\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}

In this paper, we investigate the integrability of a natural class of Lie algebra extensions
arising from an \emph{exact} action of a (possibly infinite-dimensional) Lie group $G$ on
an $n$-dimensional manifold $M$, endowed with a closed, integral $(k+1)$-form $\omega$.

To describe this class of extensions,
recall that the action of a Lie group $G$ with Lie algebra $\fg$ is called exact if it preserves $\omega$ and, for all $X\in \fg$,
the insertion
of the fundamental vector field $X_M$ in $\omega$ is exact, \ie $i_{X_M}\omega = \dif\psi_{X}$
for some $(k-1)$-form $\psi_{X}$.
The fact that
$\psi_{X}$ is not uniquely determined gives rise to a natural central extension
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ceonLAaction}
H^{k-1}(M,\R) \rightarrow \widehat{\fg} \stackrel{\pi}{\longrightarrow} \fg,
\end{equation}
which is canonically associated to the action of $\fg$ on $(M,\omega)$.
The Lie algebra $\widehat{\fg}$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\fg} := \{(X,[\psi_{X}]) \in \fg \times \overline{\Omega}{}^{k-1}(M)\;:\; i_{X_M}\omega = \dif\psi_{X}\},
\end{equation}
where $[\psi_{X}]$ denotes the class of $\psi_{X}$ in $\overline{\Omega}{}^{k-1}(M) := \Omega^{k-1}(M)/\dif\Omega^{k-2}(M)$.
The Lie bracket on $\widehat{\fg}$ is given by $
[(X,[\psi_{X}]),(Y,[\phi_{Y}])] := ([X,Y], [i_{X_{M}} i_{Y_{M}} \omega])
$ (cf. \cite[Thm~13]{Ne05}).

Although we do not take the `higher category' point of view in this paper,
let us briefly mention that
the central extension~\eqref{eq:ceonLAaction} is part of
an $L_{\infty}$-algebra arising naturally in multisymplectic geometry
\cite{Rogers2012,Zambon2012}, where it provides the higher analogue of a momentum map
\cite{CalliesFregierRogersZambon2016}.
It is connected to the `quantomorphism $n$-group' of a higher prequantum bundle~\cite{FRS14},
and, for $k=2$, can be interpreted as the
Lie 2-algebra of observables for a classical bosonic string coupled to a $B$-field~\cite{BaezHoffnungRogers2010}.

We are interested in integrability of those extensions of $\fg$ by $\R$ that factor through the
central extension~\eqref{eq:ceonLAaction}.
Indeed, for every nonzero $\lambda \in H^{k-1}(M,\R)^*$,
the quotient $\fg_{\lambda} := \hat{\fg}/\mathrm{Ker}(\lambda)$ is a central extension
of $\fg$ by $H^{k-1}(M,\R)/\ker(\lambda)$, which is identified with $\R$
using the functional $\lambda$.
The question, then, is to determine elements of $H^{k-1}(M,\R)^*$ for which the corresponding
Lie algebra extension $\R \rightarrow \smash{\widehat{\fg}_{\lambda}} \rightarrow \fg$ integrates to a smooth Lie group extension $\TT \rightarrow \smash{\widehat{G}{}_{\lambda}} \rightarrow G$.

It is instructive to consider the classical case where $k=1$ and $(M,\omega)$ is a symplectic manifold.
Here the  $G$-action is exact if it is (weakly) Hamiltonian,
and the central extension canonically associated to the Hamiltonian action is the
\emph{Kostant--Souriau extension} (\cite[\S II.11]{Souriau}, \cite{Kostant})
\begin{equation}
H^0(M,\R) \rightarrow \widehat{\fg} \stackrel{\pi}{\longrightarrow} \fg.
\end{equation}
If $(M,\omega)$ is connected and prequantizable, then the image of $H_0(M,\Z)$ in
$H^0(M,\R)^*$ yields a lattice of integrable Lie algebra extensions.
The corresponding Lie group extensions are obtained by pulling back
the group extension $\TT \rightarrow \mathrm{Aut}(P,\nabla) \rightarrow \mathrm{Ham}(M)$
along the Hamiltonian action $\iota \colon G \rightarrow \mathrm{Ham}(M,\omega)$, where $(P,\nabla)$
is a prequantum bundle whose curvature class is an integral multiple of $[\omega]\in H^2(M,\R)$
(cf.\ \cite[\S 2.4]{Brylinski2007}).
Note that even if $\R \rightarrow \widehat{\fg}_{\lambda} \rightarrow \fg$ is a trivial extension,
the corresponding group extension may still be nontrivial.
In general, this will depend on the choice of prequantum line bundle $(P,\nabla)$.

A more representative example is the case where $k= n-1$ and $(M,\omega)$ is a mani\-fold
with a volume form.
Here the central extension associated to the exact divergence-free action of
$\fg$ on $(M,\omega)$ is the
\emph{Lichnerowicz extension}  \cite{Lichnerowicz}
\begin{equation}
H^{n-2}(M,\R) \rightarrow \widehat{\fg} \stackrel{\pi}{\longrightarrow} \fg.
\end{equation}
If $M$ is compact, then the group $G = \mathrm{Diff}_{\ex}(M,\omega)$ of exact volume-preserving
diffeomorphisms is a Fr\'echet--Lie group.
Its action on $(M,\omega)$ is exact by definition, and the image of $H_{n-2}(M,\Z)$ in $H^{n-2}(M,\R)^*$
yields a lattice of integrable $\R$-extensions for the Lie algebra
$\fg = \X_{\ex}(M,\omega)$ of exact divergence-free vector fields.
The corresponding group extensions
are the
\emph{Ismagilov central extensions}~\cite[Sec.~25.3]{Ismagilov}.
In \cite{HV}, they were constructed for integral volume forms $\omega$ using a prequantum line bundle
over the (infinite dimensional) nonlinear Grassmannian $\mathrm{Gr}_{n-2}(M)$ of compact, oriented submanifolds
of codimension 2.

The main result of this paper is
Theorem~\ref{cor:rol}, where we prove a generalization of the above results for arbitrary~$k$.
If $G$ is a connected Fr\'echet--Lie group with an exact action
$\alpha \colon G \times M \rightarrow M$ on a compact manifold $(M,\omega)$,
and if $\omega$ is an integral $(k+1)$-form on $M$,
then the image of $H_{k-1}(M,\Z)$ in $H^{k-1}(M,\R)^*$ yields a lattice of integrable
Lie algebra extensions of $\fg$ by $\R$.

In fact, the requirements that $M$ be compact and that $G$ be connected
can both be relaxed.
For classes in $H_{k-1}(M,\Z)$ that can be represented by a closed,
oriented submanifold $S$, we show in Corollary~\ref{cor:rol2}
that the compactness assumption on $M$ is not needed.
And rather than requiring $G$ to be connected, we require the weaker property that
every $\alpha_{g} \colon M \rightarrow M$ is homotopic to the identity.

Moreover, in this setting, the appropriate analogue of an exact action is expressed
in terms of \emph{differential characters}.
Differential characters (or Cheeger--Simons characters) are generalizations
of principal circle bundles with connection.
In particular, the \emph{curvature} of a differential character $h$ of degree $k$
is a closed, integral $(k+1)$-form~$\omega$.
We give a brief overview of the theory of differential characters in \cref{s1}, and refer the reader to~\cite{CS85,BB} for further details.
Rather than requiring the action of $G$ to be exact, we require the condition
that $\alpha^*_{g} h = h$ for all $g\in G$, where $h$ is a given differential character
with curvature~$\omega$.
In general, different characters with the same curvature may give rise to different
group extensions with the same Lie algebra extension.

The above results rely heavily on the machinery of \emph{transgression} for
differential characters.
Let $S$ be a compact, oriented manifold, and consider the canonical evaluation and projection maps:
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
M	& C^{\infty}(S,M)\times S	\arrow[swap]{l}{\ev} \arrow{d}{\pr_1} \arrow{r}{\pr_2}		&  S \\
	& C^{\infty}(S,M).										&
\end{tikzcd}
\]
On the level of differential forms,
the \emph{hat product} \( \alpha \hatProduct \beta \) of \( \alpha \in \Omega^{\ell+1}(M) \) and \( \beta \in \Omega^{r+1}(S) \) is the differential form on the mapping space \( C^\infty(S, M) \) of degree \( 2 + \ell + r - \dim S \) obtained by pulling back \( \alpha \) and \( \beta \) to \( C^{\infty}(S,M)\times S \), and subsequently integrating over the fiber \( S \), see~\cite{Vizman2}.
If \( \alpha \) and \( \beta \) are closed, and the degrees satisfy \( \ell + r = \dim S \), then the hat product \( \alpha \hatProduct \beta \) yields a closed 2-form on \( C^\infty(S, M) \).
In this case, every smooth action of a Lie algebra \( \fg \) on \( C^\infty(S, M) \) preserving \( \alpha \hatProduct \beta \)  gives rise to a continuous \( 2 \)-cocycle \( \tau \) on \( \fg \) defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tautau}
	\tau(X, Y) = (\alpha \hatProduct \beta)_\Phi (X_\Phi, Y_\Phi),
\end{equation}
where \( \Phi \in C^\infty(S, M) \), \( X, Y \in \fg \), and
 \( X_\Phi \) denotes the value of the fundamental vector field at \( \Phi \)
 generated by the action of \( X \in \fg \) on \( C^\infty(S, M) \).

To construct central Lie group extensions, we refine the above setting by additional data.
Thus, we assume that \( \alpha \) and \( \beta \) are curvature forms of differential characters \( h \in \widehat H^\ell(M,\TT) \) and \( g \in \widehat H^r(S,\TT) \), respectively.
Such differential characters exist if and only if the closed forms $\alpha$ and $\beta$
are integral.
The hat product \( h \hatProduct g \) of the differential characters \( h \) and \( g \) is a differential character on \( C^\infty(S, M) \) defined in complete analogy to the hat product of differential forms (cf. equation~\eqref{eq:konijn}).
In particular, the curvature of \( h \hatProduct g \) is \( \alpha \hatProduct \beta \).
If \( \ell + r = \dim S \), then \( h \hatProduct g \) is a differential character of degree 1,
which
can be represented as the holonomy of
a principal circle bundle \( \mathcal{P} \) over \( C^\infty(S, M) \),
endowed with a connection \( \nabla \) whose curvature is \( \alpha \hatProduct \beta \) (see \cref{prop::prequantumBundleOnFunctionSpace}).
Consider a smooth action of a Fr\'echet--Lie group \( G \) on \( C^\infty(S, M) \), and assume that this action preserves \( h \hatProduct g \).
In particular, the \( G \)-action leaves \( \alpha \hatProduct \beta \) invariant.
If, furthermore, $G$ preserves the connected component $C^{\infty}(S,M)_{\Phi}$ of a map $\Phi$,
then we obtain a central extension
\begin{equation*}
	\label{eq:extensionsLiePrelim0}
	\T \rightarrow \widehat{G} \rightarrow G,
\end{equation*}
where $\widehat{G}$ is the group of automorphisms of $(\mathcal{P},\nabla)$
covering the $G$-action on $C^{\infty}(S,M)_{\Phi}$.
This is a \emph{smooth} central extension of Lie groups, and the
associated Lie algebra extension is characterized by the cohomology class of
the cocycle \( \tau \) of \eqref{eq:tautau}.

In \cref{prop::centralExtensionOfDiffeoGroups}
we apply this to the case where the \( G \)-action on \( C^\infty(S, M) \)
is induced by an action on the finite-dimensional manifolds \( S \) or \( M \), preserving all the relevant data. This immediately yields Theorem~\ref{cor:rol}
on lattices of integrable Lie algebra extensions.
The more involved example of the action of the current group \( C^\infty(S, G) \) on \( C^\infty(S, M) \) will be treated elsewhere~\cite{DJNV}.

\paragraph*{Notation:} We write $\T = \set{z \in \bC^\times \given |z| = 1}$
for the circle group which we identify
with $\R/\Z$. Accordingly, we write
$\exp_\T(t) = e^{2\pi it}$ for its exponential function.
For a smooth manifold $M$, we call
a curve $(\ph_t)_{0 \leq t \leq 1}$ in $\Diff(M)$
{\it smooth} if the map
\[ [0,1] \times M \to M^2, \quad (t,m) \mapsto (\ph_t(m), \ph_t^{-1}(m)) \]
 is smooth.
We write $\Diff(M)_0 \subeq\Diff(M)$ for the normal
subgroup of those diffeomorphisms $\ph$ for which there exists a smooth
curve from $\id_M$ to $\ph$.
All finite dimensional manifolds $M$ are required to be second countable.

\paragraph*{Acknowledgments:} K.-H.~Neeb and C.~Vizman thank the
Erwin-Schr\"o\-dinger-Institute for Mathematical Physics for
hospitality and a stimulating working atmosphere during a research stay
within the program ``Infinite-dimensional Riemannian geometry with applications
to image matching and shape analysis''.
C.~Vizman was supported by a grant of Ministery of Research and Innovation, CNCS - UEFISCDI,
project number PN-III-P4-ID-PCE-2016-0778, within PNCDI III.
B.~Janssens was supported by the
NWO grant 613.001.214 ``Generalised Lie algebra sheaves", and by the NWO grant 639.032.734
``Cohomology and representation theory of infinite dimensional Lie groups''.
T.~Diez gratefully acknowledges support by the Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences (Leipzig),
and by the above NWO grant 639.032.734.

\section{Differential characters and line bundles}
\label{s1}

We introduce differential characters following~\cite{CS85} and~\cite{BB}.
In this section $M$ denotes a locally convex smooth manifold
for which the de Rham isomorphism holds\footnote{See~\cite[Thm.~34.7]{KrMi97}
for a de Rham Theorem in this context and sufficient criteria for it to hold.}.
Let $C_k(M)$ be the group of smooth singular $k$-chains, and let $Z_k(M)$ and $B_k(M)$ denote the groups of $k$-cycles and $k$-boundaries,
so that $H_k(M) \defeq Z_k(M)/B_k(M)$ is the $k$-th smooth singular homology group.

A \emph{differential character (Cheeger--Simons character) of degree $k$}
is a group homomorphism
$h:Z_k(M)\to\TT$ for which there exists a
differential form $\om\in\Om^{k+1}(M)$ such that
$h(\pa\si)= \exp_\T\bigl(\int_\si\om\bigr)$ holds for every $\sigma \in C_{k+1}(M)$.
Then $\omega$ is uniquely determined by $h$.
It is called the \emph{curvature of $h$} and will be denoted by $\curv(h)$.
We write
\[ \widehat H^{k}(M,\TT) \subeq \Hom(Z_{k}(M),\T) \]
for the group of differential characters of degree $k$.\begin{footnote}
{In~\cite{BB} this group is denoted $\hat H^{k+1}(M,\Z)$. In this sense our notations
are compatible, although the degree is shifted by $1$. Our convention
follows the original one introduced by Cheeger and Simons in~\cite{CS85}.}
\end{footnote}
It contains the cohomology group $H^{k}(M,\TT)\cong
\Hom(H_{k}(M),\TT)\subeq \Hom(Z_k(M),\T)$
as the subgroup of differential characters that vanish on $k$-boundaries.
This is the subgroup of differential characters with curvature zero.
For $\omega= \curv(h)$, the relation \( 1 = h(\pa \varsigma) = \exp_\T\bigl(\int_\varsigma\om\bigr) \) for every \( \varsigma \in Z_{k+1}(M) \)
implies that $\omega$ belongs to the abelian group
\[ \Omega_\ZZ^{k+1}(M) \defeq \set*{\omega \in \Omega^{k+1}(M) \given \int_{Z_{k+1}(M)}
\omega \subeq \Z}\]
of forms with integral periods.
Note that such forms are automatically closed.
We thus get an exact sequence
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:1}
0\to H^{k}(M,\TT)\hookrightarrow \widehat H^{k}(M,\TT)\smapright{\curv}\Om_\ZZ^{k+1}(M)\to 0.
\end{equation}

A differential character $h$ of degree $k$ also
determines a \emph{characteristic class} $\ch(h)\in H^{k+1}(M,\ZZ)$.
In order to define $\ch(h)$, let
$\tilde h \: Z_{k}(M) \to \R$ be a homomorphism that lifts $h$
(such a homomorphism exists because $Z_{k}(M)$ is a free abelian
group). Consider the cocycle $\hat h \: C_{k+1}(M) \to \Z$ given by
\[\hat h(c) \defeq \int_c \curv(h)  - \tilde h(\partial c)\]
and define \( \ch(h) \) to be the class of \( \hat{h} \) in \( H^{k+1}(M,\Z) \).
The image of $\ch(h)$ in $H^{k+1}(M,\RR)$ coincides with the class of $\curv(h)$,
when we identify $\RR$-valued cohomology and de Rham cohomology
via the de Rham isomorphism.
In particular, $\curv(h)$ is exact if and only if the image of $\ch(h)$ in \( H^{k+1}(M, \R) \) is trivial.
To each differential form $\al\in\Om^k(M)$ one assigns a differential character
$i(\al)$ defined by
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:trivialBundleInclusion}
	i(\al)(c) \defeq \exp_\T\bigg(\int_c\al\bigg)
\end{equation}
for \( c\in Z_k(M) \).
Note that
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:theta}
\curv(i(\alpha)) = \dif \alpha.
\end{equation}
The kernel of $i$ is $\Om^k_{\ZZ}(M)$.
We thus obtain an exact sequence, \cf~\cite[Eq.~30]{BB},
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:ch-seq}
0\to \Omega^k_\Z(M) \to \Om^k(M)\ssmapright{i} \widehat H^{k}(M,\TT)\ssmapright{\ch}
H^{k+1}(M,\ZZ)\to 0.
\end{equation}

Differential characters of degree 1 can be realized as the holonomy of a
principal circle bundle $P\to M$ with connection form $\th\in\Om^1(P)$.
Indeed, the holonomy map $h$ assigns to each
piecewise smooth $1$-cycle $c\in Z_1(M)$ an element $h(c)\in\TT$.
If the connection has curvature $\om\in\Om^2(M)$, then
$h(\partial \sigma) = \exp_\T(\int_{\sigma}\om)$ for all \( \sigma \in Z_2(M) \), so that
$h\in \widehat H^1(M,\TT)$ is a differential character whose curvature
is the same as that of the connection, $\curv(h) = \omega$.
The class $\ch(h)\in H^2(M,\ZZ)$, which does not depend on $\theta$,
is the \emph{first Chern class} of the bundle $P$.
In this paper, we will often need the following well-known result.

\begin{restatable}{proposition}{HOneIsBundles}\label{thm:H1isbundles}
The map $(P,\theta) \mapsto h$ that assigns to a principal circle bundle \( P \) with connection \( \theta \) its holonomy map \( h \)
defines an isomorphism from
the group
of equivalence classes of pairs $(P,\theta)$ modulo bundle automorphisms onto
the group $\widehat H^1(M,\TT)$ of differential characters of degree \( 1 \).
\end{restatable}

This can be derived from the fact that principal circle bundles with connection are
classified by Deligne cohomology~\cite[Thm.~2.2.12]{Brylinski2007}, which is an alternative
model for differential cohomology, \cf~\cite[Sec.~5.2]{BB}.
We give a direct proof in \cref{sec::diffCharactersDegreeOne}.

\section{Stabilizers of a differential character}
\label{s2}

For any manifold \( M \), the right action of the diffeomorphism group  \( \Diff(M) \) on \( \widehat H^k(M, \TT) \) by pull-back
\begin{equation}
	\varphi^* h (c) \defeq h(\varphi \circ c), \quad \text{ for } \varphi \in \Diff(M),
	\quad h \in \widehat H^k(M, \TT)
\end{equation}
extends to the exact sequence~\eqref{eq:1} of abelian groups:
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix{
0\ar[r]&H^k(M,\TT)\ar[d]^{\vphi^*}\ar[r]
&\widehat H^{k}(M,\TT) \ar[d]^{\vphi^*}\ar[r] ^{\curv}
& \Omega_{\Z}^{k+1}(M)\ar[d]^{\vphi^*} \ar[r] & 0\\
0\ar[r]& H^k(M,\TT)\ar[r] &\widehat H^{k}(M,\TT) \ar[r]^{\curv}
& \Omega_{\Z}^{k+1}(M) \ar[r] & 0.
}
\end{equation*}
Let \( \Diff(M)_0 \) be the subgroup of \( \Diff(M) \) consisting of those diffeomorphisms $\ph$ for which there exists a smooth curve from $\id_M$ to $\ph$.
Note that the action of \( \Diff(M)_0 \) on $H^k(M,\TT)$ is trivial: as
$\ph \circ c - c$ is a boundary for every $c\in Z_{k}(M)$, we find
$(\ph^*a - a)(c) = a(\ph \circ c - c) = 1$ for all
$a \in H^k(M,\TT)$.

Denote the stabilizer group of $\omega \in \Omega^{k+1}_{\Z}(M)$ by
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:diff-m-omega}
\Diff(M,\om) \defeq \set{\ph \in \Diff(M) \given \ph^* \om = \om },
\end{equation}
and the stabilizer Lie algebra by
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:x-m-omega}
\X(M,\om) \defeq \set{X \in \X(M) \given L_{X}\om = 0}.
\end{equation}

\begin{rem}
Of particular relevance is the case where $\om \in \Omega^{k+1}(M)$ is nondegenerate,
in the sense that $\om^{\flat} \colon T_mM \to {\rm Alt}^k(T_{m}M,\R), v
\mapsto i_v \omega_m$
is injective for all $m\in M$. For $k=1$ and $k=\mathrm{dim}(M)-1$, this leads to
the groups of \emph{symplectic} and \emph{volume-preserving}
transformations, respectively. If $M$ is compact, then the symplectic and
volume-preserving diffeomorphism groups $\Diff(M,\omega)$ are Fr\'echet Lie groups,
with Lie algebra $\X(M, \omega)$ consisting of \emph{symplectic} or \emph{divergence free}
vector fields~\cite[Thm. 43.7, 43.12]{KrMi97}.
\end{rem}

\subsection{Stabilizer groups}

For a differential character
$h \in \widehat H^{k}(M,\TT)$, we denote its stabilizer by
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:diff-m-h}
\Diff(M,h) \defeq \set{\ph \in \Diff(M)\given \ph^* h = h}.
\end{equation}

\begin{rem}\label{holo}
Let $h\in \hat H^1(M,\TT)$ be the differential character defined by the holonomy
of the principal $\TT$-bundle $(P,\th)\to(M,\om)$ with curvature $\omega$. Then
$\ph \in \Diff(M)$ satisfies $\ph^*h = h$ if and only if, for every smooth
loop $\gamma$ in $M$, the holonomy of the loop $\gamma$ coincides with the
holonomy of~$\ph\o\ga$. Since this is equivalent
to the existence of a connection-preserving lift $\tilde\ph \in \Aut(P,\theta)$
by~\cite[Thm.~2.7]{NV}, one can view $\Diff(M,h)$ as the group of
\emph{liftable} diffeomorphisms if $k=1$.
\end{rem}

Consider the left action \( (\varphi, h) \mapsto \varphi^{-1 *}h \) of $\Diff(M,\om)$ on $\hat H^{k}(M,\T)$.
By~\eqref{eq:1}, the preimage \( \curv^{-1}(\omega) \) is a
principal homogeneous space (a torsor) for the
abelian group $H^k(M,\TT)$.
For every $h$ with $\curv(h) = \omega$, we thus get a \( 1 \)-cocycle
\begin{equation}\label{fluxh}
\Flux_{h} \colon \Diff(M,\om) \rightarrow H^{k}(M,\TT), \quad
\Flux_{h}(\ph) = (\ph^{-1})^*h - h \,.
\end{equation}
Note that the cohomology class of this cocycle
$\Flux_h$ in $H^1(\Diff(M,\om), H^k(M,\TT))$
is independent of the choice of~$h$.
The kernel of $\Flux_h$ is the subgroup $\Diff(M,h)$, so that we obtain an exact sequence
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rijtjemeth}
1 \rightarrow \Diff(M,h) \rightarrow \Diff(M,\om) \smapright{\Flux_{h}} H^k(M,\TT)\,,
\end{equation}
where $\Flux_h$ is only a cocycle and not necessarily a group homomorphism.
Since $\Diff(M)_{0}$ acts trivially on $H^{k}(M,\TT)$,
the restriction of $\Flux_{h}$ to the intersection $\Diff(M,\om)\cap \Diff(M)_{0}$
is a group homomorphism.
As this homomorphism does not depend on the choice of $h$ with $\curv(h) = \omega$,
we denote the homomorphism by \( \Flux_\omega \),  and its kernel by
\[ \overline{\Diff}_{\ex}(M,\om) \defeq \Diff(M,h)\cap \Diff(M)_{0}.\]
Since $\Diff(M)_{0}$ leaves the
characteristic class of $h$ invariant, the image of $\Flux_\omega$ is contained in the
kernel of $\ch|_{H^k(M,\T)}$, which can be identified with
the Jacobian torus
\[ J^k(M)
\defeq
{H^k(M,\R)/H^k(M,\R)_{\Z}\cong  \Hom(H_k(M),\R)/\Hom(H_k(M),\Z) }
\]
the quotient of $H^k(M,\R)$ by the image of $H^k(M,\Z)$.
Summarizing the above discussion, we obtain:
\begin{proposition}
	For any manifold \( M \) and \( \omega \in \Omega_{\Z}^{k+1}(M) \), we have an exact sequence \emph{of groups}
	\begin{equation}\label{eq:rijtjemetnul}
		1 \rightarrow
		\overline{\Diff}_{\ex}(M,\om) \longrightarrow
		\Diff(M,\om)\cap \Diff(M)_{0} \smapright{\Flux_\omega}
		J^k(M)\,.
		\qedhere
	\end{equation}
\end{proposition}

\begin{remark}
To define the group
$\Diff_{\ex}(M,\om)$ of \emph{exact $\omega$-preserving diffeomorphisms}, note that
by a straightforward calculation,
the restriction of \( \Flux_\omega \) to \( \Diff(M,\om)_0 \)
satisfies
\[ \Flux_{\omega}(\ph) = \bigg[ \int_0^1 i_{\delta^l\ph_t} \omega \, \dif t\bigg]\,,\]
where $(\ph_t)_{0 \leq t\leq 1}$ is a smooth path in $\Diff(M,\omega)$
from $\ph_0 = \id_{M}$ to $\ph_1 = \ph$.
This shows that the restriction of $\Flux_{\omega}$ to
$\Diff(M,\omega)_{0}$ recovers
the flux homomorphism defined in~\cite{Calabi1970,Banyaga1978}, \cf also~\cite[Prop.~1.8]{NV}.
If we define the exact $\omega$-preserving diffeomorphism group by
\begin{equation}
	\Diff_{\ex}(M,\om) \defeq \overline{\Diff}_{\ex}(M,\om)\cap \Diff(M,\omega)_{0} = \Diff(M, h) \cap \Diff(M,\omega)_{0},
\end{equation}
then we obtain the exact sequence of groups
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:diffExactFluxSequence}
	1 \rightarrow \Diff_{\ex}(M,\om)
	\longrightarrow \Diff(M,\om)_0
	\smapright{\Flux_{\omega}} J^k(M)\,.
\end{equation}
The elements of $\Diff_{\ex}(M,\om)$ are called exact $\om$-preserving diffeomorphisms.
In general, the group $\overline{\Diff}_{\ex}(M,\om)$ may be strictly larger
than the group
$\Diff_{\ex}(M,\om)$ of exact $\omega$-preserving diffeomorphisms.
\end{remark}

\subsection{Stabilizer Lie algebras}
We now continue with the stabilizers at the infinitesimal level.
The Lie algebra homomorphism
\begin{equation}\label{infl}
\flux_\omega:\X(M,\om)\to H^k(M,\R),\quad \flux_\omega(X)=[i_X\om]
\end{equation}
is the {\it infinitesimal flux} cocycle whose kernel is the ideal
\[
\X_{\ex}(M,\om) \defeq \set{X \in \X(M,\omega)\given i_{X} \om \text{ is exact}}.
\]
If $h\in \widehat H^{k}(M,\TT)$ has curvature $\omega$, then
the groups $\Diff(M,h)$, $\overline{\Diff}_{\ex}(M,\om)$ and
$\Diff_{\ex}(M,\om)$
have $\X_{\ex}(M,\om)$ as their Lie algebra in the sense that, for
every smooth curve $(\ph_t)_{t \in [0,1]}$ in $\Diff(M)$
with $\ph_0 =\id_M$, the curve $(\ph_t)$ is contained in the group
if and only if its logarithmic derivative
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:logder}
\delta^l\ph_t \defeq T(\ph_t)^{-1} {\textstyle \frac{d}{dt}} \ph_t \in \X(M)
\end{equation}
takes values in $\X_{\ex}(M,\om)$.
Accordingly, the exact sequence of Lie algebras associated to~\eqref{eq:rijtjemeth},
\eqref{eq:rijtjemetnul} and~\eqref{eq:diffExactFluxSequence} is
\begin{equation}\label{infi}
0 \rightarrow \X_{\ex}(M,\om) \longrightarrow \X(M,\om) \smapright{\flux_\omega}
H^{k}(M,\R)\,.
\end{equation}

\begin{proposition} \label{prop:threegroups}
Let $h\in \widehat H^{k}(M,\TT)$ be a differential character with curvature $\omega$.
All three groups $\Diff(M,h)$,
$\overline{\Diff}_{\ex}(M,\om)$, and $\Diff_{\ex}(M,\om)$
have the same smooth arc-component and the same Lie algebra
$\X_{\rm ex}(M,\omega)$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{remark}
For manifolds $M$ with trivial $k$-th homology, the relations between the above
groups simplify.
If $H_k(M) = \set{0}$, then \( \Diff(M,h) = \Diff(M,\om) \), as the last term in
\eqref{eq:rijtjemeth} vanishes.
If $H_k(M)$ is a torsion group, then $J^k(M) = 0$,
so \( \overline{\Diff}_{\ex}(M,\om) = \Diff(M,\om)\cap \Diff(M)_{0}\)
by \eqref{eq:rijtjemetnul},
and \(\Diff_{\ex}(M,\om) = \Diff(M,\om)_{0}\)
by \eqref{eq:diffExactFluxSequence}.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark} If $\om$ is nondegenerate and $k=1$ or $k=n-1$, then the infinitesimal flux homomorphism \( \flux_\omega \)
is surjective.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For $k=1$, the form $\om$ is symplectic, $\X_{\ex}(M,\om)$ is the Lie algebra
$\X_{\ham}(M,\om)$ of \emph{Hamiltonian vector fields} and  the group
$\Ham(M,\om)$ of \emph{Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms} coincides with the identity component
$\Diff_{\ex}(M,\om)_0$.

\item For $k=n-1$,  $\om$ is a volume form, so we get the Lie algebra of \emph{exact divergence free vector fields} $\X_{\ex}(M,\om)$,
and the group of \emph{exact volume-preserving diffeomorphisms} $\Diff_{\ex}(M,\om)_0$.
\qedhere
\color{black}
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}

\subsection{Fr\'echet--Lie groups}

If $M$ is a compact manifold with symplectic form $\omega$, then
the group $\Diff(M,\om)$ of symplectomorphisms is a
Fr\'echet--Lie group acting smoothly on $M$.
If $\mu \in \Omega^{d}(M)$ is a volume form, then the same holds for
the group $\Diff(M,\mu)$ of volume-preserving diffeomorphisms
\cite[\S43]{KrMi97}.
From the following proposition, we see in particular that
$\Ham(M,\omega) \subseteq \Diff(M,\omega)_{0}$ and $\Diff_{\ex}(M,\mu) \subseteq \Diff(M,\mu)_{0}$ are embedded Fr\'echet--Lie subgroups.

\begin{proposition}\label{LieGroups}
Let $M$ be a compact manifold, and let $h\in \widehat H^{k}(M,\TT)$
be a differential character with curvature
$\omega \in \Omega^{k+1}_\Z(M)$.
Let $G$ be a Fr\'echet--Lie group
with Lie algebra $\fg$, and let
$i \colon G \rightarrow \Diff(M,\om)$ be a group homomorphism
that induces a smooth action $G\times M \rightarrow M$
and hence a Lie algebra homomorphism $i_* \colon \fg \rightarrow \X(M,\om)$.
Then $G_{\ex} \defeq \set{g\in G \given \Flux_{h}(i(g)) = 0}$
is an embedded Lie subgroup of $G$ with Lie algebra
$\fg_{\ex} \defeq \set{\xi \in \fg \given [i_{i_*(\xi)}\omega]=0}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since $G$ acts smoothly on $M$, the homomorphism
$i \colon G \rightarrow \Diff(M,\omega)$ is a morphism of
diffeological spaces.
Since the same holds for the flux cocycle
$\Flux_{h}\colon \Diff(M,\omega) \rightarrow H^k(M,\T)$,
the cocycle ${\Flux_{h}} \circ i \colon G \rightarrow H^k(M,\T)$
is a morphism of diffeological spaces as well.
Since $M$ is compact, $H^k(M,\T)$ is a finite dimensional Lie group.
In particular, $G$ and $H^k(M,\T)$ are both objects in the category
of Fr\'echet manifolds, which constitutes a full subcategory of
the category of diffeological spaces~\cite{Losik1994}.
It follows that ${\Flux_{h}} \circ i \colon G \rightarrow H^k(M,\T)$ is smooth,
with derivative ${\flux_\omega} \circ i_* \colon \fg \rightarrow H^k(M,\R)$ at the identity.
Since $H^{k}(M,\R)$ is finite dimensional, we conclude from
Gl\"ockner's Implicit Function Theorem~\cite{Gloeckner}
(or more precisely, from the Regular Value Theorem~\cite[Thm.~III.11]{NW08} derived from this),
that the kernel $G_{\ex}$ of ${\Flux_{h}} \circ i$ is a split embedded
submanifold of $G$. It is a Lie subgroup, because ${\Flux_{h}} \circ i$
is a cocycle. The corresponding Lie algebra $\fg_{\ex}$ is the kernel of
${\flux_\omega} \circ i_*$.
\end{proof}

\section{Transgression of differential characters}

Let $S$ be a compact, oriented manifold, and let $M$ be a finite dimensional manifold.
We now describe a natural way to combine differential characters from \( S \) and from \( M \) to a differential character on the
mapping space \( C^\infty(S, M) \), which carries a natural
Fr\'echet manifold structure~\cite{KrMi97}.
For this, we consider the canonical evaluation and projection maps:
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
M	& C^{\infty}(S,M)\times S	\arrow[swap]{l}{\ev} \arrow{d}{\pr_1} \arrow{r}{\pr_2}		&  S \\
	& C^{\infty}(S,M).										&
\end{tikzcd}
\]
We define the hat product \( h \hatProduct g \) of \( h \in \widehat H^\ell(M,\TT) \) and \( g \in \widehat H^r(S,\TT) \) as the
differential character on \( C^\infty(S, M) \) of degree \( 1 +\ell + r - \dim S \) obtained by pulling back \( h \) and \( g \) to \( C^{\infty}(S,M)\times S \)
and integrating over the fiber \( S \):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:konijn}
	h \hatProduct g = \intFibre_S \ev^* h \ast \pr_2^*\, g.
\end{equation}
Here \( \ast \) denotes the product \( \widehat H^\ell(Q, \TT) \times \widehat H^r(Q, \TT) \to \widehat H^{\ell+r +1}(Q, \TT) \) of differential characters, see~\cite[Def.~28]{BB}, and \( \intFibre_S\: \widehat H^\star(Q \times S, \TT) \to \widehat H^{\star-\dim S}(Q, \TT) \) denotes fiber integration, see~\cite[Def.~38]{BB}.
Since the curvature map intertwines these operations with the wedge product and with fiber integration of differential forms, respectively, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{commuteswithoperations}
	\curv (h \hatProduct g) = \intFibre_S \ev^* \curv (h) \wedge \pr_2^* \curv (g).
\end{equation}
This expression coincides with the hat product \( \curv h \hatProduct \curv g \) of ordinary differential forms as introduced in~\cite{Vizman2}.

Note that $\Diff(M)$ acts on $C^{\infty}(S,M)$ by $A(\phi)(f) = \phi \circ f$, and that
$\Diff(S)$ acts by $B(\psi)(f) = f \circ \psi^{-1}$.
Let \( \Diff(S)_+ \) be the subgroup of \( \Diff(S) \) that consists of orientation-preserving diffeomorphisms.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:transgress}
The hat product is equivariant with respect to $\Diff(M)$ and $\Diff(S)_+$, that is,
$A(\phi)^* (h \hatProduct g) = (\phi^*h) \hatProduct g$ and $B(\psi)^* (h \hatProduct g) = h \hatProduct (\psi^* g)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Note that fiber integration as well as the product of differential characters are natural operations~\cite[Def.~28 and~38]{BB}.
The first equality follows from commutativity of the diagram
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix{
M \ar[d]^{\ph}  & C^{\infty}(S,M)\times S \ar[d]^{A(\ph) \times \id}\ar[r]^-{\pr_2} \ar[l]_-{\ev}
& S \ar[d]^{\id}\\
M  &C^{\infty}(S,M)\times S \ar[r]^-{\pr_2} \ar[l]_-{\ev}& S\,.\\
}
\end{equation}
The second equality is derived from a similar commutative diagram
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix{
M \ar[d]^{\id} & C^{\infty}(S,M)\times S \ar[d]^{B(\psi) \times \psi}\ar[r]^-{\pr_2} \ar[l]_-{\ev}
& S \ar[d]^{\psi}\\
M &C^{\infty}(S,M)\times S \ar[r]^-{\pr_2} \ar[l]_-{\ev} & S\,,\\
}
\end{equation}
together with the invariance of fiber integration under orientation-preserving diffeomorphisms.
\end{proof}

Assume the degrees satisfy the relation \( \ell + r = \dim S \).
Then, by \cref{thm:H1isbundles}, the resulting differential character \( h \hatProduct g \in \widehat H^1(C^\infty(S, M),\TT) \) can be represented by a circle bundle \( \P \) over $C^{\infty}(S,M)$ with connection \( \nabla \).
From~\eqref{commuteswithoperations}, one sees that the curvature of $\nabla$ is
$\alpha \hatProduct \beta \in \Omega^2_{\Z}(C^{\infty}(S,M))$, where $\alpha = \curv(h)$ and
$\beta = \curv(g)$.
By \cref{prop:transgress}, the action $A(\phi)$ of
$\phi \in \Diff(M,h)$ on
$C^{\infty}(S,M)$ preserves the differential character $h \hatProduct g$
and thus the holonomy
of $(\P,\nabla)$. The same holds for the action $B(\psi)$
of $\psi \in \Diff_+(S, g)$.
By \cref{thm:H1isbundles}, the pull-back bundles
$A(\phi)^*(\P,\nabla)$ and $B(\psi)^*(\P,\nabla)$ are
isomorphic to $(\P,\nabla)$,
so there exist connection-preserving bundle automorphisms
$\widehat{A}(\phi) \colon \P \rightarrow \P$ and
$\widehat{B}(\psi) \colon \P \rightarrow \P$
that cover $A(\phi)$ and $B(\psi)$.
The following theorem summarizes the discussion so far.
\begin{theorem}
	\label{prop::prequantumBundleOnFunctionSpace}
	Let $M$ and $S$ be finite dimensional manifolds, with $S$ compact and oriented.
	Let \( h \in \widehat H^\ell(M,\TT) \) and \( g \in \widehat H^r(S,\TT) \) be differential characters with curvature forms $\alpha \in \Omega^{\ell+1}_{\Z}(M)$ and $\beta \in \Omega^{r+1}_{\Z}(S)$, respectively.
	Assume that \( \ell + r = \dim S \).
	Then the differential character \( {h \hatProduct g} \in \widehat H^1(C^\infty(S, M),\TT) \) is the holonomy of a circle bundle \( \P \) over $C^{\infty}(S,M)$ with connection \( \nabla \)
	and curvature $\alpha \hatProduct \beta \in \Omega^2_{\Z}(C^{\infty}(S,M))$.
	Moreover, for every \( \phi \in \Diff(M,h) \) and \( \psi \in \Diff_+(S, g) \), there exist bundle automorphisms \( \widehat{A}(\phi)\)
	and \(\widehat{B}(\psi)\) in \( \AutGroup(\P, \nabla) \) that cover
	\( A(\phi), B(\psi) \in \Diff(C^\infty(S, M)) \).
\end{theorem}

\section{Central extensions of \texorpdfstring{$\Diff_{\ex}(M,\alpha)$
and $\Diff_{\ex}(S,\beta)$}{subgroups of the group of exact diffeomorphisms}}

We continue in the setting of \cref{prop::prequantumBundleOnFunctionSpace}, and
use the bundle $(\cP,\nabla)$
to construct central extensions of $\Diff_{\ex}(M,\alpha)$
and $\Diff_{\ex}(S,\beta)$.
For $\Phi \in C^{\infty}(S,M)$, consider the restriction $\P_{\Phi} \rightarrow C^{\infty}(S,M)_{\Phi}$ of
$\P \rightarrow C^{\infty}(S,M)$ to the connected component
of $\Phi$.
Denote by $\Diff(M,h,[\Phi]) \subseteq \Diff(M,h)$ and
$\Diff(S, g, [\Phi]) \subseteq \Diff_+(S, g)$ the subgroups that
fix the homotopy class $[\Phi] \in \pi_{0}(C^{\infty}(S,M))$.
By continuity, these contain
$\Diff_{\ex}(M,\alpha) \subseteq \Diff(M,h)$
and
$\Diff_{\ex}(S, \beta) \subseteq \Diff(S, g)$.
The pull-back
of the group extension
\[
\TT \rightarrow \mathrm{Aut}(\P_{\Phi},\nabla) \rightarrow \Diff(C^{\infty}(S,M)_{\Phi})
\]
along the action
$A \colon \Diff(M,h,[\Phi]) \rightarrow \Diff(C^{\infty}(S,M)_{\Phi})$
yields a
central extension
\begin{equation}\label{eq:extensionL}
\TT \rightarrow \widehat \Diff(M,h,[\Phi])\rightarrow \Diff(M,h,[\Phi])\,.
\end{equation}
Similarly, the pull-back along
$B \colon \Diff(S,g,[\Phi]) \rightarrow \Diff(C^{\infty}(S,M)_{\Phi})$
yields the
central extension
\begin{equation}\label{eq:extensionR}
\TT \rightarrow \widehat \Diff(S,g,[\Phi]) \rightarrow \Diff(S,g, [\Phi])\,.
\end{equation}

\subsection{Smooth Lie group extensions}
We would like to say that these are \emph{smooth} extensions of Lie groups.
But, unfortunately,
we are not aware of any Fr\'echet--Lie group structure on
$\Diff(M,h,[\Phi])$ and $\Diff(S,g, [\Phi])$ except when
\( \alpha \) and \( \beta \) are either symplectic or volume forms and $M$ is compact.

In general, we therefore formulate the smoothness requirement as follows.
Consider a smooth action of a Fr\'echet--Lie group \( G \) on \( M \) that
preserves \( h \) and \( [\Phi] \); similarly, let $H$ be a Fr\'echet--Lie group which acts smoothly on \( S \) and preserves \( g \) as well as \( [\Phi] \).
We denote the corresponding group homomorphisms by $i_{G} \colon G \to \Diff(M,h,[\Phi])$
and $i_{H} \colon H \to \Diff(S,g,[\Phi])$.
By \cref{gene}, the pull-back along $i_{G}$ and $i_{H}$
of the
central extensions~\eqref{eq:extensionL} and~\eqref{eq:extensionR}
then yields \emph{smooth} Lie group extensions
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:extensionsLiePrelim}
	\T \rightarrow \widehat{G} \rightarrow G
	\quad
	\text{and}
	\quad
	\T \rightarrow \widehat{H} \rightarrow H,
\end{equation}
respectively.

Let $a \colon \X_{\ex}(M,\alpha) \to T_{\Phi}C^{\infty}(S,M)$ and $b \colon \X_{\ex}(S,\beta) \to T_{\Phi}C^{\infty}(S,M)$ be the infinitesimal versions at $\Phi$ of the actions \( A \) and \( B \), respectively.
That is, we have
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:actionsInf}
	a(X) = X \circ \Phi, \qquad b(v) = -\Phi_*v .
\end{equation}
From \cref{prop::prequantumBundleOnFunctionSpace} and equation~\eqref{commuteswithoperations}
(\cf also~\cite[Eq.~2]{Vizman2}), one finds that the curvature of $\nabla$ at $\Phi \in C^{\infty}(S,M)$
is $(\alpha \hatProduct \beta)_{\Phi} \in \Alt^2 (T_{\Phi}C^{\infty}(S,M))$, with
\begin{equation}
	(\alpha \hatProduct \beta)_{\Phi}(U,V) = \int_{S}\Phi^* \bigl(i_{V}i_{U}(\alpha \circ \Phi)\bigr)\wedge \beta \, .
\end{equation}
Here, \( \Phi^* \bigl(i_{U}i_{V}(\alpha \circ \Phi)\bigr) \) is the differential \( (r-1) \)-form on $S$ assigning to $v_1, \dotsc, v_{r-1} \in T_s S$ the value
\[ \alpha_{\Phi(s)}
\bigl(U(s), V(s), \Phi_* v_1, \dotsc, \Phi_* v_{r-1}\bigr).\]
The pull-back along $a$ and $b$ of the
curvature $(\alpha \hatProduct \beta)_{\Phi}$
yields the Lie algebra 2-cocycles $\tau$ on $\X_{\ex}(M,\alpha)$ and
$\nu$ on $\X_{\ex}(S,\beta)$ given by
 \begin{equation}
\tau(X,Y) = \int_{S} (\Phi^* i_{Y}i_{X}\alpha) \wedge \beta\,,
\qquad
\nu(u, v) = \int_S (i_v i_u \Phi^* \alpha) \wedge \beta\,.
\end{equation}
For the former identity, we use that, for $U = a(X)$ and $V = a(Y)$, \cref{eq:actionsInf} yields
$\Phi^* \bigl(i_V i_U (\alpha \circ \Phi)\bigr) = \Phi^* i_{Y}i_{X}\alpha$.
For the latter, note that the
fundamental vector fields $U = b(u)$ and \( V = b(v)\) give $\Phi^*\bigl(i_{V}i_{U}(\alpha \circ \Phi)\bigr) = i_{v} i_u \Phi^*\alpha$ according to \cref{eq:actionsInf}.
The Lie algebra cocycles on $\fg = \mathrm{Lie}(G)$ and $\fh = \mathrm{Lie}(H)$ corresponding to Lie group extensions~\eqref{eq:extensionsLiePrelim} are given by the pull-back along the Lie algebra actions $i_{\fg} \colon \fg \to \X_{\ex}(M,\alpha)$ and $i_{\fh} \colon \fh \to \X_{\ex}(S,\beta)$ of the cocycles $\tau$ and $\nu$.
In summary, we obtain the following.
\begin{theorem}
\label{prop::centralExtensionOfDiffeoGroups}
Let $M$ and $S$ be finite dimensional manifolds, and
let $h \in \widehat{H}^{\ell}(M,\TT)$ and
$g \in \widehat{H}^r(S, \TT)$ be differential characters
with curvature $\alpha \in \Omega_{\Z}^{\ell + 1}(M)$
and $\beta \in \Omega^{r+1}_{\Z}(S)$, respectively.
Assume that $S$ is compact and oriented, and that $\ell + r = \mathrm{dim}(S)$.
Let $i_{G} \colon G \to \Diff(M,h,[\Phi])$ and
$i_{H} \colon H \to \Diff(S,g,[\Phi])$
be Fr\'echet--Lie groups that act smoothly on $M$ and~$S$,
in such a way that $h$, $g$ and $[\Phi] \in \pi_{0}(C^{\infty}(S,M))$ are preserved.
Then the pull-back to $G$ and $H$ of~\eqref{eq:extensionL} and~\eqref{eq:extensionR} yields smooth central extensions
\begin{equation}
\T \rightarrow \widehat{G} \rightarrow G\,, \qquad
\T \rightarrow \widehat{H} \rightarrow H
\end{equation}
of Fr\'echet--Lie groups.
The corresponding Lie algebra $2$-cocycles
are given by the pull-back along the infinitesimal action
$i_{\fg} \colon \fg \to \X_{\ex}(M,\alpha)$ and
$i_{\fh} \colon \fh \to \X_{\ex}(S,\beta)$ of the
continuous Lie algebra
2-cocycles
\begin{align}\label{eq:LAcocexM}
\tau \colon {\textstyle \bigwedge^2}\X_{\ex}(M,\alpha)\rightarrow \R, \quad   &\tau(X,Y) = \int_{S} (\Phi^*i_{Y}i_{X}\alpha) \wedge \beta\,,\\
\nu \colon {\textstyle \bigwedge^2}\X_{\ex}(S,\beta)\rightarrow \R, \quad   &\nu(u,v) = \int_{S} (i_{v}i_{u}\Phi^*\alpha) \wedge \beta =
\int_{S} \Phi^*\alpha \wedge i_{v}i_{u}\beta
\,.\label{eq:LAcocexS}
\end{align}
\qedhere
\end{theorem}
Note that although the Lie algebra cocycles $\tau$ and $\nu$ (and, hence, the corresponding Lie algebra extensions) depend only on
the forms $\alpha$ and $\beta$, the group extensions will in general depend
on the choice of integrating differential characters $h$ and $g$.

\subsection{Extensions at the Lie algebra level}\label{subsec:ExtLAlevel}

\Cref{prop::centralExtensionOfDiffeoGroups} yields cocycles \( \tau \) and \( \nu \) on the Lie algebras \( \X_{\ex}(M,\alpha) \) and \( \X_{\ex}(S,\beta) \), respectively,
that give rise to Lie group extensions.
We will now show that the Lie algebra extensions
obtained in this way all factor through a common type of central extension.

Let $\Omega^{k}_{\mathrm{ex}}(M)$
denote the space of exact $k$-forms, and let
\[
\overline{\Omega}{}^{k}(M) \defeq \Omega^{k}(M)/\Omega^{k}_{\ex}(M)\,.
\]
For every closed $(k+1)$-form $\omega$, we define
\begin{equation}
	\hat\X_{\ex}(M,\omega)
		\defeq \set*{\bigl(v,[\psi_v]\bigr) \in \X_{\ex}(M,\omega) \times \overline{\Omega}{}^{k-1}(M)\given i_{v}\omega = \dif \psi_v }
\end{equation}
and denote the projection on the first factor by $\pi$.
If \( \omega \) is non-degenerate, then \( \hat\X_{\ex}(M,\omega) \) is canonically isomorphic to \( \overline{\Omega}{}^{k}(M) \).

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:ceLA}
Let $M$ be a finite dimensional manifold, and let $\omega$ be a closed $(k+1)$-form on $M$.
With the Lie bracket on $\hat\X_{\ex}(M,\omega)$ defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bracketext}
\bigl[\bigl(v,[\psi_v]\bigr),\bigl(w,[\psi_{w}]\bigr)\bigr] \defeq \bigl([v,w], [i_v i_w \omega]\bigr) = \bigl([v,w], [L_v \psi_w]\bigr) \, ,
\end{equation}
the projection \( \pi \) yields a central extension
\begin{equation}\label{eq:extensionLA}
0 \rightarrow H^{k-1}(M,\R) \longrightarrow \hat\X_{\ex}(M,\omega) \stackrel{\pi}{\longrightarrow}
\X_{\ex}(M,\omega) \rightarrow 0\,,
\end{equation}
of Fr\'echet--Lie algebras.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof} (\cf~\cite[Thm.~13]{Ne05}, \cite[Rem.~1.11]{NV10})
To see that~\eqref{eq:bracketext} defines an element of
$\hat\X_{\ex}(M,\omega)$,
note that $L_{v}\omega = 0$ and that $i_w\omega$ is closed, so that
\[i_{[v,w]}\omega = L_{v}i_w \omega - i_w L_v \omega =
\dif (i_v i_w \omega) + i_v \dif (i_w\omega) = \dif (i_v i_w \omega)\,.\]
For the second equality in~\eqref{eq:bracketext}, note that
$L_{v}\psi_{w} = i_v i_w \omega +  \dif (i_v \psi_w)$.

By the de Rham isomorphism, a $(k-1)$-form $\gamma$ is exact if and only if
it integrates to zero on all closed cycles. It follows that $\Omega^{k-1}_{\ex}(M)$
is a closed subspace of the Fr\'echet space $\Omega^{k-1}(M)$, and so the quotient
$\overline{\Omega}{}^{k-1}(M)$ is a Fr\'echet space by~\cite[Thm.~1.41]{Rud91}.
Since $\hat\X_{\ex}(M,\omega)$ is the kernel of the continuous linear map
\[\X(M) \times \overline{\Omega}{}^{k-1}(M) \rightarrow \Omega^{k}(M), \quad (v,[\psi]) \mapsto i_{v}\omega - \dif \psi \,,\]
it is a closed subspace of a Fr\'echet space, hence it is Fr\'echet itself.
The continuity of the bracket and projection follows from the explicit description.

It remains to show that the bracket is a Lie bracket.
It is manifestly skew-symmetric. For the Jacobi identity,
it suffices to show that the form
\[ i_{u}i_{[v,w]}\omega + i_{v}i_{[w,u]}\omega + i_{w}i_{[u,v]}\omega \]
is exact.
This expression equals
\begin{gather*}
(i_v i_{[w,u]} - i_{w}i_{[v,u]} - i_{[v,w]}i_{u}) \, \omega
= (i_{v}L_{w} - i_{w}L_{v} - i_{[v,w]}) \, \dif \psi_{u} \\
=(L_{v}L_{w} - L_{w}L_{v} - L_{[v,w]}) \, \psi_{u} -
\dif (i_{v}L_{w} - i_{w}L_{v} - i_{[v,w]}) \, \psi_{u}\,,
\end{gather*}
where we used the formul\ae{} $i_{[X,Y]} = L_{X}i_{Y} - i_{Y}L_{X}$, $i_{X}\omega = \dif \psi_{X}$, and $L_{X}\omega = 0$
in the first equality, and $L_{X} \dif = \dif L_{X}$ and $i_{X} \dif = L_{X} - \dif i_{X}$ in the second.
Since $L_{[v,w]} = L_{v}L_{w}- L_{w}L_{v}$, we find
\[
i_{u}i_{[v,w]}\omega + i_{v}i_{[w,u]}\omega + i_{w}i_{[u,v]}\omega =
\dif (i_{w}L_{v} - i_{v}L_{w} + i_{[v,w]}) \, \psi_{u}\,,
\]
so that it defines the zero class in $\overline{\Omega}{}^{k-1}(M)$ as required.
\end{proof}

Every continuous linear functional $\lambda \in \hat\X_{\ex}(M,\omega)^*$
gives rise to a central
extension $ \X_{\ex}(M,\omega) \oplus_{\lambda} \R$, with Lie bracket
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:centralExtensionLambda}
[v\oplus x, w \oplus y] = [v,w] \oplus \lambda\bigl(([v,w], [i_v i_w \omega])\bigr)\,.
\end{equation}
The isomorphism class of the extension obtained in this way depends only on the restriction
of $\lambda$ to $H^{k-1}(M,\R)$, as
the homomorphism
$(\pi,\lambda) \colon \hat\X_{\ex}(M,\omega) \rightarrow \X_{\ex}(M,\omega) \oplus_{\lambda}\R$
drops to an isomorphism between
$\hat\X_{\ex}(M,\omega)/\ker(\lambda|_{H^{k-1}(M,\R)})$ and $\X_{\ex}(M,\omega) \oplus_{\lambda}\R$.
This gives rise to a map
\begin{equation}
 \Xi_{\omega} \colon H^{k-1}(M,\R)^* \rightarrow H^2(\X_{\ex}(M,\omega),\R).
\end{equation}
Summarizing, the restriction of $\lambda$ to $H^{k-1}(M,\R)$ determines the 1-dimensional central extension,
while $\lambda \in \hat\X_{\ex}(M,\omega)^*$ provides this extension with a splitting.

The central extension $\pi\colon \hat\X_{\ex}(M,\omega) \rightarrow \X_{\ex}(M,\omega)$
is in general not universal.
Its significance lies in the fact that it captures
the central extensions corresponding to the cocycles
\eqref{eq:LAcocexM} and \eqref{eq:LAcocexS} from
\cref{prop::centralExtensionOfDiffeoGroups}.
For the cocycle $\tau$ on $\X_{\ex}(M,\alpha)$,
note that  $\pi^*\tau = \difCE \sigma_{\beta}$,
where
$\difCE$ denotes the differential of the Chevalley-Eilenberg complex,
$\pi$ is the central extension $\pi\colon \hat\X_{\ex}(M,\alpha)
 \rightarrow \X_{\ex}(M,\alpha)$
of $\X_{\ex}(M,\alpha)$ by $H^{\ell-1}(M,\R)$, and
$\sigma_{\beta}$ is the 1-cochain on $\hat\X_{\ex}(M,\alpha)$ given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gramschaap}
\sigma_{\beta} \colon \hat\X_{\ex}(M,\alpha)
\rightarrow \R, \qquad \sigma_{\beta}\bigl((X,[\psi_{X}])\bigr) = \int_{S}(\Phi^*\psi_{X}) \wedge \beta \, .
\end{equation}
Similarly, the cocycle $\nu$ of~\eqref{eq:LAcocexS} trivializes when it is pulled back along
the extension $\pi\colon \hat\X_{\ex}(S,\beta) \rightarrow \X_{\ex}(S,\beta)$, as $\pi^*\nu = \difCE\bar{\sigma}_{\alpha}$
for the Lie algebra 1-cochain
\begin{equation}
\bar{\sigma}_{\alpha} \colon \hat\X_{\ex}(S,\beta)
 \rightarrow \R, \qquad \bar{\sigma}_{\alpha} \bigl((u,[\psi_{u}])\bigr) = \int_{S}(\Phi^*\alpha)\wedge \psi_{u}\,.
\end{equation}

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:twodiagrams}
The isomorphism class of the Lie algebra extension of
$\X_{\ex}(M,\alpha)$ corresponding to the 2-cocycle $\tau$
is determined by the restriction
of $\sigma_{\beta}$ to $H^{\ell-1}(M,\R) \subseteq \widehat{\X}_{\ex}(M,\alpha)$.
Similarly, the isomorphism class of the Lie algebra extension of $\X_{\ex}(S,\beta)$
corresponding to $\nu$ is determined by the restriction of
$\bar{\sigma}_{\alpha}$ to $H^{r -1}(S,\R)$.
In other words,
the following diagrams commute.
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix{
	\Omega_{\Z}^{r+1}(S)\ar[dr]_{\beta \mapsto \sigma_{\beta}}\ar[r]^{\beta \mapsto [\tau]\qquad}
	&H^2(\X_{\mathrm{ex}}(M,\alpha),\R)
	&H^2(\X_{\mathrm{ex}}(S,\beta),\R)&\Omega^{\ell + 1}_{\Z}(M)
	\ar[l]_{\qquad\alpha \mapsto [\nu]}\ar[dl]^{\alpha \mapsto \bar{\sigma}_{\alpha}}
	\\
	& H^{\ell-1}(M,\R)^* \ar[u]_{\Xi_{\alpha}}&H^{r-1}(S,\R)^* \ar[u]^{\Xi_{\beta}}
}
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}

In general, not every central extension of Lie algebras integrates
to a central extension of Lie groups, see e.g.\@\xspace~\cite{Ne02}.
Combining Proposition~\ref{prop:twodiagrams}
with
Theorem~\ref{prop::centralExtensionOfDiffeoGroups},
we identify a lattice of integrable classes.

\begin{theorem}[Compact version]\label{cor:rol}
Let $M$ be a compact orientable $n$-dimensional manifold, and let
$h \in \widehat{H}^{k}(M,\TT)$ be a differential character with curvature $\omega \in \Omega^{k+1}(M)_{\Z}$.
Let~$G$ be a Fr\'echet--Lie group, and let
$i \colon G \rightarrow \Diff(M,h)$ be a smooth
action on $M$ such that, for every $g\in G$, the diffeomorphism
 $i(g) \colon M \rightarrow M$ preserves $h$ and is homotopic to the identity.
Finally, let
\[H^{k-1}(M,\R) \rightarrow \widehat{\fg} \rightarrow \fg\]
be the pull-back of the central extension \eqref{eq:extensionLA}
along the Lie algebra homomorphism $i_{\fg} \colon \fg \rightarrow \X_{\ex}(M,\omega)$.
Then the image of the integral classes $H^{n-k+1}(M,\R)_{\Z} \subseteq H^{k-1}(M,\R)^*$
under the map
$i_{\fg}^*\,\circ\,\Xi_\om \colon H^{k-1}(M,\R)^* \rightarrow H^2(\fg,\R)$
consists
of classes in $H^2(\fg,\R)$ that are integrable to central Lie group extensions of $G$ by~$\T$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
For $[\beta] \in H^{n-k+1}(M,\R)_{\Z}$, choose a differential character
$g\in \widehat{H}^{n-k}(M,\TT)$
with $\curv(g) = \beta$.
By Theorem~\ref{prop::centralExtensionOfDiffeoGroups} with $M=S$, $\Phi = \mathrm{Id}$,
and $\alpha = \omega$,
we obtain a central Lie group extension
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:stensie}
\TT \rightarrow \widehat{G} \rightarrow G.
\end{equation}
(Indeed, the diffeomorphism $i(g)$ preserves $[\mathrm{Id}]\in \pi_0(C^{\infty}(M,M))$ if it is homotopic to the identity.)
The corresponding Lie algebra cocycle is the pull-back along
$i_{\fg} \colon \fg \rightarrow \X_{\ex}(M,\omega)$
of the 2-cocycle $\tau(X,Y) = \int_{M}(i_{Y}i_{X}\omega)\wedge\beta $
on $\X_{\ex}(M,\omega)$ (cf. equation~\eqref{eq:LAcocexM}).
By Proposition~\ref{prop:twodiagrams}, the isomorphism class of
the cocycle $\tau$ is determined by the restriction
of $\sigma_{\beta}$ to $H^{k-1}(M,\R) \subseteq \widehat{\X}_{\ex}(M,\omega)$.
This is the pairing with $[\beta] \in H^{n-k+1}(M,\R)_{\Z}$.
In terms of the commutative diagram
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix{
	0\ar[r]&H^{k-1}(M,\R)\ar@{=}[d]\ar[r]
	&\hat\X_{\ex}(M, \omega)\ar[r]^{\pi}
	&\X_{\ex}(M,\omega)\ar[r] & 0
	\\
	0\ar[r]& H^{k-1}(M,\R)\ar[r]
	&\hat{\fg} \ar[r]^{\pi_\fg}\ar[u]^{\hat{i}_{\fg}}
	&\fg \ar[r] \ar[u]^{i_{\fg}}
	& 0,
}
\end{equation*}
we have $\pi_{\fg}^*i_{\fg}^*\tau = \difCE(\widehat{i_{\fg}}^*\sigma_{\beta})$.
Since
$\widehat{i_{\fg}}$ is the identity on $H^{k-1}(M,\R)$,
the restriction of $\pi_{\fg}^*i_{\fg}^*\tau$ to
$H^{k-1}(M,\R)$ is the same as the restriction of $\sigma_{\beta}$,
namely the pairing with $[\beta]$.
\end{proof}

In order to extend Theorem~\ref{cor:rol} to
manifolds $M$ that are not necessarily compact or orientable, we use
`singular' functionals on $\widehat{\X}_{\ex}(M,\omega)$. Suppose
that $z \in H_{k-1}(M,\Z)$ can be represented as $z = \Phi_*[S]$, where
$[S]$ is the fundamental class of a closed, oriented manifold $S$
and $\Phi \colon S \rightarrow M$ is a smooth map.
Then, with $\beta = 1$, equation~\eqref{eq:gramschaap}
yields the linear functional $\sigma(X,\psi_{X}) = \int_{S}\Phi^*\psi_{X}$ on $\widehat{\X}_{\ex}(M,\omega)$,
whose restriction to $H^k(M,\R)$ is the pairing with $\Phi_*[S]$.
This yields a way of building group extensions for those classes in $H_{k-1}(M,\Z)$ that can be represented by a closed,
oriented, smooth manifold.

\begin{corollary}[Noncompact version]\label{cor:rol2}
Let $M$ be a manifold of dimension $n$,
and let
$h \in \smash{\widehat{H}^{k}}(M,\TT)$ be a differential character with curvature $\omega \in \Omega^{k+1}(M)_{\Z}$.
Assume that a class in $H_{k-1}(M,\Z)$ can be realized as the push-forward
$\Phi_{*}[S]$ of the fundamental class of a
closed, oriented $(k-1)$-manifold $S$ along a smooth map $\Phi \colon S \rightarrow M$.
Let~$G$ be a Fr\'echet--Lie group, and let
$i \colon G \rightarrow \Diff(M,h)$ be a smooth
action on $M$ such that, for all $g\in G$,
$i(g) \colon M \rightarrow M$ preserves $h$, and $i(g)^*\Phi$ is homotopic to $\Phi$.
Then the Lie algebra extension of \( \fg \) corresponding to the image of $\Phi_*[S]$ under the map
$i_{\fg}^*\,\circ\,\Xi _\om\colon H^{k-1}(M,\R)^* \rightarrow H^2(\fg,\R)$
is integrable to a central Lie group extension of $G$ by~$\T$.
\end{corollary}

In general, not every class $z \in H_{k-1}(M,\Z)$ can be represented as $z = \Phi_*[S]$.
By \cite[Thm.~9.1]{ConnerFloyd1964}, the classes with this property are \emph{Steenrod representable}; they constitute
the image of the bordism group under the natural homomorphism
$\Omega_{k-1}(M) \rightarrow H_{k-1}(M,\Z)$
that takes $[f\colon S \rightarrow M]$ to $f_*[S]$.
This image has been extensively investigated by Thom in \cite[especially \S 2.11]{Thom1954}.
If $H_{\bullet}(M,\Z)$ is finitely generated and has no odd torsion, then
\emph{every} class is Steenrod representable by \cite[Thm.~15.2]{ConnerFloyd1964}.
In this case Corollary~\ref{cor:rol2} is simply a generalization of Theorem~\ref{cor:rol}
to noncompact manifolds.
Without any assumptions on $H_{\bullet}(M,\Z)$, one can still show that every class
admits an odd multiple that is Steenrod representable \cite[Thm.~15.3]{ConnerFloyd1964}.
In particular, Corollary~\ref{cor:rol2} yields a lattice of full rank in $H^{k-1}(M,\R)^*$
that gives rise to integrable Lie algebra extensions, regardless whether $H_{\bullet}(M,\Z)$
has odd torsion or not.

If $M$ is compact and orientable, then the Lie algebra extensions of \cref{cor:rol2} are isomorphic to the ones in Theorem~\ref{cor:rol} by Poincar\'e duality, although the group extensions may well be different.

\subsection{The volume-preserving diffeomorphism group}
Let $\mu$ be an integral volume form on an $n$-dimensional compact manifold~$M$.
Then the extension~\eqref{eq:extensionLA}
is the \emph{Lichnerowicz extension} (\cite{Lichnerowicz},~\cite[Sec.~10]{Ro95})
\begin{equation}\label{LichExt}
H^{n-2}(M,\R) \rightarrow \overline{\Omega}{}^{n-2}(M) \rightarrow \X_{\ex}(M,\mu).
\end{equation}
By \cref{cor:rol},
the elements in the integral lattice $H_{n-2}(M,\Z) \subseteq H^{n-2}(M,\R)^*$
give rise to Lie group extensions of $\Diff_{\ex}(M,\mu)$.

In the remainder of this section, we illustrate how
different geometric realizations of these integral
elements of $H^{n-2}(M,\R)^*$ give rise to different representatives
of the same integrable classes in $H^2(\X_{\ex}(M,\mu),\R)$.

\subsubsection{Singular Lichnerowicz cocycles}

Let \( h \) be a differential character with curvature \(\mu \).
Choose a closed manifold \( S \) of dimension \(  n - 2 \),
and apply \cref{prop::centralExtensionOfDiffeoGroups}
with $\alpha = \mu \in \Omega^{n}(M)_{\Z}$ and
$\beta = k\in \Omega^0(S)_{\Z}$.
This
yields a smooth central extension
\begin{equation}
	\TT \to \widehat{\Diff}_{\ex}(M, \mu) \to \Diff_{\ex}(M,\mu)
\end{equation}
of the exact volume-preserving diffeomorphism group,
integrating the \emph{singular Lichnerowicz cocycle} on
 \( \X_{\ex}(M, \mu) \)
\begin{equation}
	\tau(X, Y) = k\int_{S} \Phi^*i_Y i_X \mu.
\end{equation}
These group extensions are closely related to
\emph{Ismagilov's central extensions}~\cite[Sec.~25.3]{Ismagilov}
of the Lie group $\Diff_{\ex}(M,\mu)$.

\subsubsection{Lichnerowicz cocycles}
As for the Hamiltonian actions in \S\ref{sec:intro}, we can change
the role of \( \alpha \) and \( \beta \) to obtain (possibly nonequivalent) group extensions corresponding
to cohomologous Lie algebra cocycles.
If $\omega$ is a closed, integral 2-form on $M$, then we can apply
\cref{prop::centralExtensionOfDiffeoGroups} to $S = M$,
with $\alpha = k \omega$, $\beta = \mu$, and
$\Phi \colon S \rightarrow M$ the identity map.
For every choice of differential characters $g$ and $h$
with $\curv(g) = \mu$ and $\curv(h) = k\omega$, we then obtain a central extension of $\Diff_{\ex}(M,\mu)$
that integrates the \emph{Lichnerowicz cocycle} on \( \X_{\ex}(M, \mu) \),
\begin{equation}
	\nu(X, Y) = k \int_M \omega (X, Y)\, \mu.
\end{equation}
If \( \Phi_*[S] \in H_{n-2}(M,\Z) \) is Poincar\'e dual to \( -[\omega] \in H^2(M,\R)_{\Z} \), then the singular Lichnerowicz cocycle \( \tau \) is cohomologous to \( \nu \)
\cite{Vizman,JV15}.

\subsubsection{Other representations}
Let \( N \) be an \( (n-1) \)-dimensional manifold.
Consider a differential character \( F \) of degree \( 0 \) on \( N \) with curvature \( 1 \)-form \( \rho \).
The character \( F \) can be viewed as a \( \T \)-valued function \( F \colon N \to \T \) on \( N \) and, from this viewpoint, \( \rho \) is then the logarithmic derivative \( \delta F \) of \( F \).
Let \( \Psi \colon N \to M \) be a smooth map.
By \cref{prop::centralExtensionOfDiffeoGroups} (with \( S = N \), \( \alpha = \mu \), \( \beta = \delta F \), and \( \Phi = \Psi \)), there exists a smooth central extension of \( \Diff_{\ex}(M,\mu, [\Psi]) \) that integrates the following Lie algebra cocycle on \( \X_{\ex}(M, \mu) \):
\begin{equation}
	\kappa(X, Y) = \int_N \Psi^* (i_Y i_X \mu) \wedge \delta F .
\end{equation}
If the functional on \( H^{n-2}(M, \R) \) given by
\begin{equation}
	\equivClass{\alpha} \mapsto \int_N \Psi^* \alpha \wedge \delta F
\end{equation}
coincides with the one given by \( \Phi_*[S] \in H_{n-2}(M,\Z) \) or by \( -[\omega] \in H^2(M,\R)_{\Z} \), then the cocycle \( \kappa \) is cohomologous to the Lichnerowicz cocycles \( \tau \) and \( \nu \), respectively.
In the context of hydrodynamics, the pair \( (N, \beta) \) corresponds to a codimension one singular membrane in the ideal fluid on \( M \).
We refer to~\cite{GayBalmazVizman2019} for further details.

\subsubsection{Outlook}
On the Lie algebra level, the central $\R$-extensions of $\X_{\ex}(M)$  constructed from
functionals $\lambda \in H^{n-2}(M,\R)^*$ all
descend from a \emph{single} central extension of $\X_{\ex}(M)$ by $H^{n-2}(M,\R)$,
namely the Lichnerowicz extension \eqref{LichExt}.
It is natural to ask whether, at the group level, the central $\T$-extensions constructed above
descend from a single central Lie group extension of $\Diff_{\ex}(M)$ by $H^{n-2}(M,\T)$.

If $M$ is a 3-dimensional compact, connected, orientable
manifold, we believe that this is indeed the case. To construct the required extension, let $h \in \widehat{H}^2(M,\T)$ be a differential character whose curvature is the volume form $\mu$.
Since $h$ is of degree $2$, the principal circle bundle $\cP \rightarrow C^{\infty}(S^1,M)$
can be viewed as the bundle obtained from transgression of the $U(1)$-bundle gerbe corresponding to $h$ (cf.~\cite{Brylinski2007}).
In fact, since the circle bundle $\cP \rightarrow C^{\infty}(S^1,M)$ is obtained by transgression of a bundle gerbe,
it is not only endowed with a connection, but also with a \emph{fusion structure}~\cite{Wa16}. It is therefore natural to consider
the group of automorphisms of $\cP \rightarrow C^{\infty}(S^1,M)$ that preserve both the connection and --
in an appropriate sense -- also the fusion structure. Since the group of \emph{vertical} automorphisms of
this type is isomorphic to $H^1(M,\T)$,
this is a natural candidate for a central Lie group extension. We are currently pursuing this line of reasoning in
joint work with Peter Kristel.


\section{Introduction}
Workplace injuries can affect workers' lives and can cause substantial economic burden to employees, employers, and more generally to society \cite{ILO,sarkaretal}. There are more than $374$ million work-related injuries reported every year, resulting in more than $2.3$ million deaths annually \cite{ILO}. The yearly cost to the global economy from work-related injuries alone is a staggering \$3 trillion, estimated by ILO.

Predicting injuries and providing actionable insights on factors associated with injuries are critical for improving workplace safety. Recent research has focused on this problem in sports \cite{naglah2018athlete, rossi2018effective}, construction \cite{tixier2016application, poh2018safety}, and various workplace settings \cite{sanchez2011prediction, rivas2011explaining, sarkaretal}. Despite introducing many interesting frameworks, these studies do not address some of the main challenges such as lack of labeled data and class imbalance issues. In addition, previous works do not investigate the causal relationships between different variables and injury incidents.

We propose a framework that employs ensemble-based resampling methods and a novel transfer learning approach to address class imbalance and data availability issues. We apply a method to predictive features of injuries to highlight their direct causal effect and we utilize a visualization technique that provides interpretability. We demonstrate the utility of our framework through experiments performed on real-world datasets. More specifically, we show that ensemble-based resampling and transfer learning techniques can increase the $\text{F}_{1}\text{-score}$ by 100\% and area under precision recall curve by 44\%, when compared to a model trained on a single organization dataset.

In the remainder of this paper, we first provide a brief overview of the problem and our machine learning framework in Section \ref{subsec:DataandProblemDescription}. We present the employed ensemble-based resampling techniques, our instance-based transfer learning method, and the approaches used to provide actionable insights in Sections \ref{subsec:ImbalancedData}, \ref{subsec:TransferLearning}, and \ref{subsec:ActionableInsights}, respectively. Section \ref{sec:Experiments} describes our results and Section \ref{sec:Conclusion} covers conclusions and future work.

\vspace{-.2cm}
\section{Injury Prediction as Supervised Learning}
\subsection{Data and Problem Description}
\label{subsec:DataandProblemDescription}
To conduct this study, we collected employees' safety-related information from different organizations during years 2016-2017. We treat the learning problem as a binary classification task. Using the data collected during 2016, the objective is to predict whether an employee was injured or not in 2017. The collected datasets differ in size and distribution, however, they are all highly imbalanced (1-7\% injury cases). In all datasets, the employee records are represented by 38 engineered features that capture two main groups of information: general employee information (\textit{e}.\textit{g}.  age), and event-based information. Event-based information are either associated with the employee (\textit{e}.\textit{g}.  number of absences) or with the employee's site (\textit{e}.\textit{g}.  the risk assessments scores).\footnote{The names of the organizations are masked due to confidentiality reasons.} In this work, we use XGBoost \cite{friedman2001greedy} as our base predictive model.

\subsection{Imbalanced Data}\label{subsec:ImbalancedData}
To address the problem of highly imbalanced data, several approaches are proposed in the literature. Among the most common ones are over-sampling and under-sampling methods \cite{chawla2003c4}, neighbor-based techniques \cite{Wilson:1972, Tomek:1976}, Synthetic Minority Over-sampling TEchnique (SMOTE) \cite{Chawla:2002}, adjusting class weights, boosting techniques, and anomaly detection methods. From these solutions, we are particularly interested in four methods that combine ensemble-based supervised learning algorithms with resampling methods (\textit{UnderBagging}, \textit{SMOTEBagging}, \textit{RUSBoost}, and \textit{SMOTEBoost}). We give a brief overview of these methods below.

UnderBagging and SMOTEBagging methods try to rebalance the class distribution in each bag of the bagging algorithms. UnderBagging uses random under-sampling while SMOTEBagging uses SMOTE or over-sampling to achieve this goal \cite{Galar:2012}. Alternatively, RUSBoost \cite{Seiffert:2010} and SMOTEBoost \cite{Chawla:2003} combine AdaBoost.M2 \cite{Freund:1997} boosting algorithms with resampling methods to address the class imbalance issues. Similar to UnderBagging and SMOTEBagging, in each iteration of training weak learners, these two algorithms respectively use random under-sampling (to reduce majority instances) and SMOTE (to increase minority instances). Moreover, these four approaches have the advantage of having very few number of hyper-parameters. We provide a comparison of these methods in Section \ref{subsec:ResImbalancedData}.

\subsection{Transfer Learning}
\label{subsec:TransferLearning}
To handle the data unavailability issues for a new organization (target domain), we leverage the knowledge learned from other organizations (source domain) by employing an instance-based transfer learning method. Given a set of target training samples \scalebox{0.9}{$\left\{(x_i,y_i)| i \in \left\{1,2, ...,N_T\right\}\right\}$} and a loss function \scalebox{0.9}{$\mathcal{L}(.)$} the goal of supervised learning is to find model \scalebox{0.9}{$\mathcal{A}^*$} that minimizes the expected error, \textit{i}.\textit{e}.,  \scalebox{0.9}{$\mathcal{A}^* = \underset{\mathcal{A}\in\mathbb{A}}\argmin \mathbb{ E}_{x\sim P_T}\big[\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{A}(x), y)\big]$.} Here $x$ is an arbitrary sample and \scalebox{0.9}{$P_T$} is the probability distribution of target samples. Following the idea of importance sampling \cite{liu2008monte, asgarian2018hybrid} for transferring the knowledge from source domain (\scalebox{0.9}{$S$}) to target domain (\scalebox{0.9}{$T$}), we can express the expected error as \scalebox{0.9}{$\alpha\mathbb{E}_{x\sim P_T}\Big[\epsilon(x)\Big] + (1-\alpha)\mathbb{E}_{x\sim P_S}[\epsilon(x)\tfrac{P_T(x)}{P_S(x)}]$}. Here \scalebox{0.9}{$\epsilon(x)$} shows the error for each sample and $\alpha$ is a hyper-parameter that controls the overall relative importance between source and target samples.
Source sample weights \scalebox{0.9}{$\{w_{x_j}=\frac{P_T(x_j)}{P_S(x_j)}\mid j\in\{1, ...,N_S\}\}$} play a major role in instance-based transfer learning methods, as they control the individual effect of source samples~\cite{asgarian2017subspace}. We describe different weighting approaches including our five baselines models and our proposed weighting strategy in the following.

\textbf{Baselines:} Models \scalebox{0.9}{$\mathcal{A}_S$}, \scalebox{0.9}{$\mathcal{A}_T$}, and \scalebox{0.9}{$\mathcal{A}_{S\cup T}$} trained respectively on source, target and the union of source and target, serve as minimum baselines that a transfer learning method must outperform. Our fourth baseline model is an instance-weighted model (\scalebox{0.9}{$\mathcal{A}_\mathbf{1}$}) with all the weights set to $\mathbf{1}$ (\textit{i}.\textit{e}.,  \scalebox{0.9}{$\mathbf{W}_S = \mathds{1}$}). This is similar to \scalebox{0.9}{$\mathcal{A}_{S\cup T}$}, except in this model we use $\alpha$ to determine the relative overall importance between source and target samples. Our last baseline model \scalebox{0.9}{($\mathcal{A}_G$)}, assumes Gaussian distributions for target and source samples to evaluate the source sample weights $w_{x_j}$.

\textbf{Hybrid Weights:} Previous methods evaluate the source sample weights solely based on their similarity to the target domain. We argue that it is also important to measure the relevance of source samples to the target task. Hence, we define weights $w_{x}=w_{domain_x} + w_{task_x}$, where $w_{domain_x}$ measures the similarity of an arbitrary source sample $x$ to the target domain, while $w_{task_x}$ measures the importance of sample $x$ in the target task.

For evaluating $w_{domain_x}$, unlike the previous methods that employ generative approaches to estimate \scalebox{0.9}{$P_T$} and \scalebox{0.9}{$P_S$}, we directly approximate weights \scalebox{0.9}{$w_{domain_x} = \frac{P_T(x)}{P_S(x)}$} with a discriminative classifier. More specifically, using \scalebox{0.9}{$\{(x, l_x)\ | x \in S\cup T \text{, and $l_x=1$ if $x \in S$, $l_x=0$ otherwise}\}$}, we train a binary classifier (e.g., logistic regression (LR)) to differentiate source and target samples. Next, we use the learned weights of this classifier \scalebox{0.9}{($w_{lr}$ and $c_{lr}$)} to estimate source sample weights \scalebox{0.9}{$w_{domain_x}=\frac{P_T(x)}{P_S(x)} \approx \frac{1}{\exp(x^T w_{lr} + c_{lr})}$}.

To compute $w_{task_x}$, we train an instance of our predictive model \scalebox{0.9}{(XGBoost)} using all samples from source and target with their corresponding injury labels. We then define $w_{task_x}$ to be the uncertainty of this model about sample $x$. We define the uncertainty of a model about sample $x$ to be the distance of $x$ to the decision boundary. Note that this value could be negative (thus subtracting from $w_{x}$) when the decision is incorrect, or positive (thus adding to $w_{x}$) when the decision is correct. We denote this model as \scalebox{0.9}{$\mathcal{A}_{HW}$}.

\subsection{Actionable Insights}
\label{subsec:ActionableInsights}

To visualize the relationship between injuries and its predictors, we explore one method to show the straightforward association, and one to find causal relationship.\footnote{Please note that in order to infer meaningful and accurate causal relationships using this approach, we need adequately accurate models. The ensemble-based resampling methods and transfer learning are an attempt in this direction.}

To measure the association between features and the target variable, we average the contribution of each feature's possible values to the log-odds ratio of all samples which match that value. We bin every continuous variable, treating them as categorical, so that such matching is possible for all variables. We use the \textit{xgboost\_explainer} package in Python, which is inspired by \cite{xgbExplainer}, to find the average log-odds contribution of each feature to each sample. Next, for each discrete value of each feature, we average the sample-based contribution over all samples with matching values. This gives us a visualization of both the average impact and direction of each variable as seen in Figure \ref{fig:impact}. This is a unique approach for visualizing the association between safety-related variables and injuries and it also gives an interpretation of the model. However, it must be noted that each effect size measured here is an average over the population, not a deterministic effect.

\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figures/predictivefactors.png}
    \caption{\small Log-odds contribution of binned continuous variables for a hypothetical example company.}
    \label{fig:impact}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{-.2cm}
\end{figure}

Partial dependence plots (PDPs) \cite{Friedman:2001} are an especially interesting and fairly natural way of adding interpretability to more complex models. PDPs show the average relationship between two variables over a population by marginalizing over the distribution of all other variables. For a trained model, this is approximated by summing over the training data, where, unlike the marginalized variables, the variables to be plotted are held constant \cite{Friedman:2001}. PDPs may also yield a causal interpretation of the effect of a variable on injuries \cite{Zhao:2017}. \citeauthor{Zhao:2017} showed that a partial dependence calculation that averages over a set of variables is equivalent to controlling for those variables using Pearl's back-door adjustment formula \cite{pearl1993}. For example, there are instances where the relationship between an input variable and injuries is reversed when doing a partial dependence calculation over another variable. In \cite{pearl2014}, Pearl shows that instances of the Simpson's paradox can be properly explained when using the back-door criterion to adjust for a variable.

In our example, we observe the effect of age on probability of injuries after adjusting for tenure. In our causal hypothesis, both age and tenure have a causal impact on injuries. However, neither are considered to directly cause each other. Nevertheless, they are strongly correlated, so we connect each of their exogenous variables in a causal graph. Intuitively, this can be described as both age and tenure being caused by the ``passage of time". In our causal path from age to injury there is one back-door path, which is blocked by tenure. Therefore, tenure satisfies the back-door criterion from age to injury. In Figure \ref{fig:visual}, we plot probability of injury versus age generated in three different ways. The direct prediction and loess (locally estimated scatterplot smoothing) plot both estimate the direct association between age and probability of injury. The partial dependence plot shows the same association, after adjusting for tenure.

\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.43\textwidth}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figures/AgeVsInjury.png}
    \caption{\small  The loss curve and model prediction show the direct association between age and injury. The PDP curve shows the same relationship when controlling for tenure.}
    \label{fig:visual}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{-.2cm}
\end{figure}

\vspace{-.2cm}
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:Experiments}
\subsection{Imbalanced Data}
\label{subsec:ResImbalancedData}
For comparing the ensemble-based resampling methods to our benchmark XGBoost model, we adopted an effective visualization technique called cost-curves \cite{Drummond:2006}. These curves allow us to evaluate a classifier in deployment conditions of two important factors--\textit{class distributions} and \textit{misclassification costs}--which are usually unknown or varying with time. Using cost-curves, we can visualize a classifier's performance for the whole range of these unknown factors. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) Curves are point/line dual with cost-curves and they convey the same information implicitly, but they are not visually as informative. Hence, we used cost-curves in addition to our other evaluation metrics. These curves also helps to find the conditions for which a classifier shows better performance compared to other classifiers and particularly to trivial classifiers \cite{Drummond:2006}.

In all datasets, RUSBoost and UnderBagging showed a better performance than the XGBoost model in handling class imbalance (Figure \ref{fig:Cost-Curves}). SMOTEBagging and SMOTEBoost, however, showed a lower performance compared to the XGBoost. To avoid a cluttered plot, they are not shown in Figure \ref{fig:Cost-Curves}. That being said, this is a data-dependent behavior and one should test each of these algorithms to see which one best matches the data.

\begin{figure}[ht!]
\vspace{-.1cm}
\centering
    \includegraphics[height=3.8cm, width=6.7cm]{figures/CostCurves.png}
\caption{\small Cost-curves of RUSBoost and UnderBagging versus XGBoost.}
\vspace{-.2cm}
\label{fig:Cost-Curves}
\end{figure}

The cost-curve performance comparison and model selection is only needed if misclassification costs are unknown in advance or deployment class distribution is different from the test data class distribution. If this is not the case, we can find the optimum threshold that maximizes a profit function defined by a profit matrix. This threshold will be another hyper-parameter that should be optimized inside a cross-validation pipeline. In our XGBoost model, we used the profit function as the evaluation metric for \textit{early stopping} for $100$ different thresholds. For simplicity, here we kept all other XGBoost parameters fixed and optimized only for threshold. Figure \ref{fig:Cost-Sensitive} shows the ratio of model profit to a benchmark profit as a function of threshold values. The profit matrix and the optimum threshold value $0.1$ are shown in this figure.

\begin{figure}[ht!]
\vspace{-.2cm}
\centering
    \includegraphics[height=3.3cm, width=6.2cm]{figures/ProfitRatioForThreshold.png}
\caption{\small Optimum threshold for a given profit matrix.}
\vspace{-.5cm}
\label{fig:Cost-Sensitive}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Transfer Learning}
In our transfer learning framework, we considered Organization-1's dataset as the target domain and Organization-2's dataset as the source domain. For training, we used 58,271 samples from target (12,225) and source (46,046) training sets, and evaluated the models on 3,057 samples from target test set. Since the datasets were highly imbalanced (1-7$\%$ injury cases), we used precision, recall, $\text{F}_{1}\text{-score }$ (macro), and area under the precision-recall curve (AUCPR) as our four evaluation metrics. Results of our quantitative evaluation is shown in Table \ref{table:TL}.

In Table \ref{table:TL}, we see that model $\mathcal{A}_T$ has a poor performance with $\text{F}_{1}\text{-score }$  equal to 0.06 and AUCPR of 0.0375. This is possibly due to data sparsity issue and lack of expressiveness of the model. On the other hand, $\mathcal{A}_S$ has a higher $\text{F}_{1}\text{-score }$ and AUCPR, but the precision is diminished. Also model $\mathcal{A}_{S\cup T}$ performs better in terms of $\text{F}_{1}\text{-score }$ and AUCPR compared to both models $\mathcal{A}_T$ and $\mathcal{A}_S$. The best result is obtained with our model $\mathcal{A}_{HW}$, which increases the $\text{F}_{1}\text{-score }$ and AUCPR considerably.

\begin{table}[ht!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
Method & Precision & Recall & $\text{F}_{1}\text{-score}$ & AUCPR\\
\midrule
$\mathcal{A}_{T}$              & 0.07 & 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.0375\\
$\mathcal{A}_{S}$              & 0.04 & 0.18 & 0.07 & 0.0405\\
$\mathcal{A}_{S\cup T}$            & 0.13 & 0.06 & 0.08 & 0.0478\\
$\mathcal{A}_\mathbf{1}$       & 0.06 & 0.12 & 0.08 & 0.0456\\
$\mathcal{A}_{G}$              & 0.07 & 0.16 & 0.10 & 0.0532\\
$\mathcal{A}_{HW}$            & 0.11 & 0.12 & \textbf{0.12} & \textbf{0.0542}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{\small Performance of different methods on Company-1's data.}
\vspace{-.1cm}
\label{table:TL}
\end{table}

Figure \ref{fig:TLalpha} shows the AUCPR obtained with model $\mathcal{A}_{HW}$ as a function of hyper-parameter $\alpha$. We see that the best performance is achieved with $\alpha$ equal to 0.7. However, increasing or decreasing $\alpha$ results in lower AUCPR, as it enhances the influence of target or source samples respectively.

\begin{figure}[ht!]
\vspace{-.3cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.35\textwidth]{figures/LR_AUCPRvsalpha.pdf}
\caption{\small Effect of $\alpha$ on performance.}
\label{fig:TLalpha}
\vspace{-.5cm}
\end{figure}

\section{Conclusions And Future Work}
\label{sec:Conclusion}
In this paper, we investigate the problem of injury risk prediction in a supervised learning framework. To improve the performance in presence of highly imbalanced data, we employ ensemble-based resampling techniques. To address the lack of labeled data, we propose an instance-based transfer learning method. Additionally, we provide actionable insights to prevent injuries and show the effectiveness of our framework experimentally. In our future work, we focus further on discovering the causal relationships from observational data as it is a key element in injury prevention.

\section*{Acknowledgment}
\label{sec:Acknowledgment}
We would like to acknowledge Parinaz Sobhani, Madalin Mihailescu, Chang Liu, and Diego Huang for their invaluable assistance and insightful comments on the initial draft of this work. We are specially grateful to our management team at Georgian Partners and Cority including Madalin Mihailescu, Ji Chao Zhang, Stan Marsden, and David Vuong for encouraging and supporting our research activities, without which we were unable to complete this work. Finally, we would like to thank Babak Taati for his direction and guidance on this study.