format: text

text:
# On (𝑏,𝑐)-system at finite temperature in thermo field approach

## Abstract

We construct the finite temperature field theory of the two-dimensional ghost-antighost system within the framework of thermo field theory.

Over the years, thermo field theory has provided to be an useful tool for investigating quantum systems at finite temperature . Beside its various applications to quantum field theory , the thermal field approach was used in solving the master equation in quantum optics , studying the quantum stochastic differential equation , quantum transport theory  and formulating the non-equilibrium density matrix as well as the entropy operator in the operatorial approach . More recently, it has been shown that quantum deformations of the envelopping algebras are related to coherent state counterpart in thermo field theory  and that the thermo field algebra is incorporated in the $`q`$-deformation of Weyl-Heisenberg algebra $`h_q\left(1\right)`$ in the bosonic case . In this note we apply the thermo field construction to a two-dimensional field theory composed by a ghost and an anti-ghost, also know as a $`(b,c)`$-system. The main motivation for studying the $`(b,c)`$-system at finite temperature is that in conformal two-dimensional quantum field theories the use of the ghost and the anti-ghost fields is necessary in order to fix the conformal invariance. At finite temperature, the conformal symmetry might still survive, at least at low temperatures. Thus, in order to correctly compute the physical states at non-zero temperature, one has to introduce the $`(b,c)`$-fields. This may be the case of critical field theories  or string theories which have already been studied at finite temperature but within the path integral formalism (for review see, for example, ). An vertex algebra point of view on the $`(b,c)`$-system was recently presented in .

Let us consider the ghost field $`c(z)`$ and the anti-ghost field $`b\left(z\right)`$ associated to a two-dimensional conformal symmetry in two-dimensions. The action of this system is given by the following relation

$$Sd^2z\left[b\overline{}c+\overline{b}\overline{c}\right].$$
(1)
In what follows we consider only the fields with odd Grasmann parity, but the results can be straightforwardly applied to even parity fields. Since $`b\left(z\right)`$ and $`c\left(z\right)`$ are holomorphic, the following expansions hold

$$b\left(z\right)=\underset{n}{}b_nz^{n2},c\left(z\right)=\underset{n}{}c_nz^{n+1},$$
(2)
and the coefficients $`b_n`$ and $`c_n`$ satisfy the following algebra

$$\{c_n,b_m\}=\delta _{n+m,0},\{c_n,c_m\}=\{b_n,b_m\}=0.$$
(3)
The energy-momentum tensor $`T\left(z\right)`$ and the ghost curren number $`j\left(z\right)`$ can be expanded in powers of $`z`$ with the coefficients $`L_n`$ and $`j_n`$, respectively. In quantum theory the operators $`L_n`$ satisfy a central extension of the Virasoro algebra with the central charge $`c_g=26`$. In the bosonic string theory $`c_g`$ compensates for the central charge of the bosonic degrees of freedom . The vacuum of the theory is degenerate with respect to the eigenvalues of the operator $`j_0`$. The $`|q`$-vacuum is defined by the following relations

$`b_n|q`$ $`=`$ $`0,n>q2,`$ (4)
$`c_n|q`$ $`=`$ $`0,nq+2,`$ (5)
and it is an eigenvector of both $`j_0`$ and $`L_0`$ .

In order to construct the finite temperature counterpart of the $`(b,c)`$-system following the thermo field prescription , one has to double the system. The identical copy of it will be denoted in what follows by a tilde. The operators $`\stackrel{~}{b}_n`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c}_n`$ are taken to satisfy (3). Moreover, the two copies are considered to be completely independent. The Hilbert space of the extended system is a direct product of the two Hilbert spaces $`\stackrel{~}{}`$. The next step is to construct a Bogoliubov operator $`G_n\left(T\right)`$ for each oscillation mode that acts on the total Hilbert space and maps each oscillator into its image at temperature $`T`$.

The main difficulty in implementing this program is two-fold: on one hand, due to the definition (4) of the vacuum, the same operator can be either a creation or an annihilation operator for different $`q`$’s. On the other hand, from the algebra (3) results that for each $`q`$ there are two types of oscillators: the first one has $`c_n`$ as creation operator an $`b_n`$ as annihilation operator for $`nq1`$. The second one has $`b_n`$ as creation operator and $`c_n`$ as annihilation operator for $`nq+2`$. The two operators differ, in principle, from each other because the fields $`b`$ and $`c`$ have opposite ghost numbers. The Bogoliubov operators for the two types of oscillators are given by

$`G_n^1`$ $`=`$ $`i\theta _n\left(T\right)\left(\stackrel{~}{b}_nb_nc_n\stackrel{~}{c}_n\right),`$ (6)
$`G_n^2`$ $`=`$ $`i\theta _n\left(T\right)\left(\stackrel{~}{c}_nc_nb_n\stackrel{~}{b}_n\right),`$ (7)
where the superscripts 1 and 2 denote the type of oscillator and $`\theta _n\left(T\right)`$ is a real function of $`T`$. This function also depends on the statistics of the oscillator. In the present case, the two types of oscillators have the same statistics. Using the algebra (3), it is easy to see that $`G_n^1`$ and $`G_n^2`$ commute for all the values of $`n`$ for the same type of oscillators and, also, commute with each other. Moreover, for each $`n`$ they obey the following $`_2`$ symmetry $`G_n^1=G_n^2`$ if $`\theta _n\left(T\right)`$ remains unchanged. This is true if the frequencies of $`n`$ and $`n`$ oscillators satisfy $`\omega _n=\omega _n`$, what we always assume. Due to this particular structure of the $`(b,c)`$-system, there are two possibilities to map each oscillator into its counterpart at finite temperature. Both of these mappings are allowed by the thermo field construction. Nevertheless, just one of them is fully compatible with the structure of the $`(b,c)`$-system. We shall analyze both cases in what follows.

Let us denote by $`|q`$ the $`q`$-vacuum of the extended system at zero temperature and by $`A_n`$ any of the operators $`b_n`$, $`c_n`$, $`b_n`$ and $`c_n`$. The first case to be discussed is when the $`q`$-vacuum transforms under the action of all $`G`$

$$|q\left(T\right)=\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{iG_k^1\left(T\right)}\underset{s=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{iG_s^2\left(T\right)}|q,$$
(8)
where $`|q\left(T\right)`$ denotes the $`q`$-vacuum at the temperature $`T`$. The operator $`A_n\left(T\right)`$ is given by

$$A_n\left(T\right)=e^{iG_n^2\left(T\right)}e^{iG_n^1\left(T\right)}A_ne^{iG_n^1\left(T\right)}e^{iG_n^2\left(T\right)}.$$
(9)
Using the commutation properties of $`G_n^1\left(T\right)`$ and $`G_n^2\left(T\right)`$, it is easy to show that $`|q\left(T\right)`$ satisfy the following relations

$`b_n|q\left(T\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,nq1,`$ (10)
$`c_n|q\left(T\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,nq+2,`$ (11)
and similar ones for tilde operators which transform as in (9). The above relations show that $`|q\left(T\right)`$ is a $`q`$-vacuum of the system at finite temperature. Indeed, one can show that

$`\{c_n\left(T\right),b_m\left(T\right)\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{c_n,b_m\}=\delta _{n+m,0},`$ (12)
$`\{c_n\left(T\right),c_m\left(T\right)\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{b_n\left(T\right),b_m\left(T\right)\}=0.`$ (13)
Therefore, the oscillator structure is maintained at finite temperature. Since the fields $`b`$ and $`c`$ are scalar fields, for $`T0`$ we have the following relations defining $`b\left(T\right)`$ and $`c\left(T\right)`$

$$b\left(T\right)=\underset{n}{}b_n\left(T\right)z^{n2},c\left(T\right)=\underset{n}{}c_n\left(T\right)z^{n+1},$$
(14)
from which we conclude that the action has the same form as (1) with the appropriate fields inside. Consequently, the energy-momentum tensor and the ghost number current have formally the same expressions. From these considerations we deduce that the conformal symmetry is not broken by transformations (8) and (9). We can explicitly check this conclusion by expanding the energy-momentum tensor and the ghost number current in powers of $`z`$ and then expressing $`L_n\left(T\right)`$ and $`j_n\left(T\right)`$ in terms of $`b\left(T\right)`$ and $`c\left(T\right)`$. Then, since the latter set of operators satisfies the algebra (13), the algebra of $`L_n\left(T\right)`$ and $`j_n\left(T\right)`$ is identical to that of $`L_n`$ and $`j_n`$.

Let consider now the second possibility. In this case, we focus our attention on a specific $`q`$-vacuum $`|q`$. By acting with $`G`$-operator of either type one or type two, we can transform $`|q`$ into the following vectors at finite temperature***In expressions (16) we intoduce the modulus operation to avoid ambiguities. Note that in the first case studied these ambiguities do not take place for the reason that we have a combination of $`G`$-operators beside to the fact that the $`_2`$ symmetry is present. All of these operators commute among themselves.

$`|q\left(T\right)_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=q1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{iG_{\left|k\right|}^1\left(T\right)}|q,`$ (15)
$`|q\left(T\right)_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s=q+2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{iG_{\left|s\right|}^2\left(T\right)}|q.`$ (16)
If we denote by $`A_n`$ the operators $`c_n`$ and $`b_n`$ for $`nq1`$ and by $`B_n`$ the set $`b_n`$ and $`c_n`$ for $`nq+2`$ we have the following transformations for the two types of oscillators

$`A_n\left(T\right)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{iG_{\left|n\right|}^1\left(T\right)}A_ne^{iG_{\left|n\right|}^1\left(T\right)},`$ (17)
$`B_n\left(T\right)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{iG_{\left|n\right|}^2\left(T\right)}B_ne^{iG_{\left|n\right|}^2\left(T\right)},`$ (18)
and similar relations for tilde operators. It is easy to verify that $`|q\left(T\right)_1`$ and $`|q\left(T\right)_2`$ are $`q`$-vacua for type one and type two oscillators respectively. However, once that various $`q`$’s are considered, the same operator should transform under $`G^1`$ and $`G^2`$ simultaneously. That spoils the construction. Therefore, (16) and (18) are not compatible with the multiple-vacuum structure of $`(b,c)`$-theory. Nevertheless, it might be worthwhile to consider transformations of the type (16) and (18) under which a $`q`$-vacuum degenerates. This might be useful in study of theories that emphasize a certain vacuum, as could be the case of string theory in which the states are constructed from the $`SL(2,)`$-invariant vacuum.

The drawback of the transformations (16) and (18) is due to the presence of two types of oscillators and, apparently, it is removable if one combines the two oscillators into a single one. That this is not the case we shall prove by a counter example. Let us consider the $`0`$-vacuum $`|q=0`$ and let us denote by $`(C_n^{},C_n)`$ and $`(D_n^{},D_n)`$ the first and second types of oscillators, respectively. It is possible to combine $`C`$-operators and $`D`$-operators by defining linear combinations

$`E_n`$ $`=`$ $`c(n,0)C_n+d(n,0)D_n,`$ (19)
$`E_n^{}`$ $`=`$ $`c^{}(n,0)C_n^{}+d^{}(n,0)D_n^{},`$ (20)
for $`n2`$, where $`c(n,0)`$ and $`d(n,0)`$ are complex numbers depending on $`n`$ and $`q=0`$ and $``$ denotes the complex conjugation. For $`n=0,1`$ the above combination should reduces to $`C_n`$ and $`C_n^{}`$ since $`D_n`$ and $`D_n^{}`$ are not defined for these values of $`n`$. Thus, for $`n=1`$ the coefficients in (20) should satisfy

$$c^{}(1,0)=d(1,0)=0,d^{}(1,0)=c(1,0)=1,$$
(21)
which represents a contradiction. For $`q2`$ or $`q2`$, the “gap” in which a combination of type (20) reduces to one operator only increases and also does the number of coefficients that should satisfy relations like (21). Other linear combinations of $`C_n`$ and $`D_n`$ operators are possible, but all of them lead to contradictions like the above ones.

To conclude, we have constructed in this note the finite temperature counterpart of the $`(b,c)`$-system using the thermo field approach. We have shown that there are two possibilities to obtain the finite temperature vacuum and creation and annihilation operators. In the first case, all $`q`$-vacua have a $`T0`$ correspondent. The transition does not break the conformal invariance of the ghost-antighost system. In this case, the $`(b,c)`$-system can be used to fix the gauge of a conformal invariant field theory at finite temperature. The thermodynamics should be constructed from the physical space of the matter and ghost fields. In the second case, the transformation of $`q`$-vacua at $`T=0`$ can be defined only for one vacuum at a time. Thus, the Bogoliubov operators act as transformation on isolate vacuum and map each vacuum into two states at $`T0`$. Each of these states represent a $`q`$-vacuum for the corresponding type of oscillator. The present analysis might, hopefully, be useful in studying the conformal invariant field theories at finite temperature in the framework of thermo field theory. For example, it would be interesting to compare the results obtained through this method with the ones given by the path integral approach in the case of string theories.

We want to thank Hebe Queiroz Plácido for useful discussions. A.L.G. acknowledgs CAPES for his fellowship. The work of I.V.V. was supported by a FAPESP postdoc fellowship.


text:
# Spatial distribution of persistent sites

## I Introduction

The persistence of fluctuations in stochastic processes has been an important topic of study in recent times . Of primary interest in this context is the persistence probability $`P(t)`$, which is the probability that a given stochastic variable $`\varphi (t)`$ with zero mean retains its sign during the time interval $`[0,t]`$. A power-law decay $`P(t)t^\theta `$ is found in many systems of physical interest. Consequently, much effort has gone into the calculation of the new exponent $`\theta `$ and studying its properties. There have also been several experimental studies of the persistence exponent $`\theta `$ in real life systems.

A particulary important class of systems whose persistence behaviour has been investigated are spatially extended systems with a stochastic field $`\varphi (𝐱,t)`$ at each lattice site $`𝐱`$. The time evolution of $`\varphi (𝐱,t)`$ is coupled to that of its neighbouring sites. $`\varphi (𝐱,t)`$ could be, for instance, an Ising spin, a phase ordering field, a diffusing field or the height of a fluctuating interface. The persistence probability $`P(t)`$ is then the fraction of sites $`𝐱`$ where $`\varphi (𝐱,t)`$ has not flipped sign till time $`t`$. Recently it was observed that the set of persistent sites form a fractal and the time evolution of their spatial correlations obey dynamic scaling . The purpose of this paper is the investigation of these spatial correlations.

For concreteness, we study the one-dimensional $`A+A\mathrm{}`$ model. Our primary motivation for this choice is the simplicity of the dynamics of the model which makes an analytic approach possible. In addition, this model is closely related to the $`d=1`$ Glauber-Ising model, which is perhaps the only non-trivial model where $`\theta `$ is known exactly. We study the distribution of the separations between nearest neigbour pairs of persistent sites. We call this the Empty Interval Distribution $`n(k,t)`$, defined as the number of occurences where consecutive persistent sites are separated by distance $`k`$ at time $`t`$. This quantity is a direct probe of spatial correlations in the distribution of particles. If the particles are distributed at random with some average density $`p`$, then $`n(k)=p^2(1p)^ke^{\lambda k}`$ at all $`k`$. Any slower mode of decay is indicative of spatial correlations.

In this paper, we study the time evolution of the size distribution $`n(k,t)`$ of these Empty Intervals. Persistence decay is identified with the irreversible coalescence of these intervals. The paper is organised as follows. In the next section we write a rate equation for the coalesence of these intervals under the approximation that the lengths of adjacent intervals are uncorrelated (IIA). We give phenomenological arguments about the asymptotically relevant dynamical length scale as well as the coalescence probability. These arguments, combined with the rate equation gives the dynamic scaling behaviour of $`n(k,t)`$ at late times $`t`$. We compare our predictions with numerical results. In section III, we use the IIA to predict the two-point correlations in the distribution of persistent sites. The predictions are found to be in agreement with recent numerical results, showing that IIA is valid.

## II The Empty Interval Distribution

In the $`A+A\mathrm{}`$ model, a set of particles are distributed at random on the lattice with average density $`n_0`$. Over one time step, all the particles make an attempted jump to either of the neighbouring sites with some probability $`D`$. If two particles meet each other, both disappear from the lattice. In one dimension, the density of particles decay with time as $`n(t)(8\pi Dt)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$. Persistent sites in $`A+A\mathrm{}`$ model at any time $`t`$ are defined as the sites which remained unvisited by any diffusing particle throughout the time interval $`[0:t]`$. Empty Intervals (which we will call ‘Interval’ for simplicity henceforth) are defined as the separations between two consecutive persistent sites. By definition, an Interval cannot contain a persistent site, although it may contain one or more diffusing particles $`A`$. The total number (per site) of Intervals of length $`k`$ at time $`t`$ is denoted by $`n(k,t)`$ and is called the Empty Interval Distribution.

To start with, the the particles are put randomly on the lattice so that $`n(k,t=0)=n_0^2(1n_0)^ke^{\lambda k}`$ where $`\lambda =`$log$`(1n_0)`$. With time, the particles diffuse on the lattice, making the sites non-persistent. $`n(k,t)`$ evolves satisfying the following normalisation conditions. If $`I_m(t)=_kk^mn(k,t)_1^{\mathrm{}}n(s,t)s^m𝑑s`$ is the $`m`$-th moment of the distribution, then

$$I_0(t)=P(t)t^\theta ;I_1(t)=1I_2(t)s(t)$$
(1)
The first condition follows from the definition of $`n(k,t)`$, the second one implies length conservation and the third condition gives the mean interval size $`s(t)`$. The probability distribution of interval lengths is $`p(k,t)=\frac{n(k,t)}{_kn(k,t)}=P(t)^1n(k,t)`$ so that $`_kp(k,t)=1`$.

Two neighbouring Intervals can coalesce when the persistent site between them is destroyed by a diffusing particle at the boundary of either of the Intervals. Note that this coalescence process is irreversible. For simplicity, we consider only binary coalescence in a single time step where two adjacent Intervals of lengths $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$, separated by a persistent site, coalesce and form a new Interval of length $`k_1+k_2`$ when the persistent site is ‘killed’ by a particle (Fig. I). To study this process analytically, we invoke a mean-field approximation – the lengths of adjacent Intervals are treated as uncorrelated random variables with probability distribution $`p(k,t)`$. This is the Independent Interval Approximation (IIA), which has been used to study a variety of problems in one dimension.

### A Rate Equation for Interval coalescence

Assuming that IIA is valid, the time evolution of $`n(k,t)`$ is given by the rate equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n(k,t)}{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{k1}{}}}n(m,t)p(km,t)K(m,km,t)`$ (2)
$`n(k,t){\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}p(m,t)K(m,k,t)`$ (3)
where $`K(m_1,m_2,t)`$ is the probability that two adjacent Intervals of lengths $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ coalesce at time $`t`$. The first term in Eq.3 represents the increase in number of Intervals of size $`k`$ through coalescence of smaller intervals, while the second term is the loss term representing the decrease in number when Intervals of size $`k`$ merge with other Intervals.

To solve the above equation for $`n(k,t)`$, one need to know the form of the reaction kernel $`K(m_1,m_2,t)`$. The process of coalescence of Intervals involves the destruction of the persistent site in between them by a particle, which can come from either of the Intervals. So, quite generally,

$$K(m_1,m_2,t)=Q(m_1,t)+Q(m_2,t)$$
(4)
where $`Q(m,t)`$ is the fraction of intervals of size $`m`$ which is destroyed at time $`t`$. $`Q(m,t)`$ satisfies the following condition by definition.

$$\underset{m}{}n(m,t)Q(m,t)=\frac{P(t)}{t}=\frac{\theta }{t}P(t)$$
(5)
where we have made use of the fact that $`P(t)t^\theta `$.

The form of $`Q(m,t)`$ can be argued for in the following way. An Interval of length $`m`$ at time $`t`$ can contain a particle anywhere inside it only if the interval length is at least of the order of the diffusive scale $`\sqrt{Dt}`$. That is, $`Q(m,t)0`$ for $`m\sqrt{Dt}`$. It is also known that the particle distribution is correlated over length scales $`r\sqrt{Dt}`$, wheras it is completely random over $`r\sqrt{Dt}`$. So we expect that for $`m\sqrt{Dt}`$, $`Q(m,t)\alpha (t)`$, independent of $`m`$. These physical considerations leads us to suggest the following dynamic scaling form for $`Q(m,t)`$.

$$Q(m,t)=\alpha (t)\beta (\frac{m}{\sqrt{Dt}})$$
(6)
where the function $`\beta (x)`$ is expected to have a sigmoidal form, ie., $`\beta (x)=0`$ for $`x1`$ and $`\beta (x)1`$ for $`x1`$. The function $`\alpha (t)`$ will be determined later.

### B Dynamic scaling

We assume that at asymptotic times, the distribution $`n(k,t)`$ is characterised by a single dynamic length scale $`s(t)`$. We note that there are two relevant length scales in the problem. The first is the diffusive scale $`_D(t)\sqrt{Dt}`$ entering the scaling form Eq.6 for the coalescence probability. On the other hand, the inverse of the persistent fraction $`P(t)`$ is also a length scale, which we shall call the persistence scale, denoted by $`_p(t)t^\theta `$. The asymptotic behaviour is expected to be dominated by the larger of the two, ie., the diffusive scale $`_D(t)`$ in the present case (since $`\theta <1/2`$).

We now invoke the dynamic scaling ansatz, ie., $`n(k,t)f(\frac{k}{s})`$ with

$$st^{1/z},z=2$$
(7)
From the length conservation condition given by the second part of Eq. 1 it follows that the prefactor is $`s^2`$. Thus, the scaling solution for $`n(k,t)`$ is written in the form

$$n(k,t)=s(t)^2f\left(\frac{k}{s(t)}\right)$$
(8)
Substituting Eq. 8 and Eq. 6 in Eq. 5, we find $`\alpha (t)`$.

$$\alpha (t)=\frac{\theta }{t}\frac{s(t)P(t)}{B}$$
(9)
where $`B=_0^{\mathrm{}}\beta (x)f(x)𝑑x`$. Substituting Eq.8 in the normalisation conditions Eq.1, we find the following conditions on the scaling function.

$$_{s^1}^{\mathrm{}}f(x)𝑑x=sP(t);_0^{\mathrm{}}f(x)x𝑑x=1$$
(10)
In the first integral, the lower limit is set as $`s(t)^1`$ to take care of any possible small argument divergence.

Substituting Eq.6, 8, 9 and 7 in Eq. 3, we find the following equation for the scaling function $`f(x)`$.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{f}{\eta }}={\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{B}}{\displaystyle _{s(t)^1}^{\frac{\eta }{2}}}f(x)f(\eta x)[\beta (x)+\beta (\eta x)]𝑑x`$ (11)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{z}}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{B}}s(t)P(t)\beta (\eta )\right]f(\eta )`$ (12)
where the scaling variable $`\eta =\frac{k}{s(t)}`$.

Case I: $`\eta 1`$.

For $`\eta 1`$, all $`\beta (x)0`$ for $`x\eta `$. This case corresponds to small Intervals, ie., those which are not large enough to contain a diffusing particle till time $`t`$. In this case, the equation reduces to $`\eta \frac{f}{\eta }=(2z\theta )f(\eta )`$ which has the solution $`f(\eta )\eta ^\tau `$ where the new exponent $`\tau `$ is related to $`\theta `$ through the scaling relation

$$\tau =2z\theta $$
(13)
From Eq. 8 this implies that for $`ks`$, $`n(k,t)t^\theta k^\tau `$. For the model under consideration here, $`\theta `$ is known exactly to be $`3/8`$  which gives $`\tau =5/4`$.

Case II: $`\eta 1`$.

For general values of $`\eta `$, $`\beta (\eta )`$ is non-zero, and because $`\tau >1`$, the first integral diverges near $`x=0`$ as $`x^{(\tau 1)}`$. There is another divergence in the last term, of the form $`t^{1/z\theta }`$. It can be shown that this term can be exactly cancelled by the divergent part of the first integral. After carrying out this ‘regularisation’ (details to be found in Appendix A) and putting $`z=2`$ in Eq.12 the equation for the scaling function $`f(\eta )`$ stands as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f}{\eta }}={\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{B}}{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{\eta }{2}}}f(x)f(\eta x)[\beta (x)+\beta (\eta x)\beta (\eta )]𝑑x`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{B}}\beta (\eta ){\displaystyle _0^{\frac{\eta }{2}}}f(x)[f(\eta x)f(\eta )]𝑑x\left[1\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{B}}\beta (\eta ){\displaystyle _{\frac{\eta }{2}}^{\mathrm{}}}f(x)𝑑x\right]f(\eta )`$ (15)
A general solution of this equation requires the knowledge of the detailed form of the scaling function $`\beta (\eta )`$. However, for large values of $`\eta `$ where $`\beta (\eta )1`$, one can simplify this equation. We define the point $`\eta ^{}`$ sufficiently large such that for $`\eta \eta ^{}`$, $`\beta (x)=1`$ within the limits of accuracy required. Without any loss of generality, one can put $`\eta ^{}=1`$ by rescaling the length scale $`s(t)`$ accordingly. For $`\eta 1`$, we define $`f(\eta )h(\eta )`$, whose equation is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{h}{\eta }}={\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{B}}\left[2{\displaystyle _1^{\frac{\eta }{2}}}h(x)h(\eta x)𝑑x+{\displaystyle _0^1}f(x)[h(\eta x)h(\eta )]𝑑x\right](12\theta )h(\eta )`$ (16)
This equation has a solution of the form $`h(\eta )=Ge^{\lambda \eta }`$ as can be shown by direct substitution. The constants $`G`$ and $`\lambda `$ are related through the relations

$$\lambda B=2\theta G$$
(17)
and

$$\lambda +2\theta =1+\frac{\theta }{B}F(\lambda )$$
(18)
where $`F(\lambda )=_0^1f(x)\left[e^{\lambda x}(1+\beta (x))1\right]𝑑x`$ and

$$B=_0^1f(x)\beta (x)𝑑x+\frac{G}{\lambda }e^\lambda $$
(19)
by definition. Eq.17-19 formally gives the constants $`\lambda `$ and $`G`$. However, the actual evaluation of these constants requires the knowledge of the function $`f(x)`$ in the entire range \[0:1\] (and not just near $`x=0`$, where $`f(x)x^\tau `$), which, in turn, is possible only if the detailed form of $`\beta (x)`$ is known. Hence we will restrict ourselves to showing that the parameter $`\lambda >0`$, which is required for the solution to be physically reasonable.

In Eq. 19, we note that $`B\frac{G}{\lambda }e^\lambda `$, depending on how sharply $`\beta (x)`$ rises near $`x=1`$. The equality holds for the step function $`\beta (x)=\mathrm{\Theta }(x1)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)=0`$ for $`x<0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)=1`$ for $`x1`$. After using this inequality in Eq.17, we find that $`\lambda `$log$`(2\theta )`$. Since $`\theta <1/2`$, it follows that $`\lambda >0`$.

### C Numerical Results

We determine the distribution $`n(k,t)`$ numerically by simulating $`A+A\mathrm{}`$ model on one dimensional lattice of size $`N=10^5`$ with periodic boundary condition. Particles are initially distributed at random on the lattice with some average density $`n_0`$, and their positions are sequentially updated— each particle is made to move one step in either direction with probability $`D=1/2`$. When two particles meet each other, both are removed from the lattice. The time evolution is observed up to $`10^5`$ Monte-Carlo steps (1 MC step is counted after all the particles in the lattice were touched once). The simulation is repeated for several random starting configurations of the particles for any particular initial density and we repeat the entire simulation for four different initial density $`n_0`$. For any $`n_0`$, we determine the number of intervals of length $`k`$ (per site) at time $`t`$.

To compute the mean interval size $`s(t)`$, we ran the simulation upto $`t=10^5`$ time steps, and averaged the results over 100 starting distributions of particles, with the same initial density. In Fig. II, we plot $`s(t)`$ vs $`t`$ for four different values of $`n_0`$– 0.2, 0.5, 0.8 and 0.95. For $`n_0=1/2`$, we find that $`s(t)at^{1/z}`$ with $`z1.97(1)`$ and $`a5.96`$. But for other values of $`n_0`$, we find that the observed value of $`z`$ is different from 2. In Fig. III, the running exponent $`d(`$log$`s)/d(`$log$`t)`$ is plotted with $`1/(`$log$`t)`$ and the results show the systematic deviation away from the value $`1/2`$ expected from the scaling picture presented in the previous section. We will discuss about the possible origin of this deviation later.

In Fig. IV, we plot the scaling function $`f(x)=s(t)^2n(k,t)`$ against the scaling variable $`x=k/s(t)`$ for $`t=10^4`$ and $`3.10^4`$. To get the nature of the scaling function one needs to average over lots of configurations. This has restricted us to smaller time steps and data for three values of initial density, $`n_0=0.2,0.5`$ and $`0.8`$ averaged over 500, 1000 and 1500 different initial distribution of particles respectively. For all $`n_0`$, we find that the scaling function $`f(x)x^\tau `$ for $`x<<1`$ and decays exponentially for higher values of $`x`$. For $`n_0=0.5`$, we find $`\tau =1.25(1)`$ in accordance with the scaling relation Eq 13. For $`n_0=0.2`$, we find $`\tau 1.32(2)`$ while for $`n_0=0.8`$, the observed value of $`\tau `$ is 1.13(2). For all $`n_0`$, $`\tau `$ satisfies the scaling relation Eq. 13 if $`z`$ is replaced by its effective value.

For general values of $`n_0`$, we find that the numerical values of $`s(t)`$ supports the following form (within the time range studied)

$$s_{n_0}(t)at^{1/z}+b(n_0)t^\varphi .$$
(20)
The non-universal constant $`b`$ is $`<,=`$ or $`>0`$ for $`n_0<`$, $`=`$ or $`>0.5`$. To compute the prefactor $`b`$ and the exponent $`\varphi `$, we plot the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_{n_0}(t)=|s_{n_0}(t)s_{1/2}(t)|`$ vs $`t`$, for $`n_0=0.2,0.8`$ and 0.95 (Fig. V). The exponent $`\varphi `$ is numerically found to be close to the persistence exponent $`\theta =0.375`$ (Table I). We find that as $`n_01`$, the constant $`b`$ undergoes a sharp rise so that the effective dynamical exponent of $`s(t)`$ is numerically close to $`\theta `$ for an appreciable range in time (Fig. III). At the same time, we note that only the first term in Eq.20 is asymptotically relevant since $`\varphi <\frac{1}{2}`$.

The two terms in Eq.20 can have their origin from the two dynamical length scales in the problem, the diffusive scale $`_D(t)t^{1/2}`$ and the persistence scale $`_p(t)t^\theta `$. For large $`n_0`$, the typical interval length between two consecutive persistent sites is determined by the decay of persistence only, rather than the diffusion of the particles. So, it is understandable that the dynamical behavior of $`s(t)`$ coincides with that of $`_p(t)`$ at least at the initial times. However at late times, when the particle density falls down as a result of annihilation, the situation becomes same as that of starting with low $`n_0`$ and the decisive scale is $`_D(t)`$. However, the precise form and behavior of the prefactor $`b(n_0)`$ with $`n_0`$ remains to be understood.

## III Two-point correlations

A good picture of the spatial distribution of the persistent sites and the presence of any possible correlation in their distribution is obtained from the two-point correlation $`C(r,t)`$, which is defined as the probability that site x+r is persistent, given that site x is persistent (averaged over x).

$$C(r,t)=\rho (𝐱,t)^1\rho (𝐱,t)\rho (𝐱+𝐫,t)$$
(21)
where the brackets denote average over the entire lattice and $`\rho (𝐱,t)`$ is the density of persistent sites: ie., $`\rho (𝐱,t)=1`$ if site $`𝐱`$ is persistent at time $`t`$, and 0 otherwise. Clearly, $`\rho (𝐱,t)=P(t)`$ by definition.

Within the IIA, the relation between $`C(r,t)`$ and $`n(r,t)`$ (We consider $`r1`$, so that the discreteness of the underlying lattice can be ignored) can be written as the following infinite series:

$`C(r,t)=P(t)^1n(r,t)+P(t)^2{\displaystyle _1^r}𝑑xn(x,t)n(rx,t)+`$ (22)
$`P(t)^3{\displaystyle _1^r}𝑑xn(x,t){\displaystyle _1^{rx}}𝑑yn(y,t)n(rxy,t)+\mathrm{}.`$ (23)
The first term corresponds to the case where there is no other persistent site in the range $`[0:r]`$, ie., a single Interval of length $`r`$. The second term gives the probability that the range is split into two Intervals of length $`x`$ and $`rx`$ by the presence of a persistent site at $`x`$, the third term gives the probability for three Intervals and so on.

The above series can be rewritten as the following self-consistent equation for $`C(r,t)`$.

$$P(t)C(r,t)=n(r,t)+_1^rn(x,t)C(rx,t)𝑑x$$
(24)
In terms of the Laplace transforms $`\stackrel{~}{C}(p,t)=_1^{\mathrm{}}C(r,t)e^{pr}𝑑r`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{n}(p,t)=_1^{\mathrm{}}n(s,t)e^{ps}𝑑s`$ Eq. 24 becomes

$$\stackrel{~}{C}(p,t)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{n}(p,t)}{P(t)\stackrel{~}{n}(p,t)}$$
(25)
From Eq.8, we find

$$\stackrel{~}{n}(p,t)=s^1\stackrel{~}{f}(ps)$$
(26)
where $`\stackrel{~}{f}(q)=_{s^1}^{\mathrm{}}f(\eta )e^{q\eta }𝑑\eta `$. which can be written in the following regularised form, using Eq.10.

$$\stackrel{~}{f}(q)=s(t)P(t)f_1(q)$$
(27)
where

$$f_1(q)=_0^{\mathrm{}}f(\eta )[1e^{q\eta }]𝑑\eta .$$
(28)
Substituting Eq.26, 27 and Eq.28 into Eq.25 we find that

$$\stackrel{~}{C}(p,t)=\frac{s(t)P(t)}{f_1(ps)}1$$
(29)
The second term in RHS can be neglected at late times, since $`s(t)P(t)`$ diverges as $`t^{1/z\theta }`$. It follows that in this limit, $`C(r,t)`$ has the dynamic scaling form

$$C(r,t)=P(t)g\left(\frac{r}{s(t)}\right)$$
(30)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{g}(q)=\frac{1}{f_1(q)}$$
(31)
is the Laplace transform of $`g(x)`$: $`\stackrel{~}{g}(q)=_0^{\mathrm{}}g(x)e^{qx}𝑑x`$.

The preceding expressions can be used to deduce the limiting behaviour of the scaling function $`g(\eta )`$ for the cases $`\eta 1`$ and $`\eta 1`$, without needing to solve Eq.23 or 24 explicitly.

Case I: $`\eta 1`$.

To find the asymptotic behaviour of $`g(\eta )`$, we note that $`f_1(q)`$ vanishes near $`q=0`$ as $`f_1(q)q`$. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{g}(q)\frac{1}{q}`$ as $`q0`$ from Eq.31. By standard results in the theory of Laplace transforms , this implies that $`g(\eta )1`$ as $`\eta \mathrm{}`$.

Case II: $`\eta 1`$.

To analyse this case, consider the real-space relation Eq.23. For $`\eta 1`$, or equivalently, $`rs`$, we have shown that $`n(r,t)P(t)r^\tau `$. It is clear that in this range, the RHS of Eq.23 is time independent, so $`C(r,t)`$ in the LHS should also be time independent. From the dynamic scaling form Eq.30, we find that this is possible only if the scaling function is a power-law near the origin: $`g(\eta )\eta ^\alpha `$ as $`\eta 0`$. After substituting in Eq.30 and requiring the resulting expression to be time independent, we find

$$\alpha =z\theta $$
(32)
We find $`C(r,t)r^\alpha `$ for $`rs`$ and $`C(r,t)P(t)`$ for $`rs`$. The power law decay at small distances is expected, because the RHS of Eq.23 contains only scale invariant terms in this limit, hence the LHS also should be likewise. In Appendix B, we show that this is also consistent with Eq.24.

We see that in the IIA calculation, the length scale $`s(t)`$ demarcates the correlated and uncorrelated regions for $`C(r,t)`$. In the correlated region ($`rs(t)`$), the persistent sites form a fractal with fractal dimension $`d_f=d\alpha =\frac{1}{4}`$, with the correlation length $`s(t)`$ increasing with time as $`st^{1/2}`$. The IIA results agree very well with that of numerical simulations , showing the validity of the approximation.

## IV Conclusion

Persistent sites are shown to have strong correlations in their spatial distribution. In one dimensional $`A+A\mathrm{}`$ reaction-diffusion system, we show that there is a length scale $`s(t)`$, diverging with time as $`s(t)t^{1/z}`$, which demarcates the correlated region from the uncorrelated one. We argue that $`z=2`$ at large $`t`$ limit. Persistent sites separated by distance $`ks(t)`$ are highly unlikely to have a particle $`A`$ between them and so retains their persistent character. Only persistent sites separated by distance $`s(t)`$ take part in the decay of persistence at subsequent times.

We find that if $`k`$ is the distance of separation between any two consecutive persistent sites, then for $`ks(t)`$, the distribution of $`k`$ is scale-free and decays algebraically as $`k^\tau `$ with $`\tau =2z\theta `$. We show this using the IIA (Independent Interval Approximation), which assumes no correlation in the lengths of any two adjacent intervals. We have verified our results by numerical simulations which suggests the validity of the IIA. Under the IIA, our calculation for the two-point correlation shows that over length scales $`rs(t)`$, the persistent site distribution over the lattice is a fractal with dimension $`d_f=\tau 1`$, in accordance to our earlier observations .

## V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank G. I. Menon for a critical reading of the manuscript and valuable suggestions.

## A

The divergence in the first integral in Eq. 12 can be separated out as follows. We write $`f(\eta x)=f(\eta )+\mathrm{\Delta }_xf(\eta )`$ and $`\beta (\eta x)=\beta (\eta )+\mathrm{\Delta }_x\beta (\eta )`$. so that $`lim_{x0}\mathrm{\Delta }_xf(\eta )=lim_{x0}\mathrm{\Delta }_x\beta (\eta )=0`$.

After substituting for $`f(\eta x)`$ and $`\beta (\eta x)`$, the divergent part of the integral separates into the following terms.

$`{\displaystyle _{s(t)^1}^{\frac{\eta }{2}}}f(x)f(\eta x)\beta (\eta x)𝑑x=f(\eta )\beta (\eta ){\displaystyle _{s(t)^1}^{\frac{\eta }{2}}}f(x)𝑑x+f(\eta ){\displaystyle _0^{\frac{\eta }{2}}}f(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_x\beta (\eta )𝑑x+`$
$`\beta (\eta ){\displaystyle _0^{\frac{\eta }{2}}}f(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_xf(\eta )𝑑x+{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{\eta }{2}}}f(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_xf(\eta )\mathrm{\Delta }_x\beta (\eta )𝑑x`$
The first term is divergent near the origin, while all other terms are finite by construction. Now we rewrite the first term using the equality $`_{s(t)^1}^{\mathrm{}}f(x)𝑑x=s(t)P(t)`$. After some simplifications, the integral becomes

$`{\displaystyle _{s(t)^1}^{\frac{\eta }{2}}}f(x)f(\eta x)\beta (\eta x)𝑑x=f(\eta )\beta (\eta )s(t)P(t)+{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{\eta }{2}}}f(x)f(\eta x)\left[\beta (\eta x)\beta (\eta )\right]𝑑x+`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{\eta }{2}}}f(x)\left[f(\eta x)f(\eta )\right]\beta (\eta )f(\eta ){\displaystyle _{\frac{\eta }{2}}^{\mathrm{}}}f(x)𝑑x`$
The first term is the divergent part of the integral, which exactly cancels the last term in Eq. 12, to give the regularised Eq. 15.

## B

For $`r1`$, it is reasonable to assume that the higher order terms in the RHS of Eq.23 will contribute more than the first term, ie., the range $`[0:r]`$ is more likely to be covered with more than one Interval than a single one of length $`r`$. After using this approximation, and substituting $`n(r,t)(\tau 1)P(t)r^\tau `$ in the continuum limit, Eq. 24 is simplified to

$`C(r,t)(\tau 1){\displaystyle _1^{r1}}(rx)^\tau C(x,t)𝑑x`$

Our purpose is to see if the equation

$$r^\alpha (\tau 1)_1^{r1}x^\alpha (rx)^\tau 𝑑x$$
(B1)
is consistent for $`\alpha =z\theta =2\tau `$ (Eq.13) at $`r1`$.

The integral $`I=_1^{r1}x^\tau (rx)^\alpha 𝑑x`$ can be transformed by change of variables into the more standard form

$`{\displaystyle _0^{r2}}(1+y)^\tau [r1y]^\alpha 𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{r^{1\alpha }}{1\alpha }}F(1,\tau ;2\alpha ;r)`$for$`\alpha <1`$and $`r1.`$

where $`F(a,b;c;z)`$ is the Gauss Hypergeometric function. For $`b=c`$, $`F(a,b;b;z)=(1z)^a`$ exactly, independent of $`b`$. Thus, for $`\alpha =2\tau `$ we find

$`(\tau 1)I=r^\alpha [1+o({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}})]`$which is consistent with Eq. B1, at $`r1`$.


text:
# Tamarkin’s proof of Kontsevich formality theorem

## 1. Introduction

### 1.1.

This is an extended version of lectures given at Luminy colloquium “Quantification par déformation” held at December, 1999.

In this note we explain Tamarkin’s proof \[T\] of the following affine algebraic version of Kontsevich’s formality theorem.

### 1.2.

Theorem.  Let $`A`$ be a polynomial algebra over a field $`k`$ of characteristic zero and let $`𝒞=𝒞^{}(𝒜;𝒜)`$ be the cohomological Hochschild complex of $`A`$ with coefficients at $`A`$. The dg Lie algebra $`𝒞[\mathcal{1}]`$ is formal, that is $`𝒞[\mathcal{1}]`$ is isomorphic in the homotopy category of dg Lie algebras to its cohomology.

Our sources are the original Tamarkin’s paper \[T\] and the recent preprint of Tamarkin-Tsygan \[TT\] where a simplification of the original proof is sketched.

We tried to provide all necessary details that were sometimes difficult to find in \[T\].

### 1.3.

In the first part (Sections 2– 3) we review some basic facts on operads and Koszul operads. In Section 4 we study formality of algebras over a Koszul operad. Following Halperin-Stasheff \[HS\], we call a graded algebra $`H`$ over a Koszul operad $`𝒪`$ intrinsically formal if any dg $`𝒪`$-algebra with cohomology isomorphic to $`H`$ is formal. We prove Theorem 4.1.3 which gives a sufficient condition of intrinsic formality of a graded algebra over a Koszul operad in terms of its cohomology.

In Section 5 we calculate the cohomology of Gerstenhaber algebra $`H(𝒞)`$, $`𝒞`$ being the Hochschild complex of a smooth $`k`$-algebra. The calculation shows that $`H(𝒞)`$ is intrinsically formal for a polynomial algebra. This proves that Kontsevich’s formality theorem follows from a version of Deligne’s conjecture 5.3.3 on the existence of homotopy Gerstenhaber algebra structure on the Hochschild complex. Theorem 5.3.3 is proven in Sections 6 and 7.

Acknowledgement. I am grateful to B. Tsygan for sending early version of his manuscript \[TT\] and to D. Tamarkin for an important remark. This note was written during my stay at MSRI. I am grateful to MSRI for excellent working conditions.

## 2. Basic definitions

In this section we recall the basic definitions of operads and operad algebras. The most convenient reference here is \[GJ\], ch. 1.

### 2.1. Operads

Let $`\mathrm{𝚅𝚎𝚌𝚝}`$ be the category of vector spaces over a field $`k`$ of characteristic zero.

By definition, an $`𝕊`$-object in $`\mathrm{𝚅𝚎𝚌𝚝}`$ is a collection $`X=\{X(n)\},n0,`$ of objects of $`\mathrm{𝚅𝚎𝚌𝚝}`$ endowed with a right action of the symmetric groups $`S_n`$. The category of $`𝕊`$-objects in $`\mathrm{𝚅𝚎𝚌𝚝}`$ admits a (non-symmetric) monoidal structure defined as follows.

Any $`𝕊`$-object $`X`$ defines a functor $`𝒮(𝒳)`$ (Schur functor) on $`\mathrm{𝚅𝚎𝚌𝚝}`$ by the formula

(1)
$$𝒮(𝒳):𝒱𝒳(𝓃)_{𝒮_𝓃}𝒱^𝓃.$$

The monoidal operation on the category of $`𝕊`$-vector spaces is uniquely defined by the property

$$𝒮(𝒳𝒴)=𝒮(𝒳)𝒮(𝒴).$$

#### 2.1.1.

Definition.  An operad $`𝒪=\{𝒪(𝓃)\}`$ in $`\mathrm{𝚅𝚎𝚌𝚝}`$ is a monoid in the category of $`𝕊`$-vector spaces. The category of operads in $`\mathrm{𝚅𝚎𝚌𝚝}`$ is denoted $`\mathrm{𝙾𝚙}(\mathrm{𝚅𝚎𝚌𝚝})`$.

In more conventional terms, an operad is an $`𝕊`$-vector space $`\{𝒪(𝓃)\}`$ endowed with equivariant operations

(2)
$$𝒪(𝓃)𝒪(𝓂_\mathcal{1})\mathrm{}𝒪(𝓂_𝓃)𝒪(𝓂_𝒾)$$

and with a unit element $`1𝒪(\mathcal{1})`$ satisfying natural associativity and unit conditions.

#### 2.1.2.

For any vector space $`V`$ one defines an operad $`\mathrm{Endop}(V)`$ to be a $`𝕊`$-vector space

$$n\mathrm{Hom}(V^n,V)$$

with the obvious composition and action of the symmetric groups.

#### 2.1.3.

Definition.  An algebra $`A`$ over an operad $`𝒪`$ is a map of operads

$$𝒪\mathrm{Endop}(𝒜).$$

In other terms, an $`𝒪`$-algebra structure on $`A`$ is given by a collection of $`S_n`$-equivariant maps

$$𝒪(𝓃)𝒜^𝓃𝒜$$

satisfying natural associativity and unit properties.

#### 2.1.4. Examples

There are operads $`\mathrm{𝙰𝚂𝚂}`$, $`\mathrm{𝙲𝙾𝙼}`$, $`\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}`$ such that corresponding algebras are associative, commutative and Lie algebras respectively.

### 2.2. Other tensor categories

The definitions of the previous subsection make sense in any tensor (= monoidal symmetric) category $`𝒜`$. The following cases will be of a special interest for us.

#### 2.2.1.

$`𝒜=\mathrm{𝚅𝚎𝚌𝚝𝚐𝚛}`$ — the category of $``$-graded vector spaces. The commutativity constraint $`XY\stackrel{}{}YX`$ is defined by the standard formula

(3)
$$xy(1)^{|x||y|}yx.$$

#### 2.2.2.

$`𝒜=𝒞(𝓀)`$ — the category of complexes over $`k`$. The commutativity constraint in this case is given by the same formula (3).

#### 2.2.3.

Let $`𝒪\mathrm{𝙾𝚙}(𝒜)`$ for a tensor category $`𝒜`$ and let $`\alpha :𝒜`$ be a tensor functor. Then $`\alpha (𝒪)`$ is an operad over $``$. This obvious construction allows one, for example, to consider graded or dg Lie algebras as algebras over the operad $`\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}`$ in $`\mathrm{𝚅𝚎𝚌𝚝𝚐𝚛}`$ or in $`C(k)`$ respectively.

#### 2.2.4.

Denote $`k[n]`$ to be a standard one-dimensional vector space concentrated at degree $`n`$. One defines the $`n`$-shift functor $`XX[n]`$ by the formula

$$X[n]=k[n]X.$$

This formula makes sense both in $`\mathrm{𝚅𝚎𝚌𝚝𝚐𝚛}`$ and in $`C(k)`$.

Let $`𝒪`$ be an operad in $`\mathrm{𝚅𝚎𝚌𝚝𝚐𝚛}`$ or $`C(k)`$. There is a uniquely defined operad $`𝒪\{𝓂\}`$ such that a $`𝒪\{𝓂\}`$-algebra structure on $`X`$ is equivalent to a $`𝒪`$-algebra structure on $`X[m]`$. One has

$$𝒪\{𝓂\}(𝓃)=\mathcal{\Lambda }_𝓃^𝓂𝒪(𝓃)$$

where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ denotes the graded vector space (or complex) $`k[n1]`$ endowed with the sign representation of the symmetric group $`S_n`$.

### 2.3. Free algebras and free operads

#### 2.3.1.

Let $`𝒪`$ be an operad over a tensor category $`𝒜`$. Let $`V`$ be an $`𝕊`$-object in $`𝒜`$. The free $`𝒪`$-algebra generated by $`V`$ is defined to be

(4)
$$𝔽_𝒪(V)=\underset{n0}{}𝒪(𝓃)_{𝒮_𝓃}𝒱^𝓃$$

with a canonical $`𝒪`$-algebra structure.

#### 2.3.2.

Let $`X`$ be an $`𝕊`$-object in $`𝒜`$. The forgetful functor from the category of operads to the category of $`𝕊`$-objects in $`𝒜`$ admits a left adjoint free operad functor. Free operad $`𝕋(X)`$ generated by $`X`$ has an explicit description as a direct sum over trees (see \[GJ\], 1.4).

### 2.4. Cooperads and coalgebras

#### 2.4.1.

The notions of operad and algebra can be dualized. Let $`𝒞`$ be a cooperad. A $`𝒞`$-coalgebra $`X`$ is called nilpotent if

(5)
$$X=_n\mathrm{Ker}(X𝒞(𝓃)𝒳^𝓃).$$

From now on all coalgebras will be supposed to be nilpotent. We define $`\mathrm{𝙲𝚘𝚊𝚕𝚐}(𝒞)`$ to be the category of nilpotent $`𝒞`$-coalgebras. If $`V`$ is an $`𝕊`$-object in $`𝒜`$, the cofree (nilpotent) cooalgebra cogenerated by $`V`$ is defined to be

(6)
$$𝔽_𝒞^{}(V)=\underset{n0}{}\left(𝒞(𝓃)𝒱^𝓃\right)^{S_n}.$$

Let $`X`$ be a $`𝒞`$-coalgebra and $`V`$ be an $`𝕊`$-object. Any map $`XV`$ of $`𝕊`$-objects defines canonically a map of $`𝒞`$-coalgebras $`X𝔽_𝒞^{}(V)`$. $`V`$ is called an $`𝕊`$-object of cogenerators if the above map is injective.

Cofree cooperad cogenerated by $`V`$ is denoted $`𝕋^{}(V)`$. It is isomorphic to $`𝕋(V)`$ as an $`𝕊`$-object. However, we prefer to have a different notation to stress that this is a cooperad.

#### 2.4.2.

Let $`𝒪\mathrm{𝙾𝚙}(\mathrm{𝚅𝚎𝚌𝚝𝚐𝚛})`$ be an operad such that $`𝒪(𝓃)`$ are all finite dimensional. Then the collection $`\{𝒪(𝓃)^{}\}`$ admits an obvious structure of cooperad. This cooperad is denoted by $`𝒪^{}`$. Coalgebras over $`𝒪^{}`$ are sometimes called $`𝒪`$-coalgebras. In the same style, we will sometimes write $`𝔽_𝒪^{}(V)`$ instead of $`𝔽_𝒪^{}^{}(V)`$. Thus, $`\mathrm{𝙲𝙾𝙼}`$-coalgebras are just cocommutative coalgebras, $`\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}`$-coalgebras are Lie coalgebras, etc.

## 3. Koszul duality

### 3.1. Quadratic operads and quadratic duals

#### 3.1.1.

Definition.  An operad $`𝒪`$ of graded vector spaces is called quadratic if it is generated (as operad) by $`𝒪(\mathcal{2})`$ and has only relations of valence $`3`$.

The latter condition means the following. Let $`V`$ be the $`𝕊`$-object in $`\mathrm{𝚅𝚎𝚌𝚝𝚐𝚛}`$ defined by the properties $`V(2)=𝒪(\mathcal{2}),𝒱(𝓃)=\mathcal{0}`$ for $`n2`$. Since $`𝒪`$ is generated by its binary operations, the natural map $`𝕋(V)𝒪`$ is surjective.

The operad $`𝒪`$ is quadratic if the kernel of this map is generated (as an ideal in an operad) by an $`S_3`$-invariant subspace $`R𝕋(V)(3)`$.

Note that $`𝕋(V)(3)=\mathrm{Ind}_{S_2}^{S_3}(VV)`$ where $`S_2`$ acts on the tensor product through the trivial action on the first factor.

A quadratic operad $`𝒪`$ with generators $`V`$ and relations $`R`$ can be described as the pushout in the category of operads

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝕋(R)& & 𝕋(V)\\ & & & & \\ & & 𝒪\end{array}$$

where $``$ denotes the trivial operad

$$(1)=k,(n)=0\text{ for }n1.$$

Dually, let $`V`$ be a graded vector space endowed with an action of $`S_2`$ and let $`R`$ be an $`S_3`$-invariant subspace of $`𝕋^{}(V)(3)`$. Denote $`Q=𝕋^{}(V)(3)/R`$. Then a quadratic cooperad $`𝒞`$ cogenerated by $`V`$ with co-relations $`R`$ is defined as the pullback

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒞& & 𝕋^{}(V)\\ & & & & \\ & & 𝕋^{}(Q)\end{array}$$

#### 3.1.2.

Definition.  rewrite!!! 1. Let $`𝒪`$ be a quadratic operad with $`V=𝒪(\mathcal{2})`$ and the space of relations $`R`$. The dual cooperad $`𝒪^{}`$ is cogenerated by the space $`V[1]`$ with co-relations $`𝒪^{}(\mathcal{3})=[\mathcal{2}]`$.

2. Dually, for a cooperad $`𝒞`$ cogenerated by $`V`$ with co-relations $`Q`$, the quadratic dual operad $`𝒞^{}`$ is generated by $`V[1]`$ with relations given by the kernel

$$\mathrm{Ker}(Q[2](V[1]V[1])(3).$$

#### 3.1.3.

Examples

The operads $`\mathrm{𝙲𝙾𝙼}`$, $`\mathrm{𝙰𝚂𝚂}`$, $`\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}`$ are quadratic. Their quadratic dual cooperads are given by the formulas

* $`\mathrm{𝙲𝙾𝙼}^{}=(\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}\{1\})^{},`$
* $`\mathrm{𝙰𝚂𝚂}^{}=(\mathrm{𝙰𝚂𝚂}\{1\})^{},`$
* $`\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}^{}=(\mathrm{𝙲𝙾𝙼}\{1\})^{}.`$

#### 3.1.4.

Definition.  Let $`𝒪`$ be a (graded) quadratic operad. A structure of $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$-algebra on $`X\mathrm{𝚅𝚎𝚌𝚝𝚐𝚛}`$ is given by a differential on the cofree $`𝒪^{}`$-coalgebra cogenerated by $`X`$.

#### 3.1.5.

The above definition gives rise to an operad $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$ in the category of complexes $`C(k)`$.

Let $`X`$ have a structure of $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$-algebra. The differential

(7)
$$Q:𝔽_𝒪^{}^{}(X)𝔽_𝒪^{}^{}(X)[1]$$

is defined uniquely by its composition with the projection onto the degree one component $`F_𝒪^{}^1(X)=X`$. Thus, the differential is given by the collection of maps

(8)
$$Q_i:𝔽_𝒪^{}^i(X)=\left(𝒪^{}(𝒾)𝒳^𝒾\right)^{S_i}X[1].$$

in particular, $`d:=Q_1`$ defines a differential on $`X\mathrm{𝚅𝚎𝚌𝚝𝚐𝚛}`$.

Define $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}=𝕋(𝒪^{})`$ to be the free graded operad generated by $`𝒪^{}`$. The collection of maps $`Q_i`$ from (8) defines an action of $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`X`$. One endows $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$ with a differential so that the condition $`Q^2=0`$ is equivalent to the statement that the action of $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`(X,d=Q_1)`$ respects the differentials.

#### 3.1.6.

Example.  Let $`X`$ be a complex endowed with a $`𝒪`$-algebra structure (dg $`𝒪`$-algebra). Define the differential $`Q`$ on $`𝔽_𝒪^{}^{}(X)`$ as follows.

$`Q_1:XX[1]`$ is the differential of $`X`$. $`Q_2:𝒪^{}(\mathcal{2})𝒳^\mathcal{2}𝒳[\mathcal{1}]`$ is defined by the $`𝒪`$-algebra structure on $`X`$ since $`𝒪^{}(\mathcal{2})=𝒪(\mathcal{2})[\mathcal{1}]`$. $`Q_i`$ are defined to be zero for $`i>2`$.

The condition $`Q^2=0`$ can be easily verified. This means that any $`𝒪`$-algebra admits a canonical $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$-algebra structure.

Example 3.1.6 shows there is a canonical map of operads in $`C(k)`$

(9)
$$𝒪_{\mathrm{}}𝒪$$

(Here $`𝒪`$ is supposed to have zero differential).

#### 3.1.7.

Definition.  A quadratic operad $`𝒪`$ is called Koszul if the natural map (9) is a quasi-isomorphism.

Let $`𝒪`$ be a quadratic operad and let $`X`$ be an $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$-algebra (for instance, an $`𝒪`$-algebra). The homology of $`X`$, $`H_𝒪(X)`$, is defined to be the homology of the complex $`(𝔽_𝒪^{}^{}(X),Q)`$.

If $`X=𝔽_𝒪(V)`$ for a graded vector space $`V`$, one has a canonical map of complexes

(10)
$$(𝔽_𝒪^{}^{}(X),Q)V.$$

The following result can be used to prove koszulity of a quadratic operad.

#### 3.1.8.

Theorem.  (cf. \[GK\], Thm. 4.2.5) A quadratic operad $`𝒪`$ is Koszul iff for any graded vector space $`V`$ the canonical map (10) is quasi-isomorphism.

Theorem 3.1.8 implies that the operads $`\mathrm{𝙲𝙾𝙼},\mathrm{𝙰𝚂𝚂},\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}`$ are Koszul.

## 4. Deformations and formality

### 4.1. Intrinsic formality

In this section $`𝒪`$ is a fixed Koszul operad.

#### 4.1.1.

Definition.  A $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$-algebra $`X`$ is called to be formal if there exists a pair of quasi-isomorphisms of $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$-algebras $`XFH(X)`$.

#### 4.1.2.

Definition.  A graded $`𝒪`$-algebra $`H`$ is intrinsically formal if any $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$-algebra $`X`$ with $`H(X)=H`$ is formal.

The aim of this section is to prove a criterion of intrinsic formality.

Let $`H`$ be a graded $`𝒪`$-algebra and let $`𝔤`$ be the dg Lie algebra of coderivations of the corresponding dg $`𝒪^{}`$-coalgebra $`(𝔽_𝒪^{}^{}(H),Q)`$. Since $`𝔽_𝒪^{}^{}(H)`$ is cofree, any coderivation is uniquely defined by its composition with the projection onto $`H`$. Therefore, $`𝔤`$ considered as a graded vector space, is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{Hom}(𝔽_𝒪^{}^{}(H),H)`$. We denote

$$𝔤_1=\mathrm{Hom}(_{i2}𝔽_𝒪^{}^i(H),H).$$

This is a dg Lie subalgebra of $`𝔤`$.

#### 4.1.3.

Theorem.   Suppose that the map $`H^1(𝔤_1)H^1(𝔤)`$ is zero. Then $`H`$ is intrinsically formal.

### 4.2. Proof of Theorem 4.1.3

The following standard lemma results from the fact that $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$ is cofibrant.

#### 4.2.1.

Lemma.   Let $`X`$ be a $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$-algebra. There exists a $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$-algebra structure on $`H(X)`$ so that $`X`$ and $`H(X)`$ are equivalent $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$-algebras (i.e., there exists a pair of quasi-isomorphisms of $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$-algebras $`XFH(X)`$).

#### 4.2.2.

Let $`H`$ be a graded $`𝒪`$-algebra. Let $`X`$ be a $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$-algebra so that $`H=H(X)`$ as $`𝒪`$-algebras. Choose a $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$-algebra structure on $`H`$ guaranteed by Lemma 4.2.1. One has $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(\mathcal{2})=𝒪(\mathcal{2})`$ and the $`𝒪`$-algebra structure on $`H`$ is the restriction of the $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$-algebra structure. To fix a notation, let the collection of maps

(11)
$$Q_n:𝔽_𝒪^{}^n(H)H[1],$$

$`n2`$ define the said $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$-algebra structure on $`H`$. The $`𝒪`$-algebra structure on $`H`$ is given by the collection $`\{Q_n^0\}`$ with $`Q_2^0=Q_2;Q_i^0=0`$ for $`i>2`$.

#### 4.2.3.

Lemma.   Let $`\lambda k`$. Put $`Q_n^\lambda =\lambda ^{n2}Q_n`$. The collection $`\{Q_n^\lambda \}_{n1}`$ defines a collection of $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$-algebra structures on $`H`$ parametrized by $`\lambda k`$. This gives the structure $`\{Q_n\}`$ for $`\lambda =1`$ and $`\{Q_n^0\}`$ for $`\lambda =0`$.

###### Proof.

The only property we have to check to make sure that the collection $`\{Q_n^\lambda \}`$ defines a $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$-algebra structure, is the identity looking like

$$d(Q_n^\lambda )=P_n(Q_2^\lambda ,\mathrm{},Q_{n1}^\lambda )$$

where $`P_n`$ is a quadratic (non-commutative) polynomial. Since $`H`$ has zero differential (this means $`Q_1=0`$ in our notation) the left-hand side vanishes. The right hand side vanishes for $`\lambda =1`$ since the collection of $`Q_i`$ does define a $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$-action. Since the polynomials $`P_n`$ are homogeneous, one has

$$P_n(Q_2^\lambda ,\mathrm{},Q_{n1}^\lambda )=\lambda ^{n1}P_n(Q_2,\mathrm{},Q_{n1}).$$

This proves the claim. ∎

#### 4.2.4.

Put $`C=(𝔽_𝒪^{}^{}(H),Q^0)`$. This is a differential graded $`𝒪^{}`$-coalgebra. The collection $`\{Q_n^\lambda \}`$ defines a $`k[\lambda ]`$-linear differential $`Q^\lambda `$ on the $`𝒪^{}`$-coalgebra $`C[\lambda ]`$. We wish to construct an isomorphism

$$\theta :(C[\lambda ],Q^0)(C[\lambda ],Q^\lambda )$$

which is identity modulo $`\lambda `$.

The isomorphism $`\theta `$ is uniquely defined by a collection of maps

$$\theta _n:𝔽_𝒪^{}^n(H)H[\lambda ]$$

with $`\theta _1=\mathrm{id}_H`$. We will be looking for $`\theta `$ satisfying the following property.

(12)
$$\theta _n=\varphi _n\lambda ^{n1}\text{ for some }\varphi _n:𝔽_𝒪^{}^n(H)H.$$

An automorphism $`\theta `$ satisfying (12) is constructed in 4.2.6 below. Then, tensoring $`\theta `$ by $`k[\lambda ]/(\lambda 1)`$, we get an isomorphism of dg $`𝒪^{}`$-coalgebras

$$\overline{\theta }:(C,Q^0)\stackrel{}{}(C,Q).$$

This will prove Theorem 4.1.3.

#### 4.2.5.

Define an action of the multiplicative group $`k^{}`$ on $`C[\lambda ]`$ by the formulas

$$\mu x=\mu ^nx\text{ for }x𝔽_𝒪^{}^n(H);\mu \lambda =\mu \lambda .$$

The differentials $`Q`$ and $`Q^\lambda `$ have both degree $`1`$ with respect to this action:

$$\mu Q(\mu ^1x)=\mu ^1Q(x);\mu Q^\lambda (\mu ^1x)=\mu ^1Q^\lambda (x).$$

The condition (12) means that $`\theta `$ has degree zero with respect to the defined action of $`k^{}`$.

#### 4.2.6.

The map $`\theta `$ will be constructed by induction.

Suppose we have constructed an isomorphism

$$\theta :(C[\lambda ]/(\lambda ^n),Q^0)\stackrel{}{}(C[\lambda ]/(\lambda ^n),Q^\lambda )$$

satisfying the property $`\theta _k=\varphi _k\lambda ^{k1}`$ for some $`\varphi _k:𝔽_𝒪^{}^k(H)H`$ for all $`k`$. This means in particular that $`\theta _k=0`$ for $`k>n`$.

Our aim is to lift $`\theta `$ to a map

$$\stackrel{~}{\theta }:(C[\lambda ]/(\lambda ^{n+1}),Q)\stackrel{}{}(C[\lambda ]/(\lambda ^{n+1}),Q^\lambda )$$

such that its components $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_k`$ satisfy the same property.

First of all, we lift $`\theta `$ to the isomorphism

$$\theta ^{}:(C[\lambda ]/(\lambda ^{n+1}),Q^{})\stackrel{}{}(C[\lambda ]/(\lambda ^{n+1}),Q^\lambda )$$

taking $`\theta _k^{}=\theta _k`$ for all $`k`$, where $`Q^{}`$ is some differential uniquely defined by the above formula. The differential $`Q^{}`$ has also degree $`1`$. Since $`Q^{}`$ coincides with $`Q_0`$ modulo $`\lambda ^n`$, one has actually an equality $`Q_k^{}=Q_k^0`$ for $`kn+1`$ and $`Q_{n+2}^{}=\lambda ^nz`$ for some $`z:𝔽_𝒪^{}^{n+2}(H)H`$. One easily observes that the element $`z`$ considered as a derivation, is a cycle. Therefore, there is a derivation $`u𝔤^0`$, such that $`z=du`$. This gives an isomorphism

$$\eta =\mathrm{exp}(\lambda ^nu):(C[\lambda ]/(\lambda ^{n+1}),Q)\stackrel{}{}(C[\lambda ]/(\lambda ^{n+1}),Q^{})$$

which is identity modulo $`\lambda ^n`$. The inductive step will be acomplished if we are able to find an isomorphism between $`(C[\lambda ]/(\lambda ^{n+1}),Q)`$ and $`(C[\lambda ]/(\lambda ^{n+1}),Q^{})`$ having degree zero.

The components $`\eta _k`$ of $`\eta `$ are divisible by $`\lambda ^n`$ for $`k>1`$. An easy calculation shows that the collection $`\kappa _k:𝔽_𝒪^{}^k(H)H`$ given by the formulas

$$\kappa _1=\mathrm{id}_H,\kappa _{n+1}=\eta _{n+1},\kappa _i=0\text{ for }i1,n+1,$$

defines an isomorphism

$$\kappa :(C[\lambda ]/(\lambda ^{n+1}),Q)\stackrel{}{}(C[\lambda ]/(\lambda ^{n+1}),Q^{}).$$

The composition of $`\kappa `$ with $`\theta ^{}`$ is the isomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ we were looking for.

The construction of isomorphism $`\theta `$ satisfying (12), and, therefore, the proof of Theorem 4.1.3, is acomplished.

## 5. Hochschild complex

### 5.1. Hochschild complex

Let $`A`$ be an associative $`k`$-algebra. Its Hochschild complex $`𝒞:=𝒞^{}(𝒜;𝒜)`$ has components defined by the formula

$$𝒞^𝓃=𝒞^𝓃(𝒜;𝒜)=\mathrm{Hom}(𝒜^𝓃,𝒜),𝓃=\mathcal{0},\mathcal{1},\mathrm{}$$

The graded vector space $`𝒞`$ admits a $`\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}\{1\}`$-algebra structure which comes from the identification of $`𝒞[\mathcal{1}]`$ with the collection of coderivations of the cofree coalgebra (with counit) cogenerated by $`A[1]`$.

An explicit formula for the Lie bracket is given in 5.5.3 below.

The multiplication $`\mu :A^2A`$ belongs to $`𝒞^\mathcal{2}`$; therefore the operator $`\mathrm{ad}\mu `$ has degree $`1`$. An easy calculation shows that $`(\mathrm{ad}\mu )^2=0`$; $`𝒞`$ endowed with the differential $`\mathrm{ad}\mu `$ becomes a dg $`\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}\{1\}`$-algebra.

### 5.2. $`H(𝒞)`$ is a $`𝒢`$-algebra

In order to prove Theorem 1.2 it would be enough to check that $`H=H(C^{}(A;A))`$ is intrinsically formal as a Lie algebra. This, however, is not true. Tamarkin’s idea is to prove that $`H`$ becomes intrinsically formal when it is considered as an algebra over an operad $`𝒢`$ described below.

Define $`m:𝒞𝒞𝒞`$ by the formula

(13)
$$m(xy)=\mu (xy)$$

where $`xy:A^{m+n}A^2`$ is defined to be the tensor product of the maps $`x:A^mA`$ and $`y:A^nA`$.

The following lemma is due to M. Gerstenhaber (1964).

#### 5.2.1.

Lemma.  The map $`m`$ induces a commutative associative multiplication on $`H(𝒞)`$. The bracket on $`H(𝒞)`$ is a derivation with respect to $`m`$.

#### 5.2.2.

Definition.  Operad $`𝒢`$ is the operad generated by the operations $`m𝒢(\mathcal{2})^\mathcal{0},\mathrm{}𝒢(\mathcal{2})^\mathcal{1}`$ satisfying the following identities:

* $`m`$ is commutative associative
* $`\mathrm{}`$ is Lie
* $`\mathrm{}`$ is a derivation with respect to $`m`$.

Lemma 5.2.1 above means that the cohomology $`H(𝒞(𝒜;𝒜))`$ admits a natural $`𝒢`$-algebra structure.

#### 5.2.3.

The following construction assigns a $`𝒢`$-algebra to any Lie algebra $`𝔤`$. Put $`X=𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙲𝙾𝙼}}(𝔤[1])=_{i>0}S^i(𝔤[1])`$. There is a unique $`\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}\{1\}`$-algebra structure on $`X`$ extending that on $`𝔤[1]`$ such that $`X`$ becomes a $`𝒢`$-algebra. This is a free $`𝒢`$-algebra generated by a Lie algebra $`𝔤`$.

#### 5.2.4.

There is a twisted (=sheaf) version of the above construction. Let $`𝔤`$ be a Lie algebroid over a commutative algebra $`A`$. This mean that $`𝔤`$ is a Lie algebra, $`A`$-module, and a map of Lie algebras and $`A`$-modules $`\pi :𝔤\mathrm{Der}(A,A)`$ is given so that

$$[f,ag]=a[f,g]+\pi (f)(a)g$$

for $`aA,f,g𝔤`$.

Then a $`𝒢`$-algebra structure on the $`A`$-symmetric algebra without unit $`S_A^1(𝔤[1])`$ is naturally defined. If one defines $`A=S_A^0(𝔤[1])`$ to commute with $`S_A^1(𝔤[1])`$, one obtains a $`𝒢`$-algebra structure on the $`A`$-symmetric algebra $`S_A(𝔤[1])`$.

### 5.3. Koszulity

The operad $`𝒢`$ is obviously quadratic. The quadratic dual cooperad $`𝒢^{}`$ has as cogenerators elements $`\stackrel{~}{m},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ of degrees $`1`$ and $`2`$ respectively. A simple calculation gives

#### 5.3.1.

Lemma.

$$𝒢^{}=𝒢^{}[\mathcal{2}].$$

One has the following important

#### 5.3.2.

Proposition.  (\[GJ\]) $`𝒢`$ is Koszul.

For an easy proof of this fact see 5.4.6.

Recall that koszulity of $`𝒢`$ means that the natural map (9)

$$𝒢_{\mathrm{}}𝒢$$

is a quasi-isomorphism of operads. The operad $`𝒢_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the operad for homotopy Gerstenhaber algebras.

Deformation theory approach to the Formality Theorem is based on the following version of Deligne’s conjecture.

#### 5.3.3.

Theorem.  There is a structure of $`𝒢_{\mathrm{}}`$-algebra natural in $`A`$ on $`C^{}(A;A)`$ inducing the described above $`𝒢`$-algebra structure on $`H(C^{}(A;A))`$.

Theorem 5.3.3 will be proven in Sections 6 and 7. In this section we will deduce Formality Theorem 1.2 from Theorem 5.3.3.

### 5.4. Calculation

From now on $`A`$ is a smooth commutative $`k`$-algebra. Our aim is to calculate the cohomology of $`H:=H(C^{}(A;A))`$ and to make sure it vanishes when $`A`$ is a polynomial algebra. This, together with Theorem 5.3.3, gives Formality Theorem.

The following classical result of Hochschild-Kostant-Rosenberg describes the cohomology of $`C^{}(A;A)`$.

#### 5.4.1.

Lemma.   $`H=S_A(T_A[1])`$ where $`T_A=\mathrm{Der}(A,A)`$. The $`𝒢`$-algebra structure on $`H`$ is defined as in 5.2.4.

Following 4.1.3, we have to calculate the dg Lie algebra of coderivations of the dg $`𝒢^{}`$-coalgebra $`(𝔽_𝒢^{}^{}(H),Q)`$ corresponding to $`H`$.

#### 5.4.2.

Note the following formula

(14)
$$𝔽_𝒢^{}^{}(X)=𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙲𝙾𝙼}}^{}\left(𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}^{}(X[1])[1]\right)[2]$$

which can be obtained using 5.3.1 from the formula dual to the following

(15)
$$𝔽_𝒢(X)=𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙲𝙾𝙼}}(𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}\{1\}}(X)).$$

#### 5.4.3.

According to 4.1.3, we have to calculate the map $`H^1(𝔤_1)H^1(𝔤)`$ where

$$𝔤=\mathrm{Coder}(𝔽_𝒢^{}^{}(H))=\mathrm{Hom}(𝔽_𝒢^{}^{}(H),H)=\mathrm{Hom}(𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙲𝙾𝙼}}^{}\left(𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}^{}(H[1])[1]\right),H[2])$$

with the differential induced by the differential $`Q`$ of $`𝔽_𝒢^{}^{}(H)`$.

The differential $`Q`$ of $`𝔽_𝒢^{}^{}(H)`$ comes from the map $`𝒢(\mathcal{2})^\mathcal{2}`$ describing the $`𝒢`$-algebra structure on $`H`$. Therefore, $`Q=Q_m+Q_{\mathrm{}}`$ where $`Q_m`$ is induced by the commutative multiplication $`m:HHH`$, and $`Q_{\mathrm{}}`$ is induced by the bracket $`\mathrm{}:HHH[1]`$. Since the defining relations on operations $`m`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ in $`𝒢`$ are homogeneous, one necessarily has

$$Q_m^2=Q_{\mathrm{}}^2=Q_mQ_{\mathrm{}}+Q_{\mathrm{}}Q_m=0.$$

The total diferential $`Q`$ on $`𝔤`$ is also a sum of two differentials which will be denoted by $`Q_m`$ and $`Q_{\mathrm{}}`$.

Any cofree coalgebra is naturally graded — see (6). Formula (14) gives rise to a bigrading on the cofree $`𝒢^{}`$-coalgebra $`𝔽_𝒢^{}^{}(H)`$ in which the $`(p,q)`$-component consists of the elements of $`\mathrm{𝙲𝙾𝙼}`$-degree $`p`$ and total $`\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}`$-degree $`q`$.

This defines a bigrading on $`𝔤`$ so that

$$𝔤^p=\mathrm{Hom}(𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙲𝙾𝙼}}^{1+p}(𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}^{}(H[1])[1]),H[2]).$$

Note that

(16)
$$𝔤_1=\underset{(p,q)(0,0)}{}𝔤^{pq}.$$

The differentials $`Q_m`$ and $`Q_{\mathrm{}}`$ have degrees $`(0,1)`$ and $`(1,0)`$ with respect to this bigrading and $`𝔤`$ lives in the first quadrant. Therefore, one can use the spectral sequence argument to calculate the cohomology of $`𝔤`$.

Let us calculate the first term $`E_1^{pq}=H^{pq}(𝔤,Q_m)`$. To keep track of the differential $`Q_m`$ in $`𝔤`$ it is convenient to present

$$𝔤^{0q}=\mathrm{Hom}(𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}^{1+q}(H[1])[1],H[2])=\mathrm{Hom}_H(𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}^{1+q}(H[1])H[1],H[2])$$

and to identify $`𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}^{}(H[1])H`$ with the homological Harrison complex $`Z:=\mathrm{Harr}_{}(H,H)`$.

Then one can see that $`(𝔤^0,Q_m)`$ coincides with $`\mathrm{Hom}_H(Z[1],H[2])`$ as a complex; moreover, for each $`p`$ one has

$$(𝔤^p,Q_m)=\mathrm{Hom}_H(S_H^{1+p}(Z[1]),H[2]).$$

#### 5.4.4.

The considerations above hold for every graded $`𝒢`$-algebra $`H`$ with unit. Now we will use the fact that $`H=H(C^{}(A;A))`$ where $`A`$ is a smooth $`k`$-algebra.

Namely, according to Lemma 5.4.1, $`H`$ is smooth as a graded commutative algebra. Therefore, there is a natural isomorphism

$$Z\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Omega }[1]$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{H/k}`$ is the module of Kähler differentials. This implies that

(17)
$$E_1^{pq}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{Hom}_H(S_H^{1+p}(\mathrm{\Omega }[2]),H[2]),\hfill & q=0\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & q0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Let us calculate $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{H/k}`$. The sequence of smooth morphisms of graded commutative algebras

$$kAH=S_A(T_A[1])$$

gives rise to an isomorphism

(18)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }\stackrel{}{}H_A\mathrm{\Omega }_{A/k}\mathrm{\Omega }_{H/A}=H_A(T_A[1]T_A^{})=H_A\omega $$

where $`\omega =T_A[1]T_A^{}`$. Note that $`\omega `$ is a finitely generated graded projective $`A`$-module.

The only non-vanishing cohomology in (17) can be rewritten as

(19)
$$E_1^{p0}=S_A^{1+p}(\omega [1])_AH[2]=S_H^{1+p}(\mathrm{\Omega }[1])[2]$$

since $`\omega [2]^{}=\omega [1]`$.

Note that $`E_1^{p0}`$ embeds into

$$𝔤^{p0}=\mathrm{Hom}(𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙲𝙾𝙼}}^{1+p}(H[2]),H[2])$$

and the differential $`Q_{\mathrm{}}`$ on the latter is defined by the Lie algebra structure on $`H[1]`$. This allows one to identify the the differential $`Q_2`$ on (19) with the differential on the (shifted and truncated) de Rham complex of $`H`$.

#### 5.4.5.

Suppose now that $`A`$ is a polynomial algebra over $`k`$. In this case de Rham complex of $`H`$ is acyclic. Then the calculation in the previous subsection gives a quasi-isomorphism $`𝔤\stackrel{}{}H/k[1]`$. This implies that $`𝔤`$ has no cohomology coming from the cohomology of $`𝔤_1`$.

#### 5.4.6.

Remark.  A calculation similar to the above proves that $`𝒢`$ is Koszul.

In fact, according to 3.1.8, one has to check that for each graded vector space $`V`$ the natural map

$$V(𝔽_𝒢^{}^{}(𝔽_𝒢(V),Q)$$

is a quasi-isomorphism.

Taking into account the formulas (14) and (15) and using, as in 5.4.3, the presentation of $`𝔽_𝒢^{}^{}(H)`$ by a bicomplex, one easily obtains the result.

#### 5.4.7.

Now Theorem 1.2 have been proven modulo Theorem 5.3.3. In the end of this section we will describe the operad $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ naturally acting on the Hochschild complex $`C(A;A)`$ of any associative algebra $`A`$. This is the first step in the proof of Theorem 5.3.3 which is presented in Sections 6 and 7.

### 5.5. Hochschild complex is a $`_{\mathrm{}}`$-algebra

We shall now describe an operad which acts naturally on the Hochschild complex of any associative algebra. This operad is denoted $`_{\mathrm{}}`$. It has been invented by H.-I. Baues; its action on the Hochschild complex was defined in \[GJ\].

#### 5.5.1. Notation

In this subsection $`A`$ is any associative $`k`$-algebra and $`𝒞=𝒞^{}(𝒜;𝒜)`$. It is convenient to denote elements $`f𝒞^𝓃`$ as boxes having $`n`$ hands and one leg like this:

#### 5.5.2. Basic operation

Let $`f,g_1,\mathrm{},g_n𝒞`$. Denote the brace $`f\{g_1,\mathrm{},g_n\}`$ by the following formula

(20)
$$f\{g_1,\mathrm{},g_n\}=\underset{\text{all possible insertions}}{}\text{}$$

Here the sum is taken over all possible order preserving insertions of legs of $`g_i`$ into hands of $`f`$.

#### 5.5.3.

The Lie bracket on $`𝒞[\mathcal{1}]`$ is given explicitly, in terms of braces, by the formula

$$[f,g]=f\{g\}(1)^{|f||g|}g\{f\}.$$

#### 5.5.4.

Definition.  A $`_{\mathrm{}}`$-algebra structure on a graded vector space $`X`$ is given by a structure of dg bialgebra on $`𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙰𝚂𝚂}}^{}(X[1])`$ so that the coalgebra structure is the standard (cofree) one.

Let us check that $`_{\mathrm{}}`$-algebra structure is given by an operad (as usual, it will be denoted by $`_{\mathrm{}}`$).

The dg bialgebra structure on $`𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙰𝚂𝚂}}^{}(X[1])`$ is given by the following data.

* a differential $`X[1]^nX[1]^m`$ of degree $`1`$. The differential is uniquely defined by its $`m=1`$ part. We denote its $`(n,1)`$-components by $`m_n:X[1]^nX[2]`$ (or, what is the same, $`m_n:X^nX[2n]`$).
* a multiplication $`X[1]^pX[1]^qX[1]^r`$ of degree $`0`$ — it is also uniquely defined by its $`r=1`$ part. We denote the collection of $`r=1`$ multiplications by

$$m_{pq}:X[1]^pX[1]^qX[1]$$

or, what is the same,

$$m_{pq}:X^pX^qX[1pq].$$

Therefore, the $`_{\mathrm{}}`$-algebra structure is given by a collection of operations $`m_n,m_{pq}`$ subject to some relations. This defines an operad $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ as the one generated by $`m_n_{\mathrm{}}(𝓃)^{\mathcal{2}𝓃}`$ and $`m_{pq}_{\mathrm{}}(𝓅+𝓆)^{\mathcal{1}𝓅𝓆}`$ subject to some relations.

#### 5.5.5.

WARNING. The operad $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ is not obtained in any sense from a(ny) Koszul operad $``$. Getzler and Jones are responsible for this notation.

#### 5.5.6. Action of $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`C^{}(A;A)`$

We have to define the action of the operations $`m_n,m_{pq}`$ on $`𝒞=𝒞^{}(𝒜;𝒜)`$ and to check the compatibilities. Here it is.

* $`m_1`$ is the differential in $`𝒞`$
* $`m_2`$ is the multiplication $`\mu `$ defined by (13)
* $`m_i=0`$ for $`i>2`$
* $`m_{1k}(fg_1\mathrm{}g_k)=f\{g_1,\mathrm{},g_k\}`$ where the brace operations are defined by formula (20)
* $`m_{kl}=0\text{ for }k>1.`$

One can directly check that the collection of operations $`m_n,m_{pq}`$ defined above gives rise to a $`_{\mathrm{}}`$-algebra structure on $`𝒞`$.

## 6. Between $`𝒢`$ and $`𝒢_{\mathrm{}}`$

In this section we present an operad $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ lying between $`𝒢`$ and $`𝒢_{\mathrm{}}`$ — it admits a pair of maps

$$𝒢_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{},\stackrel{~}{}𝒢$$

so that the composition is the obvious map $`𝒢_{\mathrm{}}𝒢`$.

In the next section we will prove, using Etingof-Kazhdan theorem on quantization of Lie bialgebras \[EK\], that the operad $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is isomorphic to the operad $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ acting on the Hochschild complex of any associative algebra by 5.5.6. This will yield Theorem 5.3.3 and, therefore, Theorem 1.2.

### 6.1. $`\stackrel{~}{}`$-algebras

A $`\stackrel{~}{}`$-algebra structure on a graded vector space $`X`$ is a dg Lie bialgebra structure on $`𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}^{}(X[1])`$ extending the standard free Lie coalgebra structure.

The Lie bracket on a Lie bialgebra $`𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}^{}(X[1])`$ is defined by its corestriction to the cogenerators $`X[1]`$. Therefore, it is given by a collection of maps

$$\mathrm{}_{mn}:𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}^m(X[1])𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}^n(X[1])X[1]$$

satisfying a collection of quadratic identities. The differential on $`𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}^{}(X[1])`$ is also defined by its corestriction to the cogenerators. This amounts to a collection

$$d_n:𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}^n(X[1])X[2]$$

satisfying some more quadratic identities — the one saying that $`d^2=0`$ and the other that the $`d`$ is the derivation of the Lie algebra structure given by $`\mathrm{}_{mn}`$.

In particular, one has $`d_1^2=0`$ and this endows $`X`$ with a structure of complex. The obvious maps $`X[1]𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}^{}(X[1])X[1]`$ are maps of complexes.

Since the $`\stackrel{~}{}`$-structure on $`X`$ is given by a collection of operations subject to some relations, there is an operad in the category of complexes which will be called in the sequel $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{}`$-algebras are just algebras over $`\stackrel{~}{}`$.

### 6.2.

A map $`𝒪𝒪^{}`$ of operad endows a $`𝒪^{}`$-algebra with a canonical $`𝒪`$-algebra structure. The converse is also obviously true — in order to define a map of operads it is enough to endow any $`𝒪^{}`$-algebra with a canonical $`𝒪`$-algebra structure.

Let us construct a map $`\stackrel{~}{}𝒢`$. For this we have to define canonically a $`\stackrel{~}{}`$-algebra structure on each $`𝒢`$-algebra $`X`$. Recall that a $`𝒢`$-algebra $`X`$ is endowed with a commutative multiplication $`m:X^2X`$ and a Lie bracket $`l:X[1]^2X[1]`$. The Harrison complex of the commutative algebra $`(X,m)`$ is given by a differential on $`𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}^{}(X[1])`$. The Lie algebra structure on $`X[1]`$ can be uniquely extended to $`𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}^{}(X[1])`$ to get a Lie bialgebra. The Harrison differential will be a derivation with respect to the Lie algebra structure, so this construction defines a dg Lie bialgebra structure on $`𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}^{}(X[1])`$.

The construction is obviously canonical and yields a morphism of operads $`\stackrel{~}{}𝒢`$.

### 6.3.

Let now construct a map $`𝒢_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{}`$.

Let $`X`$ be a $`\stackrel{~}{}`$-algebra. This means that a dg Lie bialgebra structure on $`𝔤=𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}^{}(X[1])`$ is given. In particular, $`𝔤`$ is a dg Lie algebra and this defines a differential on $`𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙲𝙾𝙼}}^{}(𝔤[1])`$. The latter complex is by formula (14) just $`𝔽_𝒢^{}^{}(X)[2]`$. Differential on it gives a $`𝒢_{\mathrm{}}`$-structure on $`X`$.

Thus the map $`𝒢_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{}`$ is constructed.

## 7. Equivalence of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ with $`_{\mathrm{}}`$

In this section we prove that the operads $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ and $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ are isomorphic. Note that the isomorphism is obtained using Etingof-Kazhdan theorems \[EK\] on quantization of Lie bialgebras. The isomorphism will depend on the choice of associator, as in \[EK\].

### 7.1.

For some technical reasons, it is more convenient to use coalgebras over $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ and $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ instead of algebras. Our aim is to prove that any $`\stackrel{~}{}`$-coalgebra admits a natural $`_{\mathrm{}}`$-coalgebra structure and vice versa.

Note

#### 7.1.1.

Lemma.   $`\stackrel{~}{}`$-coagebra structure on a graded vector space $`X`$ is given by a structure of dg Lie bialgebra on

$$\widehat{𝔽}_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}(X[1])=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}^n(X[1]).$$

#### 7.1.2.

Lemma.   $`_{\mathrm{}}`$-coagebra structure on a graded vector space $`X`$ is given by a structure of dg bialgebra on

$$\widehat{𝔽}_{\mathrm{𝙰𝚂𝚂}}(X[1])=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}X[1]^n.$$

Now we wish to use \[EK\] in order to pass from one structure above to the other. The idea is the following. One can interpret completions of free algebras $`𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}(V)`$ and $`𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙰𝚂𝚂}}(V)`$ as equivariant $`k[[h]]`$-algebras $`𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}(V)[[h]]`$ and $`𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}(V)[[h]]`$. This is the situation Etingof-Kazhdan theory applies.

### 7.2. Etingof-Kazhdan theory

Let $`\mathrm{𝙻𝚘𝚌𝚌}(k)`$ be the category of local complete $`k`$-algebras with residue field $`k`$.

Let $`𝒜`$ be an abelian $`k`$-linear tensor category. For each $`R\mathrm{𝙻𝚘𝚌𝚌}(k)`$ we denote by $`𝒜()`$ the category with the same objects as $`𝒜`$ and with the morphisms defined by the formula

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{𝒜()}(X,Y)=\mathrm{Hom}_𝒜(X,Y)R.$$

The object of $`𝒜()`$ corresponding to an object $`X𝒜`$ is denoted $`X_R`$. In the other direction, for $`Y𝒜()`$ we write $`\overline{Y}`$ for the corresponding object of $`𝒜`$. The assignments $`XX_R`$ and $`Y\overline{Y}`$ define a pair of functors between $`𝒜`$ and $`𝒜()`$.

Let $`\mathrm{𝙻𝙱𝙰}_0(R)`$ be the category of Lie bialgebras $`(𝔤,[],\delta )`$ in $`𝒜()`$ whose cobracket $`\delta `$ vanishes modulo the maximal ideal $`𝔪`$ of $`R`$. Let $`\mathrm{𝙷𝙰}_0`$ denote the category of Hopf algebras in $`𝒜_{}`$ whose reduction modulo $`𝔪`$ is isomorphic to the enveloping algebra of a Lie algebra in $`𝒜`$.

The following theorem can be found in \[EK\].

#### 7.2.1.

Theorem.   There is an equivalence of categories

(21)
$$Q:\mathrm{𝙻𝙱𝙰}_0(R)\mathrm{𝙷𝙰}_0(R)$$

satisfying the following properties (see also explanations below)

* $`\overline{Q(𝔤)}=U(\overline{𝔤})`$
* $`\delta :𝔤𝔤𝔤`$ measures the deviation of the coproduct in $`Q(𝔤)`$ from being cocommutative.
* $`Q`$ is given by universal formulas.

#### 7.2.2.

The second property of the functor $`Q`$ mentioned in Theorem 7.2.1 means the following. Denote by $`i:𝔤Q(𝔤)`$ the image under the functor $`R`$ of the obvious embedding $`\overline{𝔤}U(\overline{𝔤})`$. The property $`2`$ claims that the map from $`𝔤`$ to $`Q(𝔤)Q(𝔤)`$ given by the difference

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }^{})i(ii)\delta $$

vanishes modulo $`𝔪^2`$.

Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the coproduct in $`Q(𝔤)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ is the coproduct composed with the commutativity constraint.

#### 7.2.3.

The third property means the following. As an object of $`𝒜()`$, $`Q(𝔤)`$ is just the symmetric algebra $`S(𝔤)=S^n(𝔤)`$. Therefore, the Hopf algebra structure on $`Q(𝔤)`$ is given by a collection of maps $`m_{pqr}:S^p(𝔤)S^q(𝔤)S^r(𝔤)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pqr}:S^p(𝔤)S^q(𝔤)S^r(𝔤)`$. Universality condition means that the maps $`m_{pqr},\mathrm{\Delta }_{pqr}`$ are described as universal polynomials on the bracket and cobracket in $`𝔤`$.

#### 7.2.4.

It is convenient to define $`\mathrm{𝙻𝙱𝙰}_0`$ to be the category of pairs $`(R,𝔤)`$ where $`R\mathrm{𝙻𝚘𝚌𝚌}(k)`$ and $`𝔤\mathrm{𝙻𝙱𝙰}_0(R)`$. In the same fashion one defines the category $`\mathrm{𝙷𝙰}_0`$. Since the functors $`Q:\mathrm{𝙻𝙱𝙰}_0(R)\mathrm{𝙷𝙰}_0(R)`$ are given by the universal formulas, they form a functor $`Q:\mathrm{𝙻𝙱𝙰}_0\mathrm{𝙷𝙰}_0`$ which is also an equivalence of categories. Reduction modulo the maximal ideal defines a commutative diagram of functors

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝙻𝙱𝙰}_0& \underset{Q}{}& \mathrm{𝙷𝙰}_0\\ & & & & \\ \mathrm{𝙻𝚒𝚎}(k)& \underset{U}{}& \mathrm{𝙷𝙰}_0(k)\end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{𝙻𝚒𝚎}(k)`$ is the category of Lie algebras over $`k`$ and $`U`$ is the enveloping algebra functor.

#### 7.2.5.

The equivalence of categories $`Q:\mathrm{𝙻𝙱𝙰}_0\mathrm{𝙷𝙰}_0`$ gives rise to an equivalence $`Q^G:\mathrm{𝙻𝙱𝙰}_0^G\mathrm{𝙷𝙰}_0^G`$ between the categories of objects endowed with a $`G`$-action, $`G`$ being a group.

Let now $`𝒜`$ be the category of complexes of $`k`$-modules. Let $`G=k^{}`$ be the multiplicative group, $`R=k[[h]]`$. Let $`k^{}`$ act on $`R`$ by the formula $`\lambda (h)=\lambda ^1h`$. Let $`V𝒜`$. Let $`k^{}`$ act on $`V`$ by the formula $`\lambda (v)=\lambda v`$. This action extends to a $`k^{}`$-action on $`𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}(V)`$ and $`𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙰𝚂𝚂}}(V)`$, as well as to an action on $`𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}(V)[[h]]`$ and $`𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙰𝚂𝚂}}(V)[[h]]`$.

Theorem 7.2.1 implies the following

#### 7.2.6.

Corollary.   The functor $`Q`$ establishes an equivalence between the following categories:

* Lie bialgebras $`(R,𝔤)\mathrm{𝙻𝙱𝙰}_0`$ endowed with a $`k^{}`$-action compatible with the specified above $`k^{}`$-action on $`R=k[[h]]`$ and on $`\overline{𝔤}=𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}(V)`$.
* Associative bialgebras $`(R,H)\mathrm{𝙷𝙰}_0`$ endowed with a $`k^{}`$-action compatible with the specified above action on $`R=k[[h]]`$ and on $`\overline{H}=𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙰𝚂𝚂}}(V)`$.

### 7.3.

Theorem.   There exists an isomorphism between the operads $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ and $`_{\mathrm{}}`$.

Theorem 7.3 is proven in 7.3.17.3.3 below.

#### 7.3.1.

Put $`𝔤=𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}(V)`$. A $`k[[h]]`$-Lie bialgebra structure on $`𝔤[[h]]`$ is given by a collection of maps

$$\delta _{pq}^r:V𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}^p(V)𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}^q(V)$$

such that the cobracket $`\delta :𝔤[[h]]𝔤[[h]𝔤[[h]]`$ restricted to $`𝔤`$ is given by the formula

$$𝔤=\underset{p,q,r}{}\delta _{pq}^rh^r.$$

Define an action of $`k^{}`$ on $`𝔤[[h]]`$ as in 7.2.5. The cobracket $`\delta `$ of $`𝔤[[h]]`$ is equivariant if and only if it satisfies the property

(22)
$$\delta _{pq}^r=0\text{ for }rp+q1.$$

One can easily identify dg Lie bialgebra structures on $`𝔤[[h]]`$ satisfying (22) with dg Lie bialgebra structures on $`\widehat{𝔤}`$.

#### 7.3.2.

Similarly, dg bialgebra structures on $`\widehat{𝔽}_{\mathrm{𝙰𝚂𝚂}}(V)`$ can be identified with equivariant bialgebra structures on $`𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙰𝚂𝚂}}(V)[[h]]`$.

#### 7.3.3.

We use Corollary 7.2.6 of the equivalence $`Q`$ from Etingof-Kazhdan Theorem 7.2.1.

Let $`X`$ be a complex, $`V=X[1]`$. $`\stackrel{~}{}`$-coalgebra structure on $`X`$ is given by a structure of dg Lie bialgebra on $`\widehat{𝔤}=\widehat{𝔽}_{\mathrm{𝙻𝙸𝙴}}(V)`$ which is the same as an equivariant dg Lie bialgebra structure on $`𝔤[[h]]`$.

According to Corollary 7.2.6, this defines canonically an equivariant dg Hopf algebra $`(H,m,\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{𝙷𝙰}_0`$.

The canonical map $`i:V[[h]]H`$ given by the composition

$$i:V𝔤\overline{H}$$

induces an algebra homomorphism $`F(i):𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙰𝚂𝚂}}(V)[[h]]H`$. It is isomorphism since its reduction modulo $`h`$ $`\overline{F(i)}`$ is the identity map. This defines canonically an equivariant bialgebra structure on $`𝔽_{\mathrm{𝙰𝚂𝚂}}(V)[[h]]`$ which is the same as a dg bialgebra structure on $`\widehat{𝔽}_{\mathrm{𝙰𝚂𝚂}}(V)`$. Theorem is proven.


text:
# REFERENCES

A “mirror universe” is predicted to exist if parity and/or time reversal are unbroken symmetries of nature. The idea is that for each ordinary particle, such as the photon, electron, proton and neutron, there is a corresponding mirror particle, of exactly the same mass as the ordinary particle. The parity symmetry interchanges the ordinary particles with the mirror particles so that the properties of the mirror particles completely mirror those of the ordinary particles. For example the mirror proton and mirror electron are stable and interact with the mirror photon in the same way in which the ordinary proton and electron interacts with the ordinary photons. The mirror particles are not produced in Laboratory experiments just because they couple very weakly to the ordinary particles. In the modern language of gauge theories, the mirror particles are all singlets under the standard $`GSU(3)SU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$ gauge interactions. Instead the mirror particles interact with a set of mirror gauge particles, so that the gauge symmetry of the theory is doubled, i.e. $`GG`$ (the ordinary particles are, of course, singlets under the mirror gauge symmetry). Parity is conserved because the mirror particles experience $`V+A`$ (i.e. right-handed) mirror weak interactions while the ordinary particles experience the usual $`VA`$ (i.e. left-handed) weak interactions. Ordinary and mirror particles interact with each other predominately by gravity only. At the present time there is some experimental evidence that mirror matter exists coming from cosmology as well as from the neutrino physics anomalies.

It was realized some time ago by Glashow that the orthopositronium system provides one sensitive way to search for the mirror universe. The idea is that small kinetic mixing of the ordinary and mirror photons may exist which would mix ordinary and mirror orthopositronium, leading to maximal orthopositronium - mirror orthopositronium oscillations.

The ground state of orthopositronium (o-Ps) decays predominately into 3 photons with a theoretical decay rate computed to be (see e.g.  for a review)

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(\pi ^29)\alpha ^6m_e}{9\pi }}\left[110.28661{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{3}}ln{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}+B_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha ^3}{2\pi }}ln^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}+𝒪(\alpha ^3ln\alpha )\right]`$ (1)
$``$ $`(7.0382+3.9\times 10^5B_0)\mu s^1.`$ (2)
The $`B_0`$ term parametrizes the non-logarithmic two-loop effects which have yet to be calculated.

On the experimental side, there have been a number of measurements of the lifetime of orthopositronium. The most accurate measurements are given in the table below:

| Reference | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{oPs}(\mu s^1)`$ | Method | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Ann Arbor | $`7.0482\pm 0.0016`$ | Vacuum Cavity | $`(310)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{oPs}`$ |
| Ann Arbor | $`7.0514\pm 0.0014`$ | Gas | $`10^3\mathrm{\Gamma }_{oPs}`$ |
| Tokyo | $`7.0398\pm 0.0029`$ | Powder | $`10^4\mathrm{\Gamma }_{oPs}`$ |

Table Caption: Some measurements of the orthopositronium lifetime. The last column is an estimate of the mean scattering length of the orthopositronium in the experiment.

Comparison of the theoretical prediction with the experimental results suggests a statistically significant discrepancy between the Theory/Tokyo results and the Ann Arbour results. (Note that the $`B_0`$ term would have to be anomalously large, $`300`$, in order to make the theory and the Ann Arbour result agree). Originally it was proposed that an exotic o-Ps decay mode would solve the Theory/Ann Arbor discrepancy. The puzzle seemed so intriguing that even the strongly forbidden decay o-Ps $`2\gamma `$ was searched for as a candidate for solution. Now, it is believed that practically all possible contributions to the o-Ps decay rate from non-standard annihilation modes are excluded experimentally, for a review see  ( and also ) and references therein. The purpose of this letter is to see if the oscillations of orthopositronium with its mirror analogue can resolve this discrepancy.

Photon - mirror photon kinetic mixing is described by the interaction Lagrangian density

$$=ϵF^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^{},$$
(3)
where $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ ($`F_{\mu \nu }^{}`$) is the field strength tensor for electromagnetism (mirror electromagnetism). This type of Lagrangian term is gauge invariant and renormalizable and can exist at tree level or maybe induced radiatively in models without $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetries (such as grand unified theories). The effect of ordinary photon - mirror photon kinetic mixing is to give the mirror charged particles a small electric charge. That is, they couple to ordinary photons with charge $`2ϵe`$Note that the direct experimental bound on $`ϵ`$ from searches for ‘milli-charged’ particles is $`ϵ\stackrel{<}{}10^5`$..

Orthopositronium is connected via a one-photon annihilation diagram to its mirror version (o-Ps’). This breaks the degeneracy between o-Ps and o-Ps’ so that the vacuum energy eigenstates are (o-Ps + o-Ps’)$`/\sqrt{2}`$ and (o-Ps - o-Ps’)$`/\sqrt{2}`$, which are split in energy by $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=2hϵf`$, where $`f=8.7\times 10^4`$ MHz is the contribution to the ortho-para splitting from the one-photon annihilation diagram involving o-Ps. Thus the interaction eigenstates are maximal combinations of mass eigenstates which implies that o-Ps oscillates into o-Ps’ with probability:

$$P(\mathrm{o}\mathrm{Ps}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{Ps}^{})=\mathrm{sin}^2\omega t,$$
(4)
where $`\omega =2\pi ϵf`$. Note that the probability $`P(\mathrm{o}\mathrm{Ps}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{Ps}^{})`$ can, in principle, also be affected by an additional splitting of o-Ps and o-Ps’ states by an external electric or magnetic field.

Let us first review the simplest case of o-Ps $``$ o-Ps’ oscillations in vacuum. In this case, because the mirror decays are not detected, this leads to an apparent increase in the decay rate, since the number of o-Ps, $`N`$ satisfies

$$N=\mathrm{cos}^2wte^{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{sm}t}exp[t(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{sm}+w^2t)],$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{sm}`$ is the standard model decay rate of o-Ps (i.e. when the oscillation length goes to infinity). Thus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{eff}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{sm}+w^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }^{sm}`$.

Actually the above computation is not applicable to any of the experiments listed in the table because in each case the collision rate is larger than the decay rate and loss of coherence due to the collisions must be included.

Observe that there is the interesting possibility that two different experiments could get different values for the lifetime because of the different collision rates of the orthopositronium. It is well known that collisions damp the oscillations and in the limit where the collision rate is much larger than the decay rate (or oscillation frequency; whichever is smaller) the effect of the oscillations becomes negligible (Quantum Zeno effect). Let us assume for now that the theory computation is accurate (i.e. the unknown quantity $`B_0`$ is not anomolously large). The agreement with the Tokyo experiment can be explained because of the very large collision rate of the orthopositronium in the powder. However because of the two different collision rates of the two Ann Arbour experiments, they cannot both be explained. Interestingly, some doubts about the Ann Arbour gas experiment have emerged due to the fact that the thermalization time of o-Ps (time of slowing of the orthopositronium atoms by collisions in matter) needs to be taken into account for a precision measurement of the o-Ps decay rate, see e.g. , , . If the o-Ps atoms are not completely thermalized, they are moving faster and their decay rate is spuriously higher because of the higher pickoff annihilation rate. This could result in a systematic error in the determination of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{oPs}`$. A similar conclusion has been drawn in a recent paper of Skalsey et al. , where it is claimed that at the lowest pressures used in the gas measurements  o-Ps were indeed not completely thermalized. This is crutial, since the Ann Arbor team used the asymptotic o-Ps decay rate extrapolated from low-pressure measurements. The size of the correction on the o-Ps decay rate due to incomplete thermalization still has to be determined.

If we ignore this gas result then the discrepancy between the theory/Tokyo results and the Ann Arbour vacuum cavity experiment can be explained by the orthopositronium-mirror orthopositronium oscillation mechanism. To see how this works in detail we need to consider the case where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{sm}`$, then the evolution of the number of orthopositronium states, $`N`$, satisfies:

$$\frac{dN}{dt}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{sm}N\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}N\rho ,$$
(6)
where the second term is the rate at which o-Ps oscillates into o-Ps’ (whose subsequent decays are not detected). In this term, $`\rho `$ denotes the average of oscillation probability over the collision time. That is,

$$\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}_0^te^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}t^{}}\mathrm{sin}^2wt^{}dt^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}_0^te^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}t^{}}(wt^{})^2𝑑t^{},$$
(7)
where we have used the constraint that the oscillation probability is small, i.e. $`wt1`$ (which must be the case given that the discrepancy between say the vacuum cavity experiment and Tokyo experiment is less than 1 percent). So long as $`t1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}`$ (which is an excellent approximation for the gas and powder experiments and a reasonable one for the vacuum cavity experiment) then

$$\rho \frac{2w^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}^2}.$$
(8)
Thus substituting the above equation into Eq.(6) we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{eff}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{sm}+\frac{2w^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{sm}\left(1+\frac{2w^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{sm}}\right).$$
(9)
Thus the high decay rate measured in the vacuum cavity experiment relative to the theory result can be explained provied that

$$\frac{2w^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{sm}}0.0014\pm 0.0002.$$
(10)
The experiment involves a range of cavity sizes where the decay rate is obtained by extrapolation to an infinite volume. From Ref. we estimate that the largest cavity corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}3\mathrm{\Gamma }_{oPs}`$, which, neglecting the contribution from external fields (which are in fact negligible in this case), implies that

$$w^22\times 10^3\mathrm{\Gamma }_{oPs}^2ϵ(5\pm 1)\times 10^7.$$
(11)
The much larger collision rates of the Tokyo (and gas) experiments means that the oscillations can have no effect on these experiments. Thus the high value of the vacuum experiment relative to the theory/Tokyo results can be explained. However the high value of the Michigan gas experiment cannot be explained by oscillations but is presumably due to larger than expected systematic errors (as discussed earlier).

Interestingly the value of $`ϵ`$ identified in Eq.(11) is consistent with all known experimental and cosmological bounds (including SN1987) with the exception of the big bang nucleosynthesis bound (see figure 1 of Ref. for a review and references). Big bang nucleosynthesis suggests the bound $`ϵ\stackrel{<}{}3\times 10^8`$. Thus, if it were experimentally proven that $`ϵ`$ is as large as Eq.(11) then it would presumably mean that some of the assumptions of big bang nucleosynthesis would have to be modified.

The experimental signature of the o-Ps $``$ o-Ps’ oscillations is the ’disappearance’ of an energy deposition of $``$ 1 MeV, which is expected from the ordinary o-Ps annihilation in a 4$`\pi `$ calorimeter surrounding the o-Ps formation region, i.e. an invisible decay of o-Ps. The first experiment on such decays was performed a long time ago , and then repeated with higher sensitivity . The results exclude contributions to the o-Ps decay rate from invisible decay modes (such as o-Ps$`\nu \nu `$, millicharged particles, etc..) at the level of BR(o-Ps$`invisible)<310^6`$, but are not very sensitive to the o-Ps $``$ o-Ps’ oscillation mechanism because of the high collision rate in these experiments. Indeed the limit on $`ϵ`$ extracted from the results of ref. , taking into account the suppression collision factor, is $`ϵ<10^6`$  and is not strong enough to exclude a possible mirror contribution given by Eqs.(8,10) to the o-Ps decay rate. Thus, a vacuum experiment with significantly higher sensitivity will be necessary to confirm or rule out the mirror world effect. The best approach would be to combine the lifetime and invisible decay rate measurements in a single cavity experiment. In this case one would have a good cross-check: the higher o-Ps decay rate the larger peak at zero energy.

If the photon - mirror photon mixing is as large as suggested here then there will be a number of interesting implications. For example, any mirror matter in the center of the sun can become quite hot due to the absorption of ordinary photons. The subsequent radiation of mirror photons by the mirror matter would be absorbed by the surrounding ordinary matter providing a new source of energy transport in the solar interior. Another implication of the large photon - mirror photon kinetic mixing is that it may be large enough (depending on the chemical composition of the mirror planet) to make mirror planets opaque to ordinary photons. Thus the recent observations of a transit of the extrasolar planet HD 209458 does not exclude the hypothesis that the close-in extrasolar planets are mirror planets. The remaining prediction of the mirror extrasolar planet hypothesis is that they cannot reflect the light from the star (i.e. their albedo is essentially zero). This prediction is currently being tested. The photon - mirror photon kinetic mixing may provide a useful way of observing a mirror supernova explosion. This is because the rapid conversion of mirror matter into ordinary matter (via $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}\gamma +\gamma `$) may provide a burst of ordinary light. Indeed it may be possible that this is the mechanism which can realize Blinnikov’s proposal that gamma ray bursts are infact collapsing (or merging) mirror stars. Finally, it is interesting to note that composites of mirror matter with no net mirror charge will exert small Van der Waals forces upon ordinary matter, possibly making terrestrial encounters with cosmic chunks of mirror matter also observable , . Indeed the collision of a mirror object (e.g. mirror asteroid) with the earth may well be a health hazard as the mirror object will not burn up in the atmosphere, but may nevertheless deposit a large amount of energy when it hits the surface as the object losses energy due to electromagnetic interactions induced by the kinetic mixing. Such an impact would not be expected to leave any significant crater. §§§ It is of course amuzing to speculate that the 1908 Tunguska event may have been one such event since no impact crater was ever found..

While it is fun to speculate about the effects of large photon - mirror photon kinetic mixing, real progress requires experiments. Given the already strong evidence for the mirror world coming from dark matter and the neutrino physics anomalies (as well as the intuitive expectation that nature should be left-right symmetric) it is obviously important to experimentally determine whether the orthopositronium lifetime puzzle is one more window on the mirror world. We hope that future experiments will shed light on this issue .

Note Added

After completion of this paper the preprint appeared which calculates the unknown $`B_0`$ term in Eq.(2). They obtain the value $`B_044`$ which gives a theoretical orthopositronium decay rate of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=7.0399\mu s^1`$. Thus, the theoretical calculation agrees with the Tokyo experiment which we in fact anticipated in this paper. The theoretical calculation is about 5 standard deviations below the vacuum cavity experiment, which in our paper is explained by the influence of the mirror universe.

Asknowledgments

S.G. would like to thank S. Glashow for stimulating interest and valuable discussions and S. Asai for communications on o-Ps thermalization. R.F. thanks S. Blinnikov, Z. Silagadze and R. Volkas for discussions/correspondence. R.F. is an Australian Research Fellow.