text:
# Application of the Lorentz-Transform Technique to Meson Photoproduction

## I Introduction

In a series of papers elo1 ; elo2 ; elo3 ; elo4 ; elo5 ; elo6 ; mkog  it has been demonstrated that the LIT technique allows a convenient calculation of inclusive photoreaction cross sections wherein final state interactions are fully included. Further, the technique has been extended efros85 ; lapwl  to exclusive reactions. A merit of the technique is that the calculation of continuum wave functions is avoided. In fact the differential equations to be solved are inhomogeneous and have solutions bounded at infinity. The work cited above is based on non-relativistic quantum mechanics and a nucleons-only subspace.

In order to treat meson photoproduction from nuclei it is desirable to see if the LIT technique can be extended to a larger subspace i.e. one including nucleons and mesons. This would enable the full inclusion of both meson-nucleon and NN interactions in the production calculations. As a test we consider inclusive photoproduction of low energy ( $`<40`$ MeV ) $`\pi ^+`$ mesons from deuterium. A traditional calculation of this process was reported by Dressler, MacDonald, and O’ConnellDress  and by Gupta, Anand, and Bhasin Gupta . Both of these groups employed a simple Yamaguchi potential Yam  with parameters chosen to account for deuteron binding and low energy NN scattering properties. We adopt this model with the parameters used in Dress . Thus this example attempts to apply the LIT technique in the NN$`\pi `$ subspace where for simplicity only an NN interaction is included. Although no $`\pi `$N scattering is contained in this model, this is not essential for testing the method. Our results will show that it is indeed possible to apply the LIT method to this problem and to extract the total photoproduction cross section. We should point out that our restriction to a simple NN potential for this test calculation does not modify these conclusions. This is clearly seen from the series of papers elo1 ; elo2 ; elo3 ; elo4 ; elo5 ; elo6 ; mkog  where a range of NN potentials, from simple phenomenological models to modern realistic potentials, have been used in 3-nucleon and 4-nucleon problems. In no case did the complexity of the NN potential model have any effect on the accuracy or implementation of the LIT technique. With assurance that the formalism works the addition of a meson-nucleon interaction can be viewed as a technical point, the consequence of which would be more complicated numerics.

Low energy photoproduction is described by the Kroll-Ruderman KR  operator

$`_{\mathrm{int}}(x)=ie\left({\displaystyle \frac{f}{m_\pi }}\right){\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\widehat{ϵ}_\lambda \stackrel{}{\sigma }(j)\tau _{}(j)e^{ikx}\varphi _+(x)\delta (\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_j).`$ (1)
where $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ and $`\widehat{ϵ}_\lambda `$ denote the incident photon momentum and polarization vectors , respectively, and $`\varphi _+(x)`$ denotes the meson field operator

$`\varphi _+(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{8\pi ^3}}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^3q\frac{1}{\sqrt{2q_0}}\left[e^{iqx}a_+^{}(\stackrel{}{q})+e^{iqx}a_{}(\stackrel{}{q})\right]}`$ (2)
with $`q_0`$ the energy of the meson and $`a^{}`$ and $`a`$ are the usual creation and annihilation operators. Here $`e`$ is the positive elementary charge, $`m_\pi `$ is the $`\pi ^+`$-meson mass, $`f`$ is the $`\pi `$-N coupling constant, $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ denotes the Pauli spin matrix vector and $`\tau _{}`$ the isospin operator. Dressler et al. Dress  show that the KR term gives nearly the entire cross section for pion energies in the range considered here. Due to cancellations other terms in the production operator i.e. terms required by gauge invariance, do not contribute significantly at low pion energies. With $`E_{\mathrm{cm}}`$ as the incident c.m. energy the response function $``$($`E_{\mathrm{cm}}`$) for this process is

$`(E_{\mathrm{cm}})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{M_d,\lambda }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}\left|f|\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(\stackrel{}{k},\lambda )|D,M_d\right|^2\delta (E_{\mathrm{cm}}E_f),`$ (3)
where $`|D,M_d`$ denotes the deuteron ground state with polarization $`M_d`$ and

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(\stackrel{}{k},\lambda )={\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^3q𝒪(\stackrel{}{k},\lambda ,\stackrel{}{q})a_+^{}(\stackrel{}{q})}`$ (4)
with

$`𝒪(\stackrel{}{k},\lambda ,\stackrel{}{q})=ie\left({\displaystyle \frac{f}{m_\pi }}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{8\pi ^3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2q_0}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\widehat{ϵ}_\lambda \stackrel{}{\sigma }(j)\tau _{}(j)e^{i\stackrel{}{x}_j(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q})}.`$ (5)
In Eq. (3) above $`|f`$ denotes the wave function of the relative motion of the $`nn\pi ^+`$ system with energy $`E_f`$, and $`_f`$ indicates an integration over all relative momenta and a sum over all final nucleon spins. The inclusive cross section is related to $`(E_{\mathrm{cm}})`$ by

$`\sigma (E_{\mathrm{cm}})={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{k}}(E_{\mathrm{cm}}).`$ (6)
Relative momenta in the final state are taken as

$`\stackrel{}{p}_x`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{p}_2)/2`$ (7)
$`\stackrel{}{p}_y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi }{M}}(\stackrel{}{p}_1+\stackrel{}{p}_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{2m_n}{M}}\stackrel{}{p}_\pi `$ (8)
where $`\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2,`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_\pi `$ are the momenta of the final state neutrons and pion, respectively, and $`M`$ is the total mass $`2m_n+m_\pi `$ with the mass of the neutron $`m_n`$. As implied by this separation we are restricting ourselves to non-relativistic kinematics for both the nucleons and the pion. This allows the separation of the hamiltonian into Jacobi coordinates for the NN$`\pi `$ three body system. In terms of these quantities the energy conserving $`\delta `$-function appearing in $`(E_{\mathrm{cm}})`$ takes the detailed form

$`\delta (E_{\mathrm{cm}}E_f)=\delta \left(E_{\mathrm{cm}}(2m_n+m_\pi ){\displaystyle \frac{p_x^2}{m_n}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_y^2}{2\mu }}\right),`$ (9)
where $`\mu `$ is the reduced two-neutron-pion mass. Finally it is more convenient to use the c.m. energy above threshold

$`𝒲=k+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{2m_d}}(2m_n+m_\pi m_d)0`$
where $`m_d`$ is the mass of the deuteron. The LIT, referred to hereafter as the transform, of the response function $`(𝒲)`$ is then defined with $`\sigma _R,\sigma _I>0`$ as

$`L(\sigma _R,\sigma _I)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d𝒲{\displaystyle \frac{(𝒲)}{(𝒲\sigma _R)^2+\sigma _I^2}}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{M_d,\lambda }{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d𝒲D,M_d|\stackrel{~}{𝒪}^{}(\stackrel{}{k},\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{\delta (𝒲H)}{(H\sigma _R)^2+\sigma _I^2}}\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(\stackrel{}{k},\lambda )|D,M_d.`$ (11)
Because of the relation of $`k`$ to $`𝒲`$, a straightforward integration of the above equation would leave the operator $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(\stackrel{}{k},\lambda )`$ depending in a complicated way on the Hamiltonian $`H`$. Therefore, we proceed by setting $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ appearing in the operator $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$ to a constant arbitrarily chosen ”pseudo-momentum” $`\stackrel{}{k}_\mathrm{p}`$. As a result we introduce a new transform $`L_{k_\mathrm{p}}`$, which depends on $`k_\mathrm{p}`$ and takes the form

$`L_{k_\mathrm{p}}(\sigma _R,\sigma _I)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{M_d,\lambda }{}}D,M_d|\stackrel{~}{𝒪}^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_\mathrm{p},\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(H\sigma _R)^2+\sigma _I^2}}\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(\stackrel{}{k}_\mathrm{p},\lambda )|D,M_d`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{M_d,\lambda }{}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{M_d,\lambda }(\sigma _R,\sigma _I,k_\mathrm{p})|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{M_d,\lambda }(\sigma _R,\sigma _I,k_\mathrm{p}),`$ (13)
where the Lorentz function $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ is solution of the inhomogeneous equation

$`(H\sigma _R+i\sigma _I)|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{M_d,\lambda }(\sigma _R,\sigma _I,k_\mathrm{p})=\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(\stackrel{}{k}_\mathrm{p},\lambda )|D,M_d`$ (14)
with

$`\stackrel{}{p}_x,\stackrel{}{p}_y|H|\stackrel{}{p}_x^{},\stackrel{}{p}_y^{}=\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_x^2}{m_n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_y^2}{2\mu }}\right)\delta (\stackrel{}{p}_x\stackrel{}{p}_x^{})+V(\stackrel{}{p}_x,\stackrel{}{p}_x^{})\right]\delta (\stackrel{}{p}_y\stackrel{}{p}_y^{}).`$ (15)
The inverse to the transform $`L_{k_\mathrm{p}}(\sigma _R,\sigma _I)`$ will lead to a corresponding response function $`_{k_\mathrm{p}}(𝒲)`$ and in turn will yield the correct cross section for $`k_\mathrm{p}=k`$. Consequently for each photon energy the calculation of the transform and its inversion must be repeated.

As mentioned earlier the simple model here only includes an NN potential, i.e., $`V(\stackrel{}{p}_x,\stackrel{}{p}_x^{}`$). The kinetic energy of the meson with respect to the $`nn`$ pair appears in $`H`$ as the term proportional to $`p_y^2`$. Meson rescattering could be included by adding to $`H`$ appropriate potentials. Although that would considerably complicate the numerical aspect, it would not affect the question posed here, namely: can the LIT be inverted when the response function arises from a particle production process? A problem is the slow fall-off of the response function for high $`𝒲`$ values. From the definition of the transform it is clear that the response must behave asymptotically like $`𝒲^{1x}`$ where $`x>0`$ in order for the integral to converge. In the case of nuclear photoabsorbtion without pion production the response function falls off very rapidly for increasing $`𝒲`$ resulting in $`L(\sigma _R,\sigma _I)`$ also falling rapidly for large $`\sigma _R`$. Inversion then gives an accurate account of $`(𝒲)`$ over its entire range by calculating $`L(\sigma _R,\sigma _I)`$ for a finite number of $`\sigma _R`$ values. That the response function for inclusive photoproduction may have a significantly different asymptotic behavior can be seen from the basic Kroll-Rudermann KR  cross-section for $`p(\gamma ,\pi ^+)n`$

$`\sigma =2\alpha \left({\displaystyle \frac{f}{m_\pi }}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{q}{k}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{E_n(q)E_p(k)}{E_{\mathrm{cm}}^2}}`$ (16)
where $`E_N`$ are the nucleon energies, $`E_{\mathrm{cm}}`$ is the c.m. energy $`k+E_p(k)`$ and $`\alpha `$ the fine structure constant. This cross section approaches a constant for large $`E_{\mathrm{cm}}`$ and the response $`(E_{\mathrm{cm}})`$ rises linearly in $`E_{\mathrm{cm}}`$. In the next section it will be seen that the pion production response function for a finite nucleus is tempered at large $`E_{\mathrm{cm}}`$ by structure effects. Nevertheless it still rises over a large energy region thereby requiring a different approach for the inversion of the transform.

## II Results

Details of the model and the parameters used are given in the Appendix. There it is seen that the vector $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{M_d,\lambda }(\sigma _R,\sigma _I,k_\mathrm{p})`$ can also be labeled by the final neutron-neutron spin and that the response function is therefore a sum of singlet and triplet contributions. The separable potential used here only has scattering in the spin $`S=0`$, isospin $`T=1`$ channel while the $`S=1`$, $`T=1`$ final state consisting of odd partial waves is non-interacting. Fig. 1 shows the transform $`L_{k_\mathrm{p}}(\sigma _R,\sigma _I)`$ for the case $`\sigma _I=k_\mathrm{p}=10`$ MeV. One notes that $`L_{k_\mathrm{p}}`$ reaches a maximum at $`\sigma _R200`$ MeV and then falls very slowly with increasing $`\sigma _R`$. Also shown in this figure is the response function $`_{k_\mathrm{p}}(𝒲)`$ for $`k_\mathrm{p}=10\text{MeV}`$. The response function behaves similarly to $`L`$ as one would expect since $`L(\sigma _R,\sigma _I)`$ samples $``$ mainly from a region centered at $`𝒲=\sigma _R`$. We note that $`_{k_\mathrm{p}}(𝒲)`$ does not rise linearly with energy as in the case of $`p(\gamma ,\pi ^+)n`$ but falls off slowly with energy after reaching a maximum. Unfortunately, the fall-off of $`L`$ with $`\sigma _R`$ is so slow and covers such a large energy range that inverting it to obtain $`(𝒲)`$ over the full range, as was possible in the earlier photoabsorption calculations, is not only very difficult but largely physically meaningless because our model is only valid for non-relativistic mesons. In fact the present model is only sensible for energies $`𝒲`$ not exceeding approximately $`40`$ MeV which corresponds to the maximal pion energy still being non-relativistic. Our aim then is to calculate $`L`$ only for the segment $`0\sigma _R40`$ MeV and then invert it to extract $`_{k_\mathrm{p}}(𝒲)`$ for $`𝒲`$ in the same energy range. Since $``$ can be calculated directly the error can be easily assessed.

The inversion process we use has already been described in elo6  but a brief account is as follows. The response function $`_{k_\mathrm{p}}(𝒲)`$ is written as a sum

$`_{k_\mathrm{p}}(𝒲)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\alpha _i𝒲^{S+2}e^{\beta _i𝒲}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}_{k_\mathrm{p}}^i(𝒲)`$ (17)
and the parameters $`\alpha _i`$ and $`\beta _i`$ are determined by fitting

$`L_{k_\mathrm{p}}^{\mathrm{fit}}(\sigma _R,\sigma _I)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d𝒲{\displaystyle \frac{_{k_\mathrm{p}}^i(𝒲)}{(𝒲\sigma _R)^2+\sigma _I^2}}`$ (18)
to $`L`$ as computed from Eqs. (12)-(13) of the Appendix. Note that the threshold behavior $`𝒲^{S+2}`$, where $`S`$ is the total spin, is appropriate to the photoproduction process Gupta  and differs slightly from the form used in the earlier photoabsorption calculations. It turns out however that the quality of fit is nearly independent of which threshold behaviour is used. Fig. 2 shows the quality of the fit obtained using $`N=10`$. With the parameters so determined one can calculate the response functions and finally the inclusive cross section. As mentioned earlier this model problem is simple enough that the response functions are easily calculated in the traditional manner Dress ; Gupta . Fig. 3 shows the relative error between the response function as calculated from the LIT technique ( $`_{\mathrm{fit}}`$ ) and the one calculated in the traditional manner. Over most of the energy range between $`0𝒲40`$ MeV the relative error is in the $`1\%`$ range. However near the threshold, i.e. $`𝒲<2`$ MeV the response function tends to zero for $`𝒲0`$ and limited numerical accuracy produces an exaggerated relative error in this region. These effects are too small to be visible in a plot of the cross section however. Finally our computed cross section along with data of Booth et al. Booth  is shown in Fig. 4. The results of using the LIT technique are indistinguishable from the traditional methods in Dress ; Gupta .

It is instructive to see the differences in the response functions that occur if one uses transforms calculated in different ranges of $`\sigma _R`$. One expects that because of the nature of the Lorentz transform that one should only have to calculate the transform up to $`\sigma _R=40`$ MeV, as was done above, if the response function was only required in the energy range $`0𝒲40`$ MeV. To show this we calculate the transform in four ranges $`0\sigma _R\sigma _{R_{\mathrm{max}}}`$ where $`\sigma _{R_{\mathrm{max}}}=20,40,60`$, and $`70`$ MeV. The respective response functions obtained by inverting each of these transforms is denoted by $`_{k_\mathrm{p}}(𝒲|\sigma _{R_{\mathrm{max}}})`$. Fig. 5 shows the error in the $`\sigma _{R_{\mathrm{max}}}`$= 20,40,60 MeV cases relative to the $`\sigma _{R_{\mathrm{max}}}`$= 70 MeV case. One notes that the $`\sigma _{R_{\mathrm{max}}}`$= 20 MeV case only is accurate for energies up to 20 MeV, that the $`\sigma _{R_{\mathrm{max}}}`$= 40 MeV case has a less than 1$`\%`$ error at $`𝒲`$= 40 MeV, and that the $`\sigma _{R_{\mathrm{max}}}`$= 60 MeV case has only a very small error up to 60 MeV.

## III Conclusions

We have shown that the LIT technique can be used to calculate inclusive meson photoproduction cross sections in the non-relativistic regime. Rather than fitting the transform over its entire range as was possible in earlier photoabsorbtion calculations one fits here only the low energy segment to obtain the low energy response functions. The model calculation used here shows that the response functions thus obtained are as accurate as numerical techniques will allow. Our next step will be to add a pion-nucleon interaction to the Hamiltonian in order to take account of pion scattering effects. The dynamical model of Darwish, Arenhoevel, and Schwamb DAS  would provide a benchmark calculation against which to further check our method. It would also be of interest to apply these types of calculations to higher $`A`$ nuclei such as 3He, 3H, or 4He. The LIT technique extends readily to these cases as well as being able to handle realistic potentials including Coulomb effects. One should expect to be able to study meson-rescattering effects with realistic nuclear models in a variety of light nuclei.

## Acknowledgment

We would like to thank H. Arenhövel for valuable comments. All authors acknowledge support from the Italian Ministery of Research (MURST). In addition the work of C.R. and E.L.T. is supported by the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

## Appendix

For the NN interaction we use the separable model of Y. Yamaguchi Yam , which is a pure $`S`$-wave interaction

$`V(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _0g_0(\stackrel{}{p})g_0(\stackrel{}{p}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(1\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1\stackrel{}{\sigma }_2\right)`$ (1)
$`\lambda _1g_1(\stackrel{}{p})g_1(\stackrel{}{p}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(3+\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1\stackrel{}{\sigma }_2\right),`$
$`g_S(\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{}{p}^2+\beta _S^2}}S\{0,1\}.`$ (2)
Here the labels $`0`$ and $`1`$ refer to the spin-singlet and spin-triplet parts respectively. The following more up to date constants for this model have been taken from Dress :

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`0.2316\mathrm{fm}^1,\beta _0=1.129\mathrm{fm}^1,\beta _1=1.392\mathrm{fm}^1,`$ (3)
$`\lambda _0`$ $`=`$ $`0.02774\mathrm{fm}^2,\lambda _1={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1(\alpha +\beta _1)^2}{m_n\pi ^2}}.`$ (4)
These constants fit the deuteron binding energy, the experimental values for the singlet and triplet scattering lengths and the singlet effective range.

Using this separable NN interaction one obtains for the deuteron ground state

$`\psi _d(\stackrel{}{p})={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\alpha \beta _1(\alpha +\beta _1)^3}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(\stackrel{}{p}^2+\alpha ^2\right)\left(\stackrel{}{p}^2+\beta _1^2\right)}}`$ (5)
and a binding energy of $`2.224`$ MeV.

The Lorentz function $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{M_d,\lambda }(\sigma ,k_\mathrm{p},\stackrel{}{p}_x,\stackrel{}{p}_y)`$ can be decomposed into its spin components as

$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{M_d,\lambda }(\sigma ,k_\mathrm{p},\stackrel{}{p}_x,\stackrel{}{p}_y)={\displaystyle \underset{S=0,1}{}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{M_S}^S(\sigma ,k_\mathrm{p},\stackrel{}{p}_x,\stackrel{}{p}_y)`$ (6)
where $`M_S=M_d+\lambda `$ with $`M_d`$ and $`\lambda `$ the deuteron and photon polarization, respectively, and the function $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{M_S}^S(\sigma ,k_\mathrm{p},\stackrel{}{p}_x,\stackrel{}{p}_y)`$ is a solution of

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{p_x^2}{m_n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_y^2}{2\mu }}\sigma \right]\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{M_S}^S(\sigma ,k_\mathrm{p},\stackrel{}{p}_x,\stackrel{}{p}_y)\lambda _Sg_S(p_x)C_{M_S}^S(\stackrel{}{p}_y,\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }})`$
$`=\mathrm{\Xi }_{M_S,M_d,\lambda }^S_\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^S(\stackrel{}{p}_x),S\{0,1\},`$ (7)
where

$`C_{M_S}^S(\stackrel{}{p}_y,\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^3pg_S(p)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{M_S}^S(\sigma ,k_\mathrm{p},\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p}_y)},`$ (8)
$`_\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^S(\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _d(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }})+(1)^S\psi _d(\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}),`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{\Xi }_{M_S,M_d,\lambda }^S`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{3\sqrt{2}ef}{m_\pi }}(1)^{1+SM_S}\sqrt{2S+1}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}S& 1& 1\\ M_S& \lambda & M_d\end{array}\right)\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{2}& S& \frac{1}{2}\\ 1& \frac{1}{2}& 1\end{array}\right\}.`$ (10)
We take $`f^2/4\pi `$=0.078.

The constant $`C_{M_S}^S(\stackrel{}{p}_y,\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }})`$ with respect to $`p_x`$ is

$`C_{M_S}^S(\stackrel{}{p}_y,\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }})`$ $`=`$ $`m_n\mathrm{\Xi }_{M_S,M_d,\lambda }^S{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^3p\frac{g_S(p)_\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^S(\stackrel{}{p})}{p^2+\gamma ^2m_n\sigma }\left[1\frac{m_n\pi ^2\lambda _S}{\beta _S\left(\beta _S+\sqrt{\gamma ^2m_n\sigma }\right)^2}\right]^1}`$ (11)
with $`(m_n/\mu )/2\stackrel{}{p}_y^2\gamma ^2(\stackrel{}{p}_y)`$. In the case of $`S=1`$ this constant vanishes.

The solution of the Lorentz-equation therefore is

$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{M_S}^S(\sigma ,k_\mathrm{p},\stackrel{}{p}_x,\stackrel{}{p}_y)={\displaystyle \frac{m_n\mathrm{\Xi }_{M_S,M_d,\lambda }^S_\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^S(\stackrel{}{p}_x)+m_n\lambda _Sg_S(p_x)C_{M_S}^S(\stackrel{}{p}_y,\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }})}{p_x^2+\gamma ^2m_n\sigma }}`$ (12)
and the transform $`L_{k_\mathrm{p}}(\sigma _R,\sigma _I)`$ is

$`L_{k_\mathrm{p}}(\sigma _R,\sigma _I)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{S,M_d,\lambda }{}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{M_S}^S|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{M_S}^S.`$ (13)
## Appendix A Bibliograhy


format: text

text:
# Trigonometric Degeneration and Orbifold Wess-Zumino-Witten Model. I

## 1 Introduction

The Baxter-Belavin elliptic classical $`r`$ matrix is a quasi-classical limit of the famous Baxter’s elliptic $`R`$ matrix. It has a unique position in the classification of the classical $`r`$ matrices by Belavin and Drinfeld.

Etingof introduced the elliptic Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov (KZ) equation as a system of differential equations satisfied by the twisted trace of product of vertex operators (intertwining operators of representations) of affine Lie algebras $`\widehat{sl}_N`$. This system is formally obtained by replacing the rational $`r`$ matrix in the ordinary KZ equation by the elliptic one. Kuroki and the author constructed the twisted Wess-Zumino-Witten (WZW) model on elliptic curves and gave to Etingof’s equations a geometric interpretation as flat connections.

As is well-known, the elliptic $`r`$ matrix degenerates to the trigonometric $`r`$ matrix when the elliptic modulus $`\tau `$ tends to $`i\mathrm{}`$. Hence it is natural to expect that the twisted WZW model becomes a degenerate model which is related to the trigonometric $`r`$ matrix when the elliptic curve degenerates to a singular curve.

The purpose of this and the subsequent papers is to show that this is indeed the case and to analyse the degenerate WZW model. In the present paper we examine the degenerate WZW model and prove the factorisation theorem of Tsuchiya-Ueno-Yamada type. The spaces of conformal blocks and conformal coinvariants of the twisted WZW model over the singular curve factorise into those of the orbifold WZW model, which has been intensively studied in other context. See, e.g., Ref. . Actually, though based on a different standpoint, Etingof’s work could be considered as a precursor to them.

In the forthcoming papers we study the behaviour of the sheaves of conformal blocks and conformal coinvariants of the twisted WZW model around the boundary of the moduli of elliptic curves, especially the factorisation property of these sheaves. The integrable systems arising from this WZW model, i.e., the trigonometric Gaudin model and the trigonometric KZ equations, shall be also analysed.

In this work, we use the formulation of WZW models in terms of the affine Lie algebras. The reader can translate it into the formulation by the vertex operator algebras without difficulties.

This paper is organised as follows: After reviewing the twisted WZW model on elliptic curves in §2, we define the trigonometric twisted WZW model and corresponding WZW model on the orbifold in §3. The space of conformal coinvariants of the trigonometric twisted WZW model is decomposed into the “direct integral” of the spaces of conformal coinvariants of the orbifold WZW model. This general factorisation theorem is proved in §4. If certain conditions are imposed on the modules inserted to the degenerate curve, a refined factorisation theorem can be proved. This is done in §5. The simplest non-trivial example of the factorisation is given in §6. The last section §7 summarises the results and lists several problems.

### Notations

We use the following notations besides other ordinary conventions in mathematics.

* $`N`$, $`L`$: fixed integers. $`N2`$ will be the rank of the Lie algebra and $`L1`$ will be the number of the marked points on a curve.
* Let $`X`$ be an algebraic variety, $``$ be a sheaf on $`X`$ and $`P`$ be a point on $`X`$.

$`𝒪_X`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1`$, $`_P`$, $`𝔪_P`$: the structure sheaf of $`X`$, the sheaf of holomorphic 1-forms on $`X`$, the stalk of $``$ at $`P`$, the maximal ideal of the local ring $`𝒪_{X,P}`$, respectively.

When $``$ is an $`𝒪_X`$-module;

$`|_P:=_P/𝔪_P_P`$, $`_P^{}`$: fibre of $``$ at $`P`$, $`𝔪_P`$-adic completion of $`_P`$, respectively.
* We shall use the same symbol for a vector bundle and for a locally free coherent $`𝒪_X`$-module consisting of its local holomorphic sections.

## 2 Review of twisted WZW model on elliptic curves

In this section we briefly review the twisted WZW model on elliptic curves. In the next section the degeneration of this model, the trigonometric twisted WZW model, shall be given. We follow Ref.  but make slight changes of normalisation and notations because we need to use the results of Etingof later.

We fix an invariant inner product of $`𝔤=sl_N()`$ by

$$(A|B):=\mathrm{tr}(AB)\text{for }A,B𝔤.$$
(1)
Define matrices $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ by

$$\beta :=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}0& & 1& & & & 0\\ & & 0& & \mathrm{}& & \\ & & & & \mathrm{}& & 1\\ 1& & & & & & 0\end{array}\right),\gamma :=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& & & 0\\ & \epsilon ^1& & \\ & & \mathrm{}& \\ 0& & & \epsilon ^{1N}\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
where $`\epsilon =\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/N)`$. Then we have $`\beta ^N=\gamma ^N=1`$ and $`\gamma \beta =\epsilon \beta \gamma `$.

Let $`E=E_\tau `$ be the elliptic curve with modulus $`\tau `$: $`E_\tau :=/+\tau `$. We define the group bundle $`G^{\mathrm{tw}}`$ with fibre $`G=SL_N()`$ and its associated Lie algebra bundle $`𝔤^{\mathrm{tw}}`$ with fibre $`𝔤=sl_N()`$ over $`E`$ by

$`G^{\mathrm{tw}}:=`$ $`(\times G)/,`$ (3)
$`𝔤^{\mathrm{tw}}:=`$ $`(\times 𝔤)/,`$ (4)
where the equivalence relations $``$ and $``$ are defined by

$`(z,g)`$ $`(z+1,\gamma g\gamma ^1)(z+\tau ,\beta g\beta ^1),`$ (5)
$`(z,A)`$ $`(z+1,\mathrm{Ad}\gamma (A))(z+\tau ,\mathrm{Ad}\beta (A)).`$ (6)
(Because $`\gamma \beta =\epsilon \beta \gamma `$, the group bundle $`G^{\mathrm{tw}}`$ is not a principal $`G`$-bundle.111The bundle $`G^{\mathrm{tw}}`$ is a $`PGL_N`$ principal bundle. Hurtubise and Markman (for example, see Ref. ) take this viewpoint, but we prefer to regard it as a group scheme over the elliptic curve by the reason we stated in §0 of Ref. .) Let $`J_{ab}=\beta ^a\gamma ^b`$, which satisfies

$$\mathrm{Ad}\gamma (J_{ab})=\epsilon ^aJ_{ab},\mathrm{Ad}\beta (J_{ab})=\epsilon ^bJ_{ab}.$$
(7)
Global meromorphic sections of $`𝔤^{\mathrm{tw}}`$ are linear combinations of $`J_{ab}f(z)`$ ($`a,b=0,\mathrm{},N1`$, $`(a,b)(0,0)`$), where $`f(z)`$ is a meromorphic function with quasi-periodicity,

$$f(z+1)=\epsilon ^af(z),f(z+\tau )=\epsilon ^bf(z).$$
(8)
The twisted Lie algebra bundle $`𝔤^{\mathrm{tw}}`$ has a natural connection, $`_{d/dz}=d/dz`$. We define the invariant $`𝒪_E`$-inner product on $`𝔤^{\mathrm{tw}}`$ (regarded as an $`𝒪_E`$-Lie algebra sheaf) by

$$(A|B):=\frac{1}{2N}\mathrm{tr}_{𝔤^{\mathrm{tw}}}(\mathrm{ad}A\mathrm{ad}B)𝒪_E$$
(9)
for sections $`A`$, $`B`$ of $`𝔤^{\mathrm{tw}}`$, where the symbol $`\mathrm{ad}`$ denotes the adjoint representation of the $`𝒪_E`$-Lie algebra $`𝔤^{\mathrm{tw}}`$. This inner product is invariant under the translations with respect to the connection $`:𝔤^{\mathrm{tw}}𝔤^{\mathrm{tw}}_{𝒪_E}\mathrm{\Omega }_E^1`$:

$$d(A|B)=(A|B)+(A|B)\mathrm{\Omega }_E^1\text{for }A,B𝔤^{\mathrm{tw}}.$$
(10)
Under the trivialisation of $`𝔤^{\mathrm{tw}}`$ defined by the construction (4), the connection $``$ and the inner product $`(|)`$ on $`𝔤^{\mathrm{tw}}`$ coincide with the exterior derivative by $`z`$ and the inner product defined by (1) respectively.

For each point $`P`$ on $`E`$, we define Lie algebras,

$$𝔤^P:=(𝔤^{\mathrm{tw}}_{𝒪_E}𝒦_E)_P^{},$$
(11)
where $`𝒦_E`$ is the sheaf of meromorphic functions on $`E`$ and $`()_P^{}`$ means the completion of the stalk at $`P`$ with respect to the maximal ideal $`𝔪_P`$ of $`𝒪_P`$. In other words, it is isomorphic to the loop Lie algebra $`𝔤((zz_0))`$, where $`z_0`$ is the coordinate of $`P`$, but the isomorphism depends on choices of the coordinate $`z`$ and the trivialisation of $`𝔤^{\mathrm{tw}}`$. The subspace

$$𝔤_+^P:=(𝔤^{\mathrm{tw}})_P^{}𝔤[[zz_0]]$$
(12)
of $`𝔤^P`$ is a Lie subalgebra.

Let us fix mutually distinct points $`Q_1,\mathrm{},Q_L`$ on $`E`$ whose coordinates are $`z=z_1,\mathrm{},z_L`$ and put $`D:=\{Q_1,\mathrm{},Q_L\}`$. We shall also regard $`D`$ as a divisor on $`E`$ (i.e., $`D=Q_1+\mathrm{}+Q_L`$). The Lie algebra $`𝔤^D:=_{i=1}^L𝔤^{Q_i}`$ has a 2-cocycle defined by

$$\mathrm{c}_\mathrm{a}(A,B):=\underset{i=1}{\overset{L}{}}\mathrm{c}_{\mathrm{a}}^{}{}_{,i}{}^{}(A_i,B_i),\mathrm{c}_{\mathrm{a}}^{}{}_{,i}{}^{}(A_i,B_i):=Res_{Q_i}(A_i|B_i),$$
(13)
where $`A=(A_i)_{i=1}^L,B=(B_i)_{i=1}^L𝔤^D`$ and $`Res_{Q_i}`$ is the residue at $`Q_i`$. (The symbol “$`\mathrm{c}_\mathrm{a}`$” stands for “Cocycle defining the Affine Lie algebra”.) We denote the central extension of $`𝔤^D`$ with respect to this cocycle by $`\widehat{𝔤}^D`$:

$$\widehat{𝔤}^D:=𝔤^D\widehat{k},$$

where $`\widehat{k}`$ is a central element. Explicitly the bracket of $`\widehat{𝔤}^D`$ is represented as

$$[A,B]=([A_i,B_i]^{})_{i=1}^L\mathrm{c}_\mathrm{a}(A,B)\widehat{k}\text{for }A,B𝔤^D\text{,}$$
(14)
where $`[A_i,B_i]^{}`$ are the natural bracket in $`𝔤^{Q_i}`$. The Lie algebra $`\widehat{𝔤}^P`$ for a point $`P`$ is nothing but the affine Lie algebra $`\widehat{𝔤}`$ of type $`A_{N1}^{(1)}`$ (a central extension of the loop algebra $`𝔤((tz))=sl_N\left(((tz))\right)`$).

The affine Lie algebra $`\widehat{𝔤}^{Q_i}`$ can be regarded as a subalgebra of $`\widehat{𝔤}^D`$. The subalgebra $`𝔤_+^{Q_i}`$ of $`𝔤^{Q_i}`$ (cf. (12)) can be also regarded as a subalgebra of $`\widehat{𝔤}^{Q_i}`$ and $`\widehat{𝔤}^D`$.

Let $`𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}`$ be the space of global meromorphic sections of $`𝔤^{\mathrm{tw}}`$ which are holomorphic on $`E`$ except at $`D`$:

$$𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}:=\mathrm{\Gamma }(E,𝔤^{\mathrm{tw}}(D)).$$
(15)
There is a natural linear map from $`𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}`$ into $`𝔤^D`$ which maps a meromorphic section of $`𝔤^{\mathrm{tw}}`$ to its germ at $`Q_i`$’s. The residue theorem implies that this linear map is extended to a Lie algebra injection from $`𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}`$ into $`\widehat{𝔤}^D`$, which allows us to regard $`𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}`$ as a subalgebra of $`\widehat{𝔤}^D`$.

###### Definition 2.1.

The space of conformal coinvariants $`\mathrm{CC}_E(M)`$ and that of conformal blocks $`\mathrm{CB}_E(M)`$ over $`E`$ associated to $`\widehat{𝔤}^{Q_i}`$-modules $`M_i`$ with the same level $`\widehat{k}=k`$ are defined to be the space of coinvariants of $`M:=_{i=1}^LM_i`$ with respect to $`𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}`$ and its dual:

$$\mathrm{CC}_E(M):=M/𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}M,\mathrm{CB}_E(M):=\mathrm{Hom}_{}(M/𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}M,).$$
(16)
(In Ref. , $`\mathrm{CC}_E(M)`$ and $`\mathrm{CB}_E(M)`$ are called the space of covacua and that of vacua respectively.)

## 3 Trigonometric twisted WZW model and orbifold WZW model

In this section we define the degeneration of the twisted WZW model in the previous section, §2, i.e., the trigonometric twisted WZW model on a singular “curve”. (Exactly speaking, the model is defined on a “stack”, whatever it is.) As is shown in the sections coming later, §4 and §5, if we desingularise the “curve”, the spaces of conformal coinvariants and conformal blocks are factorised into those of the orbifold WZW model, the definition of which is also given in this section.

When the modulus $`\tau `$ of the elliptic curve $`E_\tau `$ tends to $`i\mathrm{}`$, one of the cycle of the torus is pinched and we obtain a singular curve of the “croissant bread” shape. Such an object is constructed simply by identifying the north pole ($`\mathrm{}`$) and the south pole ($`0`$) of the Riemann sphere $`^1()`$.

Unfortunately, the twisted bundle $`𝔤^{\mathrm{tw}}`$ over $`E_\tau `$ does not simply degenerates to a bundle over such a singular curve. We need to take several steps:

1. Lift the bundle $`𝔤^{\mathrm{tw}}`$ to a covering space of $`E_\tau `$ where the pull-back of $`𝔤^{\mathrm{tw}}`$ become trivial. The covering is $`N^2`$-fold and the covering space is an elliptic curve isomorphic to $`E_\tau `$.
2. Take such degeneration of the covering elliptic curve that it becomes the $`N^2`$-fold covering of the singular curve mentioned above. This covering space consists of $`N`$ copies of $`^1`$ connected to form a ring.
3. The “degenerate bundle” $`𝔤^{\mathrm{tw}}`$ over the singular curve is understood as the trivial bundle over the singular covering space constructed above with the cyclic group action together.

A “manifold with local finite group action” is called an orbifold, but in our case the underlying space has a singularity, hence it should be regarded as a stack in algebraic geometry. It is not our task (and certainly beyond the reach of the author’s ability) to construct a general theory of the WZW model over stacks. We shall define the twisted WZW model over the degeneration of the elliptic curve below by down-to-earth terminology only.

Let us denote the standard coordinate of $`^1()`$ by $`t`$. The cyclic group $`C_N=/N`$ acts as $`t\epsilon ^at`$ ($`aC_N`$) and the quotient $`E_{\mathrm{orb}}=^1/C_N`$ is an ordinary orbifold. The degenerate elliptic curve $`E_{\mathrm{trig}}`$ is defined by identifying $`0`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ (i.e., the fixed points of the $`C_N`$ action) of $`E_{\mathrm{orb}}`$.

Not defining what the twisted bundle $`𝔤^{\mathrm{trig}}`$ over $`E_{\mathrm{trig}}`$ and the twisted bundle $`𝔤^{\mathrm{orb}}`$ over $`E_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ are, we directly define what their meromorphic sections are in the following way. (In fact, specifying sections is equivalent to defining bundles in algebraic geometry.)

###### Definition 3.1.

A $`𝔤`$-valued meromorphic function $`f(t)`$ on $`^1`$ is a meromorphic section of $`𝔤^{\mathrm{orb}}`$ if and only if it satisfies

$$f(\epsilon t)=\mathrm{Ad}\gamma (f(t)).$$
(17)
The same $`f(t)`$ is a section of $`𝔤^{\mathrm{trig}}`$ if and only if it satisfies

$$f(\mathrm{})=\mathrm{Ad}\beta (f(0)),$$
(18)
in addition to (17).

The relations (18) and (17) are degenerate form of (6).

Hereafter we fix mutually distinct points $`Q_1,\mathrm{},Q_L`$ on the orbifold $`E_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ with coordinates $`t=t_1,\mathrm{},t_L`$ (modulo $`C_N`$-action). The algebras $`𝔤^{\mathrm{trig},Q_i}`$, $`𝔤_+^{\mathrm{trig},Q_i}`$, $`𝔤^{\mathrm{orb},Q_i}`$ and $`𝔤_+^{\mathrm{orb},Q_i}`$ are defined from $`𝔤^{\mathrm{trig}}`$ and $`𝔤^{\mathrm{orb}}`$ in the same way as $`𝔤^{Q_i}`$ and $`𝔤_+^{Q_i}`$ for the elliptic curve, (11) and (12). When $`Q_i0,\mathrm{}`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},L`$), they are isomorphic to $`𝔤^{Q_i}`$ and $`𝔤_+^{Q_i}`$ since the definition is local.

For the orbifold WZW model, we need similar Lie algebras $`𝔤^{(0)}`$, $`𝔤_+^{(0)}`$, $`𝔤^{(\mathrm{})}`$, $`𝔤_+^{(\mathrm{})}`$ sitting at the singular points, $`0`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$. Formally their definition is the same as (11) and (12) with $`P`$ replaced by $`0`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`E`$ by $`E_{\mathrm{orb}}`$. The mode expansion of $`𝔤^{(0)}`$ has a different form from the usual loop algebra, namely,

$$𝔤^{(0)}=\underset{\begin{array}{c}a,b=0,\mathrm{},N1\\ (a,b)(0,0)\end{array}}{}\underset{m}{}J_{a,b}t^{a+mN}.$$
(19)
The algebra $`𝔤^{(\mathrm{})}`$ has the same form.

The central extension of $`𝔤^{Q_i}`$, $`\widehat{𝔤}^{(Q_i)}`$, is defined in the same way as in §2 by using the cocycle (13). The central extension of $`𝔤^{(0)}`$ and $`𝔤^{(\mathrm{})}`$ are defined essentially in the same manner. Difference is that we have to change the normalisation of the central element $`\widehat{k}`$:

$$[A,B]=[A,B]^{}\mathrm{c}_{\mathrm{a}}^{}{}_{,0}{}^{}(A,B)\widehat{k},\mathrm{c}_{\mathrm{a}}^{}{}_{,0}{}^{}(A,B):=\frac{1}{N}Res_{t=0}(A|B)$$
(20)
for $`A,B𝔤^{(0)}`$, where $`[A,B]^{}`$ is the natural loop-algebra bracket in $`𝔤^{(0)}`$. The origin of the factor $`1/N`$ shall be explained soon later. The definition of $`\widehat{𝔤}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ is exactly the same. We often denote $`𝔤^{(0)}`$ and $`𝔤^{(\mathrm{})}`$ by $`𝔤_\gamma ^{(0)}`$ and $`𝔤_\gamma ^{(\mathrm{})}`$, following §1 of Ref. , where $`\widehat{𝔤}_\gamma `$ is shown to be isomorphic to the ordinary affine Lie algebra $`\widehat{𝔤}`$. The suffix $`\gamma `$ is put to emphasise the twisting of the algebra by $`\gamma `$, (17).

Let $`D`$ be the divisor $`Q_1+\mathrm{}+Q_L`$. The definition of the loop algebra $`𝔤^D`$ and its central extension does not change so far as $`D`$ does not contain $`0`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$. When $`D`$ contains $`0`$ or $`\mathrm{}`$ or both, then the change of the normalisation (20) of the cocycle at $`0`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ should be taken into account. (When we talk about $`E_{\mathrm{trig}}`$ or $`𝔤^{\mathrm{trig}}`$, it is always assumed that $`D`$ contains neither $`0`$ nor $`\mathrm{}`$.)

Instead of the subalgebra $`𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}`$, (15), we define the following subalgebras of $`\widehat{𝔤}^D`$:

$`𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}`$ $`:=\{f(t):\text{global meromorphic section of }𝔤^{\mathrm{trig}}\text{ with poles in }D\}.`$ (21)
$`𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}`$ $`:=\{f(t):\text{global meromorphic section of }𝔤^{\mathrm{orb}}\text{ with poles in }D\},`$ (22)
Their Lie algebra structures are defined by the pointwise Lie bracket of $`𝔤`$-valued functions. It is not trivial that they are subalgebras of $`\widehat{𝔤}^D`$, since the residue theorem cannot be directly applied. For $`f(t),g(t)𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}`$, it is easy to see that

$$\mathrm{c}_\mathrm{a}(f,g)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{L}{}}Res_{Q_i}(f(t)|g(t))=\frac{1}{N}\underset{a=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{L}{}}Res_{\epsilon ^aQ_i}(f(t)|g(t))=0,$$

where $`\epsilon ^aQ_i`$ denotes the action of $`aC_N`$ on the point $`Q_i`$. Since $`\{\epsilon ^aQ_iaC_N,i=1,\mathrm{},L\}`$ contains all poles of $`(f(t)|g(t))`$ on $`^1`$, we can apply the residue theorem here. This proves that $`𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}`$ defined by (21) is a Lie subalgebra of $`\widehat{𝔤}^D`$. In the case of $`𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}`$, when $`D`$ does not contain $`0`$ nor $`\mathrm{}`$, the proof is the same. When $`D`$ contains, e.g., $`0`$, the central extension should be $`\widehat{k}`$ times

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{c}_\mathrm{a}(f,g)=& \mathrm{c}_{\mathrm{a}}^{}{}_{,0}{}^{}(f(t),g(t))+\underset{i=1}{\overset{L}{}}\mathrm{c}_{\mathrm{a}}^{}{}_{,i}{}^{}(f(t)|g(t))\hfill \\ \hfill =& \frac{1}{N}\left(Res_0(f(t)|g(t))+\underset{a=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{L}{}}Res_{\epsilon ^aQ_i}(f(t)|g(t))\right)=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

The last equality is the consequence of the residue theorem applied to $`(f(t)|g(t))`$ over $`^1`$. Hence, also in this case $`𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}`$ is a subalgebra of $`\widehat{𝔤}^D`$. Other cases (when $`D`$ contains $`\mathrm{}`$) are proved in the same way. This is the reason why we have to put $`1/N`$ in (20), which appeared first in Ref. , Lemma 1.1, where Etingof wrote down explicit formulae of the isomorphism of $`\widehat{𝔤}_\gamma `$ and the ordinary affine Lie algebra $`\widehat{𝔤}`$.

We are now ready to define the spaces of conformal coinvariants and conformal blocks for $`E_{\mathrm{trig}}`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{orb}}`$.

###### Definition 3.2.

(i) The space of conformal coinvariants $`\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{trig}}(M)`$ and that of conformal blocks $`\mathrm{CB}_{\mathrm{trig}}(M)`$ over $`E_{\mathrm{trig}}`$ associated to $`\widehat{𝔤}^{Q_i}`$-modules $`M_i`$ with the same level $`\widehat{k}=k`$ are defined to be the space of coinvariants of $`M:=_{i=1}^LM_i`$ with respect to $`𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}`$ and its dual:

$$\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{trig}}(M):=M/𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}M,\mathrm{CB}_{\mathrm{trig}}(M):=\mathrm{Hom}_{}(M/𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}M,).$$
(23)
(ii) The space of conformal coinvariants $`\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(M)`$ and that of conformal blocks $`\mathrm{CB}_{\mathrm{orb}}(M)`$ over $`E_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ associated to $`\widehat{𝔤}^{Q_i}`$-modules $`M_i`$ with the same level $`\widehat{k}=k`$ are defined to be the space of coinvariants of $`M:=_{i=1}^LM_i`$ with respect to $`𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}`$ and its dual:

$$\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(M):=M/𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}M,\mathrm{CB}_{\mathrm{orb}}(M):=\mathrm{Hom}_{}(M/𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}M,).$$
(24)
In this paper we consider only smooth modules of affine Lie algebras $`\widehat{𝔤}^{Q_i}`$, $`\widehat{𝔤}^{(0)}`$, etc.: Let $`\widehat{𝔤}=𝔤[\xi ,\xi ^1]\widehat{k}`$ be an affine Lie algebra. (We identify $`\widehat{𝔤}^{Q_i}`$, $`\widehat{𝔤}^{(0)}`$ and so on with this algebra by means of suitable isomorphisms.) A $`\widehat{𝔤}`$-module $`M`$ is called smooth if for any $`vM`$, there exists $`m0`$ such that, for $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_\nu 𝔤`$, $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_\nu 0`$, and $`\nu =0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$,

$$(A_1\xi ^{m_1})\mathrm{}(A_\nu \xi ^{m_\nu })v_i=0\text{if }m_1+\mathrm{}+m_\nu m,$$
(25)
where $`\xi `$ is the loop parameter of $`\widehat{𝔤}=𝔤((\xi ))\widehat{k}`$. Not only Laurent polynomials but also Laurent series in $`𝔤[\xi ^1][[\xi ]]`$ can act on smooth modules. Therefore, if $`M_i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},L`$) are smooth $`\widehat{𝔤}^{Q_i}`$ modules, the actions of $`𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}`$ and $`𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}`$ on $`M_1\mathrm{}M_L`$ are well-defined.

Concrete examples of spaces of conformal coinvariants shall be given in §6. The relation of $`\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{trig}}`$ and $`\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ is our main subject in this paper and studied in the next sections, §§45. How $`\mathrm{CC}_E`$ for elliptic curves degenerates to these spaces at the boundary of the moduli space of the elliptic curves shall be clear in the forthcoming papers.

## 4 Factorisation (1)

In this section the general factorisation theorem of the space of conformal coinvariants $`\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{trig}}`$ is shown. The result is not so sharp as that in the next section, but the idea of the factorisation becomes clear.

To state the theorem, we need the notion of the Verma module of $`\widehat{𝔤}_\gamma `$, i.e., $`\widehat{𝔤}^{(0)}`$ and $`\widehat{𝔤}^{(\mathrm{})}`$. Recall that $`\widehat{𝔤}^{(0)}`$ has a natural triangular decomposition:

$$\widehat{𝔤}^{(0)}=𝔫_+^{(0)}𝔥^{(0)}𝔫_{}^{(0)}\widehat{k},$$
(26)
where $`𝔫_+^{(0)}`$ consists of $`𝔤`$-valued power series in $`t`$ with strictly positive powers while $`𝔫_{}^{(0)}`$ consists of series in $`t`$ with negative powers. (See (19).) $`𝔥^{(0)}`$ is the same as the Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔤`$, which is spanned by $`J_{0,b}`$ ($`b=1,\mathrm{},N1`$). Since $`𝔥^{(0)}`$ is canonically identified with the Cartan subalgebra $`𝔥`$ of $`𝔤`$, we often drop the superscript $`(0)`$. The algebra $`\widehat{𝔤}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ has the same decomposition but with opposite powers of $`t`$: $`𝔫_+^{(\mathrm{})}`$ is the subspace of $`𝔤^{(\mathrm{})}`$ with negative powers of $`t`$ and $`𝔫_{}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ is that with negative powers of $`t`$, because $`𝔫_+^{(\mathrm{})}`$ is the space of $`𝔤`$ valued functions which vanish at $`\mathrm{}`$. To avoid repeating the same statements for $`\widehat{𝔤}^{(0)}`$ and $`\widehat{𝔤}^{(\mathrm{})}`$, we identify them in the canonical way and denote the above decomposition as

$$\widehat{𝔤}_\gamma =𝔫_{\gamma ,+}𝔥_\gamma 𝔫_{\gamma ,}\widehat{k},$$
(27)
and define $`\widehat{𝔟}_\gamma :=𝔫_{\gamma ,+}𝔥_\gamma \widehat{k}`$.

###### Definition 4.1.

(i) Let $`\lambda `$ is an element of $`𝔥_\gamma ^{}=\mathrm{Hom}_{}(𝔥_\gamma ,)`$ and $`k`$ is an arbitrary complex number. The Verma module of $`\widehat{𝔤}_\gamma `$ of highest weight $`\lambda `$ and level $`k`$ is the $`\widehat{𝔤}_\gamma `$-module

$$M_\lambda :=U\widehat{𝔤}_\gamma /J_{\gamma ,\lambda ,k},$$
(28)
where $`J_{\gamma ,\lambda ,k}`$ is the left ideal generated by $`𝔫_{\gamma ,+}`$, $`H\lambda (H)`$ for $`H𝔥_\gamma `$ and $`\widehat{k}k`$. The cyclic vector $`1modJ_{\gamma ,\lambda ,k}`$ is denoted by $`1_\lambda `$. Equivalently $`M_\lambda `$ is defined as the $`\widehat{𝔤}_\gamma `$-module induced from the one-dimensional $`\widehat{𝔟}_\gamma `$-module:

$$M_\lambda :=\mathrm{Ind}_{\widehat{𝔟}_\gamma }^{\widehat{𝔤}}1_\lambda ,$$
(29)
where $`1_\lambda `$ satisfies $`𝔫_{\gamma ,+}1_\lambda =0`$, $`H1_\lambda =\lambda (H)1_\lambda `$ and $`\widehat{k}1_\lambda =k1_\lambda `$. (See Ref. , (1.3).)

(ii) The $`\widehat{𝔤}_\gamma `$-module

$$M(0):=U\widehat{𝔤}_\gamma /J(0),$$
(30)
where $`J(0)=U\widehat{𝔤}_\gamma 𝔫_{\gamma ,+}+U\widehat{𝔤}_\gamma (\widehat{k}k)`$, is called the universal Verma module of level $`k`$. The cyclic vector $`1modJ(0)`$ is denoted by $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Equivalently $`M(0)`$ is defined as the $`\widehat{𝔤}_\gamma `$-module induced from the one-dimensional $`(𝔫_{\gamma ,+}\widehat{k})`$-module:

$$M(0):=\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔫_{\gamma ,+}\widehat{k}}^{\widehat{𝔤}}\mathrm{𝟏},$$
(31)
where $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ satisfies $`𝔫_{\gamma ,+}\mathrm{𝟏}=0`$ and $`\widehat{k}\mathrm{𝟏}=k\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

Since $`[𝔥_\gamma ,J_{\gamma ,\lambda ,k}]J_{\gamma ,\lambda ,k}`$ and $`[𝔥_\gamma ,J(0)]J(0)`$, we can define right $`𝔥_\gamma `$-actions on $`M_\lambda `$ and $`M(0)`$ by

$$[x][xH],$$
(32)
for $`H𝔥_\gamma `$ and $`xU\widehat{𝔤}_\gamma `$, where $`[x]`$ denotes the equivalence class of $`x`$ modulo $`J_{\gamma ,\lambda ,k}`$ or $`J(0)`$.

The general factorisation theorem is as follows. Hereafter we always assume that $`\{Q_1,\mathrm{},Q_L\}`$ do not contain neither $`0`$ nor $`\mathrm{}`$. Hence $`D=Q_1+\mathrm{}+Q_L`$ is a divisor of $`E_{\mathrm{trig}}`$ as well as that of $`E_{\mathrm{orb}}`$.

###### Theorem 4.2.

Let $`M_i`$ be a smooth $`\widehat{𝔤}^{Q_i}`$-module of level $`k`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},L`$ and $`M`$ be the tensor product $`M_1\mathrm{}M_L`$ endowed with the $`\widehat{𝔤}^D`$-module structure. Then,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{trig}}(M)& \mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}})/\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}𝔥,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}𝔥& :=\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}})\rho _{1,\beta }(𝔥).\hfill \end{array}$$
(33)
Here $`M(0)_0`$ and $`M(0)_{\mathrm{}}`$ are the universal Verma modules defined above for $`\widehat{𝔤}_\gamma =\widehat{𝔤}^{(0)}`$ and for $`\widehat{𝔤}_\gamma =\widehat{𝔤}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ respectively and $`\rho _{1,\beta }`$ is the right action of $`𝔥=𝔥^{(0)}=𝔥^{(\mathrm{})}`$ on $`M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}}`$ defined by

$$(v_0vv_{\mathrm{}})\rho _{1,\beta }(H):=v_0Hvv_{\mathrm{}}+v_0vv_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Ad}(\beta )H$$
(34)
for $`H𝔥`$, $`v_0M(0)_0`$, $`vM`$ and $`v_{\mathrm{}}M(0)_{\mathrm{}}`$. Note that the left action of $`𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}`$ and the right action of $`𝔥`$ on $`M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}}`$ commute with each other and thus $`\rho _{1,\beta }`$ descends to the action on $`\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}`$.

This statement is rigorous but not very illuminating, so we rephrase it in a little bit incorrect but more impressive way. By virtue of the Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt theorem, $`M_\lambda `$ and $`M(0)`$ are isomorphic to $`U𝔫_{\gamma ,}`$ and $`U𝔫_{\gamma ,}U𝔥_\gamma `$ respectively as linear spaces. Being commutative, the universal enveloping algebra $`U𝔥_\gamma `$ is a polynomial ring over the dual space $`𝔥_\gamma ^{}=\mathrm{Hom}_{}(𝔥_\gamma ,)`$. Hence $`M(0)`$ is spanned by $`xf(\lambda )`$, where $`xU𝔤_{\gamma ,}`$ and $`f(\lambda )`$ is a polynomial in $`\lambda 𝔥_\gamma ^{}`$. Evaluating $`xf(\lambda )`$ at $`\lambda 𝔥_\gamma ^{}`$, we obtain an element of $`M_\lambda `$. In this sense, $`M(0)`$ may be approximately regarded as a direct integral:

$$M(0)\text{}=\text{}_{\lambda 𝔥_\gamma ^{}}M_\lambda 𝑑\lambda .$$
(35)
(This is not correct since the direct integral should be spanned by $`L^2`$-functions instead of polynomials.) Using this (approximate) identification, we can rewrite $`\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}})`$ as

$$\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}})=_{𝔥^{}\times 𝔥^{}}\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(M_\lambda MM_\mu )𝑑\lambda 𝑑\mu .$$
(36)
The statement of Theorem 4.2 becomes

$$\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{trig}}(M)_𝔥\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(M_\lambda MM_{\beta ^{}(\lambda )})𝑑\lambda ,$$
(37)
where $`\beta ^{}(\lambda )=\lambda \mathrm{Ad}(\beta ^1)`$. The proof of (37) (from Theorem 4.2) is the same as that of (72).

The isomorphism (37) is an analogue of the factorisation theorem of ordinary WZW models. In fact, under certain finiteness conditions for $`M_i`$’s, almost all $`\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(M_\lambda MM_{\beta ^{}(\lambda )})`$ vanish and the direct integral is replaced by finite direct sum as we will prove in §5.

###### Proof.

The idea of the proof of Theorem 4.2 is essentially the same as that of Ref. . See also Ref. . We make use of techniques in Ref. .

To begin with, observe that there is an exact sequence,

$$0𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}M/𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^0MM/𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^0M\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{trig}}(M)0,$$
(38)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^0=\{f(t):\text{meromorphic section of }𝔤^{\mathrm{orb}}\text{ with poles in }D,f(0)=f(\mathrm{})=0\}\hfill \\ \hfill 𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}.\end{array}$$
(39)
Using this exact sequence, we prove the theorem in two steps. In the first step, we show that a linear map $`\phi (vmod𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^0M)=[\mathrm{𝟏}_0v\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}]\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}})`$ induces an isomorphism

$$\phi :M/𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^0M\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}}).$$
(40)
In the second step we show that

$$\phi (𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}M/𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^0M)\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}𝔥,$$
(41)
(cf. (33) for the definition of $`\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}𝔥`$) or, equivalently,

$$\mathrm{𝟏}_0𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}M\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}(M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}})\rho _{1,\beta }(𝔥)mod𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}.$$
(42)
Hereafter $`mod𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}`$ denotes $`mod𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}(M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}})`$. Combining these two statements with the exact sequence (38), we obtain the proof of the theorem.

To prove that $`\phi `$ in (40) is an isomorphism, we use a lemma by Kazhdan and Lusztig.

###### Lemma 4.3.

Let $`𝔞`$ be a Lie algebra over $``$ and $`𝔞_1`$, $`𝔞_2`$ be its Lie subalgebra such that $`𝔞=𝔞_1+𝔞_2`$. Assume that an $`𝔞_2`$-module $`V`$ is given and put $`W:=\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔞_2}^𝔞V`$. Then the canonical homomorphism $`VvvW`$ induces an isomorphism

$$V/(𝔞_1𝔞_2)V\stackrel{}{}W/𝔞_1W.$$
(43)
See §A.7 of Ref.  for the proof.

We apply this lemma to

$$𝔞_1=𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}},𝔞_2=𝔫_+^{(0)}𝔤^D𝔫_+^{(\mathrm{})}\widehat{k},V=\mathrm{𝟏}_0M\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}},$$
(44)
where $`\mathrm{𝟏}_0`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}`$ are the canonical cyclic vectors of $`M(0)_0`$ and $`M(0)_{\mathrm{}}`$. It is easy to see from (26) or (27) that the Lie algebra $`𝔞=𝔞_1+𝔞_2`$ is equal to $`𝔤^{(0)}𝔤^D𝔤^{(\mathrm{})}\widehat{k}`$. Since $`𝔞_1𝔞_2=𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^0`$ acts trivially on the first and the last factor of $`M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}}`$, we have

$$V/(𝔞_1𝔞_2)V\mathrm{𝟏}_0M\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}/𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^0(\mathrm{𝟏}_0M\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}})=M/𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^0M.$$
(45)
On the other hand,

$$W=\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔫_+^{(0)}𝔤^D𝔫_+^{(\mathrm{})}\widehat{k}}^{𝔤^{(0)}𝔤^D𝔤^{(\mathrm{})}\widehat{k}}\mathrm{𝟏}_0M\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}=M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}}.$$
(46)
Hence $`W/𝔞_1W=M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}}/𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}(M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}})`$, which proves (40) by Lemma 4.3.

Next we prove (42). Namely, we prove the following two claims:

$$\mathrm{𝟏}_0𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}M\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}(M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}})\rho _{1,\beta }(𝔥)+𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}(M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}}).$$
(47)
$$\mathrm{𝟏}_0𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}M\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}+𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}(M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}})(M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}})\rho _{1,\beta }(𝔥).$$
(48)
To prove (47), assume $`f(t)𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}`$ and $`vM`$. We show that $`\mathrm{𝟏}_0f(t)v\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}`$ belongs to $`(M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}})\rho _{1,\beta }(𝔥)mod𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}`$. Since $`f(t)𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}`$, we have

$$\mathrm{𝟏}_0f(t)v\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}f(0)\mathrm{𝟏}_0v\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{𝟏}_0vf(\mathrm{})\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}mod𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}.$$
(49)
The conditions (17) and (18) imply that $`f(\mathrm{})=\mathrm{Ad}\beta (f(0))𝔥`$. Hence the right hand side of (49) belongs to $`(M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}})\rho _{1,\beta }(𝔥)`$ which proves (47).

Conversely, assume $`v_0M(0)_0`$, $`vM`$, $`v_{\mathrm{}}M(0)_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`H𝔥`$. We show that $`(v_0vv_{\mathrm{}})\rho _{1,\beta }(H)`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{𝟏}_0𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}M\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}mod𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}`$ to prove (48). Thanks to the fact we proved in the first step of this proof of Theorem 4.2, there exists $`\stackrel{~}{v}M`$ such that

$$v_0vv_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{𝟏}_0\stackrel{~}{v}\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}mod𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}.$$
(50)
Hence we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (v_0vv_{\mathrm{}})\rho _{1,\beta }(H)& (\mathrm{𝟏}_0\stackrel{~}{v}\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}})\rho _{1,\beta }(H)\hfill \\ & =H\stackrel{~}{v}\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{𝟏}_0\stackrel{~}{v}\mathrm{Ad}\beta (H)\hfill \\ & \mathrm{𝟏}_0h(t)\stackrel{~}{v}\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}\hfill \end{array}$$
(51)
modulo $`𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}(M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}})`$. Here $`h(t)`$ is an element of $`𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}`$ satisfying $`h(0)=H+(\text{regular function at }t=0)`$ and $`h(\mathrm{})=\mathrm{Ad}\beta (H)+(\text{regular function at }t=\mathrm{})`$. When $`H`$ is $`J_{0,b}`$ (cf. (7)), such $`h(t)`$ can be written down explicitly:

$$h_b(t):=\frac{\epsilon ^bt^Nt_i^N}{t^Nt_i^N}J_{0,b},$$
(52)
where $`t_i=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi iz_i/N)`$ is the coordinate of $`Q_i`$ for a certain $`i`$ ($`1iN`$). For general $`H`$, $`h(t)`$ can be constructed as a linear combination of $`h_b(t)`$. The last expression in (51) is an element of $`\mathrm{𝟏}_0𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}M\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}`$, which proves (48). Thus (42) as well as Theorem 4.2 is proved. ∎

## 5 Factorisation (2)

The statement of the previous section can be refined for special modules. In fact, the direct integral in (37) is replaced by finite direct sum when we impose following finiteness conditions on $`M_i`$’s: for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},L`$ there exists a finite dimensional $`𝔤`$-module $`V_i`$ which generates $`M_i`$ over $`\widehat{𝔤}^{Q_i}`$ and $`\widehat{𝔤}_+^{Q_i}V_iV_i`$. Throughout this section we assume this condition, which automatically implies that $`M_i`$’s are smooth.

Let us denote $`V=V_1\mathrm{}V_L`$ and the set of $`𝔤`$-weights of $`V`$ by $`\mathrm{wt}(V)`$. For $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$, we define

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{\lambda }& :=\lambda (1\mathrm{Ad}\beta ^1)^1=\lambda (1\mathrm{Ad}\beta )^1\mathrm{Ad}\beta ,\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}& :=\lambda (1\mathrm{Ad}\beta )^1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(53)
They are well-defined since $`1\mathrm{Ad}\beta ^{\pm 1}`$ is invertible on $`𝔥=_{b=1}^{N1}J_{0,b}`$.

###### Theorem 5.1.

Under the above assumption on $`M_i`$, $`\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{trig}}(M)`$ is finite dimensional and there is a linear isomorphism

$$\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{trig}}(M)\underset{\lambda \mathrm{wt}(V)}{}\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(M_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}MM_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}}),$$
(54)
where $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}`$ and $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}}`$ are inserted at $`0`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ of $`E_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ respectively.

###### Proof.

For simplicity of notation, we denote $`J_{0,b}`$ by $`H_b`$ ($`b=1,\mathrm{},N1`$). As mentioned before, they form a basis of $`𝔥`$. We also introduce ideals $`I_𝔥`$ and $`I_𝔥^{}`$ of the polynomial ring $`U𝔥`$ as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}I_𝔥=\underset{\lambda \mathrm{wt}(V)}{}I_\lambda ,I_𝔥^{}=\underset{\lambda \mathrm{wt}(V)}{}I_\lambda ^{},\\ I_\lambda :=\text{ideal of }U𝔥\text{ generated by }H_b\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(H_b)(b=1,\mathrm{},N1).\\ I_\lambda ^{}:=\text{ideal of }U𝔥\text{ generated by }H_b\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}(H_b)(b=1,\mathrm{},N1).\end{array}$$
(55)
The main part of the proof of the theorem is to show the following inclusion:

$$IMM(0)_{\mathrm{}}+M(0)_0MI^{}K,$$
(56)
where

$$I=M(0)_0I_𝔥,I^{}=M(0)_{\mathrm{}}I_𝔥^{},$$
(57)
and $`K`$ is the kernel of the canonical surjection $`M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}})/\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}𝔥`$, namely,

$$K:=𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}(M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}})+(M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}})\rho _{1,\beta }(𝔥).$$
(58)
When the inclusion (56) is proved, we shall see that we may replace $`\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}})`$ in (33) by $`\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(\overline{M}(0)_0M\overline{M}(0)_{\mathrm{}})`$, where $`\overline{M}(0)_0=M(0)_0/I`$ and $`\overline{M}(0)_{\mathrm{}}=M(0)_{\mathrm{}}/I^{}`$ which are finite direct sums of Verma modules. The space of conformal coinvariants $`\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(\overline{M}(0)_0M\overline{M}(0)_{\mathrm{}})`$ decomposes into finite direct sum of $`\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(M_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}MM_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}})`$ and, factoring by $`\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}𝔥`$, we shall obtain (54). The proof of the first statement, $`dim\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{trig}}(M)<\mathrm{}`$, is given after Lemma 5.2.

Let us show that

$$IMM(0)_{\mathrm{}}K,$$
(59)
namely, for $`v_0vv_{\mathrm{}}M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`p(H)I_𝔥`$, $`v_0p(H)vv_{\mathrm{}}`$ belongs to $`K`$. Thanks to the existence of $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ satisfying (50), we may assume $`v_0=\mathrm{𝟏}_0`$ and $`v_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}`$, because $`𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}(M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}})(p(H)11)K`$. Hence the problem reduces to show

$$p(H)v\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}K.$$
(60)
By the following lemma, we have only to show (60) for $`vVM`$.

###### Lemma 5.2.

(i) $`\widehat{𝔤}^D=𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}𝔤_+^D\widehat{k}`$. (ii) $`M=V+𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}M`$.

###### Proof.

(i) The space $`𝔤^D`$ is spanned by $`𝔤_+^D`$ and the elements of the form $`0\mathrm{}J_{a,b}\xi _i^n\mathrm{}0`$, where $`(a,b)\{0,1,\mathrm{},N1\}^2\{(0,0)\}`$, $`n_{>0}`$, $`\xi _i`$ is the local coordinate at $`Q_iD`$ and $`J_{a,b}\xi _i^n`$ sits at the $`i`$-th component. The latter elements can be replaced with the following which belong to $`𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}`$: if $`n=1`$,

$$J_{a,b}(t):=\{\begin{array}{cc}J_{a,b}t^a(t^Nt_i^N)^1\hfill & (a0),\hfill \\ J_{0,b}(\epsilon ^bt^Nt_i^N)(t^Nt_i^N)^1\hfill & (a=0).\hfill \end{array}$$
(61)
and if $`n>1`$, $`(td/dt)^{n1}J_{a,b}(t)`$. Thus we have $`𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}+𝔤_+^D=𝔤^D`$. It is an exercise of complex analysis to show that $`𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}𝔤_+^D=\{0\}`$.

(ii) By the assumption $`M_i=U\widehat{𝔤}^{Q_i}V_i`$, $`𝔤_+^{Q_i}V_iV_i`$ and the Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt theorem, we have $`M=U\widehat{𝔤}^DV=U𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}V=V+𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}M`$. ∎

By this lemma, every element $`vM`$ is decomposed as $`v=v_f+v_{\mathrm{out}}`$, $`v_fV`$, $`v_{\mathrm{out}}𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}M`$. The finite-dimensionality of $`\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{trig}}(M)`$ immediately follows from this expression. Note that $`𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}`$ acts trivially on $`\mathrm{𝟏}_0`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}`$. Hence $`\mathrm{𝟏}_0v_{\mathrm{out}}\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}`$ belongs to $`𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}(M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}})K`$. $`K`$ becomes a right $`U𝔥`$-module by the action $`v_0vv_{\mathrm{}}v_0Hvv_{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`H𝔥`$. Therefore $`p(H)v_{\mathrm{out}}\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}`$ belongs to $`K`$, which allows us to assume that $`vV`$ in (60).

We further reduces the problem and show (60) for a weight vector in $`V`$, $`v_\lambda V_\lambda `$. $`K`$ being a right $`U𝔥`$-module, as we mentioned above, it is enough to show that

$$(H_b\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(H_b))v_\lambda \mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}K,$$
(62)
for $`b=1,\mathrm{},N1`$. Since the constant function with value $`H_b`$ belongs to $`𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill H_bv_\lambda \mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}& \mathrm{𝟏}_0H_bv_\lambda \mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{𝟏}_0v_\lambda H_b\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{𝟏}_0\lambda (H_b)v_\lambda \mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{𝟏}_0v_\lambda \mathrm{Ad}\beta (\mathrm{Ad}\beta ^1(H_b))\hfill \\ & \lambda (H_b)\mathrm{𝟏}_0v_\lambda \mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{Ad}\beta ^1(H_b)v_\lambda \mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}\hfill \\ & =\lambda (H_b)\mathrm{𝟏}_0v_\lambda \mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}+\epsilon ^bH_bv_\lambda \mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{}}\hfill \end{array}$$
(63)
modulo $`K`$, which proves (62) and consequently (59). Similarly we can prove that $`M(0)_0MI^{}K`$ and the inclusion (56) is proved.

Now we have the following commutative diagram with exact rows.

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}& & 0& & 0& & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& & \stackrel{~}{I}& =& \stackrel{~}{I}& & 0& & \\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& & K& & M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}}& & \mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{trig}}(M)& & 0\\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& & \overline{K}& & \overline{M}(0)_0M\overline{M}(0)_{\mathrm{}}& & \overline{M}(0)_0M\overline{M}(0)_{\mathrm{}}/\overline{K}& & 0\\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ & & 0& & 0& & 0& & \end{array}$$
(64)
Here $`\stackrel{~}{I}:=IMM(0)_{\mathrm{}}+M(0)_0MI^{}`$ and $`\overline{K}:=K/\stackrel{~}{I}`$. (The exactness of the middle row is due to Theorem 4.2.) Applying the nine lemma in the homological algebra to this diagram (or chasing the diagram), we have

$$\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{trig}}(M)\overline{M}(0)_0M\overline{M}(0)_{\mathrm{}}/\overline{K}.$$
(65)
It is easy to see that

$$\overline{K}=𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}(\overline{M}(0)_0M\overline{M}(0)_{\mathrm{}})+(\overline{M}(0)_0M\overline{M}(0)_{\mathrm{}})\rho _{1,\beta }(𝔥),$$
(66)
because the left $`\widehat{𝔤}^D`$-action and the right $`𝔥`$-action on $`M(0)_0MM(0)_{\mathrm{}}`$ commute and the right $`𝔥`$-action is commutative. By (65) and (66) we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{trig}}(M)& \mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(\overline{M}(0)_0M\overline{M}(0)_{\mathrm{}})/\overline{\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}}\rho _{1,\beta }(𝔥),\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}}\rho _{1,\beta }(𝔥)& :=\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(\overline{M}(0)_0M\overline{M}(0)_{\mathrm{}})\rho _{1,\beta }(𝔥).\hfill \end{array}$$
(67)
###### Lemma 5.3.

$$\overline{M}(0)_0\underset{\lambda \mathrm{wt}(V)}{}M_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }},\overline{M}(0)_{\mathrm{}}\underset{\lambda \mathrm{wt}(V)}{}M_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}}.$$
(68)
(cf. (53).)

###### Proof.

For two distinct weights $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ in $`\mathrm{wt}(V)`$, we have $`I_\lambda +I_\mu =U𝔥`$, since $`\{H_b\}_{b=1,\mathrm{},N1}`$ is a basis of $`𝔥`$ and the map $`\lambda \stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ is injective. (See (55).) Hence the “Chinese remainder theorem” implies

$$U𝔥/I_𝔥\underset{\lambda \mathrm{wt}(V)}{}U𝔥/I_\lambda .$$
(69)
Regarding both hand sides as $`\left(𝔤_+^{(0)}𝔥\widehat{k}\right)`$-modules, on which $`𝔤_+^{(0)}`$ acts trivially and $`\widehat{k}`$ acts as $`k`$, we induce them up to $`\widehat{𝔤}^{(0)}`$-modules and we obtain the first isomorphism in (68). The second isomorphism in (68) is proved in the same manner. ∎

Due to Lemma 5.3 we may rewrite (67) as

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{trig}}(M)\underset{\lambda ,\mu \mathrm{wt}(V)}{}\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(M_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}MM_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }^{}})/\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb},\lambda ,\mu }\rho _{1,\beta }(𝔥),\hfill \\ & \mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb},\lambda ,\mu }\rho _{1,\beta }(𝔥):=\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(M_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}MM_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }^{}})\rho _{1,\beta }(𝔥).\hfill \end{array}$$
(70)
We show that the component $`\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(M_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}MM_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }^{}})/\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb},\lambda ,\mu }\rho _{1,\beta }(𝔥)`$ of the above decomposition vanishes unless $`\lambda =\mu `$. Let us take $`v_0vv_{\mathrm{}}M_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}MM_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }^{}}`$. For any $`H𝔥`$, we have $`v_0H=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(H)v_0`$ and $`v_{\mathrm{}}H=\stackrel{~}{\mu }^{}(H)v_{\mathrm{}}`$, which lead to

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (v_0vv_{\mathrm{}})\rho _{1,\beta }(H)& =v_0Hvv_{\mathrm{}}+v_0vv_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Ad}(\beta )H\hfill \\ & =(\lambda \mu )(1\mathrm{Ad}\beta )^1(H)(v_0vv_{\mathrm{}}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(71)
due to (53). Hence if $`\lambda \mu 0`$, there exists $`H𝔥`$ such that $`(\lambda \mu )(1\mathrm{Ad}\beta )^1(H)0`$, which means $`v_0vv_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb},\lambda ,\mu }\rho _{1,\beta }(𝔥)`$. Therefore

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(M_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}MM_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }^{}})/\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb},\lambda ,\mu }\rho _{1,\beta }(𝔥)\hfill \\ \hfill =\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(M_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}MM_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}})\hfill & (\lambda =\mu ),\hfill \\ 0\hfill & (\lambda \mu ).\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(72)
This completes the proof of Theorem 5.1. ∎

## 6 Example (case of Weyl modules)

Let us directly compute the space of conformal coinvariants for Weyl modules as a simple example and see how the factorisation theorem Theorem 5.1 decompose $`\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{trig}}`$ into $`\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}`$’s.

Let $`V_i`$ be a finite-dimensional $`𝔤`$-module and regard them as $`(𝔤_+^{Q_i}\widehat{k})`$-module of level $`k`$ as before. The Weyl module is the $`\widehat{𝔤}^{Q_i}`$-module induced up from $`V_i`$:

$$M(V_i):=\mathrm{Ind}_{\widehat{𝔤}_+^{Q_i}}^{𝔤^{Q_i}\widehat{k}}V_i.$$
(73)
The tensor product $`M(V)=M(V_1)\mathrm{}M(V_L)`$ is naturally induced up from $`V=V_1\mathrm{}V_L`$ and, by virtue of Lemma 5.2 (i), we have

$$M(V)=\mathrm{Ind}_{\widehat{𝔤}_+^D}^{𝔤^D\widehat{k}}V=U𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}_{}V=V𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}U𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}_{}V=V𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{trig}}M(V).$$
(74)
Hence the space of conformal coinvariants is isomorphic to $`V`$ itself:

$$\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{trig}}(M(V))V.$$
(75)
On the other hand, let us compute the component $`\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(M_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}M(V)M_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}})`$ of the factorisation, (54). Put $`𝔞_1=𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}`$, $`𝔞_2=𝔟^{(0)}𝔟^D𝔟^{(\mathrm{})}\widehat{k}`$, where $`𝔟^{(0)}`$ and $`𝔟^{(\mathrm{})}`$ are subalgebras of $`\widehat{𝔤}^{(0)}`$ and $`\widehat{𝔤}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ defined at the beginning of §4 and $`𝔟^D:=_{i=1}^L𝔤_+^{Q_i}`$. Then

$$𝔞:=𝔞_1+𝔞_2=\widehat{𝔤}^{D+(0)+(\mathrm{})},𝔞_1𝔞_2=𝔥.$$
(76)
We apply Lemma 4.3 to these algebras and the $`𝔞_2`$-module $`V1_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}V1_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}}`$. The module $`W`$ in the lemma is

$$\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔞_2}^𝔞1_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}V1_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}}=M_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}M(V)M_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}}.$$
(77)
The space of coinvariants “$`V/𝔞_1𝔞_2V`$” in the lemma is

$$1_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}V1_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}}/𝔥(1_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}V1_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}}).$$
(78)
Take a weight vector $`v_\mu V`$ of weight $`\mu `$. The action of $`H𝔥`$ on $`1_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}v_\mu 1_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}}`$ is equal to the multiplication of $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(H)+\mu (H)+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}(H)=(\lambda +\mu )(H)`$. (See (53).) Namely, if $`\lambda =\mu `$, $`𝔥(1_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}v_\mu 1_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}})=0`$, while if $`\lambda \mu `$, $`𝔥(1_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}V1_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}})`$ contains $`1_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}v_\mu 1_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}}`$. Consequently,

$$1_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}V1_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}}/𝔥(1_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}V1_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}})V_\lambda .$$
(79)
The coinvariants “$`W/𝔞_1W`$” in Lemma 4.3 is

$$M_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}M(V)M_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}}/𝔤_{\mathrm{out}}^{\mathrm{orb}}M_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}M(V)M_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}}=\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(M_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}M(V)M_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}}).$$
(80)
because of (77). Thus we have proved

$$\mathrm{CC}_{\mathrm{orb}}(M_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}M(V)M_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}})V_\lambda .$$
(81)
Summarising, the factorisation (54) for the Weyl modules $`M_i=M(V_i)`$ is the same as the weight space decomposition of $`V`$, $`V=_{\lambda \mathrm{wt}(V)}V_\lambda `$.

## 7 Summary and concluding remarks

We formulated the twisted WZW model on a degenerate elliptic curve $`E_{\mathrm{trig}}`$ and the orbifold $`E_{\mathrm{orb}}`$, Definition 3.2. Theorem 4.2 asserts that the space of conformal coinvariants (and thus the space of conformal blocks) on $`E_{\mathrm{trig}}`$ factorises into that on $`E_{\mathrm{orb}}`$. This factorisation theorem holds for any smooth modules, but the result can be refined for modules generated by $`𝔤`$-modules, Theorem 5.1. The factorisation for the case of Weyl modules is nothing more than the weight space decomposition of the tensor product of $`𝔤`$-module, (75), (81).

From these results arise several problems:

* In Ref.  the factorisation of the space of conformal coinvariants/blocks on singular curves together with the existence of a flat connection (the KZ connection) leads to the locally freeness of the sheaf of conformal coinvariants/blocks. One of our next tasks is to follow this line to analyse the structure of the KZ connection, which might help finding the integral representation of the solutions of the elliptic KZ equations.
* The weights $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}`$ in Theorem 5.1 look quite strange. For example, $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=\lambda /2`$ when $`𝔤=sl_2()`$ ($`N=2`$) and $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}`$ can hardly be integrable when $`M_\lambda `$ is. But such weights are inevitable due to the charge conservation. The same kind of phenomenon is implicit but exists also in Ref. , where the solution of the elliptic KZ equations is constructed as a twisted trace of vertex operators. Representation theoretical meaning of $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}`$ is in question.
* We computed the space of conformal coinvariants for the Weyl modules in §6. This case is important in the study of the elliptic Gaudin model. The case for integrable modules instead of Weyl modules would also be important.

## Acknowledgments

The author expresses his gratitude to Akihiro Tsuchiya who explained details of his works, Michio Jimbo, Tetsuji Miwa, Hiroyuki Ochiai, Kiyoshi Ohba, Nobuyoshi Takahashi and Tomohide Terasoma for discussion and comments. He also thanks Gen Kuroki for discussions during the previous collaborations. Christian Schweigert and Martin Halpern who informed the references for the orbifold WZW model are gratefully acknowledged.

The atmosphere and environment of Mathematical Scienences Research Institute (Berkeley, U.S.A.), Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics (Moscow, Russia) and the VIth International Workshop “Conformal Field Theory and Integrable Models” (Chernogolovka, Russia) were very important. The author thanks their hospitality.

This work is partly supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.