finite group $G$.  Equivalently,  we want to construct
simply-connected manifolds $\widetilde M$ with free, $H_*(-;\Q)$-trivial $G$-actions.  Methods
for such constructions have been developed by Pardon \cite{P} and Weinberger \cite{WeI, WeII}.  For the sake of completeness, here
is a short sketch, following \cite {P}:\par
Let $p$ be a prime not dividing the order of $G$. A classical construction of Swan \cite{Sw} gives for every odd $m\geqslant 3$
a finite, simply-connected $CW$-complex $X$ such that (a) $X$ has a  free $G$-action,  and (b) $H_*(X;\Z_{(p)})
\approx H_*(S^m; \Z_{(p)})$.   In fact, from Serre $\mathcal C$-theory there is a $\Z_{(p)}$ homology isomorphisms $f:S^m\to X$
realizing (b). and $q:X\to X/G$ (the quotient map).   The quotient $X/G$ is then a $\Z_{(p)}$-Poincar\'e complex of formal dimension $m$, and the quotient map $q:X\to X/G$ is also a $\Z_{(p)}$ homology isomorphism.
Forming the composition $h=q\circ f$ defines a $p$-local normal map $h:(S^m, \nu)\to (X/G,\xi)$ (not necessarily of degree one),
where $\xi$ is the trivial bundle.\par
Now $h$ has a surgery obstruction in $L^h_m(\Z_{(p)}G)$, hence also in $L^h_m(\Q G)$.  One shows that $L^h_3(\Q G)=0$,  thus rational surgery on $h$ can be completed if $m\equiv 3 \mod 4$.  This gives an $m/2$-connected manifold $\widetilde M^m$ such that
$H_*(\widetilde M^m;\Q)\approx H_*(S^m;\Q)$ with a free $G$-action, and we let $M^m=\widetilde M/G$.\par
For $m\equiv 1\mod 4$, take $N^m=M^{m-2}\times S^2$.  This gives examples in all odd dimensions $\geqslant 7$.  Note
that  in dimensions $4k+3$ the manifolds are rational homology spheres, and in dimensions $4k+1$ they have rational homology
as $S^{4k-1}\times S^2$.   Weinberger's results \cite[Theorem 4.7]{WeII} generalize this and extend it to dimension 5,  providing
examples which are rationally $S^3\times S^2$.

\section{Remarks on "special" manifolds}\label{sec:special}

Recall that Milnor \cite[p.\,404]{mwt} called a compact  manifold {\em special} if the fundamental group is finite abelian
and acts trivially on the rational homology groups of its universal covering space. The trivial action is needed for the definition
of $R$-torsion, but the abelian assumption was based on the incorrect claim  that the Whitehead group of a finite abelian
group $G$ is free. (See Example 1.6 and the following remark in \cite{mwt}.)
Or, equivalently, that $SK_1(\Z G)=\ker(K_1(\Z G)\to K_1(\Q G))=0$. This is, of course,
the case for $G$ cyclic, which was the most important case for Milnor, but the general statements about special manifolds
need the extra hypothesis.  \par
We would now like to redefine
a special manifold to be one with finite fundamental group $G$ whose Whitehead group has no torsion, \ie  $SK_1(\Z G)=0$,
and such that $G$ acts trivially on the rational homology of the universal covering space. Then the
general  statements about special manifolds in \cite[\S 12]{mwt} hold with suitable modifications, with the same proofs.
The crucial observations are that now $Wh(G)=Wh'(G)\to Wh(\Q_G)$ is an injection, and the converse holds in
Lemma \ref{cor:delta}. \par
In particular, we have (cf. \cite[Theorem 12.8]{mwt}):

\begin{thm}\label{thm:mwt12.8}
An inertial $h$-cobordism between odd-dimensional special manifolds of dimension $\geqslant 5$ which is compatible with the natural identifications of fundamental groups is a product.
\end{thm}

That the inertial $h$-cobordism $(W;M,M')$ is 'compatible with the natural identifications of fundamental groups' means that
there is a homeomorphism $f:M'\to M$ such that the map induced on Whitehead groups by $f$ and the natural homotopy equivalence
$h:M'\subset W\to M$ coincide.  Then $h_*(\Delta(M'))=\Delta(M)$ by Corollary \ref{cor:delta}, and  Theorem \ref{thm:mwt12.8}
follows from (\ref{eq:delta}).\par

\begin{rem}
There are  examples of $h$-cobordisms between special 3-manifolds which are compatible with identifications of fundamental groups,
but not products. In fact, these $h$-cobordisms are even strongly inertial.  The first examples were found by Cappell and Shaneson
in \cite{CS1}.
\end{rem}

The assumption of compatibility of identifications of fundamental groups is stronger than being inertial, even in the case of cyclic
fundamental group, as illustrated by the following example (cf. also \cite{m61} and \cite{H80}):
\begin{ex}\label{ex:lens}
Many classical  three-dimensional lens spaces $L^3(p,q)$ admit self-homotopy equivalences $h$ with non-trivial Whitehead torsion
$\tau(h)$.   Choose one with fundamental group of odd order --- the simplest example is $L^3(5,1)$ and $h_*$ equal to multiplication by 2 on $\pi_1\approx\Z/5$ --- and consider the homotopy equivalence
$$L^3\xrightarrow{h} L^3\xrightarrow{j} L^3\times D^3.$$
Here $D^3$ is the 3-disk and $j$ is the inclusion of $L^3\times\{0\}$.  The map $j\circ h$ is homotopic to a smooth
embedding $i:L^3\to L^3\times D^3$ by \cite{Hae}, and $i(L^3)\subset L^3\times D^3$ has trivial normal disk bundle $N$. (In fact,
 since $[L^3, BO(3)]=0$, every linear $D^3$-bundle over $L^3$ is trivial.)   Then $L^3\times D^3 -\text{int} N$
is an $h$-cobordism with torsion $\tau(h)$, and both boundary components are homeomorphic to $L^3\times S^2$.
See also \cite[\S6]{H80}. \end{ex}

Note that the manifold $L^3\times S^2$ is still special, but the natural identification of fundamental groups is via $h$, which is not
homotopic to a homeomorphism.\par
 On the other hand, the condition of compatibility of fundamental groups is  weaker than being strongly inertial.
In fact,  in the next section we will prove the following Theorem:

\begin{thm}\label{thm:abelian}
Suppose $M$ is a closed oriented manifold of odd dimension with abelian fundamental group of finite order.
Then every strongly inertial $h$-cobordism from $M$  is trivial.
\end{thm}

\begin{ex}\label{ex:K2}
Let $K$ be a finite, 2-dimensional complex such that $\pi_1(K)=\Z/4\times\Z/4$.   For example, take $K$ to be the
2-torus $T^2=S^1\times S^1$ with two 2-disks attached along $S^1\times\{1\}$ and $\{1\}\times S^1$ by attaching
maps of degree four.  Oliver's calculations \cite{oliver} show that $Wh(\Z/4\times\Z/4)\approx \Z/2$, and by \cite{Lat}
there exists a self-homotopy equivalence $f:K\to K$ with torsion $\tau(f)$ equal to the nontrivial element.\par
Now embed $K$ in Euclidean space $\R^{2k}$, $k\geqslant 3$ and let $N(K)$ be the topological regular neighborhood \cite{J}.
Approximate the composition $K\xrightarrow{h} K\subset N(K)$ by an embedding. By uniqueness of regular neighborhoods
we now have an embedding $j:N(K)\xrightarrow{\subset} N(K)$, and $W=N(K)-j(\text{int}N(K))$ is then an inertial
$h$-cobordism from $\partial N(K)$ with non-trivial torsion. Moreover, since there is only one possible isomorphism
between the  Whitehead groups involved, this $h$-cobordism is obviously compatible with the natural identifications of fundamental
groups.  But by Theorem \ref{thm:abelian} it can not be strongly inertial.
\end{ex}

\begin{rem}
Note that the natural (self-) homotopy equivalence $h:\partial N\subset W\to\partial N$
between the ends of the $h$-cobordism constructed in Example \ref{ex:K2} is simple and $h$-cobordant to the identity.
However, by Theorem \ref{thm:abelian}, it is not homotopic to a homeomorphism.  From the point of view of surgery theory, this
is an example of a negative answer to the following general and challenging question: "Suppose $f:N\to N$ is a self-homotopy equivalence of a
compact manifold and $f$ is normally cobordant to the identity. Is $f$ homotopic to a homeomorphism?"  See \cite{CS} and
\cite{KS95} for specific cases of this problem.
\end{rem}

 \section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:abelian}}\label{sec:abelian}

If the dimension of $M$ is 1, the claim is obvious.  If dim\,$M=3$, $M$ must be a lens space, and every $h$-cobordism is
topologically a product by \cite{KS89}.  Consequently we may assume dim\,$M\geqslant 5$.  We will now use surgery theory and the work of Hambleton, Milgram, Taylor and Williams \cite{HMTW} to analyze
$SI(M)$. \par
A strongly inertial $h$-cobordism $(W;M,N)$ determines an element of the structure set $\SH(M\times I)$.  (By convention, if $V$
has boundary, an element $V'\to V$ of the structure set $\SS(V)$ or $\SH(V)$ is a homeomorphism on the boundary.)
This structure set sits in a diagram of Sullivan--Wall exact surgery sequences ($G=\pi_1(M)$):
$$\xymatrix{
\cdots\ar[r]&  L^s_{n+2}(G)\ar[r]^{\gamma^s}\ar[d]^{l_1} & \SS(M\times I)\ar[r]^{\eta^s}\ar[d]^{t} &
\N(M\times I)\ar[r]^{\theta^s}\ar[d]^= & L^s_{n+1}(G)\  \ar[d]^{l_0}  \\
\cdots\ar[r]&  L^h_{n+2}(G)\ar[r]^{\gamma^h} & \SH(M\times I)\ar[r]^{\eta^h} &
\N(M\times I)\ar[r]^{\theta^h} & L^h_{n+1}(G)\,.
}$$
This is a diagram of abelian groups and homomorphisms, where the addition in the groups in the middle is given by
"stacking in the $I$-direction".  Moreover, we need the following two highly non--trivial facts:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Since $n+2$ is odd, the map labeled $l_1$ is surjective \cite{bak}.
\item When $n+1$ is even,  $l_0$ is injective on the image of $\theta^s$. (Proof below.)
\end{enumerate}
Given this, half of the standard proof of the five--lemma gives that the map $t:\SS(M\times I)\to \SH(M\times I)$ is surjective. Thus
$W$ is $h$-cobordant rel boundary to another $h$-cobordism with trivial torsion, hence to $M\times I$.  We want to conclude that
$W$ itself must have trivial torsion.\par
Let $(U; W,M\times I)$  be an $h$-cobordism and compute the torsion of the homotopy equivalence $M\subset U$ as a composition
in the two obvious ways:  $M\subset W\subset U$ and $M\subset M\times I\subset U$. Then we get (in $Wh(U)$)
$$ \tau(W\subset U)+j_*(\tau(M\subset W))=\tau(M\times I\subset U)+j'_*(M\subset M\times I)=\tau(M\times I\subset U),$$
where $j$ and $j'$ are the respective inclusion maps. But the duality formula gives
$$  \tau(W\subset U)=(-1)^{n+1}\overline{\tau(M\times I\subset U)}=\tau(M\times I\subset U),$$
since $n$ is odd and the involution on $Wh(G)$ is trivial when $G$ is abelian \cite{bak2}. It follows that $j_*(\tau(M\subset W))=0$.
But $j_*$ is an isomorphism, and $\tau(M\subset W)=0$ if and only if  $\tau(W,M)=0$.\par
It remains to establish assertion (2) above.  In other words; we need to prove that if $n+1$ is even and $\theta^h(x)=0$,
then also $\theta^s(x)=0$.  We are grateful to Ian Hambleton \cite{Ham}, who showed us how  calculations sketched by
Taylor and Williams in the unpublished preprint \cite{TW} could be used to prove what is needed.\par

Recall that Theorem A of \cite{HMTW}  gives explicit formulas for the surgery obstructions $\theta^h$ of the form
$$\theta^h(x)=\theta_0(x)+\kappa^h_m(c(x)),\ m=1,2,3,4,$$
where $m\equiv n+1 \mod 4$.  Here  $\kappa^h_m:H_m(G;\Z/2)\to L^h_{n+1}(G)$ are universally defined homomorphisms and $\theta_0$ is the simply--connected surgery obstruction (index or Kervaire invariant if $n+1$ is even and trivial otherwise).  The element $c(x)$ is the image of $x$ under a certain homomorphism
$\N(M\times I)\to H_2(BG;\Z/2)$.\par
Taylor and Williams give similar formulas
for $\theta^s$, provided that the finite group $G$ has abelian 2-Sylow subgroup \cite[Theorem 1.2]{TW}.
 More precisely, the homomorphisms $\kappa^h_m$ factor as
$$ H_m(G;\Z/2)\xrightarrow{\kappa^s_m} L^s_{n+1}(G) \xrightarrow{l_0} L^h_{n+1}(G),$$
and $\theta^s$ is given by
$$\theta^s(x)=\theta_0(x)+\kappa^s_m(c(x)).$$

Moreover, they show that in this case $\kappa^s_4$ is trivial. Hence (2) holds if $n+1\equiv 2\mod 4$,  since then $\theta^s$ and $\theta^h$ are equal.\par
  If $n+1\equiv 0\mod 4$ we need the more precise calculations of $\kappa_2^s$ and $\kappa_2^h$ in Section 5 of
\cite{TW}.
We want to show that if $\kappa^h_2(y)=0$ then $\kappa^s_2(y)=0$.  By a well--known observation of
Wall \cite[Thm. 12]{Wf},
it suffices to do this for the 2--Sylow subgroup $A$ of $G$.  Let $E\subset A$ be the elementary 2--group consisting of all
the elements of order two. By \cite[Theorem. 5.5]{TW} the sequence
$$H_2(BE;\Z/2)\to H_2(BA;\Z/2)\xrightarrow{\kappa^h_2} L^h_0(A)$$
is exact.  Hence,  if $\kappa^h_2(y)=0$, then $y$ comes from $H_2(BE;\Z/2)$. \par
Now consider the diagram
$$\xymatrix{H_2(BE;\Z/2)\ar[r]^<<<<<{\kappa_2^s}\ar[d]  & L_0^s(E)\ar[r]^{l_0}\ar[d]& L_0^h(E)\ \ar[d] \\
H_2(BA;\Z/2)\ar[r]^<<<<<{\kappa^s_2}  & L_0^s(A)\ar[r]^{l_0}& L_0^h(A),
} $$
defined by naturality. The assertion now follows from \cite[Lemma 5.2]{TW}, which says that
$H_2(BE;\Z/2)\xrightarrow{\kappa_2^s}L_0^s(E)$ is trivial.\qed\smallskip

Observe that the conditions in Theorem \ref{thm:abelian} are only on the dimension and fundamental group of $M$, hence they
remain satisfied after connected sums with or products with simply connected manifolds.  It follows that in general $SI(M)$ and
$I(M)$ behave very differently:

\begin{cor}
If dim $M$ is odd, $\pi_1(M)$ is abelian and $Wh(\pi_1(M))$ is nontrivial, then $SI(M\#_2(S^p\times_2( S^{n-p}))\ne
 I(M\#_2(S^p\times S^{n-p}))$.
\end{cor}
In fact, in most cases one copy of $S^p\times S^{n-p}$ is enough.  For another example, take products $L^3\times S^2$ as
in example \ref{ex:lens}
\par
One could ask if $SI(M)$ is always trivial if $\dim M$ is odd and $\geqslant 5$, but this is not the case.  We observed
in section \ref{sec:general} that if $\dim M$ is odd, then $SI(M)$ contains all elements of the
form $\tau-\bar\tau$ (formula \ref{eq:inertinc}), and
Oliver has constructed groups with non-trivial involutions on the Whitehead groups.  (See \cite[Proposition 24]{oliver80} and
\cite[Example 8.11]{oliver}.) These groups are then also examples of groups $G$ with the property that  every orientable manifold
with fundamental group $G$ has non-trivial inertial set, as promised in the introduction. \par
We end this discussion with an interesting question suggested by Theorem \ref{thm:abelian}: is $SI(M)$ always homotopy invariant? Or perhaps depending on  $\pi_1(M)$ only?  The
full inertial set $I(M)$ is not, as shown by Hausmann \cite[Theorem 6.6]{H80}.

\section{Remarks on categories}\label{sec:diff}

Although everything is formulated in the topological category TOP, the theory discussed in this paper works equally well in  the categories DIFF and PL.
In fact, taking this into account, some of the results are actually slightly stronger than stated.  For instance, in Theorem \ref{thm:noninertial} the manifolds $M$ and $N$ can be chosen to be smooth, but
$M\#(S^p\times S^{n-p})$ and $N\#(S^p\times S^{n-p})$ are not only non--diffeomorphic; they are not even
homeomorphic.  We should also point out that although the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:abelian} used results from
\cite{HMTW} and \cite{TW} which deal with  the topological surgery obstruction,  in dimensions $\geqslant 5$ the conclusion of the theorem will automatically be true also in PL and DIFF.  This is because the part of the surgery sequences used in the proof are
sequences of abelian groups in all categories, and if the homomorphism $l_0$ is injective on the image of the topological
surgery obstruction, it is also injective on the image of the smooth and PL surgery obstructions.
\par
To compare the statements concerning inertial sets we need the following:

\begin{lm}
Let $M$ be a smooth manifold of dimension $\geqslant 5$.  If $W$ is a topological $h$-cobordism from $M$, then $W$ has
a unique smooth structure compatible with the given structure on $M$.  If in addition $W$ is inertial in TOP, then it is also
inertial in DIFF.\par
Similarly when $M$ is a PL manifold.
\end{lm}
\begin{proof}
The first part follows immediately from smoothing theory \cite{HM}, \cite{KiSi}.
To prove the second assertion, we use a well-known trick to prove that if $M$ and $N$ are smoothly $h$-cobordant,
then $M\times \R$ and $N\times\R$ are diffeomorphic (cf. \cite{S}).\par
 Let $N$ be the other boundary component
of $W$, and let $-W$ be the $h$-cobordism from $N$ to $M$ such that $W \cup_N (-W)\approx M\times I$. Then it also follows that
$-W \cup_M W\approx N\times I$.  Stacking infinitely in both directions then gives CAT homeomorphisms
\begin{multline*}
M\times\R\approx\cdots (W \cup_N -W)\cup_M(W \cup_N -W)\cdots\\
=   \cdots (-W \cup_M W)\cup_N(-W \cup_M W)\cdots\cdots \approx N\times\R.
\end{multline*}
But then $M$ and $N$ are also diffeomorphic, by the product structure theorem in smoothing theory \cite{HM}, \cite{KiSi}.
\end{proof}