text:
# Quantization of Alekseev-Meinrenken dynamical 𝑟-matrices

## 1. Introduction

In \[AM\], Alekseev and Meinrenken introduced a classical dynamical $`r`$-matrix $`r_{\mathrm{AM}}`$, associated to a pair $`(𝔤,t)`$, where $`𝔤`$ is a finite dimensional Lie algebra and $`tS^2(𝔤)^𝔤`$. It turns out that the corresponding modified $`r`$-matrix $`\rho _{\mathrm{AM}}:=r_{\mathrm{AM}}\frac{t}{2}`$ depends only on $`Z=\frac{1}{4}[t^{1,2},t^{2,3}]^3(𝔤)^𝔤`$, and that the construction of $`\rho _{\mathrm{AM}}`$ can be generalized to a dynamical $`r`$-matrix $`\rho _Z`$ for a pair $`(𝔤,Z)`$, with $`Z^3(𝔤)^𝔤`$ (Section 3 and \[A\]).

In \[Xu\], P. Xu defined the notion of quantization of classical dynamical $`r`$-matrices with nonabelian base. In this paper, we provide the first nontrivial example of such quantization. Namely, following a suggestion of \[Xu\] (Section 5), we quantize the dynamical $`r`$-matrices $`\rho _Z`$.

More precisely, we construct a dynamical twist with nonabelian base in the sense of P. Xu, $`J(\lambda )`$, such that $`J(\lambda )=1+\mathrm{}j(\lambda )+O(\mathrm{}^2)`$, and $`jj^{2,1}=\rho _Z`$. In the case of $`(𝔤,t)`$, the quantum dynamical $`R`$-matrix quantizing $`r_{\mathrm{AM}}`$ is then given by the formula $`R(\lambda )=J^{2,1}(\lambda )^1e^{\mathrm{}t/2}J(\lambda )`$, where $``$ is a suitable PBW star-product. Moreover, in the general case of $`(𝔤,Z)`$, the dynamical twist $`J`$ defines a quantization of the quasi-Poisson manifold and Poisson groupoid associated to $`\rho _{\mathrm{AM}}`$.

The dynamical twist $`J`$ is constructed by renormalizing (the inverses of) admissible associators attached to $`Z`$, which were constructed in \[EnH, Dr2\]. Namely, let $`\mathrm{\Phi }U(𝔤)^3[[\mathrm{}]]`$ be such an associator. Let us identify the third component $`U(𝔤)`$ of this tensor cube with $`[𝔤^{}]`$ via the symmetrization isomorphism $`S^{}(𝔤)U(𝔤)`$, and using this identification view $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ as a function from $`𝔤^{}`$ to $`U(𝔤)^2[[\mathrm{}]]`$. We show that there exists a unique series $`J(\lambda )=1+\mathrm{}j(\lambda )+O(\mathrm{}^2)`$, whose coefficients are formal functions on $`𝔤^{}`$ with values in $`U(𝔤)^2`$, regular at $`0`$, such that $`J(\mathrm{}\lambda )=\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$. This element $`J(\lambda )`$ is the desired dynamical twist.

We then study the analytic properties of $`J(\lambda )`$ in the case of $`(𝔤,t)`$ when $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ given by Drinfeld’s Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov (KZ) associator \[Dr2\]. We show that $`J`$ is meromorphic in $`\lambda `$ and regular on an explicitly specified neighborhood of zero.

We note that the results of this paper generalize in a straightforward manner to the case when the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ is not necessarily finite dimensional. The reason for this is that the subspace $`𝔤_Z`$ of $`𝔤`$ spanned by the first component of $`Z`$ is a finite dimnensional ideal (in particular, Lie subalgebra), and in all the arguments $`𝔤`$ can be replaced with $`𝔤_Z`$.

Acknowledgements. The research of P.E. was partially supported by the NSF grant DMS-9988796, and was done in part for the Clay Mathematics Institute. The authors thank A. Alekseev for a useful discussion and L. Fehér for valuable references. P.E. is grateful to V. Toledano Laredo for a useful discussion of the dynamical twist equation with an associator.

## 2. Classical dynamical $`r`$-matrices and quasi-Poisson manifolds

Throughout this paper $`𝔤`$ will denote a Lie algebra over $``$ with an element $`Z^3(𝔤)^𝔤`$. Unless otherise specified, $`𝔤`$ is assumed finite dimensional. We will sometimes additionally assume that $`𝔤`$ is equipped with an element $`tS^2(𝔤)^𝔤`$, such that $`Z:=\frac{1}{4}[t^{1,2},t^{2,3}]^3(𝔤)^𝔤`$.

### 2.1. Classical dynamical $`r`$-matrices

Let $`𝔥`$ be a Lie subalgebra of $`𝔤`$.

###### Definition 2.1.

\[Fe, EtV1\] A modified classical dynamical $`r`$-matrix for $`(𝔤,Z)`$ is a meromorphic $`𝔥`$-equivariant map $`\rho :𝔥^{}^2(𝔤)`$, which satisfies the modified classical dynamical Yang-Baxter equation (CDYBE) \[BDF, Fe\],

$$\mathrm{Alt}(d\rho )+\mathrm{CYB}(\rho )=Z,$$

where $`\mathrm{CYB}(\rho ):=[\rho ^{1,2},\rho ^{1,3}]+[\rho ^{1,2},\rho ^{2,3}]+[\rho ^{1,3},\rho ^{2,3}]`$, and

$$\mathrm{Alt}(d\rho ):=h_i^1\frac{\rho ^{2,3}}{\lambda _i}h_i^2\frac{\rho ^{1,3}}{\lambda _i}+h_i^3\frac{\rho ^{1,2}}{\lambda _i}.$$

Here $`(h_i),(\lambda _i)`$ are dual bases of $`𝔥`$ and $`𝔥^{}`$.

###### Definition 2.2.

Assume that $`𝔤`$ is equipped with $`tS^2(𝔤)^𝔤`$. A (quasitriangular) classical dynamical $`r`$-matrix for $`(𝔤,t)`$ is a meromorphic $`𝔥`$-equivariant function $`r:𝔥^{}𝔤𝔤`$ such that $`r(\lambda )+r^{2,1}(\lambda )=t`$, which satisfies the CDYBE

$$\mathrm{Alt}(dr)+\mathrm{CYB}(r)=0.$$

When $`𝔤`$ is equipped with $`tS^2(𝔤)^𝔤`$ and $`Z:=\frac{1}{4}[t^{1,2},t^{2,3}]`$, the assignment $`r(\lambda )\rho (\lambda ):=r(\lambda )\frac{t}{2}`$ is a bijective correspondence between solutions of (a) the modified CDYBE for $`(𝔤,Z)`$ and (b) the CDYBE for $`(𝔤,t)`$. $`\rho (\lambda )`$ will be called the modified classical dynamical $`r`$-matrix corresponding to $`r(\lambda )`$.

### 2.2. Gauge transformations of dynamical $`r`$-matrices

Recall from \[EtS\], Section 2, that given a dynamical $`r`$-matrix $`\rho `$ and a meromorphic function $`g:𝔥^{}G`$ (where $`G`$ is a Lie group with Lie algebra $`𝔤`$), we can construct another dynamical $`r`$-matrix

$$\rho ^g:=(gg)(\rho \overline{\eta }_g+\overline{\eta }_g^{21}\tau _g)(g^1g^1),$$

where $`\eta _g=g^1dg:\mathrm{\Omega }^1(𝔥^{})𝔤`$, $`\overline{\eta }_g`$ is the same element considered as a function $`𝔥^{}𝔥𝔤`$, and

$$\tau _g(\lambda )=(\lambda 11)([\overline{\eta }_g^{12}(\lambda ),\overline{\eta }_g^{13}(\lambda )]).$$

This new $`r`$-matrix is called the gauge transformation of $`\rho `$ by $`g`$.

### 2.3. Formal dynamical $`r`$-matrices

It is useful to consider formal classical dynamical $`r`$-matrices, i.e., those given by formal power series rather than meromorphic functions.

The space of formal functions on $`𝔥^{}`$ is defined as $`\widehat{S}^{}(𝔥)`$, the formal completion of the symmetric algebra $`S^{}(𝔥)`$. The formal analogue of the de Rham differential is $`d:\widehat{S}^{}(𝔥)\widehat{S}^{}(𝔥)𝔥`$.

###### Definition 2.3.

(\[EtS\]) A formal modified classical dynamical $`r`$-matrix over $`(𝔤,Z)`$ is an $`𝔥`$-invariant element of $`\widehat{S}^{}(𝔥)^2(𝔤)`$, satisfying the modified CDYBE for $`(𝔤,Z)`$.

In the same way, one defines formal quasitriangular dynamical $`r`$-matrices over $`(𝔤,t)`$. Formal gauge transformations are induced by elements $`\mathrm{log}(g)\widehat{S}^{}(𝔥)_{>0}𝔤`$, where $`\widehat{S}^{}(𝔥)_{>0}`$ is the maximal ideal of $`\widehat{S}^{}(𝔥)`$ (so they correspond to formal functions $`g`$ such that $`g(0)=e`$).

Taylor expansion at the origin takes meromorphic $`r`$-matrices, regular at the origin, to formal $`r`$-matrices.

Remark. We note that the definitions of a formal $`r`$-matrix, formal gauge transformations, etc. can be generalized to the case when $`𝔤,𝔥`$ are not necessarily finite dimensional. The only changes to be made are of the following type: e.g., the tensor product $`\widehat{S}^{}(𝔥)^2(𝔤)`$ should be replaced with the completed tensor product $`\widehat{S}^{}(𝔥)\widehat{}^2(𝔤)`$.

### 2.4. The quasi-Poisson manifold associated to a dynamical $`r`$-matrix

Let $`𝔤`$ be a finite dimensional Lie algebra with a fixed element $`Z^3(𝔤)^𝔤`$. Recall \[AK, AKM\] that a quasi-Poisson $`(𝔤,Z)`$-manifold is a $`𝔤`$-manifold $`X`$ with an invariant bivector field $`\pi `$ such that the Schouten bracket $`[\pi ,\pi ]`$ equals $`\gamma ^3(Z)`$, where $`\gamma :𝔤\mathrm{Vect}(X)`$ is the action homomorphism111We will be working with complex analytic manifolds; the generalization to other categories is straightforward.. Thus, on a quasi-Poisson manifold $`X`$ we have a skew-symmetric biderivation (quasi-Poisson bracket) $`(f,g)\{f,g\}`$, such that

$$\{\{f,g\},h\}+\{\{g,h\},f\}+\{\{h,f\},g\}=m(\gamma ^3(Z)(fgh)),$$

where $`m`$ is the usual multiplication.

Let $`\rho `$ be a solution of the modified CDYBE for $`(𝔤,Z)`$. Let $`U𝔥^{}`$ be a conjugation-invariant open set on which $`\rho `$ is regular. Using a quasi-Poisson generalization of a construction of P. Xu \[Xu\], one can associate to $`\rho `$ a quasi-Poisson $`(𝔤,Z)`$-structure on the manifold $`X=U\times G`$, where $`G`$ acts on $`X`$ by $`g(u,g^{})=(u,gg^{})`$. Namely, the quasi-Poisson bracket associated to the bivector $`\pi `$ is given by the formulas

$$\{f_1(u),f_2(u)\}=[df_1,df_2](u),$$

$$\{a,f(g)\}=(L(a)f)(g),$$

$$\{f_1(g),f_2(g)\}=(df_1df_2)(L(\rho (u))),$$

where $`a=a(u)𝔥`$ is a linear function, and for a tensor $`x`$ in $`𝔤^k`$, $`L(x)`$ is the tensor field on $`G`$ obtained by left translations of $`x`$.

This quasi-Poisson manifold will be denoted by $`X_\rho `$.

Remark 1. Another geometric structure which may be attached to a dynamical $`r`$-matrix is the structure of a Poisson groupoid on the groupoid $`U\times G\times U`$ (see \[EtV1\]).

Remark 2. It is explained in \[EtS\], Section 2, that the Poisson groupoids associated to gauge equivalent dynamical $`r`$-matrices are isomorphic. The same argument shows that the same statement holds for quasi-Poisson manifolds.

## 3. Alekseev-Meinrenken $`r`$-matrices

### 3.1. The Alekseev-Meinrenken dynamical $`r`$-matrix for $`(𝔤,t)`$

Let $`𝔤`$ be equipped with $`tS^2(𝔤)^𝔤`$ and set $`𝔥=𝔤`$. Then there exists a unique dynamical $`r`$-matrix for $`(𝔤,t)`$ up to gauge transformations \[EtS\]. It is the Alekseev-Meinrenken dynamical $`r`$-matrix \[AM\]. Namely, let $`t^{}:𝔤^{}𝔤`$ be the linear map associated to $`t`$. Then the modified Alekseev-Meinrenken $`r`$-matrix is given by the formula

$$\rho _{\mathrm{AM}}(\lambda )=\phi (1\mathrm{ad}t^{}(\lambda ))(t),$$

where

(1)
$$\phi (z):=\frac{1}{z}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cotanh}\frac{z}{2}.$$

$`\rho _{\mathrm{AM}}(\lambda )`$ takes its values in $`^2(𝔤)`$ for the following reason: if $`x𝔤`$, then $`\mathrm{ad}(1x)^k(t)`$ lies in $`S^2(𝔤)`$ if $`k`$ is even and in $`^2(𝔤)`$ if $`k`$ is odd; since $`\phi `$ is an odd function, $`\rho _{\mathrm{AM}}(\lambda )`$ takes its values in $`^2(𝔤)`$.

It is clear that $`\lambda \rho _{\mathrm{AM}}(\lambda )`$ is a meromorphic modified dynamical $`r`$-matrix, which is regular (and vanishes) at the origin. In particular, it can also be regarded as a formal r-matrix.

### 3.2. The Alekseev-Meinrenken $`r`$-matrix for a pair $`(𝔤,Z)`$

Let $`(𝔤,Z)`$ be a pair of a finite dimensional Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ and $`Z^3(𝔤)^𝔤`$. Set

$$Z_n=\mathrm{Sym}_{2,3,\mathrm{},2n}([Z^{1,2,3},[Z^{3,4,5},\mathrm{},Z^{2n1,2n,2n+1}]]).$$

###### Lemma 3.1.

$`Z_n`$ is antisymmetric with respect to the exchange of the first and last tensor factors.

Proof. We have $`Z_n^{2n+1,\mathrm{},1}=[Z^{2n+1,2n,2n1},[Z^{2n1,2n2,2n3},\mathrm{},Z^{3,2,1}]])`$. Since $`Z`$ is antisymmetric, this is $`(1)^n[Z^{2n1,2n,2n+1},[Z^{2n3,2n2,2n1},\mathrm{},Z^{1,2,3}]])`$. Using $`n1`$ times the antisymmetry of the bracket, we find $`Z_n^{2n+1,\mathrm{},1}=Z_n`$. Then $`\mathrm{Sym}_{2,3,\mathrm{},2n}(Z_n^{2n+1,\mathrm{},1})=\mathrm{Sym}_{2,3,\mathrm{},2n}(Z_n^{2n+1,2,3,\mathrm{},2n,1})`$ implies the result. ∎

$`Z_n`$ therefore gives rise to a degree $`2n1`$ map $`Z^{(n)}:𝔤^{}^2(𝔤)`$, defined by $`Z^{(n)}(\lambda )=Z_n,\text{id}\lambda \mathrm{}\lambda \text{id}`$.

Let $`(c_n)_{n0}`$ be the numbers such that $`\frac{1}{2}(\frac{1}{z}+\mathrm{cotanh}(z))=_{n0}c_nz^{2n+1}`$. We have $`c_n=2^{2n+1}B_{2n+2}/(2n+2)!`$, where $`B_k`$ is the $`k`$th Bernoulli number.

###### Proposition 3.2.

(also \[A\])

1) Set $`\rho _Z=_{n0}c_nZ^{(n+1)}`$. Then $`\rho _Z`$ is an element of $`(\widehat{S}^{}(𝔤)^2(𝔤))^𝔤`$, i.e., it can be viewed as a $`𝔤`$-invariant formal map $`𝔤^{}^2(𝔤)`$. Moreover, it satisfies the modified CDYBE for $`(𝔤,Z)`$.

2) When $`𝔤`$ is equipped with an element $`tS^2(𝔤)^𝔤`$, and $`Z=\frac{1}{4}[t^{1,2},t^{2,3}]`$, then $`\rho _Z`$ coincides with $`\rho _{\mathrm{AM}}`$.

Proof. Let us first prove 2). Assume that $`tS^2(𝔤)^𝔤`$ and set $`Z=\frac{1}{4}[t^{1,2},t^{2,3}]`$. Set $`t_n(\lambda )=\text{Ad}(1t^{}(\lambda ))^{2n1}(t)`$ for $`\lambda 𝔤^{}`$. As we observed, $`t_n`$ is a map $`𝔤^{}^2(𝔤)`$, polynomial of degree $`2n1`$. 2) follows from:

###### Lemma 3.3.

The maps $`t_n`$ and $`4^nZ^{(n)}`$ coincide.

Proof of Lemma. We have $`4^nZ_n=[[t^{1,2},t^{2,3}],\mathrm{},t^{2n,2n+1}]`$. If we set

$$Y_n=[[t^{1,2},t^{2,3}],\mathrm{},t^{n1,n}],$$

then $`4^nZ_n=Y_{2n+1}`$. Let us prove by induction that for any $`n3`$,

(2)
$$Y_n=(1)^n[[t^{1,n},t^{1,n1}],\mathrm{},t^{1,2}].$$

This is clear for $`n=3`$. Then (2) at step $`n`$ implies that

$`Y_{n+1}=[Y_n,t^{n,n+1}]=(1)^n[[[t^{1,n},t^{n,n+1}]t^{1,n1}],\mathrm{},t^{1,2}]`$
$`=(1)^{n+1}[[[t^{1,n+1},t^{1,n}]t^{1,n1}],\mathrm{},t^{1,2}].`$
So $`4^nZ_n=[[t^{1,2n+1},t^{1,2n}],\mathrm{},t^{1,2}]`$. Therefore

$`4^nZ^{(n)}(\lambda )=4^nZ_n,\text{id}\lambda \mathrm{}\lambda \text{id}`$
$`=[[t,t^{}(\lambda )1],\mathrm{},t^{}(\lambda )1]=\text{Ad}(t^{}(\lambda )1)^{2n1}(t)=t_n(\lambda ).`$
End of proof of Proposition 3.2. Let us now prove 1). We are now back to the general case $`Z^3(𝔤)^𝔤`$. Clearly, $`\rho _Z`$ is $`𝔤`$-invariant. Let us show that it satisfies the modified CYBE.

Let $`𝔡`$ be the Drinfeld double of the quasi-Lie bialgebra $`(𝔤,\delta =0,Z)`$. $`𝔡`$ is equipped with an element $`t_𝔡S^2(𝔡)^𝔡`$.

Namely, $`𝔡=𝔤𝔤^{}`$ as a vector space, and its Lie bracket is given by $`[x,y]_𝔡=[x,y]`$, $`[x,\xi ]_𝔡=\mathrm{ad}^{}(x)(\xi )`$, $`[\xi ,\eta ]_𝔡=Z,\xi \text{id}\eta `$ for any $`x,y𝔤`$ and $`\xi ,\eta 𝔤^{}`$. Here $`\mathrm{ad}^{}`$ is the coadjoint action of $`𝔤`$ on $`𝔤^{}`$. $`t_𝔡`$ is dual to the canonical pairing of $`𝔤𝔤^{}`$. We set $`Z_𝔡=\frac{1}{4}[t_𝔡^{1,2},t_𝔡^{2,3}]`$. Then we have

(3)
$$Z_𝔡=Z+\sigma _1+\sigma _2+\sigma _3,$$

where $`\sigma _1^2(𝔤^{})𝔤`$, $`\sigma _2𝔤^{}𝔤𝔤^{}`$, and $`\sigma _3𝔤^2(𝔤^{})`$.

Set

(4)
$$\stackrel{~}{Z}_{𝔡,n}=[Z_𝔡^{1,2,3},[Z_𝔡^{3,4,5},\mathrm{},Z_𝔡^{2n1,2n,2n+1}]]𝔡^{2n+1}.$$

Let $`\pi :𝔡𝔤`$ be the projection on the first summand of $`𝔡=𝔤𝔤^{}`$. We will prove that

(5)
$$(\text{id}\pi ^{2n1}\text{id})(\stackrel{~}{Z}_{𝔡,n})=\stackrel{~}{Z}_n+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{2,n},$$

where

$$\stackrel{~}{Z}_n=[Z^{1,2,3},[Z^{3,4,5},\mathrm{},Z^{2n1,2n,2n+1}]],\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{2,n}=[\sigma _2^{1,2,3},[\sigma _2^{3,4,5},\mathrm{},\sigma _2^{2n1,2n,2n+1}]].$$

Expanding (4) using (3), we get an expression of $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_{𝔡,n}`$ with $`4^n`$ terms. Applying $`\pi `$ to the even factors, we retain only the terms in $`Z^{2i1,2i,2i+1}`$ and $`\sigma _2^{2i1,2i,2i+1}`$, so we have now $`2^n`$ terms: the

(6)
$$[x_1^{1,2,3},x_2^{3,4,5},\mathrm{},x_n^{2n1,2n,2n+1}],$$

where $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)\{Z,\sigma _2\}^n`$. Applying $`\pi `$ to the $`(2i+1)`$th factor ($`2i+1=3,5,\mathrm{},2n1`$) and recalling that $`[𝔤,𝔤^{}]𝔤^{}`$, we take to zero all terms (6) such that for some $`i`$, $`x_ix_{i+1}`$. So there remain only two terms: the right side of (5), which is mapped to itself by $`\text{id}\pi ^{2n1}\text{id}`$, because $`[𝔤^{},𝔤^{}]𝔤`$.

Recall that $`Z^{(n)}=(\mathrm{Sym}_{2,\mathrm{},2n}(\stackrel{~}{Z}_n))^{2n,1,\mathrm{},2n1,2n+1}`$. If we set

$$Z_𝔡^{(n)}=(\mathrm{Sym}_{2,\mathrm{},2n}(\stackrel{~}{Z}_{𝔡,n}))^{2n,1,\mathrm{},2n1,2n+1},\sigma _2^{(n)}=(\mathrm{Sym}_{2,\mathrm{},2n}(\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{2,n}))^{2n,1,\mathrm{},2n1,2n+1},$$

and $`\pi _{\widehat{S}^{}}:\widehat{S}^{}(𝔡)\widehat{S}^{}(𝔤)`$ the projection associated to $`\pi `$, we get

(7)
$$(\pi _{\widehat{S}^{}}\text{id})(Z_𝔡^{(n)})=Z^{(n)}+\sigma _2^{(n)}.$$

Let $`\rho _𝔡`$ be the Alekseev-Meinrenken $`r`$-matrix attached to $`(𝔡,t_𝔡)`$ and set $`\tau =(\pi _{\widehat{S}^{}}\text{id})(\rho _𝔡)`$. Set $`\rho ^{}=_{n0}c_n\sigma _2^{(n+1)}`$. Then $`\tau =\rho _Z+\rho ^{}`$, and $`\rho ^{}\widehat{S}^{}(𝔤)^2(𝔤^{})`$.

$`\rho _𝔡`$ satisfies the CDYBE for $`(𝔤,Z_𝔡)`$:

$$\mathrm{Alt}(d\rho _𝔡)+\mathrm{CYB}(\rho _𝔡)=Z_𝔡.$$

Apply $`\pi _{\widehat{S}^{}}\text{id}`$ to both sides. We have $`(\pi _{\widehat{S}^{}}\text{id})(d\rho _𝔡)=d\tau `$ modulo $`\widehat{S}^{}(𝔤)(𝔤^{}^2(𝔡))`$. Moreover, $`(\pi _{\widehat{S}^{}}\text{id})(\mathrm{CYB}(\rho _𝔡))=\mathrm{CYB}(\tau )`$. Therefore

(8)
$$\mathrm{Alt}(d\tau )+\mathrm{CYB}(\tau )=Z_𝔡\mathrm{modulo}\widehat{S}^{}(𝔤)(𝔤^{}^2(𝔡)).$$

For $`i0`$, let $`\pi _^i:^i(𝔡)^i(𝔤)`$ be the map induced by the projection $`\pi `$. Apply $`\text{id}\pi _^3`$ to (8). Then $`(\text{id}\pi _^3)(\mathrm{Alt}(d\tau ))=\mathrm{Alt}(d\rho _Z)`$. Since $`\tau `$ has the form $`\rho _Z+\rho ^{}`$, with $`\rho ^{}\widehat{S}^{}(𝔤)^2(𝔤^{})`$, we get $`(\text{id}\pi _^3)(\mathrm{CYB}(\tau ))=\mathrm{CYB}(\rho _Z)`$. Finally, $`(\text{id}\pi _^3)(Z_𝔡)=Z`$, and $`\pi _^3`$ takes $`𝔤^{}^2(𝔡)`$ to zero. It follows that $`\rho _Z`$ satisfies the CDYBE for $`(𝔤,Z)`$.

Remark. We note that Proposition 3.2 remains true if $`𝔤`$ is not finite dimnensional. Indeed, consider the subspace of $`𝔤`$ spanned by the first components of the tensor $`Z`$. It is a finite dimensional ideal (and hence subalgebra) of $`𝔤`$, and $`Z^3(𝔤_Z)^{𝔤_Z}`$. The above conclusion then holds for the pair $`(𝔤_Z,Z)`$. Using the canonical maps $`\widehat{S}^{}(𝔤_Z)^i(𝔤_Z)\widehat{S}^{}(𝔤)^i(𝔤)`$, we find that $`\rho _Z`$ is a solution of the modified CDYBE for $`(𝔤,Z)`$. ∎

###### Proposition 3.4.

Let $`(𝔤,Z)`$ be a pair of a finite dimensional Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ and $`Z^3(𝔤)^𝔤`$. Then any formal solution of CDYBE for $`(𝔤,Z)`$ is gauge-equivalent to $`\rho _Z`$.

Proof. In the case $`Z=\frac{1}{4}[t^{1,2},t^{2,3}]`$, the result is proved in \[EtS\] (Theorem 1 and Proposition 3.1). In the general case, the proof is the same. ∎

Remark. In fact, the formal series $`\rho _Z`$ converges to an analytic function in a neighborhood of zero, and this function analytically continues to a meromorphic function on the whole $`𝔤^{}`$. Indeed, (7) implies that for $`\lambda `$ in the formal neighborhood of $`0𝔤^{}`$, $`\rho _𝔡(\lambda ,0)^2(𝔤)^2(𝔤^{})`$, and $`\rho _Z(\lambda )`$ is the first component of $`\rho _𝔡(\lambda ,0)`$. Since $`\rho _𝔡(\lambda ,0)`$ converges and extends meromorphically to $`𝔤^{}`$, the same is true for $`\rho _Z(\lambda )`$.

## 4. Quantization of classical dynamical $`r`$-matrices and quasi-Poisson manifolds

In this section, we introduce twist quantization and show its relation with two problems: (a) the quantization of the quasi-Poisson manifold $`X_\rho `$ (see Section 2.4), and (b) the quantization of classical dynamical $`r`$-matrices.

### 4.1. Star-products

A (local) star-product on a manifold $`X`$ is a product on $`𝒪(X)[[\mathrm{}]]`$ (where $`𝒪(X)`$ is the structure sheaf of $`X`$), given by

$$fg=fg+\underset{m1}{}\mathrm{}^mD_m(f,g),$$

where $`D_m`$ is a bidifferential operator on $`X`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ is a formal variable.

For example, let $`𝔤`$ be a finite dimensional Lie algebra, and $`𝔤^{}`$ the dual space. Then one can define a star-product on $`𝔤^{}`$ as follows. Consider the Lie algebra $`𝔤_{\mathrm{}}`$ over $`[[\mathrm{}]]`$, which is $`𝔤[[\mathrm{}]]`$ as a vector space, with commutator given by the formula $`[x,y]_𝔤_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}[x,y]_𝔤`$. Consider its universal enveloping algebra $`U(𝔤_{\mathrm{}})`$, and identify it with $`S^{}(𝔤)[[\mathrm{}]]`$ as a $`[[\mathrm{}]]`$-module using the symmetrization isomorphism. It is easy to show that this defines a local associative star-product on $`𝔤^{}`$ (namely, the product is initially defined on polynomials, but since it is local, it extends automatically to the whole structure sheaf). This star-product is called the PBW star-product, since it is constructed using the symmetrization isomorphism, whose bijectivity is equivalent to the PBW theorem.

### 4.2. Quantization of classical dynamical $`r`$-matrices

According to \[Xu\], a quantization of an $`𝔥`$-invariant solution of the CDYBE $`r:𝔥^{}𝔤𝔤`$ is an $`𝔥`$-invariant series

$$R\mathrm{Mer}(𝔥^{},U(𝔤)^2)[[\mathrm{}]],$$

$`R=1+\mathrm{}r+O(\mathrm{}^2)`$, which satisfies the quantum dynamical Yang-Baxter equation (QDYBE)

$$R^{1,2}(\lambda )R^{1,3}(\lambda +\mathrm{}h^2)R^{2,3}(\lambda )=R^{2,3}(\lambda +\mathrm{}h^1)R^{1,3}(\lambda )R^{1,2}(\lambda +\mathrm{}h^3),$$

where $``$ denotes the PBW star-product of functions on $`𝔥^{}`$. Here we use the dynamical notation $`h^i`$; for example,

$$R^{1,2}(\lambda +\mathrm{}h^3):=\underset{N0}{}\frac{\mathrm{}^N}{N!}\underset{i_1,\mathrm{},i_N=1}{\overset{n}{}}(_{\xi ^{i_1}}\mathrm{}_{\xi ^{i_N}}R)(\lambda )(e_{i_1}\mathrm{}e_{i_N})$$

where $`n=\mathrm{dim}(𝔥)`$, and $`(e_i)_{i=1,\mathrm{},n}`$, $`(\xi ^i)_{i=1,\mathrm{},n}`$ are dual bases of $`𝔥`$ and $`𝔥^{}`$. This is a generalization of Felder’s equation \[Fe\] from the case when $`𝔥`$ is abelian (in which case $``$ stands for the usual product). Solutions of QDYBE are called quantum dynamical $`R`$-matrices.

Remark. If $`X`$ is a complex manifold and $`V`$ a complex vector space (possibly infinite dimensional), then a meromorphic function $`f:XV`$ is, by definition, a meromorphic function of $`X`$ with values in a finite dimensional subspace of $`V`$. We denote by $`\mathrm{Mer}(X,V)`$ the space of meromorphic functions $`f:XV`$.

### 4.3. Twist quantization

Let $`𝔤`$ be a finite dimensional Lie algebra and let $`𝔥𝔤`$ be a Lie subalgebra.

###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }U(𝔤)^3[[\mathrm{}]]`$ and $`J\mathrm{Mer}(𝔥^{},U(𝔤)^2)[[\mathrm{}]]`$ be such that:

(1) $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is $`𝔤`$-invariant, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=1+O(\mathrm{}^2)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ satisfies the pentagon equation and the counit axiom (so $`(U(𝔤)[[\mathrm{}]],m_0,`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is a quasi-Hopf algebra)

(2) $`J(\lambda )=1+O(\mathrm{})`$ is $`𝔥`$-invariant, and it satisfies

(9)
$$J^{12,3}(\lambda )J^{1,2}(\lambda +\mathrm{}h^3)=\mathrm{\Phi }^1J^{1,23}(\lambda )J^{2,3}(\lambda ).$$

Set $`Z=\mathrm{Alt}(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }1}{\mathrm{}^2})`$ mod $`\mathrm{}`$, $`j(\lambda )=(\frac{J(\lambda )1}{\mathrm{}})`$ mod $`\mathrm{}`$, and $`\rho (\lambda )=j(\lambda )j(\lambda )^{2,1}`$. Then $`Z^3(𝔤)^𝔤`$, and $`\rho (\lambda )`$ is a solution of the modified CDYBE for $`(𝔤,Z)`$.

Proof. Straightforward. $`\mathrm{}`$

When $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ satisfies the conditions of Proposition 4.1, we say that it is a quantization of $`Z`$. When $`(\mathrm{\Phi },J(\lambda ))`$ satisfy the conditions of Proposition 4.1, we say that $`(\mathrm{\Phi },J(\lambda ))`$ is a (twist) quantization 222In fact, this definition is a generalization of that in \[Xu\], who considered the triangular case $`Z=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=1`$. of the modified CDYBE solution $`(Z,\rho (\lambda ))`$. Equation (9) is called the dynamical twist equation with nonabelian base.

###### Theorem 4.2.

Let $`(𝔤,t)`$ be a pair of a finite dimensional Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ and $`tS^2(𝔤)^𝔤`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }U(𝔤)^3[[\mathrm{}]]`$ be a solution of the pentagon and hexagon equations, which satisfies the counit axiom (so $`(U(𝔤)[[\mathrm{}]],m_0,\mathrm{\Delta }_0,e^{\mathrm{}t/2},\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is a quasitriangular quasi-Hopf algebra), such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a quantization of $`Z=\frac{1}{4}[t^{1,2},t^{2,3}]`$.

Let $`r(\lambda )`$ be a solution of the CDYBE for $`(𝔤,t)`$. Assume that $`J(\lambda )`$ is such that $`(\mathrm{\Phi },J(\lambda ))`$ is a quantization of $`(Z,r(\lambda )\frac{t}{2})`$.

Then the function $`R(\lambda ):=J^{2,1}(\lambda )^1e^{\mathrm{}t/2}J(\lambda )`$ is a quantum dynamical $`R`$-matrix, which quantizes $`r(\lambda )`$.

Proof. For $`𝔥=0`$, this was proved by Drinfeld \[Dr1\]. For $`\mathrm{\Phi }=1`$, this is proved in \[Xu\]. The general case is essentially a combination of these two special cases. ∎

### 4.4. Formal $`R`$-matrices and twists

The definitions and results of Sections 4.2 and 4.3 extend to the formal case. E.g., $`J(\lambda )`$ and $`R(\lambda )`$ are both elements of $`(U(𝔤)^2\widehat{}\widehat{S}^{}(𝔥))[[\mathrm{}]]`$, and $`R^{1,2}(\lambda +\mathrm{}h^3)(U(𝔤)^3\widehat{}\widehat{S}^{}(𝔥))[[\mathrm{}]]`$ is the image of $`(\text{id}^2((i\text{id})\mathrm{\Delta }))(R)`$, where $`i:\widehat{S}^{}(𝔥)U(𝔤)[[\mathrm{}]]`$ is the renormalized symmetrization morphism induced by $`𝔥x\mathrm{}xU(𝔤)[[\mathrm{}]]`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }:\widehat{S}^{}(𝔥)\widehat{S}^{}(𝔥)^{\widehat{}2}`$ is induced by $`𝔥xx1+1x`$.

Remark. It is clear that any meromorphic dynamical quantum $`R`$-matrix or twist, which is regular at $`0`$, can be regarded as a formal one by taking the Taylor expansion.

###### Conjecture 4.3.

Any modified dynamical $`r`$-matrix admits a (formal) twist quantization.

### 4.5. Quantization of quasi-Poisson manifolds

Let $`𝔤`$ be a finite dimensional Lie algebra with a fixed element $`Z^3(𝔤)^𝔤`$. Let $`X`$ be a quasi-Poisson $`(𝔤,Z)`$-manifold, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=1+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{6}Z+O(\mathrm{}^3)(U(𝔤)^3)^𝔤[[\mathrm{}]]`$ be an associator for $`𝔤`$ (so that $`(U(𝔤)[[\mathrm{}]],\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is a quasi-Hopf algebra, \[Dr1\]). According to \[Dr1\], Proposition 3.10, such a $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ always exists. For example, if $`tS^2(𝔤)^𝔤`$ and $`Z=\frac{1}{4}[t^{1,2},t^{2,3}]`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ may be taken to be a Lie associator.

###### Definition 4.4.

A quantization of $`X`$ associated to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an invariant star-product on $`X`$, which satisfies the equation

$$fggf=\mathrm{}\{f,g\}+O(\mathrm{}^2)$$

(i.e., quantizes the quasi-Poisson bracket on $`X`$), and is associative in the tensor category of $`(U(𝔤)[[\mathrm{}]],\mathrm{\Phi })`$-modules. This means,

$$\mu (\mu 1)=\mu (1\mu )\gamma ^3(\mathrm{\Phi }),$$

on $`𝒪(X)^3`$, where $`\mu (fg):=fg`$.

### 4.6. Quantization of the quasi-Poisson manifold $`X_\rho `$.

Let $`(𝔤,Z)`$ be a pair of a finite dimensional Lie algebra and $`Z^3(𝔤)^𝔤`$. Let $`\rho `$ be a modified classical dynamical $`r`$-matrix for $`(𝔤,Z)`$. It turns out that to quantize the quasi-Poisson manifold $`X_\rho `$, it suffices to fix a twist quantization of $`\rho `$.

Namely, let $`\mathrm{\Phi }(U(𝔤)^3)^𝔤[[\mathrm{}]]`$ be a Drinfeld associator for $`(𝔤,Z)`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=1+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{6}Z+O(\mathrm{}^3)`$, and let $`J`$ be a twist quantization of $`\rho `$ associated to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, which is regular on $`U`$.

###### Theorem 4.5.

\[Xu\] 333More precisely, this is a generalization of a theorem of P. Xu, who considered the special case $`Z=0,\mathrm{\Phi }=1`$; the proof, however, is the same as in \[Xu\]. Consider the star-product on $`X_\rho `$, which extends the PBW star-product on $`U`$, and satisfies the conditions:

1) Let $`fU(𝔥)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(f)=f^{(1)}f^{(2)}`$. Then $`\psi (g)f(u)=\psi (g)f(u)`$, while $`f(u)\psi (g)=f^{(2)}(u)(L(f^{(1)})\psi )(g)`$, where $`L(x)`$ is the differential operator on $`G`$ obtained by left translations of $`x`$;

2) $`\psi (g)\xi (g)=m(L(J(u))(\psi \xi ))(g)`$, where $`m`$ is the usual multiplication.

Then this star-product provides a quantization of the quasi-Poisson manifold $`X_\rho `$.

Remark. A twist quantization of $`\rho `$ also gives rise to a quantization of the Poisson groupoid corresponding to $`\rho `$, analogously to the construction of \[EtV2\]. To keep the paper short, we will not discuss this construction.

### 4.7. Gauge equivalences

Let $`J`$ be a formal dynamical twist with a nonabelian base, associated to an associator $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and $`Q(U(𝔤)\widehat{}\widehat{S}^{}(𝔥))^𝔥[[\mathrm{}]]`$, such that $`(Q`$ mod $`\mathrm{})`$ has the form $`\mathrm{exp}(q_0)`$, where $`q_0(𝔤\widehat{S}^{}(𝔥)_{>0})^𝔥`$. Set

$${}_{}{}^{Q}J(\lambda )=Q^{12}(\lambda )J(\lambda )Q^2(\lambda )^1Q^1(\lambda +\mathrm{}h^2)^1.$$

It is easy to show that $`{}_{}{}^{Q}J_{}^{}`$ is also a dynamical twist associated to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. One says that $`{}_{}{}^{Q}J`$ is gauge equivalent to $`J`$ via $`Q`$.

Similarly, given a quantum dynamical $`R`$-matrix $`R`$, define

$${}_{}{}^{Q}R(\lambda )=Q^2(\lambda +\mathrm{}h^1)Q^1(\lambda )R(\lambda )Q^2(\lambda )^1Q^1(\lambda +\mathrm{}h^2)^1.$$

It is easy to show that $`{}_{}{}^{Q}R`$ is also a dynamical $`R`$-matrix. One says that $`{}_{}{}^{Q}R`$ is gauge equivalent to $`R`$ via $`Q`$.

It is clear that the classical limits of gauge equivalent dynamical twists ($`R`$-matrices) are gauge equivalent. Moreover, the quantized quasi-Poisson manifolds (Poisson groupoids) associated to gauge equivalent dynamical twists and $`R`$-matrices are isomorphic.

### 4.8. Existence of quantization for quasi-Poisson manifolds.

It is not true that every quasi-Poisson manifold can be quantized. Indeed, in the case $`Z=0`$ the problem of quantization of quasi-Poisson manifolds reduces to the problem of equivariant quantization of usual Poisson manifolds with a group action preserving the Poisson bracket. But it was noted already by Fronsdal in 1978 \[Fr\] that such quantization is impossible even in the symplectic case, namely for certain coadjoint orbits of semisimple Lie groups.

However, one may make the following conjecture.

###### Conjecture 4.6.

A quasi-Poisson manifold $`X`$ for $`(𝔤,Z)`$ can be quantized if the $`𝔤`$-action on $`X`$ is free, i.e., $`X`$ is a principal $`G`$-bundle over $`Y=X/G`$, where $`G`$ is the simply connected Lie group corresponding to $`𝔤`$.

In the case $`G=\{e\}`$, this is the Kontsevich formality theorem. Moreover, even when $`G\{e\}`$ but $`Z=0`$, this conjecture apparently follows from formality theory (D. Tamarkin and V. Dolgushev, private communication).

On the other hand, if $`X=G`$, then Conjecture 4.6 is equivalent to the existence of a twist quantization of coboundary Lie bialgebras, and is open. However, in the quasitriangular case ($`X=G`$, $`Z=\frac{1}{4}[t^{1,2},t^{2,3}]`$), Conjecture 4.6 is equivalent to the existence of a twist quantization of quasitriangular Lie bialgebras, and was proved in \[EK\].

Note also that the quasi-Poisson manifold $`X_\rho `$ attached to a modified dynamical $`r`$-matrix $`\rho `$ satisfies the freeness assumption, so Conjecture 4.6 is compatible with Conjecture 4.3.

## 5. Quantized dynamical twist for the pairs $`(𝔤,Z)`$

In this section, we assume that $`(𝔤,Z)`$ is a pair of a finite dimensional Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ and of $`Z^3(𝔤)^𝔤`$.

### 5.1. Admissible associators

We denote by $`U^{}`$ the subspace of $`U(𝔤)[[\mathrm{}]]`$ of all elements such that $`\delta _n(x)\mathrm{}^nU(𝔤)^n[[\mathrm{}]]`$, where $`\delta _n=(\text{id}\eta \epsilon )^n\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$. $`U^{}`$ is the subalgebra generated by the $`\mathrm{}x`$, $`x𝔤`$. We have $`U^{}/\mathrm{}U^{}=\widehat{S}^{}(𝔤)`$, and $`U^{}=U(𝔤_{\mathrm{}})`$.

###### Definition 5.1.

(see \[EnH\]) Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }U(𝔤)^3[[\mathrm{}]]`$ be a quantization of $`Z`$. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is called admissible iff $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ belongs to the $`\mathrm{}`$-adic completion of $`(U_0^{})^3`$. Here $`U_0^{}`$ is the kernel of the counit map $`U^{}[[\mathrm{}]]`$.

In \[EnH\], it is proved that there exists an admissible quantization $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(Z)`$ of $`Z`$, defined in terms of $`Z`$ by universal acyclic formulas (this result is based on Proposition 3.10 of \[Dr1\]).

### 5.2. Algebraic versions of dynamical equations

Let $`𝔥𝔤`$ be a Lie subalgebra. Let $`J(\lambda )`$ be a formal dynamical twist for $`𝔥`$ and an associator $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of $`𝔤`$, and $`K(\lambda ):=J(\mathrm{}\lambda )`$. This is an $`𝔥`$-equivariant function of $`𝔥^{}`$ with values in $`U(𝔤)^2[[\mathrm{}]]`$, polynomial modulo any fixed power of $`\mathrm{}`$, which satisfies the equation

$$K^{12,3}(\lambda )K^{1,2}(\lambda +h^3)=\mathrm{\Phi }^1K^{1,23}(\lambda )K^{2,3}(\lambda ),$$

where $``$ stands for the multiplication on polynomials on $`𝔥^{}`$ coming from the identification $`S^{}(𝔥)U(𝔥)`$ using the symmetrization map.

Let us view $`K`$ as an element of $`(U(𝔤)^2U(𝔥))^𝔥[[\mathrm{}]]`$. (i.e., we view functions of $`\lambda `$ as living the third component $`U(𝔥)`$, again using the symmetrization map). Then the twist equation for $`K`$ becomes an equality in $`(U(𝔤)^3U(𝔥))[[\mathrm{}]]`$:

(10)
$$K^{12,3,4}K^{1,2,34}=(\mathrm{\Phi }^1)^{1,2,3}K^{1,23,4}K^{2,3,4}$$

Moreover, $`K`$ has the $`\mathrm{}`$-adic valuation properties

(11)
$$K=1+O(\mathrm{}),(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{id}\delta _n)(K)\mathrm{}^{n+1}U(𝔤)^2U(𝔥)[[\mathrm{}]]\mathrm{if}n1,$$

where $`\delta _n:U(𝔥)U(𝔥)^n`$ is $`\delta _n=(\mathrm{id}\eta \epsilon )^n\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$ is the $`n`$fold coproduct of $`U(𝔥)`$, and $`\epsilon :U(𝔥)`$, $`\eta :U(𝔥)`$ are the counit and unit maps.

###### Proposition 5.2.

The map $`J(\lambda )K`$ is a bijection between (a) the set of formal solutions of the dynamical twist equations, and (b) the set of solutions of (10), satisfying the valuation conditions (11).

In the same way, if $`R(\lambda )`$ is a formal solution of QDYBE, $`S(\lambda ):=R(\mathrm{}\lambda )`$ and $`S(U(𝔤)^2U(𝔥))^𝔥[[\mathrm{}]]`$ is the image of $`S(\lambda )`$ by the symmetrization map, then $`S`$ satisfies

(12)
$$S^{1,2,4}S^{1,3,24}S^{2,3,4}=S^{2,3,14}S^{1,3,4}S^{1,2,34}$$

and the $`\mathrm{}`$-adic conditions (11), with $`S`$ replacing $`K`$.

###### Proposition 5.3.

The map $`R(\lambda )S`$ is a bijection between (a) the set of formal solutions of QDYBE, and (b) the set of solutions of (12), satisfying conditions (11).

The map $`J(\lambda )R(\lambda )`$ of Theorem 4.2 then corresponds to

$$KS=(K^{2,1,3})^1e^{\mathrm{}t^{1,2}/2}K^{1,2,3}.$$

The gauge group of all formal functions $`Q(\lambda )`$ and its actions also have algebraic counterparts.

A crucial fact for this paper is that equation (10) strongly resembles the pentagon equation. We will call it “the pentagon form of the twist equation”.

### 5.3. Quantization of $`(Z,\rho _Z)`$

###### Theorem 5.4.

Assume that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0U(𝔤)^3[[\mathrm{}]]`$ is an admissible quantization of $`Z`$. Let $`J(\lambda )=\mathrm{\Phi }_0^1(\mathrm{}^1\lambda )`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0^1`$ is regarded as an element of $`(U(𝔤)^2S^{}(𝔤))[[\mathrm{}]]`$.

1. The element $`J(\lambda )`$ is a formal dynamical twist. More precisely, $`J(\lambda )=1+\mathrm{}j(\lambda )+O(\mathrm{}^2)(U(𝔤)^2\widehat{}\widehat{S}^{}(𝔤))[[\mathrm{}]]`$ is a series of nonnegative powers in $`\mathrm{}`$ which satisfies the dynamical twist equation.

2. $`J(\lambda )`$ provides a twist quantization of a formal CDYBE solution for $`(𝔤,Z)`$, gauge-equivalent to $`\rho _Z`$.

3. There exists a gauge group element $`Q(\lambda )`$, such that $`J_0(\lambda ):={}_{}{}^{Q}J(\lambda )`$ is a formal dynamical twist, quantizing $`\rho _Z`$.

Proof. Let us study the $`\mathrm{}`$-adic valuation properties of $`J(\lambda )`$. The element $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Phi }_0)`$ belongs to the $`\mathrm{}`$-adic completion of $`(U_0^{})^3`$. Now $`U_0^{}\mathrm{}U(𝔤)[[\mathrm{}]]`$, so $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Phi }_0)\mathrm{}U(𝔤)^2[[\mathrm{}]]\widehat{}U_0^{}`$. So $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}\varphi )`$, where $`\varphi (U(𝔤)^2\widehat{S}^{}(𝔤))[[\mathrm{}]]`$. this proves that $`J(\lambda )`$ has the announced $`\mathrm{}`$-adic valuation properties and therefore 1).

The classical limit of $`J(\lambda )`$ is then a solution of the modified CDYBE for $`(𝔤,Z)`$. According to Proposition 3.4, it is gauge-equivalent to $`\rho _Z`$. This proves 2).

To prove 3), we use the fact that a classical gauge group element $`g=e^x,x(\widehat{S}^{}(𝔤)_{>0}𝔤)^𝔤`$ may also be regarded as a quantum gauge transformation. ∎

According to Theorem 4.5, $`J(\lambda )`$ gives rise to a quantization of $`X_\rho `$.

### 5.4. Uniqueness of quantization

###### Proposition 5.5.

1. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be an associator for $`(𝔤,Z)`$ let $`(\mathrm{\Phi },J_1(\lambda ))`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Phi },J_2(\lambda ))`$ be formal twist quantizations of $`(Z,\rho _Z)`$, then $`J_1(\lambda )`$ is gauge-equivalent to $`J_2(\lambda )`$.

2. For any associator $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for $`(𝔤,Z)`$, there exists a twist quantization $`J(\lambda )`$ of $`\rho _Z`$, associated to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

Proof. Proof of 1. As usual, it suffices to show that if $`J_1(\lambda )`$ and $`J_2(\lambda )`$ coincide modulo $`\mathrm{}^{n1}`$, then they are gauge equivalent modulo $`\mathrm{}^n`$. Thus, let us assume that

$$J_1(\lambda )J_2(\lambda )=\mathrm{}^n\eta (\lambda )+O(\mathrm{}^{n+1}).$$

The formal function $`\eta (\lambda )(U(𝔤)^2\widehat{}\widehat{S}^{}(𝔤))^𝔤`$ is a 2-cocycle in the co-Hochschild complex of $`U(𝔤)`$. Thus by adding a $`𝔤`$-invariant coboundary (which is an infinitesimal gauge transformation) we can assume that $`\eta (^2(𝔤)\widehat{}\widehat{S}^{}(𝔤))^𝔤`$ (note that it is not important here whether the functor of $`𝔤`$-invariants is exact or not). If $`n=1`$, we are done, as the classical limits of $`J_1(\lambda )`$ and $`J_2(\lambda )`$ are the same. So let us assume that $`n>1`$.

We can think of $`\eta `$ as an invariant formal differential 2-form on $`𝔤^{}`$. Now, it is easy to check that the order $`\mathrm{}^{n+1}`$ of the dynamical twist equation tells us that this form is closed (under the de Rham differential). Thus, by the equivariant Poincaré lemma (see, e.g., \[EtS\], Lemma 4.1), $`\eta =d\xi `$, where $`\xi `$ is an invariant formal 1-form on $`𝔤^{}`$. Thus after the gauge transformation $`Q(\lambda )=1+\mathrm{}^{n1}\xi (\lambda )`$ the twists will be identified modulo $`\mathrm{}^n`$. We are done.

Proof of 2. According to \[Dr1\], Proposition 3.12, there exists an invariant symmetric twist $`TS^2(U(𝔤))^𝔤[[\mathrm{}]]`$, which twists $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to the associator $`(\stackrel{~}{Z})`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{Z}^3(𝔤)^𝔤[[\mathrm{}]]`$ is such that $`\stackrel{~}{Z}=Z+O(\mathrm{})`$. $`(\stackrel{~}{Z})`$ is then admissible. Let $`\stackrel{~}{J}(\lambda )`$ be the twist constructed from $`(\stackrel{~}{Z})`$ in Theorem 5.4, 3). Then $`J(\lambda ):=T\stackrel{~}{J}(\lambda )`$ is a dynamical twist associated to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. ∎

## 6. Quantized dynamical twists for the pairs $`(𝔤,t)`$

In this section, $`𝔤`$ is a finite dimensional Lie algebra and $`tS^2(𝔤)^𝔤`$. We set $`𝔥=𝔤`$.

### 6.1.

Let $`𝔤_t`$ be the span of the left (or right) tensorands of $`t`$. It is clear that $`𝔤_t`$ is an ideal in $`𝔤`$.

###### Theorem 6.1.

Assume that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the image in $`U(𝔤)^3[[\mathrm{}]]`$ of a universal Lie associator. Let $`J(\lambda ):=\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\mathrm{}^1\lambda )`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ is regarded as an element of $`(U(𝔤)^2[𝔤^{}])[[\mathrm{}]]`$.

1. The element $`J`$ is a formal dynamical twist. More precisely, $`J(\lambda )=1+\mathrm{}j(\lambda )+O(\mathrm{}^2)(U(𝔤)^2\widehat{}\widehat{S}^{}(𝔤)[[\mathrm{}]]`$, is a series in nonnegative powers of $`\mathrm{}`$ which satisfies the dynamical twist equation.

2. $`J(\lambda )`$ provides a twist quantization of the Alekseev-Meinrenken dynamical $`r`$-matrix for $`(𝔤,Z:=\frac{1}{4}[Z^{1,2},Z^{2,3}])`$; that is, $`jj^{2,1}=\rho _{\mathrm{AM}}`$.

3. The element $`R(\lambda ):=J^{21}(\lambda )^1e^{\mathrm{}t/2}J(\lambda )`$ is a quantum dynamical $`R`$-matrix, which quantizes $`r(\lambda ):=\rho _{\mathrm{AM}}(\lambda )+\frac{t}{2}`$.

4. If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov associator, then $`J(\lambda )`$ is holomorphic in the open set $`U`$ of all $`\lambda 𝔤^{}`$ for which the imaginary part of eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{ad}t^{}(\lambda )`$ on $`𝔤_t`$ belongs to the interval $`(2\pi ,2\pi )`$, and extends meromorphically to the whole $`𝔤^{}`$ (in the sense that each coefficient of the $`\mathrm{}`$-adic expansion of $`J(\lambda )`$ is a convergent series in a neighborhood of zero, and its sum continues to a meromorphic function on $`𝔤^{}`$ without poles in $`U`$).

### 6.2. Proof of Theorem 6.1

Proof of 1. Let $`a=t^{1,2}`$, $`b=t^{2,3}`$. Recall \[Dr2\] that the inverse of a Lie associator is a sum of the form $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1=_w\mathrm{}^{|w|}C_ww(a,b)`$, where $`w(a,b)`$ is a word involving letters $`a`$ and $`b`$, $`C_w`$ are numbers, $`|w|`$ is the length of $`w`$. The terms with $`w=a^n`$ or $`b^n`$ (except $`n=0`$) do not occur in this expansion (as any Lie associator equals $`1`$ modulo the relation $`[a,b]=0`$). When passing from $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ to $`J`$, for each word $`w`$ we must use the symmetrization map to regard the third component of $`w(t^{12},t^{23})`$ as an (in general, non-homogeneous) function on $`𝔤^{}`$, and divide the part of degree $`d`$ of this function by $`\mathrm{}^d`$. It is clear that $`d`$ does not exceed the number of times $`b`$ occurs in $`w(a,b)`$, i.e., $`d|w|1`$ (except for the empty word). Thus, after division by $`\mathrm{}^d`$ all powers of $`\mathrm{}`$ will be positive except that of the term $`1`$ corresponding to the empty word. Thus, $`J=1+\mathrm{}j+O(\mathrm{}^2)`$, as desired.

That $`J`$ satisfies the dynamical twist equation follows from the fact that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ satisfies the pentagon relation

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{1,2,34}\mathrm{\Phi }^{12,3,4}=\mathrm{\Phi }^{2,3,4}\mathrm{\Phi }^{1,23,4}\mathrm{\Phi }^{1,2,3},$$

and subsection 5.2, as equation (10) has an obvious solution $`K=\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$.

Another proof of 1. If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a Lie associator, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{}t^{1,2},\mathrm{}t^{2,3})`$ is an admissible associator. According to the argument of Theorem 5.4, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ gives rise to a formal dynamical twist $`J(\lambda )`$.

Proof of 2. The previous argument shows that the terms of first order in $`\mathrm{}`$ are obtained from words $`w`$ in which $`a`$ occurs only once, by taking the principal symbol of elements of $`U(𝔤)`$ that arise in the third component. Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a Lie associator (the exponential of a Lie series) the words $`w`$ of length $`l`$ with only one occurrence of $`a`$ combine into a single term $`(\mathrm{ad}b)^{l1}(a)`$. Thus, the element $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\lambda ):=j(\lambda )j^{2,1}(\lambda )`$ has the form

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\lambda )=\stackrel{~}{\phi }(\mathrm{ad}t^{}(\lambda ))^{(2)}(t),$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }[[z]]`$ is a formal series containing only odd powers of $`z`$ (a priori, depending on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$) and the superscript (2) means the action in the second component. Also, $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ satisfies the modified classical dynamical Yang-Baxter equation. Thus, taking $`𝔤`$ to be any finite dimensional simple Lie algebra (e.g., $`𝔰l(2)`$) and using Theorem 3.14 of \[EtV1\] and the classification of dynamical $`r`$-matrices for $`𝔤`$ (\[EtV1\]), we find that the only possibility for $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ is $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }=\phi `$ (for another, direct proof of this fact see \[FP\], Section 3). Thus $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=\rho _{\mathrm{AM}}`$, as desired.

Remark. In the course of this proof we have established the (well known) fact that the coefficients of $`(\mathrm{ad}b)^{2k1}a`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are rational numbers which do not depend of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (and express via Bernoulli numbers). For the KZ associator, this leads to the classical formula for $`\zeta (2k)`$.

Proof of 3. The statement follows from 1,2, and Theorem 4.2.

Proof of 4. Recall \[Dr2\] that the KZ associator $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the “monodromy” from $`0`$ to $`1`$ of the differential equation

$$\frac{dF}{dz}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi i}\left(\frac{a}{z}+\frac{b}{z1}\right)F$$

(where $`F(z)U(𝔤)^3[[\mathrm{}]]`$). Therefore,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\underset{u1}{lim}(1u)^{\frac{\mathrm{}b}{2\pi i}}\left(\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi i}\right)^n_{0<z_1\mathrm{}z_n<u}\frac{(\frac{u}{z_n})^{\frac{\mathrm{}a}{2\pi i}}b(\frac{z_n}{z_{n1}})^{\frac{\mathrm{}a}{2\pi i}}\mathrm{}(\frac{z_2}{z_1})^{\frac{\mathrm{}a}{2\pi i}}bz_1^{\frac{\mathrm{}a}{2\pi i}}}{(z_n1)\mathrm{}(z_11)}𝑑𝐳\right)$$

Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1=\mathrm{\Phi }^{3,2,1}`$, it is given by the same formula with $`a`$ and $`b`$ interchanged. Namely, using the notation $`\mathrm{ad}(x)(y):=[x,y]`$ and changing variables, we have

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^1=\underset{u1}{lim}(1u)^{\frac{\mathrm{}a}{2\pi i}}\left(\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi i}\right)^n_{0<z_1\mathrm{}z_n<1}\frac{z_n^{\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{ad}b}{2\pi i}}(a)\mathrm{}z_1^{\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{ad}b}{2\pi i}}(a)}{(uz_n1)\mathrm{}(uz_11)}𝑑𝐳\right)$$

This implies that the element $`J`$ is given by the formula

$$J(\lambda )=\underset{u1}{lim}(1u)^{\frac{\mathrm{}t}{2\pi i}}\left(\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi i}\right)^n_{0<z_1\mathrm{}z_n<1}\frac{z_n^{\frac{\mathrm{ad}t^{}(\lambda )_{}^{(2)}}{2\pi i}}(t)\mathrm{}z_1^{\frac{\mathrm{ad}t^{}(\lambda )_{}^{(2)}}{2\pi i}}(t)}{(uz_n1)\mathrm{}(uz_11)}𝑑𝐳\right).$$

Here the symbol $`\mathrm{ad}x_{}`$ denotes the operator of commutation with $`x`$ in the algebra $`(U(𝔤)^2\widehat{}\widehat{S}^{}(𝔤)[[\mathrm{}]]`$, where the third factor is equipped with the PBW star-product, and the superscript $`(2)`$, as usual, denotes the action in the second component.

We will now need the following simple lemma from complex analysis.

###### Lemma 6.2.

Let $`u<1`$, and $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_n`$ be nonnegative integers. Consider the function

$$F_{n,u}^{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n}(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n):=_{0<z_1\mathrm{}z_n<1}\frac{z_1^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}z_n^{\alpha _n}\mathrm{ln}^{k_1}z_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{ln}^{k_n}z_n}{(1uz_1)\mathrm{}(1uz_n)}𝑑𝕫,$$

defined for $`\mathrm{Re}(\alpha _j)>0`$. Then

(i) the function $`F_{n,u}^{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n}`$ extends meromorphically to all values of $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n`$, and its poles are on the hyperplanes $`\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _k+k+m=0`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$, and $`m`$ is a nonnegative integer, and

(ii) for any $`\epsilon >0`$ one has

$$F_{n,u}^{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n}(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n)=\underset{p=0}{\overset{n}{}}F_n^{p,k_1,\mathrm{},k_n}(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n)\mathrm{ln}^p(1u)+O((1u)^{1\epsilon })$$

as $`u1`$, where $`F_n^{p,k_1,\mathrm{},k_n}`$ are meromorphic with poles as in (i).

Proof. Let us prove (i). It suffices to prove the result for $`k_i=0`$; the general case can be recovered by differentiation in $`\alpha _i`$. Expanding in powers of $`u`$ and computing the integral, we get

$$F_{n,u}^{0,\mathrm{},0}(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n)=\underset{p_1,\mathrm{},p_n0}{}\frac{u^{p_1+\mathrm{}+p_n}}{_{j=1}^n(\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _j+j+p_1+\mathrm{}+p_j)}.$$

One checks that the radius of convergence of the r.h.s. is $`1`$ when $`(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n)`$ does not belong to the hyperplanes, which implies statement (i).

Let us prove (ii). Set $`𝕜=(k_1,\mathrm{},k_n)`$.

$$G_{n,u}^𝕜(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n)=_{0z_1<\mathrm{}<z_nu}\frac{z_1^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}z_n^{\alpha _n}\mathrm{ln}^{k_1}(z_1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{ln}^{k_n}(z_n)}{(1z_1)\mathrm{}(1z_n)}𝑑𝕫.$$

We have

$$F_{n,u}^𝕜(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n)=u^{(\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _n+n)}\underset{m,𝕝}{}\lambda _{n,𝕜}^{m,𝕝}(\mathrm{ln}^mu)G_{n,u}^𝕝(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n),$$

where the $`\lambda _{n,𝕜}^{m,𝕝}`$ are constants. We will show that $`G_{n,u}^𝕝(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n)`$ has an expansion

$$G_{n,u}^𝕝(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n)=\underset{p=0}{\overset{n}{}}G_n^{p,𝕝}(u,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n)\mathrm{ln}^p(1u),$$

where $`G_n^{p,𝕝}(u,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n)`$ is a continuous function on $`[0,1]\times ^n`$, smooth in $`u(0,1]`$ and meromorphic in $`(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n)`$ with poles as in (i).

Let us treat the case where all Re$`(\alpha _i)`$ are $`>0`$. We use the following fact. Let $`f(z,\underset{¯}{\alpha })`$ be a continuous function defined on $`[0,1]\times \{\alpha |\mathrm{Re}(\alpha )>0\}^n`$, smooth in $`z(0,1]`$ and holomorphic in $`\underset{¯}{\alpha }`$ (that is, $`f(,\underset{¯}{\alpha })`$ is smooth for any $`\underset{¯}{\alpha }`$, and $`f(z,)`$ is holomorphic for any $`z`$). For any $`k0`$, we have

$$_0^zf(t,\underset{¯}{\alpha })\frac{\mathrm{ln}^k(1t)}{1t}𝑑t=\frac{f(1,\underset{¯}{\alpha })}{k+1}\mathrm{ln}^{k+1}(1z)+g(z,\underset{¯}{\alpha }),$$

where $`g(z,\underset{¯}{\alpha })=_0^z\frac{f(t,\underset{¯}{\alpha })f(1,\underset{¯}{\alpha })}{1t}\mathrm{ln}^k(1t)𝑑t`$ has the same properties as $`f(z,\underset{¯}{\alpha })`$. We apply this result to $`_{0<z_1<z_2}\frac{z_1^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{ln}^{k_1}z_1}{1z_1}𝑑z_1`$ (with $`k=0`$). This expression is then of the form $`g_1(z_2,\alpha _1)\mathrm{ln}(1z_2)+g_2(z_2,\alpha _1)`$. We transport it in the integral and iterate the procedure. We then extend the result to $`^n`$ by induction on $`n`$, using the functional equation relating $`G_{n,u}^𝕜(\underset{¯}{\alpha }\underset{¯}{\delta }_i)G_{n,u}^𝕜(\underset{¯}{\alpha })`$ with the $`G_{n1,u}^𝕝(\underset{¯}{\alpha }+\underset{¯}{\alpha }^{})`$, $`\underset{¯}{\alpha }^{}^{n1}`$ (here $`\underset{¯}{\delta }_i`$ is the $`i`$th basis vector of $`^n`$). ∎

Let us now continue the proof of 4. Fix $`\lambda `$ and let elements $`C_n(u,\lambda )U(𝔤)U(𝔤)`$ be defined by the formula

$$\underset{n0}{}C_n(u,\lambda )\mathrm{}^n:=\left(\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi i}\right)^n_{0<z_1\mathrm{}z_n<1}\frac{z_n^{\frac{\mathrm{ad}t^{}(\lambda )_{}^{(2)}}{2\pi i}}(t)\mathrm{}z_1^{\frac{\mathrm{ad}t^{}(\lambda )_{}^{(2)}}{2\pi i}}(t)}{(uz_n1)\mathrm{}(uz_11)}𝑑𝕫\right).$$

Since $`\mathrm{ad}x_{}=\mathrm{ad}x+O(\mathrm{})`$, the coordinates of $`C_n(u,\lambda )`$ with respect to any basis of $`U(𝔤)U(𝔤)`$ are linear combinations with complex coefficients of functions of the form $`F_{n,u}^{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n}(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n)`$, where $`2\pi i\alpha _j`$ are eigenvalues of the operator $`\mathrm{ad}t^{}(\lambda )`$ (to see this, it suffices to bring this operator to the Jordan normal form). This shows that $`C_n(u,\lambda )`$ is well defined and holomorphic in $`\lambda `$ when $`\lambda `$ belongs to the open set $`U`$ (in this case the integral which defines $`F_{n,u}^{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n}(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n)`$ is absolutely convergent).

Now, we have $`J(\lambda )=_{N0}\mathrm{}^NJ_N(\lambda )`$, where $`J_N(\lambda )`$ is given by the formula

$$J_N(\lambda )=\underset{u1}{lim}\underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{(t/2\pi i)^k}{k!}C_{Nk}(u,\lambda )\mathrm{ln}^k(1u).$$

From this and Lemma 6.2 (ii), it follows that $`J_N`$ is also holomorphic in $`U`$. The existence of the meromorphic extension of $`J_N`$ to the whole $`𝔤^{}`$ now follows from Lemma 6.2, (i),(ii). The theorem is proved.

Remark. Let us confirm by an explicit computation that for the KZ associator, $`jj^{21}=\rho _{\mathrm{AM}}`$. According to the above formulas, we have

$$j(\lambda )=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\underset{u1_{}}{lim}\left(t\mathrm{ln}(1u)+\left(_0^1\frac{z^{\mathrm{ad}t^{}(\lambda )/2\pi i}}{1uz}𝑑z\right)^{(2)}(t)\right).$$

Computing this explicitly, we get

$$j(\lambda )=(2\pi i)^1\left(\frac{1}{1\frac{1}{2\pi i}\mathrm{ad}t^{}(\lambda )}+\underset{p1}{}\left(\frac{1}{p}\frac{1}{p+1\frac{1}{2\pi i}\mathrm{ad}t^{}(\lambda )}\right)\right)^{(2)}(t)$$

Now, observe that the space $`𝔤_t`$ carries a nondegenerate inner product $`t^1`$, with respect to which the operators $`\mathrm{ad}x`$, $`x𝔤`$, are skew-symmetric. Hence,

$$j(\lambda )j^{2,1}(\lambda )=(2\pi i)^1\left(\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{p=N,p0}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1}{\frac{1}{2\pi i}\mathrm{ad}t^{}(\lambda )p}\right)^{(2)}(t)$$

Recalling that $`lim_N\mathrm{}_{p=N}^N\frac{1}{zp}=\pi \mathrm{cotan}\pi z`$, we find that

$$j(\lambda )j^{2,1}(\lambda )=\phi (\mathrm{ad}t^{}(\lambda ))^{(2)}(t),$$

where $`\phi `$ is defined by formula (1).

### 6.3. Uniqueness of quantization

###### Proposition 6.3.

1. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be any associator for $`𝔤`$. A twist quantization $`J(\lambda )`$ of $`\rho _{\mathrm{AM}}`$ associated to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (which exists according to Proposition 5.5, 2) can be chosen to be holomorphic on the open set $`U`$.

2. The quantum dynamical $`R`$-matrix $`R(\lambda )`$ attached to a Lie associator $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in Theorem 6.1 is in fact independent of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ up to a gauge transformation.

Proof. Proof of 1. By Drinfeld’s results \[Dr1, Dr2\], there exists an invariant symmetric twist $`TS^2(U(𝔤))^𝔤[[\mathrm{}]]`$, which twists $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to the Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov associator $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{KZ}}`$. Now let $`J(\lambda )`$ be the holomorphic dynamical twist constructed in Theorem 6.1, and let $`J^{}(\lambda )=TJ(\lambda )`$. Then $`J^{}(\lambda )`$ is the desired dynamical twist associated to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

Proof of 2. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ be two Lie associators, and $`J(\lambda ),J^{}(\lambda )`$, $`R(\lambda ),R^{}(\lambda )`$ the corresponding dynamical twists and $`R`$-matrices constructed in Theorem 6.1. Let $`T`$ be a Drinfeld twist mapping $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$. Then $`J(\lambda )`$ and $`TJ^{}(\lambda )`$ satisfy the conditions of Proposition 5.5, 1), so they are gauge equivalent. In particular, their associated $`R`$-matrices are gauge equivalent. The $`R`$-matrix of $`J(\lambda )`$ is $`R(\lambda )`$, and since $`T`$ is symmetric and invariant, the $`R`$-matrix of $`TJ^{}(\lambda )`$ is the same as that of $`J^{}(\lambda )`$, i.e., $`R^{}(\lambda )`$. So $`R(\lambda )`$ and $`R^{}(\lambda )`$ are gauge equivalent. ∎