text:
# Untitled Document

AEI-2000-045 hep-th/0008082

Diffeomorphisms, Anomalies and the

Fefferman-Graham Ambiguity  Partially supported by GIF, the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research, by the European Commission TMR programmes ERBFMRX-CT96-0045 and FMRX-CT96-0012, Minerva Foundation, the Center for Basic Interactions of the Israeli Academy of Sciences.

A. Schwimmera and S. Theisenb

a Department of Physics of the Complex Systems, Weizmann Institute, Rehovot 76100, Israel

b Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik, Albert-Einstein-Institut, 14476 Golm, Germany

Abstract

Using the Weyl transfomations induced by diffeomorphisms we set up a cohomological problem for the Fefferman-Graham coefficients. The cohomologically nontrivial solutions remove the ambiguity and give the nonlocal terms in the effective action responsible for the trace anomalies.

August 2000

1. Introduction

The AdS/CFT correspondence offers remarkable insight into nonperturbative phenomena in gauge theories . Many of the proposed tests of the correspondence rely on the symmetry algebras being isomorphic.

Among the tests going beyond the mapping of the algebraic structure the correct mapping of the trace anomalies is one of the most impressive ,,.

On the CFT side, when the theory is put in a general gravitational background, the effective action contains specific nonlocal terms with local Weyl variations. The trace anomalies are produced by these terms.

On the supergravity side the correspondence involves a classical calculation: one solves the equation of motion using the metric at the boundary as initial condition. The action evaluated for this classical solution gives the effective action in terms of the boundary metric. An anomaly appears in a classical calculation due to the apparently infrared logarithmically divergent terms obtained when the action is evaluated with the classical solution. In this treatment, though the anomaly is correctly reproduced, the origin of the nonlocal terms in the action responsible for it is not clear.

In this note we will try to answer this question. In  the relation between the Weyl invariance in even dimension and a certain subgroup of diffeomorphisms in odd dimension (called the “PBH transformation”) was studied. It was shown that these transformations determine universally the structure of the Euler (type A) trace anomaly. In the present note we study further the structure of the PBH transformations, in particular their implications for the structure of the Fefferman-Graham (FG in the following) expansion  and its physical interpretation where we will find the origin of the nonlocal terms.

The FG expansion deals with the solution of the equations of motions for an AdS action. The metric is expanded in powers of the radial variable and the coefficients of the expansion determined iteratively as local expressions in terms of the boundary metric. As shown in  in odd dimension $`d+1`$ , where $`d=2n`$ the expansion has the following feature:

(i) the first $`n1`$ coefficients are determined uniquely as local $`2n`$-dimensional diffeo-covariant expressions in terms of the boundary metric;

(ii) the expansion breaks down at order $`n`$; a logarithmic dependence on the radial variable should be introduced beginning at this order;

(iii) the $`n`$-th order coefficient is not determined completely by the equations of motion: only its trace and covariant divergence are determined iteratively as local and diffeo-invariant expressions (the “FG ambiguity”).

Combining the PBH transformations and (iii) we set up a cohomological problem involving the expansion coefficients. We show that exactly the $`n`$-th order coefficient has a nontrivial cohomology and we classify it. Then features (i) and (ii) listed above are shown to be consequences of the cohomological structure uncovered. Using the solution of the cohomology problem the complete expression for the $`n`$-th order coefficient is obtained which is nonlocal.

The gravitational action needs boundary terms. The boundary action was evaluated in , in terms of the FG coefficients. When the nonlocal terms are inserted into the boundary action they provide the nonlocal terms in the effective action which generate the anomalies. Since the results are algebraic, being based on the behaviour of the coefficients under the PBH transformations, we expect an analogous procedure to hold also when stringy corrections are included in the gravitational lagrangian.

Due to the nonchiral nature of the Weyl transformations it is extremely convenient to use dimensional regularization. When $`d`$ is non-integer, the FG expansion gives well-defined local expressions for all the coefficients. The special features happening at order $`n`$ mentioned above are signaled by the appearance of poles in $`d2n`$. The way in which poles in dimensional regularization are translated into cohomological features in even integer dimension was studied in . We summarize this procedure, tuned to the present problem, in Section 2.

In Section 3 we set up the cohomological problem and we discuss the consistency conditions involved.

In Section 4 we classify the solutions of the cohomological problem and their relation to the $`n`$-th order coefficient in the FG expansion.

The general conclusions we have reached and possible implications and open questions are discussed in the last Section. The discussion of the special features of the cohomology related to the Euler anomaly is relegated to an Appendix.

2. The relation between Weyl cohomologies and dimensional regularization

We start with the well understood case of the Weyl anomalies .

Consider a conformal theory coupled to an external, c-number gravitational field $`g_{ij}(x)`$. The effective action, after integrating out the fields of the conformal theory, is $`W(g)`$.

In an even dimension the anomaly can be formulated as a cohomological problem , i.e. searching for local Weyl variations which cannot be obtained as the variation of a local action.

If we use dimensional regularization, i.e. we consider the theory in dimension $`d`$, there are two interrelated features which make the treatment of anomalies particularly simple:

1) In $`d`$ dimensions there are no nontrivial cohomologies: there is always a local expression whose variation gives the anomaly in $`2n`$ dimensions. These local expressions have, however, a pole in $`d2n`$. We distinguish between two situations:

i) The residue of the pole vanishes exactly in $`d=2n`$ due to a “topological” identity. This is the origin of the so called “type A anomaly”; we will continue to call more generally “type A” expressions in dimensional regularization those which have a pole and whose residue vanishes for $`d=2n`$ due to some special identity.

ii) The residue of the pole does not vanish for $`d=2n`$. We will call this situation “Type B”. The effective action related to this case in $`d=2n`$ will have a scale.

2) In $`d`$ dimensions there are no anomalies, i.e. the effective action is exactly Weyl invariant. It follows that the aforementioned local pole terms will be accompanied by finite, nonlocal terms such that the sum is invariant. As a consequence the variation of the pole term is equal (but opposite in sign) to the variation of the nonlocal term (the anomaly).

We illustrate the above general discussion with two typical examples.

We start with “type A”. In $`d`$ dimensions we expand the invariant effective action around $`d=2n`$. The leading term is local while the order $`d2n`$ term is nonlocal. The effective action has therefore a pole term with a local residue which vanishes in $`d=2n`$ and a nonlocal finite term. The simplest example of this kind is in $`d=2`$ : in $`d=2`$ the trace anomaly appears in the correlator of two energy-momentum tensors of the conformal field theory. Using Lorentz invariance, conservation and tracelessness of the energy-momentum tensor, the structure of the correlator is fixed uniquely, up to an overall constant $`a`$ ($`d=2ϵ`$):

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill T_{ij}(q)T_{kl}(q)& =a\{\frac{(q_iq_j\delta _{ij}q^2)(q_kq_l\delta _{kl}q^2)}{q^{2+ϵ}}\hfill \\ & +\frac{\delta _{ij}\delta _{kl}q^2\delta _{ik}\delta _{jl}q^2+\delta _{ik}q_jq_l+\delta _{jl}q_iq_k\delta _{ij}q_kq_l\delta _{kl}q_iq_j}{ϵ}\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

This structure in flat space leads to an analogous one when the CFT is put in a general background $`g_{ij}`$. The generating functional $`W(g)`$, after the CFT is integrated out, has the expansion:

$$W(g)=\frac{1}{4}d^dx\sqrt{g}R\frac{1}{\stackrel{1+\frac{ϵ}{2}}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}R+\frac{1}{d2}d^dx\sqrt{g}R,$$

where $`E_2=R`$ is the two-dimensional Euler density. As usual in dimensional regularization, the tensors are defined in $`d`$-dimensions. $`W(g)`$ is Weyl invariant in $`d`$ dimensions to order $`ϵ`$ as is easy to verify. This can be derived directly by expanding a certain Weyl invariant expression in $`d`$ dimensions, around $`d=2`$. The second term, with the $`0/0`$ structure, signals the presence in $`d=2`$ of a nontrivial cohomology in the Weyl transformations.

Once we have the expansion (2.1) we can discuss how to take the limit $`d2`$: we simply drop the second, local term which has the $`0/0`$ structure, and therefore the limit is the first, finite, nonlocal term.

On the other hand, we can still use the local term if we are interested in the Weyl variation (anomaly) of the limit: since the total Weyl variation of (2.1) is $`0`$, the variation of the local term is equal and opposite in sign to the variation of the limit, both variations being finite. Indeed the Weyl variation of the pole term gives $`\sqrt{g}R\sigma `$.

Summarizing the lessons learned from this simple example:

a) The pole term in $`d`$ dimensions with a vanishing residue signals the presence of a nontrivial cohomology in integer (even) dimensions.

b) If a certain variation of the pole term has a well-defined limit then the pole term indicates that in integer dimension we should take a nonlocal expression which has the same variation. The functional dependence of the nonlocal term can be inferred by “completing” the pole term to a Weyl invariant expression in $`d`$ dimensions.

Now we discuss the “type B” case, again in the simplest situation where it occurs, i.e. the second Weyl anomaly in $`d=4`$:

Considering a CFT around $`d=4`$ in a general background, the correlator of two energy-momentum tensors gives rise to a term in the effective action of the form:

$$W_d(g)=\frac{1}{d4}d^dx\sqrt{g}C_{ijkl}^{(d)}\stackrel{\frac{d4}{2}}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}C^{(d)ijkl},$$

where $`C^{(d)}`$ is the Weyl tensor in $`d`$ dimensions (c.f. Appendix A). The expression (2.1) is Weyl invariant to order $`d4`$.1 For recent proposals to extend this expression to an exact one see .

The expression (2.1) does not have a well-defined limit for $`d4`$. One should modify it by a “subtraction” :

$$W_d^{\left(\mathrm{sub}\right)}(g)=W_d(g)\frac{\mu ^{d4}}{d4}d^dx\sqrt{g}C_{ijkl}^{(d)}C^{(d)ijkl}.$$

It is important to remark that the “subtraction” introduces a scale $`\mu `$. Now the limit can be taken, giving in $`d=4`$:

$$W_4(g)=\frac{1}{2}d^4x\sqrt{g}C_{ijkl}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}{\mu ^2}\right)C^{ijkl}.$$

We can rewrite $`W_d`$ as :

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill W_d(g)& =\frac{1}{2}d^dx\sqrt{g}C_{ijkl}^{(d)}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{}{\mu ^2}\right)C^{(d)ijkl}+\frac{\mu ^{d4}}{d4}d^dx\sqrt{g}C_{ijkl}^{(d)}C^{(d)ijkl}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The expression (2.1) is analogous to (2.1), i.e. we have a local pole term and a nonlocal finite term, the finite term being the limit in the integer dimension. Similarly to the “type A” situation the finite, local Weyl variation of the nonlocal term can be calculated by using the fact that $`W_d`$ is invariant and therefore the variation of $`W_4`$ is equal and opposite in sign to the variation of the pole term. In this particular case this gives $`\sqrt{g}C_{ijkl}C^{ijkl}\sigma `$.

The general conclusions we want to draw from this example for the general “type B” situation are as follows:

a) The presence of a pole term with a nonvanishing residue in dimension $`d`$ indicates that the theory in integer dimension has to be modified by defining it after a “subtraction”.

b) After the subtraction the relevant expression can be rewritten as a sum of two terms, one finite and nonlocal and the other a local pole term with nonvanishing residue. The limit is the nonlocal term.

c) The local variation can be calculated directly from the pole term.

We are now ready to use the above lessons for the study of the structure of the FG expansion.

3. Consistency conditions of the FG coefficients

Consider a manifold in $`d+1`$ dimensions with a boundary which is topologically $`S_d`$. Following Fefferman and Graham , one can choose a set of coordinates in which the $`d+1`$ dimensional metric has the form:

$$ds^2=G_{\mu \nu }dX^\mu dX^\nu =\frac{l^2}{4}\left(\frac{d\rho }{\rho }\right)^2+\frac{1}{\rho }g_{ij}(x,\rho )dx^idx^j.$$

Here $`\mu ,\nu =1,\mathrm{},d+1`$ and $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},d`$. The coordinates are chosen such that $`\rho =0`$ corresponds to the boundary. We will assume that $`g_{ij}`$ is regular at $`\rho =0`$, $`g_{ij}(x,\rho =0)`$ being the boundary metric.

We further assume that $`g_{ij}(x,\rho )`$ has a power series expansion in the vicinity of $`\rho =0`$, i.e. we write

$$g_{ij}(x,\rho )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g_{\left(n\right)ij}(x)\rho ^n.$$

As shown by FG , when the expansion (3.1) is inserted into the equations of motion following from the Einstein action with negative cosmological constant in $`d+1`$ dimensions, one obtains a set of recursive equations for the $`g_{\left(n\right)ij}(x)`$. We summarize the features of the solutions as studied by FG:

1) In non-integer $`d`$ dimensions all the $`g_{\left(n\right)ij}`$’s are local, diffeo-covariant expressions which are uniquely determined in terms of the boundary metric.

2) The functions $`g_{\left(n\right)ij}`$ have poles at $`d=2n`$ but their covariant divergences $`^ig_{\left(n\right)ij}`$ and traces $`g_{\left(0\right)}^{ij}g_{\left(n\right)ij}`$ are finite.

3) When $`d`$ is taken to $`2n,n>1`$, the expansion breaks down since the equations become inconsistent. Starting with the $`\rho ^n`$ term, a $`\mathrm{log}(\rho )`$ dependence should be added but even after adding these terms the equations of motion determine only the covariant divergence and trace of $`g_{\left(n\right)ij}`$.

We will study the structure of the $`g_{\left(n\right)ij}`$, first directly in $`d=2n`$. As first conditions abstracted from the study of FG we will require that $`g_{\left(n\right)ij}`$ has a local covariant divergence and trace which we will call $`V_{\left(n\right)i}`$ and $`S_{\left(n\right)}`$, respectively.

Next, we will use the transformation properties of $`g_{\left(n\right)ij}`$ under Weyl transformations. In  it was shown that a certain subgroup of the diffeomorphisms in $`d+1`$ dimensions (called “PBH transformations”) induces transformations of $`g_{\left(n\right)ij}`$ when the boundary metric undergoes a Weyl transformation with parameter $`\sigma (x)`$. The transformation has the general form:

$$\delta g_{\left(n\right)ij}=2\sigma (1n)g_{\left(n\right)ij}+A_{\left(n\right)ij}(\sigma ),$$

where $`A_{\left(n\right)ij}(\sigma )`$ is a local, finite, covariant functional of $`g_{ij}`$ 2 When there is no danger of confusion, we will simply denote by $`g_{ij}`$ the boundary metric $`g_{\left(0\right)ij}`$. and $`\sigma `$, linear in the infinitesimal $`\sigma `$. The PBH transformations determine, to a large extent, $`A_{\left(n\right)ij}(\sigma )`$ recursively but in this section we will not use this information.

The structure we want to study is contained in the three local functionals $`V_{\left(n\right)i},S_{\left(n\right)},A_{\left(n\right)ij}`$. Obviously, these functionals should fulfil some consistency conditions.

We start with $`A_{\left(n\right)ij}`$: if we perform a second Weyl variation on (3.1) the result should not depend on the order since the Weyl group is abelian. This gives a Wess-Zumino type condition for $`A_{\left(n\right)ij}`$:

$$2(1n)\sigma _1A_{\left(n\right)ij}(\sigma _2)+\delta _{\sigma _2}A_{\left(n\right)ij}(\sigma _1)=2(1n)\sigma _2A_{\left(n\right)ij}(\sigma _1)+\delta _{\sigma _1}A_{\left(n\right)ij}(\sigma _2).$$

Following from the definitions of $`V_{\left(n\right)i}`$ and $`S_{\left(n\right)}`$ as covariant divergence and trace, respectively, of $`g_{\left(n\right)ij}`$, their Weyl variation is given in terms of $`A_{\left(n\right)ij}(\sigma )`$. Using (3.1) and calculating explicitly the variations in $`d=2n`$ we obtain:

$$\delta S_{\left(n\right)}=2n\sigma S_{\left(n\right)}+g^{ij}A_{\left(n\right)ij(\sigma )},$$

$$\delta V_{\left(n\right)i}=2n\sigma V_{\left(n\right)i}+^jA_{\left(n\right)ij}(\sigma )S_{\left(n\right)}_i\sigma .$$

Now we can formulate our “cohomological” problem: We search for triples of local functionals $`V_{\left(n\right)i},S_{\left(n\right)},A_{\left(n\right)ij}(\sigma )`$ which satisfy the consistency conditions (3.1), (3.1), (3.1); clearly, any local functional $`g_{\left(n\right)ij}`$, by taking its covariant divergence, trace and Weyl variation (3.1), generates such a triple. When a consistent triple does not have a local generator, the nonlocal $`g_{\left(n\right)ij}`$ producing the triple constitutes a nontrivial solution. Of course, like in all problems of this type, the nontrivial solutions are really equivalence classes under the addition of local generators. In the above treatment we will consider all the quantities to be covariant under $`d`$-dimensional diffeomorphisms.

We illustrate the above structure for the highly degenerate $`n=1,d=2`$ case. The only possible $`V_i`$ and $`S`$ are $`_iR`$ and $`R`$, respectively.

For $`A_{ij}`$ we have as possible candidates $`g_{ij}R\sigma `$, $`_i_j\sigma `$ and $`g_{ij}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\sigma `$. The first expression does not fulfil (3.1). The other two, after using (3.1) and (3.1), give the following two consistent triples:

$$\{_iR,2R,2g_{ij}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\sigma \},$$

$$\{0,\frac{1}{2}R,g_{ij}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\sigma _i_j\sigma \}.$$

The first triple is trivial, being generated by $`g_{ij}R`$; the second is a nontrivial solution corresponding to:

$$\overline{g}_{\left(1\right)ij}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{ij}}W^P(g),$$

where $`W^P(g)`$ is the two-dimensional, nonlocal Polyakov action:

$$W^P(g)=\frac{1}{4}d^2x\sqrt{g}R\frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}R.$$

Going back to our physical problem, the variation $`A_{\left(1\right)ij}`$ is fixed uniquely by the recurrence relations following from the PBH transformations  to a linear combination of the ones appearing in the above two solutions. Therefore, reintroducing the normalization in terms of the AdS radius $`l`$ in $`d=2`$ we have the expression:

$$g_{\left(1\right)ij}=\frac{l^2}{2}[g_{ij}R2\overline{g}_{\left(1\right)ij}]$$

which satisfies $`\delta _\sigma g_{\left(1\right)ij}=l^2_i_j\sigma `$, as it should . After this simple example we will study the general problem in the next section.

4. The general analysis of the cohomology problem

As a first step we study how $`A_{\left(n\right)ij}`$, which are solutions of (3.1), can be constructed. There are two basic mechanisms:

i) If a diffeo-invariant, dimensionless functional of $`g_{ij}`$, $`W(g)`$, has a Weyl variation for an infinitesimal Weyl parameter $`\sigma `$, which can be expressed as an integral over a local density $`D(g)`$

$$\delta _\sigma W(g)=d^{2n}x\sqrt{g}D(g)\sigma $$

then $`A_{\left(n\right)ij}`$, defined as

$$A_{\left(n\right)ij}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{ij}}\delta _\sigma W(g),$$

fulfils (3.1). The proof is simple. Consider the commutator between the operators:

$$[\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{ij}(x)},\delta _\sigma ]=2(n1)\sigma (x)\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{ij}(x)}.$$

Applying (4.1) to $`W(g)`$ we obtain (3.1) for a $`g_{\left(n\right)ij}`$ defined as:

$$g_{\left(n\right)ij}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{ij}}W(g).$$

Therefore, $`A_{\left(n\right)}`$ will fulfil (3.1) automatically and it is local by assumption. Since, obviously, a local $`W(g)`$ will give a local $`g_{\left(n\right)ij}`$ (4.1), the interesting solutions will reflect nonlocal $`W(g)`$’s, i.e. the actions which generate the Weyl anomalies. Then $`A_{\left(n\right)ij}`$ is expressed in (4.1) directly in terms of the anomaly $`\sqrt{g}D(g)\sigma `$.

Now $`D(g)`$ can be either $`E_{2n}`$, the Euler characteristic (“type A” anomaly), or an expression which together with $`\sqrt{g}`$ is locally Weyl invariant (“type B”, whose number increases with the dimension). We will distinguish the corresponding variations by indexing them with $`E`$ and $`B`$, respectively.

We postpone the discussion of a subtlety related to the “type A ” until we introduce the other conditions and we proceed with the second mechanism:

ii) If a covariant local functional of $`g_{ij}`$, $`F_{\left(n\right)ij}`$, transforms homogeneously under a Weyl transformation:

$$\delta _\sigma F_{\left(n\right)ij}=2(1n)\sigma F_{\left(n\right)ij}$$

then

$$A_{\left(n\right)ij}F_{\left(n\right)ij}\sigma $$

satisfies (3.1) as can be easily verified.

Therefore the problem is reduced to the construction of functionals which transform homogeneously. Such functionals are directly related to the $`D(g)`$ which give “type B” anomalies, discussed above. Each such functional $`D^B(g)`$ gives two homogeneously transforming functionals: a) simply define:

$$F_{\left(n\right)ij}=g_{ij}D^B;$$

b) for a given $`D^B`$ define:

$$B_{\left(n\right)ij}\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{ij}}W^D$$

with $`W^D`$:

$$W^D(g)d^{2n}x\sqrt{g}D^B(g).$$

In order to show that indeed $`B_{\left(n\right)ij}`$ transforms homogeneously, one simply applies the commutator (4.1) to $`W^D`$, taking into account that $`W^D`$ is Weyl invariant. Following from its definition, $`B_{\left(n\right)ij}`$ has vanishing trace and covariant divergence since $`W^D`$ is invariant under Weyl transformations and under diffeomorphisms.

Now, after having a list of solutions of (3.1), we have to study which of the solutions give rise to nontrivial cohomologies.

For the solutions mentioned under i) we discuss now a special feature related to the “Type A” - Euler one: the variation $`A_{\left(n\right)ij}^E`$ related to it by (4.1) can be obtained also as the inhomogeneous term in the variation of a $`local`$ $`\overline{g}_{ij}^E`$. The proof based on an explicit construction of $`\overline{g}_{ij}^E`$ is presented in the Appendix. We conclude therefore that from the point of view of (3.1) alone, $`A_{\left(n\right)ij}^E`$ would be trivial.

However, calculating the covariant divergence and trace corresponding to i) we obtain the triples

$$\{0,\frac{1}{2}E_{2n},A_{\left(n\right)ij}^E\},$$

$$\{0,\frac{1}{2}D^B,A_{\left(n\right)ij}^B\}.$$

As triples, these are cohomologically nontrivial. The special feature discussed in the Appendix allows us to choose for the class (4.1) a representative

$$(^j\overline{g}_{(n)ij}^E,g^{ij}\overline{g}_{(n)ij}^E+\frac{1}{2}E_{2n},0),$$

i.e. transforming homogeneously under Weyl transformations. Since the trace part of the triplet is an invariant made of Weyl tensors, we can always choose a representative such that also the trace part is zero; therefore all the nontrivial cohomological information resides in the first term.

The nontrivial solutions constructed under ii) are eliminated once we include (3.1), (3.1). Indeed, inhomogeneous pieces in the Weyl transformation proportional to $`D^B`$ themselves are eliminated since the variation of the trace should obey:

$$\delta _\sigma S=2n\sigma S+\sigma D^B.$$

Taking $`\sigma `$ to be $`x`$ independent (4.1) really measures the ordinary dimension of $`S`$ and if $`S`$ has a well-defined dimension, (4.1) cannot hold.

The $`B_{\left(n\right)ij}`$ constructed above have zero trace and zero covariant divergence as we remarked and therefore, by (3.1), $`S`$ transforms homogeneously. Eq. (3.1) becomes:

$$\delta _\sigma V_{\left(n\right)i}=2n\sigma V_{\left(n\right)i}+B_{\left(n\right)ij}^j\sigma S_{(n)}_i\sigma .$$

However, there are no local $`V_{\left(n\right)i}`$ with the transformation properties given by (4.1). Therefore we are left with only the nontrivial triples constructed under i) which are in one-to-one correspondence with the Weyl anomalies. Now we are ready to discuss the role of the nontrivial triples in the FG expansion and their physical interpretation.

As a general method we will use the FG solutions in dimensional regularization supplemented by the analysis of their variations in integer dimensions.

We start with the two-dimensional case already analysed directly at the end of Section 3. From the PBH transformation one obtains :

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill g_{\left(1\right)ij}& =\frac{l^2}{d2}\left[R_{ij}\frac{1}{2(d1)}Rg_{\left(0\right)ij}\right]=\frac{l^2}{d2}\left[R_{ij}\frac{1}{2}Rg_{\left(0\right)ij}\right]+\frac{l^2}{2(d1)}Rg_{\left(0\right)ij}.\hfill \end{array}$$

In the first term in (4.1) we recognize $`\frac{X_{(1)ij}}{d2}`$ defined in (A.3), signaling the presence of the nontrivial solution (4.1). Therefore we can directly write down the solution (3.1) for $`g_{\left(1\right)ij}`$.

We proceed now to discuss the four-dimensional case where the special features related to the “type B” solution first appear. We use again the solution of the PBH equations calculated in :

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill g_{\left(2\right)ij}& =c_1l^4C_{ijkl}^{\left(d\right)}C^{\left(d\right)ijkl}g_{\left(0\right)ij}+c_2l^4C^{\left(d\right)}iklmC_j^{\left(d\right)klm}\hfill \\ & +\frac{l^4}{d4}\{\frac{1}{8(d1)}_i_jR+\frac{1}{4(d2)}R_{ij}\frac{1}{8(d1)(d2)}Rg_{\left(0\right)ij}\hfill \\ & \frac{1}{2(d2)}R^{kl}R_{ikjl}+\frac{d4}{2(d2)^2}R_i{}_{}{}^{k}R_{jk}^{}+\frac{1}{(d1)(d2)^2}RR_{ij}\hfill \\ & +\frac{1}{4(d2)^2}R^{kl}R_{kl}g_{\left(0\right)ij}\frac{3d}{16(d1)^2(d2)^2}R^2g_{\left(0\right)ij}\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Here $`C_{ijkl}^{(d)}`$ is the Weyl-tensor in $`d`$ dimensions which transforms homogeneously under Weyl transformations (c.f. Appendix for the definition of $`C^{(d)}`$ and other notation used below). We can rewrite (4.1) as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& g_{\left(2\right)ij}=\overline{c}_1l^4C_{ijkl}^{(d)}C^{(d)ijkl}g_{\left(0\right)ij}+\overline{c}_2l^4C_{iklm}^{(d)}C_j^{(d)}^{klm}\hfill \\ & \frac{l^4}{16(d3)}\frac{B_{\left(2\right)ij}^{(d)}}{d4}+a\frac{l^4}{16(d3)}\left(\frac{X_{\left(2\right)ij}}{d4}\overline{g}_{\left(2\right)ij}^E\right)+\frac{l^4}{16(d3)}\left(4(d3)\overline{R}_{ik}\overline{R}_j^k4C_{ikjl}^{(d)}\overline{R}^{kl}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`B_{\left(2\right)ij}^{(d)}`$ is given by (4.1), $`D^B`$ being in this case the only “type B” anomaly in $`d=4`$, i.e.:

$$D_4^BC_{ijkl}^{(d)}C^{(d)ijkl}$$

and

$$\overline{R}_{ij}\frac{1}{d2}\left(R_{ij}\frac{1}{2(d1)}g_{ij}R\right).$$

In (4.1) the solution of the PBH recursion relation allows a general coefficient $`a`$; the solution of the equations of motion for the AdS action $`S=d^{d+1}x\sqrt{G}(R(G)2\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ requires $`a=1`$ and $`\overline{c}_1=\overline{c}_2=0`$ . The nontrivial, nonlocal solutions in $`d=4`$ are signaled by the pole terms in (4.1). The $`\frac{X_{(2)ij}}{d4}`$ term indicates, in complete analogy to the $`d=2`$ case discussed before, the nonlocal type A term corresponding to (4.1) with $`n=2`$.

The new feature is the appearance of the $`\frac{B_{(2)ij}^{(d)}}{d4}`$ pole term. Its residue doesn’t vanish. Therefore, as we discussed in Section 2, the limit $`d4`$ cannot be taken: one needs a subtraction. The physical motivation for the subtraction can be understood if we consider the Weyl variation of the pole term. We obtain:

$$\delta _\sigma \frac{B_{\left(2\right)ij}^{(d)}}{d4}=2\sigma \frac{B_{\left(2\right)ij}^{(d)}}{d4}+A_{\left(2\right)ij}^B\sigma B_{\left(2\right)ij},$$

where $`A_{\left(2\right)ij}^B`$ is given by (4.1) with the choice $`D_4^B`$ for the $`D`$ in (4.1). As we discussed above under i), $`A_{\left(2\right)ij}^B`$ corresponds to (4.1) and has a well-defined nonlocal solution in $`d=4`$. On the other hand, the second term $`\sigma B_{\left(2\right)ij}`$ was discussed in ii) and we concluded that it doesn’t correspond to a consistent triple. In the above two interrelated facts we see the origin of the inconsistency in the FG expansion: the expansion should be modified such that $`\sigma B_{\left(2\right)ij}`$ disappears from the variation and equivalently this should provide a prescription for the “subtraction” in dimensional regularization. The modification of the expansion proposed by FG  is to include logarithmic terms i.e. to replace (3.1) by:

$$g_{ij}(x,\rho )=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g_{\left(m\right)ij}(x)\rho ^m+h_{\left(n\right)ij}(x)\rho ^n\mathrm{log}(\rho )+\mathrm{}$$

in $`d=2n`$ dimensions, where we made explicit just the first new term. The PBH transformations

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \rho & =\rho ^{}e^{2\sigma (x^{})}\rho ^{}(12\sigma (x^{})),\hfill \\ \hfill x^i& =x^i+a^i(x^{},\rho ^{}),\hfill \end{array}$$

induce now a modified transformation of $`g_{\left(n\right)ij}(x)`$:

$$\overline{\delta }g_{\left(n\right)ij}=\delta g_{\left(n\right)ij}2\sigma h_{\left(n\right)ij},$$

where $`\delta g_{\left(n\right)ij}`$ is given in (3.1) and give for the transformation of $`h_{\left(n\right)ij}`$:

$$\overline{\delta }h_{\left(n\right)ij}=2(1n)\sigma h_{\left(n\right)ij}.$$

From (4.1) it follows that $`h_{\left(n\right)ij}`$ should be one of the expressions constructed under ii) above which transform homogeneously. In $`d=4`$, by choosing therefore $`h_{\left(2\right)ij}=\frac{1}{2}B_{\left(2\right)ij}`$, due to the modified (4.1) the unwanted term in the transformation $`g_{\left(2\right)ij}`$ is cancelled and we have now the consistent solution corresponding to (4.1).

We can easily follow through what happened in terms of a “subtraction”: If we apply the operator $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{ij}(x)}`$ to (2.1) we see that introducing the logarithmic term which eliminated the second term in the variation is equivalent to “subtracting” the second term in (2.1). The solution of the cohomological problem originates now in the first term in (2.1) which engenders (4.1). We believe that the two particular cases discussed in detail above from both points of view contain the basic features of the “type A” and “type B” structures. Based on that, we are ready to formulate some general rules related to the FG series:

a) In $`d=2n`$ there is a nontrivial cohomology in the Weyl transformation of the $`g_{\left(n\right)ij}`$ coefficient. As a consequence, in the variation of the coefficient produced recursively by the PBH transformations there will be cohomologically nontrivial contributions.

b) These contributions are signaled in dimensional regularization by pole terms in the solution: with vanishing residue in $`d=2n`$ for “type A” and nonvanishing residue for “type B”.

c) The contribution to $`g_{\left(n\right)ij}`$ in $`d=2n`$ coming from “type A” is nonlocal and it is obtained by applying the $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{ij}(x)}`$ operator on the effective action which generates the Euler trace anomaly.

d) The contribution to $`g_{\left(n\right)ij}`$ coming from “type B”, whose number increases with the dimension, needs subtractions. The coefficient of the logarithmic term $`h_{\left(n\right)ij}`$ in the expansion is a linear combination of homogeneously transforming expressions which are constructed again from “type B” anomalies. There is a one-to-one correspondence between these expressions and the subtractions.

e) After the subtractions are made, the contributions of “type B” to $`g_{\left(n\right)ij}`$ are nonlocal and can be obtained by applying $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{ij}(x)}`$ on the pieces of the effective action producing the various “type B” trace anomalies.

We see that following the procedure above the so-called “FG ambiguity” is removed. One obtains unique, well-defined, albeit generally nonlocal expressions for $`g_{\left(n\right)ij}`$. We remark that due to the “type B” contributions an arbitrary scale $`\mu `$ will appear in the solution. Of course one can still add to the solution terms transforming homogeneously which have vanishing trace and covariant divergence.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

In , the role of the boundary terms in the action was analysed. These authors showed that the functional derivatives of the boundary action are related to the FG coefficients. Therefore, using our expressions for the FG coefficients, one can integrate the relation and obtain explicitly the contribution of the boundary to the effective action. From the discussion in Section 4 it is clear that the contributions will contain $`W(g)`$ used in equations (4.1), (4.1) to generate the cohomologically nontrivial solutions. These terms are exactly the nonlocal terms generating the anomalies. Their coefficients are fixed partially by the PBH transformations and completely by the equations of motion. We have therefore identified the mechanism which produces the nonlocal anomalous terms in the effective action. We stress that the calculation described above is done entirely within the framework of classical gravity and does not require any knowledge of the energy-momentum tensor of the dual CFT. In $`d+1=3`$ dimensions an explicit calculation along these lines can be done both for the purely bosonic and the supersymmetric cases . Indeed the Liouville action and its supersymmetric generalizations appear in the effective action: as it is well known the Liouville action represents the nonlocal anomalous Polyakov action in the conformal gauge.

The translation of an anomaly which is an eminently quantum effect into a classical calculation is not entirely unexpected: in two dimensions bosonisation achieves this for the chiral anomaly. In the case discussed here this is happening, however, for all dimensions due to the AdS/CFT duality.

Previously the coefficients of the anomaly were determined by looking at the infrared divergent terms in the bulk action. The above described procedure gives an alternative way to calculate them, directly from the FG coefficients. As discussed in Section 2, these two ways of calculating the anomaly appear also on the CFT side of the equivalence. The relation between the two calculations is based on the Weyl invariance of the total effective action in dimensional regularization. In the gravitational case probably one can use directly diffeomorphisms in $`d+1`$ dimensions. We defer a detailed discussion of the anomaly coefficients to a further publication.

An amusing feature is the appearance of a scale due to the type B anomalies. The existence of an arbitrary (“ultraviolet”) scale in a classical calculation is rather surprising.

As we mentioned above there is still some ambiguity left, related to nonlocal terms which are invariant under all the symmetries. We believe these terms cannot be obtained by (anomalous) symmetry considerations but they reflect genuine dynamical stringy corrections.

Acknowledgements: We would like the Erwin-Schroedinger-Institute in Vienna, where most of this work was done, for hospitality.

Appendix

We discuss now in detail the proof that the Weyl variation $`A_{\left(n\right)ij}^E`$ can be obtained as the inhomogeneous piece in the variation of a local tensor $`\overline{g}_{ij}^E`$. We start by remarking that since the Weyl variation of the Euler density $`E_{2n}`$, $`\delta E_{2n}=2n\sigma E_{2n}+\mathrm{total}\mathrm{derivative}`$,

$$\delta _\sigma d^dx\sqrt{g}E_{2n}=(d2n)d^dx\sqrt{g}E_{2n}\sigma $$
$`(\mathrm{A}.1)`$
where the curvature tensors entering $`E_{2n}`$ are in $`d`$ dimensions. Using (A.1) we can write $`A_{\left(n\right)ij}^E`$ as

$$A_{\left(n\right)ij}^E=\frac{1}{d2n}\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{ij}}\delta _\sigma d^dx\sqrt{g}E_{2n}=\frac{1}{d2n}\delta _\sigma ^{\left(\mathrm{in}\right)}\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{ij}}d^dx\sqrt{g}E_{2n}$$
$`(\mathrm{A}.2)`$
where in the second step we used (4.1) and “$`\delta _\sigma ^{(\mathrm{in})}`$” denotes the inhomogeneous part of the Weyl variation. We have dropped a term which vanishes at $`d=2n`$.

The expression

$$X_{\left(n\right)ij}\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{ij}}d^dx\sqrt{g}E_{2n}$$
$`(\mathrm{A}.3)`$
vanishes in $`d=2n`$ when the Euler density itself becomes a total derivative. The “topological identity” this represents is:

$$\delta _{[j_1}^{[i_1}\delta _{j_2}^{i_2}\mathrm{}\delta _{j_{2n1}]}^{i_{2n1}]}C_{[ii_{2n1}}^{[jj_{2n1}}C_{i_1i_2}^{j_1j_2}\mathrm{}C_{i_{2n3}i_{2n2}]}^{j_{2n3}j_{2n2}]}\frac{1}{2n}\delta _i^j\delta _{[j_1}^{[i_1}\mathrm{}\delta _{j_{2n1}}^{i_{2n1}}\delta _{j_{2n}]}^{i_{2n}]}C_{[i_1i_2}^{[j_1j_2}\mathrm{}C_{i_{2n1}i_{2n}]}^{j_{2n1}j_{2n}]}=0$$
$`(\mathrm{A}.4)`$
where $`C_{kl}^{ij}`$ is the Weyl tensor in $`d=2n`$. In $`d=2n`$, $`X_{\left(n\right)ij}`$ is proportional to the left hand side of (A.4). Now we can identify a “dimensionally continued” $`X_{\left(n\right)ij}^{(d)}`$ by replacing the $`2n`$ dimensional Weyl tensors in (A.4) with the $`d`$ dimensional ones $`C_{kl}^{\left(d\right)ij}`$ which transform homogeneously in $`d`$ dimensions. The tensor $`C_{kl}^{\left(d\right)ij}`$ is given explicitly by:

$$C_{kl}^{(d)}{}_{}{}^{ij}=R_{kl}{}_{}{}^{ij}\frac{1}{d2}(\delta _l^jR_k^i+\delta _k^iR_l^j\delta _l^iR_k^j\delta _k^jR_l^i)\frac{1}{(d1)(d2)}(\delta _l^i\delta _k^j\delta _l^j\delta _k^i).$$
$`(\mathrm{A}.5)`$
Then we can expand the explicit $`d`$ dependence of $`X_{\left(n\right)ij}^{(d)}`$ around $`d=2n`$, the curvature tensors continuing to be defined in $`d`$ dimensions:

$$X_{\left(n\right)ij}^{(d)}=X_{\left(n\right)ij}(d2n)\overline{g}_{\left(n\right)ij}^E,$$
$`(\mathrm{A}.6)`$
where $`\overline{g}_{\left(n\right)ij}^E`$ is explicitly defined as a local tensor by (A.6). Since $`X_{\left(n\right)ij}^{(d)}`$ transforms homogeneously, we have:

$$\frac{1}{d2n}\delta _\sigma ^{\left(\mathrm{in}\right)}X_{\left(n\right)ij}=\delta _\sigma ^{\left(\mathrm{in}\right)}\overline{g}_{\left(n\right)ij}^E$$
$`(\mathrm{A}.7)`$
and therefore

$$A_{\left(n\right)ij}^E=\delta _\sigma ^{\left(\mathrm{in}\right)}\overline{g}_{\left(n\right)ij}^E.$$
$`(\mathrm{A}.8)`$
We have thus shown that the variation of the functional derivative of the anomalous part of the action related to the Euler type anomaly can be integrated to a local functional. This of course doesn’t mean that the variation of the action itself can be integrated to a local action: taking the functional derivative breaks explicitly the Bose symmetry between the different insertions of the background metric, a symmetry which is a built-in requirement of the action itself.

From the above proof it is clear that in dimensional regularization the “signature” of the “type A” nontrivial solution is the term $`\frac{X_{(n)ij}}{d2n}`$. In the spirit of the general mechanism discussed in Section 2, such a $`0/0`$ expression indicates the presence of a nonlocal, cohomologically nontrivial functional in integer dimension. Calculating the Weyl variation, trace and covariant divergence of $`\frac{X_{(n)ij}}{d2n}`$, we conclude that in $`d=2n`$ it corresponds to the triple (4.1).

References

relax O. Aharony, S.S. Gubser, J. Maldacena, H. Ooguri and Y. Oz, “Large N field theories, string theory and gravity,” Phys. Rep. 323 (2000) 183 \[hep-th/9905111\]. relax E. Witten, “Anti-de Sitter space and holography,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 253 \[hep-th/9802150\]. relax M. Henningson and K. Skenderis, “The holographic Weyl anomaly,” JHEP 07 (1998) 023 \[hep-th/9806087\]. relax O. Aharony, J. Pawelczyk, S. Theisen and S. Yankielowicz, “A note on anomalies in the AdS/CFT correspondence,” Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 066001 \[hep-th/9901134\]. relax C. Imbimbo, A. Schwimmer, S. Theisen and S. Yankielowicz, “Diffeomorphisms and holographic anomalies,” Class. Quant. Grav. 17, 1129 (2000) \[hep-th/9910267\]. relax C. Fefferman and R. Graham, “Conformal Invariants,” Astèrisque, hors série, 1995, p.95. relax S. de Haro, S. N. Solodukhin and K. Skenderis, “Holographic reconstruction of spacetime and renormalization in the $`AdS/CFT`$ correspondence,” hep-th/0002230. relax K. Bautier, F. Englert, M. Rooman and P. Spindel, Phys. Lett. B479, 291 (2000) \[hep-th/0002156\]. relax S. Deser and A. Schwimmer, “Geometric classification of conformal anomalies in arbitrary dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B309 (1993) 279 \[hep-th/9302047\]. relax L. Bonora, P. Pasti and M. Bregola, “Weyl cocylcles,” Class. Quant. Grav. 3, 635 (1986). relax S. Deser, “Closed form effective conformal anomaly actions in $`d4`$,” Phys. Lett. B479, 315 (2000) \[hep-th/9911129\]. relax O. Coussaert, M. Henneaux and P. van Driel, “The asymptotic dynamics of three-dimensional Einstein gravity with a negative cosmological constant,” Class. Quant. Gravity (1996) 296 \[gr-qc/9506019\]; M. Banados, K. Bautier, O. Coussaert, M. Henneaux and M. Ortiz, Phys. Rev. D58, 085020 (1998) \[hep-th/9805165\]; M. Henneaux, L. Maoz and A. Schwimmer, “Asymptotic Dynamics and Asymptotic Symmetries of Three-Dimensional Extended AdS Supergravity,” Annals of Physics 282 (2000) 31 \[hep-th/9910013\].


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A Gel’fand-Dorfman bialgebra is a vector space with a Lie algebra structure and a Novikov algebra structure, satisfying a certain compatibility condition. This bialgebraic structure corresponds to a certain Hamiltonian pairs in the Gel’fand-Dikii-Dorfman’s theory of Hamiltonian operators (cf. \[GDi\], \[GDo\]). In this talk, I will give a survey on the study of Gel’fand-Dorfman bialgebras. First let me give a more technical initial introduction to the bialgebras through what I call “Lie algebra with one-variable structure.”

Let $`𝔽`$ be an arbitrary field. Denote by $``$ the ring of integers and by $``$ the additive semi-group of nonnegative integers. All the vector spaces are assumed over $`𝔽`$. Let $`V`$ be a vector space and let $`t`$ be an indeterminant. Form a tensor

$$\widehat{V}=V_𝔽𝔽[t,t^1].$$
$`(1.1)`$
We denote

$$u(z)=\underset{n}{}(ut^n)z^{n1}\text{for}uV,$$
$`(1.2)`$
where $`z`$ is a formal variable. A Lie algebra with one-variable structure is a vector space $`\widehat{V}`$ with the Lie bracket of the form

$$[u(z_1),v(z_2)]=\underset{i=0}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}z_2^1_{z_1}^i\delta \left(\frac{z_1}{z_2}\right)_{z_2}^jw_{ij}(z_2)$$
$`(1.3)`$
for $`u,vV`$, where $`m,n`$ are nonnegative integers depending on $`u,v`$, and $`w_{ij}V`$. Here we have used the notation

$$\delta (z)=\underset{k}{}z^k.$$
$`(1.4)`$
Moreover, each $`w_{ij}`$ depends on $`u`$ and $`v`$ bilinearly by (1.2) and (1.3). Above definition is not in general form. We aim at giving the audience a simple rough picture. According to Wightman’s axioms of quantum field theory, the algebraic content of two-dimensional quantum field theory is a certain representation theory of Lie algebras with one-variable structure (e.g., cf. \[K\]), where intertwining operators among irreducible modules, “partition functions” (characters in algebraic terms) and “correlation functions” related to (1.3) etc. play important roles.

Suppose that $`m=n=0`$ in (1.3). We denote

$$w_{00}=[u,v].$$
$`(1.5)`$
Then $`(V,[u,v])`$ forms a Lie algebra and $`\widehat{V}`$ is the corresponding loop algebra with the Lie bracket

$$[ut^j,vt^k]=[u,v]t^{j+k}\text{for}u,vV,j,k.$$
$`(1.6)`$
If $`V=𝔽e`$ is one-dimensional and

$$[e(z_1),e(z_2)]=z_2^1\delta \left(\frac{z_1}{z_2}\right)_{z_2}e(z_2)2z_2^1_{z_1}\delta \left(\frac{z_1}{z_2}\right)e(z_2),$$
$`(1.7)`$
Then $`\widehat{V}`$ is the centerless Virasoro algebra (or a rank-one Witt algebra) with the Lie bracket

$$[et^j,et^k]=(jk)et^{j+k}\text{for}j,k.$$
$`(1.8)`$
A natural generalization of the above one-dimensional case is

$$[u(z_1),v(z_2)]=z_2^1\delta \left(\frac{z_1}{z_2}\right)_{z_2}w_{01}(z_2)+z_2^1_{z_1}\delta \left(\frac{z_1}{z_2}\right)w_{10}(z_2)$$
$`(1.9)`$
for $`u,vV`$. Denote

$$w_{01}=vu.$$
$`(1.10)`$
Then $`(V,)`$ is an algebra satisfying

$$(uv)w=(uw)v,$$
$`(1.11)`$
$$(uv)wu(vw)=(vu)wv(uw)$$
$`(1.12)`$
for $`u,v,wV.`$ The above algebra $`(V,)`$ appeared in Gel’fand and Dorfman’s work \[GDo\], corresponding to certain Hamiltonian operators. Moreover, it also appeared in Balinskii and Novikov’s work \[BN\] as the local structures of certain Poisson brackets of hydrodynamic type. This structure was first abstractly studied by Zel’manov \[Z\], Filippov \[F\] and was named as “Novikov algebra” by Osborn \[O1\].

Note that (1.12) is the axiom of left-symmetric algebra. Left-symmetric algebras play fundamental roles in the theory of affine manifolds (cf. \[A\], \[FD\]). Novikov algebras are Left-symmetric algebras whose right multiplication operators are mutually commutative (cf. (1.11)). Furthermore,

$$w_{10}=(uv+vu).$$
$`(1.13)`$
The Lie bracket on $`\widehat{V}`$ is

$$[ut^j,vt^k]=juvt^{j+k1}kvut^{j+k1}\text{for}u,vV,j,k.$$
$`(1.14)`$
Consider the mixed case

$$[u(z_1),v(z_2)]=z_2^1\delta \left(\frac{z_1}{z_2}\right)[w_{00}(z_2)+_{z_2}w_{01}(z_2)]+z_2^1_{z_1}\delta \left(\frac{z_1}{z_2}\right)w_{10}(z_2)$$
$`(1.15)`$
for $`u,vV`$. Denote

$$w_{00}=[v,u],w_{01}=vu.$$
$`(1.16)`$
Then $`(V,[,])`$ forms a Lie algebra, $`(V,)`$ forms a Novikov algebra and the following compatibility condition holds

$$[wu,v][wv,u]+[w,u]v[w,v]uw[u,v]=0$$
$`(1.17)`$
for $`u,v,wV`$.

I called the triple $`(V,[,],)`$ a Gel’fand-Dorfman bialgebra (cf. \[X4\]), which corresponds to a certain Hamiltonian pair in Gel’fand and Dorfman’s work \[GDo\]. Moreover, (1.13) holds. The Lie bracket on $`\widehat{V}`$ is

$$[ut^j,vt^k]=[v,u]t^{j+k}+juvt^{j+k1}kvut^{j+k1}$$
$`(1.18)`$
for $`u,vV,j,k`$.

For convenience, we shall use the following notation of index

$$\overline{m,n}=\{m,m+1,\mathrm{},n\}$$
$`(1.19)`$
for $`m,n`$ such that $`mn`$.

The article is organized as follows. In Section 2, I will talk about structures of simple Novikov algebras and their irreducible representations. In Section 3, I will present some general constructions of Gel’fand-Dorfman bialgebras. In Section 4, I will give a few classification results on the bialgebras. In Section 5, examples of application to simple “cubic conformal algebras” and “quartic conformal algebras” will be given.

## 2 Novikov Algebras

Let us first give a construction of Novikov algebras. Let $`(𝒜,)`$ be a commutative associative algebra. Then $`(𝒜,)`$ forms a Novikov algebra, which is not so interesting. Take a derivation $``$ of $`(𝒜,)`$ and $`\xi 𝒜`$. We define

$$u_\xi v=u(v)+\xi uv\text{for}u,v𝒜.$$
$`(2.1)`$
Then $`(𝒜,_\xi )`$ forms a Novikov algebra. The above construction was found by S. Gel’fand when $`\xi =0`$ (cf. \[GDo\]), by Fillip \[F\] when $`\xi 𝔽`$ and by me \[X2\] in general case.

Theorem 2.1 (Zel’manov \[Z\]). Any finite-dimensional simple Novikov algebra over an algebraically closed field $`𝔽`$ with characteristic $`0`$ isomorphic to $`(𝔽,)`$.

Based on Osborn’s work \[O1\], I obtained the following result:

Theorem 2.2 (Xu, \[X1\]). A finite-dimensional simple Novikov algebra over an algebraically closed field $`𝔽`$ with characteristic $`p>2`$ is either one-dimensional with a base element $`e`$ such that $`ee=e`$ or has dimension $`p^k`$ for some positive integer $`k`$ with a basis $`\{\varsigma _jj\overline{1,p^k2}\}`$ satisfying

$$\varsigma _{j_1}\varsigma _{j_2}=(_{j_2}^{j_1+j_2+1})\varsigma _{j_1+j_2}+\delta _{j_1,1}\delta _{j_2,0}a\varsigma _{p^k2}+\delta _{j_1,1}\delta _{j_2,1}b\varsigma _{p^k2}$$
$`(2.2)`$
for $`j_1,j_2\overline{1,p^k1}`$, where $`a,b𝔽`$ are constants.

Next, we consider infinite-dimensional simple Novikov algebra with $`\text{char}𝔽=0`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be an additive subgroup of $`𝔽`$ and let $`𝔽_1`$ be an extension field of $`𝔽`$. Take a map $`f:\mathrm{\Delta }\times \mathrm{\Delta }𝔽_1^\times =𝔽_1\{0\}`$ such that

$$f(\alpha ,\beta )=f(\beta ,\alpha ),f(\alpha ,\beta )f(\alpha +\beta ,\gamma )=f(\alpha ,\beta +\gamma )f(\beta ,\gamma )$$
$`(2.3)`$
for $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }`$. Take $`J`$ to be the additive semi-group $`\{0\}`$ or $``$. Let $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta },f,J)`$ be a vector space over $`𝔽_1`$ with a basis

$$\{u_{\alpha ,i}\alpha \mathrm{\Delta },i\}.$$
$`(2.4)`$
We define an algebraic operation “$``$” on $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta },f,J)`$ by

$$u_{\alpha ,i}u_{\beta ,j}=f(\alpha ,\beta )u_{\alpha +\beta ,i+j}\text{for}\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Delta },i,jJ.$$
$`(2.5)`$
Then $`(𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta },f,J),)`$ forms a commutative associative algebra over $`𝔽_1`$, and also over $`𝔽`$. We define a derivation $``$ of $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta },f,J)`$ over $`𝔽_1`$ by

$$(u_{\alpha ,i})=\alpha u_{\alpha ,i}+iu_{\alpha ,i1}\text{for}\alpha \mathrm{\Delta },iJ,$$
$`(2.6)`$
where we treat

$$u_{\beta ,j}=0\text{if}(\beta ,j)\mathrm{\Delta }\times J.$$
$`(2.7)`$
Note that $``$ is also a derivation of $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta },f,J)`$ over $`𝔽`$.

Theorem 2.3 (Xu, \[X2\]). For any element $`\xi (𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta },f,J)`$, the Novikov algebra $`(𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta },f,J),_\xi )`$ (cf. (2.1)) is simple.

Osborn \[O3\] gave a classification of infinite-dimensional simple Novikov algebras with an element $`e`$ such that $`ee𝔽e`$, assuming the existence of generalized-eigenspace decomposition with respect to its left multiplication operator. There are four fundamantal mistakes in his classification. The first is using of Proposition 2.6 (d) in \[O1\] with $`\beta 0`$, which was misproved. The second is that the eigenspace $`A_0`$ in Lemma 2.12 of \[O3\] does not form a field when $`b=0`$ with respect to the Novikov algebraic operation. The third is that $`A_0`$ may not be a perfect field when $`b0`$. The fourth is that the author forgot the case $`b=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\{0\}`$ in Lemma 2.8. In addition to these four mistakes, there are gaps in the arguments of classification in \[O3\]. It seems that one can not draw any conclusions of classification based on the arguments in \[O3\].

A linear transformation $`T`$ of a vector space $`V`$ is called locally finite if the subspace

$$\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝔽T^m(v)\text{is finite-dimensional for any}vV.$$
$`(2.8)`$
An element $`u`$ of a Novikov algebra $`𝒩`$ is called left locally finite if its left multiplication operator $`L_u`$ is locally finite.

I have re-established the following classification theorem:

Theorem 2.4 (Xu, \[X6\]) Let $`(𝒩,)`$ be an infinite-dimensional simple Novikov algebra over an algebraically field $`𝔽`$ with characteristic $`0`$. Suppose that $`𝒩`$ contains a left locally finite element $`e`$ whose right multiplication $`R_e`$ is a constant map and left multiplication is surjective if $`R_e=0`$. Then there exist an additive subgroup $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`𝔽`$, an extension field $`𝔽_1`$ of $`𝔽`$, a map $`f:\mathrm{\Delta }\times \mathrm{\Delta }𝔽_1^\times `$ satisfying (2.3) and $`\xi 𝔽`$ such that the algebra $`(𝒩,)`$ is isomorphic to $`(𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta },f,J),_\xi )`$.

Now we consider representations of a Novikov algebra. A module $`M`$ of a Novikov algebras $`(𝒩,)`$ is a vector space with two linear maps

$$𝒩\times MM:(u,w)uw,M\times 𝒩M:(w,u)wu$$
$`(2.9)`$
such that (1.11) and (1.12) hold when one of the elements in $`\{u,v,w\}`$ is in $`M`$ and the other two are in $`𝒩`$. The commutator algebra associated with a finite-dimensional simple Novikov algebra over an algebraically closed field $`𝔽`$ with characteristic $`p>2`$ is a rank-one simple Lie algebra of Witt type (cf. \[O1\]), whose finite-dimensional irreducible modules has not been completely classified yet. However, we have the following complete result.

Theorem 2.5 (Xu, \[X1\]). Suppose that $`𝔽`$ is an algebraically closed field with characteristic $`p>2.`$ If $`M`$ is a finite-dimensional irreducible module of a finite-dimensional simple Novikov algebra $`(𝒩,)`$ in the presentation (2.2), then there exists a constant $`\lambda `$ and a basis $`\{v_jj\overline{1,p^k2}\}`$ of $`M`$ such that

$$\varsigma _{j_1}v_{j_2}=(_{j_2}^{j_1+j_2+1})v_{j_1+j_2}+(_{j_1+1}^{j_1+j_2+2})\lambda v_{j_1+j_2+1}+\delta _{j_1,1}\delta _{j_2,0}av_{p^k2}$$
$`(2.10)`$
$$v_{j_2}\varsigma _{j_1}=(_{j_1}^{j_1+j_2+1})v_{j_1+j_2}+\delta _{j_2,1}\delta _{j_1,0}av_{p^k2}+\delta _{j_2,1}\delta _{j_1,1}bv_{p^k2}$$
$`(2.11)`$
for $`j_1,j_2\overline{1,p^k2}`$. Moreover, $`\lambda 0`$ if $`a0`$. Conversely, (2.10) and (2.11) define an irreducible module for any $`0\lambda 𝔽`$ and for $`\lambda =0`$ if $`a=0`$.

Let us go to the case of $`\text{char}𝔽=0`$. First we shall give a construction of irreducible modules. Take $`J`$ to be the additive semi-group $`\{0\}`$ or $``$. Let $`𝒜`$ be a vector space with a basis

$$\{u_{\alpha ,i}\alpha 𝔽,iJ\}.$$
$`(2.12)`$
Define the operation “$``$” on $`𝒜`$ by

$$u_{\alpha ,i}u_{\beta ,j}=u_{\alpha +\beta ,i+j}\text{for}\alpha ,\beta 𝔽,i,jJ.$$
$`(2.13)`$
Then $`(𝒜,)`$ forms a commutative associative algebra with the identity element $`1=u_{0,0}`$. We define the derivation $``$ on $`𝒜`$ by (2.6). Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be an additive subgroup of $`𝔽`$ such that $`J+\mathrm{\Delta }\{0\}`$. Set

$$𝒩=\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta },iJ}{}𝔽u_{\alpha ,i}.$$
$`(2.14)`$
For any fixed element $`\xi 𝒩`$, we define the operation “$``$” on $`𝒜`$ by

$$uv=u(v)+\xi uv\text{for}u,v𝒜.$$
$`(2.15)`$
By Theorem 2.3, $`(𝒜,)`$ forms a simple Novikov algebra and $`(𝒩,)`$ forms a simple subalgebra of $`(𝒜,)`$. For $`\lambda 𝔽`$, we set

$$M(\lambda )=\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta },iJ}{}𝔽u_{\alpha +\lambda ,i}$$
$`(2.16)`$
Expression (2.15) shows

$$𝒩M(\lambda ),M(\lambda )𝒩M(\lambda ).$$
$`(2.17)`$
Thus $`M(\lambda )`$ forms an $`𝒩`$-module. By the proof of Theorem 2.9 in \[X2\], we have

Theorem 2.6 (Xu, \[X6\]). The $`𝒩`$-module $`M(\lambda )`$ is irreducible.

A natural question is to what extent the modules $`\{M(\lambda )\lambda 𝔽\}`$ cover the irreducible modules of $`𝒩`$. Up to this point, we are not be able to answer this for a general element $`\xi 𝒩`$. For an $`𝒩`$-module $`M`$, we define the left action $`L_M(u_{0,0})`$ of $`u_{0,0}`$ by

$$L_M(u_{0,0})(w)=u_{0,0}w\text{for}wM.$$
$`(2.18)`$
Theorem 2.7 (Xu, \[X6\]). If $`\xi 𝔽`$, then any irreducible $`𝒩`$-module $`M`$ with locally finite $`L_M(u_{0,0})`$ is isomorphic to $`M(\lambda )`$ for some $`\lambda 𝔽`$, when $`𝔽`$ is algebraically closed.

## 3 Constructions of Gel’fand-Dorfman Bialgebras

Recall the compatibility condition (1.17). Let $`(𝒩,)`$ be a Novikov algebra. Define

$$[u,v]^{}=uvvu\text{for}u,v𝒩.$$
$`(3.1)`$
Theorem 3.1 (Gel’fand and Dorfman, \[GDo\]). The triple $`(𝒩,[,]^{},)`$ forms a Gel’fand-Dorfman bialgebra.

Let $`(𝒜,)`$ be a commutative associative algebra. Denote by $`\text{Der}𝒜`$ the Lie algebras of all the derivations of $`𝒜`$. Set

$$𝒩=\text{Der}𝒜𝒜.$$
$`(3.2)`$
We define two algebraic operation $`[,]`$ and $``$ on $`𝒩`$ by

$$[d_1+\xi _1,d_2+\xi _2]=[d_1,d_2]+d_1(\xi _2)d_2(\xi _1),$$
$`(3.3)`$
$$(d_1+\xi _1)(d_2+\xi _2)=\xi _2(d_1+\xi _1)$$
$`(3.4)`$
for $`d_1,d_2\text{Der}𝒜`$ and $`\xi _1,\xi _2𝒜`$.

Theorem 3.2 (Xu, \[X4\]). The triple $`(𝒩,[,],)`$ forms a Gel’fand-Dorfman bialgebra.

The above construction is extracted from the simple Lie algebras of Witt type.

Our second construction is related to the following concept. A Lie-Poisson algebra is a vector space $`𝒜`$ with two algebraic operations “$``$” and $`[,]`$ such that $`(𝒜,)`$ forms a commutative associative algebra, $`(𝒜,[,])`$ forms a Lie algebra and the following compatibility condition is satisfied:

$$[u,vw]=[u,v]w+v[u,w]\text{for}u,v,w𝒜.$$
$`(3.5)`$
Let $`(𝒜,,[,])`$ be a Lie-Poisson algebra and let $``$ be a derivation of the algebra $`(𝒜,)`$ such that

$$[u,v]=[(u),v]+[u,(v)]+\xi [u,v]\text{for}u,v𝒜,$$
$`(3.6)`$
where $`\xi 𝔽`$ is a constant. Now we define another algebraic operation on $``$ on $`𝒜`$ by

$$uv=u(v)+\xi uv\text{for}u𝒜,v𝒜.$$
$`(3.7)`$
Theorem 3.3 (Xu, \[X4\]). The triple $`(𝒜,[,],)`$ forms a Gel’fand-Dorfman bialgebra.

The above construction is related to the Lie algebras of Hamiltonian type and Contact type.

Let $`(𝒜,)`$ be a commutative associative algebra and let $`_1,_2`$ be mutually commutative derivations of $`(𝒜,)`$. Define algebraic operations on $`𝒜`$ by

$$[u,v]=_1(u)_2(v)_2(u)_1(v)+u_2(v)_2(u)v,uv=u_2(v)$$
$`(3.8)`$
for $`u,v𝒜`$.

Theorem 3.4 (Xu, \[X4\]). The triple $`(𝒜,[,],)`$ forms a Gel’fand-Dorfman bialgebra.

Let $`(𝒜,),_1`$ and $`_2`$ be the same as in the above. For any constant $`b𝔽`$, we define

$$[u,v]=_1(u)_2(v)_2(u)_1(v)+b(u_2(v)_2(u)v),uv=u_1(v)+buv$$
$`(3.9)`$
for $`u,v𝒜`$.

Theorem 3.5 (Xu, \[X4\]). The triple $`(𝒜,[,],)`$ forms a Gel’fand-Dorfman bialgebra.

## 4 Classifications of the Bialgebras

If $`(𝒩,[,],)`$ is a Gel’fand-Dorfman bialgebra, then we say that $`(𝒩,[,])`$ is a Lie algebra over the Novikov algebra $`(𝒩,)`$. Similarly, $`(𝒩,)`$ is a Novikov algebra over the Lie algebra $`(𝒩,[,])`$.

Let $`𝔽`$ be an algebraically closed field with $`\text{char}𝔽=0`$. Take $`J`$ to be the additive semi-group $`\{0\}`$ or $``$ and take an additive subgroup $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`𝔽`$. Let $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta },J)`$ be a vector space with a basis

$$\{u_{\alpha ,i}\alpha \mathrm{\Delta },iJ\}.$$
$`(4.1)`$
For any constant $`b𝔽`$, we define an algebraic operation $`_b`$ on $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta },J)`$ by

$$u_bv=u(v)+buv\text{for}u,v𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta },J).$$
$`(4.2)`$
By Theorem 2.3, $`(𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta },J),_b)`$ forms a simple Novikov algebra.

Theorem 4.1 (Osborn and Zel’manov, \[OZ\]). If $`\mathrm{\Delta }=,J=\{0\},b`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0,J=`$, then any nontrivial Lie algebra over the Novikov algebra $`(𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta },J),_b)`$ is isomorphic to $`(𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta },J),[,]^{})`$, where

$$[u_{\alpha ,i},u_{\beta ,j}]^{}=(\beta \alpha )u_{\alpha +\beta ,i+j}+(ji)u_{\alpha +\beta ,i+j1}$$
$`(4.3)`$
for $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`i,jJ`$.

Theorem 4.2 (Xu, \[X4\]). If $`b\mathrm{\Delta }`$, then any Lie algebra over the Novikov algebra $`(𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta },J),_b)`$ has the Lie bracket

$`[u_{\alpha ,i},u_{\beta ,j}]`$ $`=`$ $`[(\alpha +b)\phi (\beta )(\beta +b)\phi (\alpha )]u_{\alpha +\beta ,i+j}`$
$`+[i(\phi (\beta )\lambda (\beta +b))+j(\lambda (\alpha +b)\phi (\alpha ))]u_{\alpha +\beta ,i+j1}(4.4)`$
for $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Delta },i,jJ`$, where $`\phi :\mathrm{\Delta }𝔽`$ is an additive group homomorphism and $`\lambda 𝔽`$ is a constant.

When $`J=\{0\}`$, (4.4) gives a Block algebra (cf. \[B\]). Next we assume $`J=\{0\}`$ and redenote $`u_{\alpha ,0}`$ by $`u_\alpha `$ for $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Theorem 4.3 (Xu, \[X4\]) Any Lie algebra over the Novikov algebra $`(𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta },\{0\}),_0)`$ has the Lie bracket

$$[u_\alpha ,u_\beta ]=(\varphi (\alpha ,\beta )+a(\beta \alpha ))u_{\alpha +\beta }\text{for}\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Delta },$$
$`(4.5)`$
where $`a`$ is a constant and $`\varphi (,):\mathrm{\Delta }\times \mathrm{\Delta }𝔽`$ is a skew-symmetric map such that there exists a symmetric map $`S_0(,,):\mathrm{\Delta }\times \mathrm{\Delta }\times \mathrm{\Delta }𝔽`$ satisfying

$$\varphi (\beta +\gamma ,\alpha )=\varphi (\gamma ,\alpha )+\varphi (\beta ,\alpha )+\alpha S_0(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ),$$
$`(4.6)`$
$$(\gamma \varphi (\alpha ,\beta )+\alpha \varphi (\beta ,\gamma )+\beta \varphi (\gamma ,\alpha ))(S_0(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )a)=0.$$
$`(4.7)`$
for $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }.`$ In particular, the following $`\varphi `$ satisfies our condition: when $`a=0`$, $`\varphi `$ is any skew-symmetric $``$-bilinear form; when $`a0`$,

$$\varphi (\alpha ,\beta )=\alpha \phi _0(\beta )\beta \phi _0(\alpha )\text{for}\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Delta },$$
$`(4.8)`$
where $`\phi _0:\mathrm{\Delta }𝔽`$ is an additive group homomorphism.

Theorem 4.4 (Xu, \[X4\]) Suppose $`0b\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Any Lie algebra over the Novikov algebra $`(𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta },\{0\}),_b)`$ has the Lie bracket

$$[u_\alpha ,u_\beta ]=\theta (\alpha ,\beta )u_{\alpha +\beta +b}+((\alpha +b)\phi (\beta )(\beta +b)\phi (\alpha ))u_{\alpha +\beta }$$
$`(4.9)`$
for $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`\phi :\mathrm{\Delta }𝔽`$ is additive group homomorphism, $`\theta 0`$ if $`\phi (b)0`$ and $`\theta :\mathrm{\Delta }\times \mathrm{\Delta }𝔽`$ is a skew-symmetric map satisfying

$$(\alpha +b)(\theta (\alpha +\gamma ,\beta )\theta (\gamma ,\beta )\theta (\alpha ,\beta ))=(\beta +b)(\theta (\beta +\gamma ,\alpha )\theta (\gamma ,\alpha )\theta (\beta ,\alpha ))$$
$`(4.10)`$
and

$$\theta (\alpha ,\beta )\theta (\alpha +\beta +b,\gamma )+\theta (\beta ,\gamma )\theta (\beta +\gamma +b,\alpha )+\theta (\gamma ,\alpha )\theta (\gamma +\alpha +b,\beta )=0$$
$`(4.11)`$
if $`\phi (b)=0`$. In particualr, we can take $`\phi :\mathrm{\Delta }𝔽`$ to be any additive group homomorphism such that $`\phi (b)=0`$ and take $`\theta (,)`$to be a skew-symmetric $``$-bilinear map such that $`b\text{Rad}_\theta `$ or

$$\theta (\alpha ,\beta )=\phi _1(\alpha )\phi _2(\beta )\phi _1(\beta )\phi _2(\alpha )\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Delta },$$
$`(4.12)`$
where $`\phi _1,\phi _2:\mathrm{\Delta }𝔽`$ are additive group homorphisms such that $`\phi _1(b)=0`$ and $`\phi _2(b)0`$.

Theorem 4.5 (Xu, \[X4\]). If $``$ is a Novikov algebra operation on the space $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta },\{0\})`$ such that

$$u_\alpha u_\beta u_\beta u_\alpha =(\beta \alpha )u_{\alpha +\beta }\text{for}\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Delta },$$
$`(4.13)`$
then there exists an element $`\xi 𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta },\{0\})`$ such that

$$u_\alpha u_\beta =(\beta +\xi )u_{\alpha +\beta }\text{for}\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Delta }.$$
$`(4.14)`$
## 5 Application to Cubic and Quartic Conformal Algebras

For two vector spaces $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$, we denote by $`LM(V_1,V_2)`$ the space of linear maps from $`V_1`$ to $`V_2`$. We shall also use the following operator of taking residue:

$$\text{Res}_z(z^n)=\delta _{n,1}\text{for}n.$$
$`(5.1)`$
Furthermore, all the binomials are assumed to be expanded in the nonnegative powers of the second variable. For example ,

$$\frac{1}{zx}=\frac{1}{z(1x/z)}=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}z^1\left(\frac{x}{z}\right)^j=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}z^{j1}x^j.$$
$`(5.2)`$
In particular, the above equation implies

$$\text{Res}_x\frac{1}{zx}(\underset{j}{}\xi _jz^j)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\xi _jz^j.$$
$`(5.3)`$
So the operator $`\text{Res}_x(1/(zx))`$(—) is taking the part of negative powers in a formal series and changing the variable $`x`$ to $`z`$.

A conformal algebra $`R`$ is an $`𝔽[]`$-module equipped with a linear map $`Y^+(,z):RLM(R,R[z^1]z^1)`$ satisfying:

$$Y^+(u,z)=\frac{d}{dz}Y^+(u,z),Y^+(u,z)v=\text{Res}_x\frac{e^xY^+(v,x)u}{zx},$$
$`(5.4)`$
$$Y^+(u,z_1)Y^+(v,z_2)Y^+(v,z_2)Y^+(u,z_1)=\text{Res}_x\frac{Y^+(Y^+(u,z_1x)v,x)}{z_2x}$$
$`(5.5)`$
for $`u,vR`$. We denote by $`(R,,Y^+(,z))`$ a conformal algebra.

The above definition is the equivalent generating-function form to that given in \[K\], where the author used the component formula with $`Y^+(u,z)=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}u_{(n)}z^{n1}/n!`$. The connection between between the Lie algebra with one-variable structure in (1.3) and conformal algebra is that $`R=𝔽[]_𝔽V`$ and

$$Y^+(u,z)v=\underset{i=0}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^ii!^jw_{ij}z^{i1}.$$
$`(5.6)`$
Conformal algebras are equivalent to linear Hamiltonian operators (cf. \[X5\]).

Suppose that $`(R,,Y^+(,z))`$ is a conformal algebra that is a free $`𝔽[]`$-module over a subspace $`V`$, namely

$$R=𝔽[]V(𝔽[]_𝔽V).$$
$`(5.7)`$
Let $`m`$ be a positive integer. The algebra $`R`$ is called of degree $`m`$ if for any $`u,vV`$,

$$Y^+(u,z)v=\underset{0<j;i+jm}{}^iw_{i,j}z^j\text{with}w_{i,j}V,$$
$`(5.8)`$
and $`w_{mj,j}0`$ for some $`u,vV`$ and $`j\overline{1,m}`$. A quadratic conformal algebra is a conformal algebra of degree 2, a cubic conformal algebra is a conformal algebra of degree 3 and a quartic conformal algebra is a conformal algebra of degree 4. In \[X4\], I have proved that a quadratic conformal algebra is equivalent to a Gel’fand-Dorfman bialgebra. Below I will give the construction of quadratic conformal algebra from Gel’fand-Dorfman bialgebras.

Let $`(𝒩,[,],)`$ be a Gel’fand Dorfman bialgebra. Set

$$R_𝒩=𝔽[]_𝔽𝒩.$$
$`(5.9)`$
So $`R_𝒩`$ is a free $`𝔽[]`$-module generated by $`𝒩`$. For convenience, we identify $`𝒩`$ with $`1𝒩`$. We define a linear map $`Y^+(,z):RLM(R,R[z^1]z^1)`$ by

$$Y^+(^mu,z)^nv=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^j(_j^n)\left(\frac{d}{dz}\right)^{m+j}^{nj}(([v,u]+(vu))z^1+(uv+vu)z^2)$$
$`(5.10)`$
for $`u,v𝒩`$ and $`m,n`$.

Theorem 5.1 (Xu, \[X4\]). The triple $`(R_𝒩,,Y^+(,z))`$ forms a quadratic conformal algebra.

Next I will use the above theorem to construct simple cubic conformal algebras and quartic conformal algebras. A conformal algebra $`(R,,Y^+(,z))`$ is called simple if there does not exist a nonzero proper subspace $``$ of $`R`$ such that

$$Y^+(u,z)()[z^1]\text{for}uR.$$
$`(5.11)`$
Take $`J`$ to be the additive semi-group $`\{0\}`$ or $``$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be an additive subgroup of $`𝔽^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}`$ such that

$$(J,0)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,𝔽),\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔽,0).$$
$`(5.12)`$
Let $`𝒜`$ be the semi-group algebra of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\times J`$ with the canonical basis $`\{u_{\alpha ,i}\alpha \mathrm{\Delta },iJ\}`$, that is,

$$u_{\alpha ,i}u_{\beta ,j}=u_{\alpha +\beta ,i+j}\text{for}\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Gamma },i,jJ.$$
$`(5.13)`$
Define two derivations $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ of $`𝒜`$ by

$$_1(u_{\alpha ,i})=\alpha _1u_{\alpha ,i}+iu_{\alpha ,i1},_2(u_{\alpha ,i})=\alpha _2u_{\alpha ,i}$$
$`(5.14)`$
for $`\alpha =(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`iJ`$.

First we define

$$[u,v]_1=_1(u)_2(v)_2(u)_1(v)+u_2(v)_2(u)v,u_1v=u_2(v)$$
$`(5.15)`$
Then $`(𝒜,[,]_1,_1)`$ forms a Gel’fand-Dorfman bialgebra by Theorem 3.4. On $`R_𝒜`$, the structure map (5.10) is determined by

$`Y_1^+(u_{\alpha ,i},z)u_{\beta ,j}`$ $`=`$ $`[((1+\alpha _1)\beta _2\alpha _2(1+\beta _1))u_{\alpha +\beta ,i+j}+(i\beta _2j\alpha _2)u_{\alpha +\beta ,i+j1}`$
$`+\beta _2u_{\alpha +\beta ,i+j}]z^1+(\alpha _2+\beta _2)u_{\alpha +\beta ,i+j}z^2.(5.16)`$
for $`\alpha =(\alpha _1,\alpha _2),\beta =(\beta _1,\beta _2)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`i,jJ`$. When $`\beta _2=\alpha _2`$, (5.16) becomes

$$Y_1^+(u_{\alpha ,i},z)u_{\beta ,j}=\beta _2[(\alpha _1+\beta _1+2+)u_{\alpha +\beta ,i+j}+(i+j)u_{\alpha +\beta ,i+j1}]z^1.$$
$`(5.17)`$
Set

$$R_1=\underset{\alpha =(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)\mathrm{\Gamma },\alpha _20}{}𝔽[]u_{\alpha ,i}+\underset{\beta =(\beta _1,0)\mathrm{\Gamma },jJ}{}𝔽[][(\beta _1+2+)u_{\beta ,j}+ju_{\beta ,j1}].$$
$`(5.18)`$
Then $`R_1`$ forms a subalgebra of $`(R_𝒜,,Y_1^+(,z))`$ by (5.17), that is,

$$R_1R_1,Y_1^+(u,z)vR_1[z^1]\text{for}u,vR_1.$$
$`(5.19)`$
Theorem 5.2 (Xu, \[X7\]). The conformal algebra $`(R_1,,Y_1^+(u,z))`$ is a simple cubic conformal algebra.

Let $`𝒜,_1`$ and $`_2`$ be the same as in the above. Take $`b𝔽`$ to be any fixed constant such that

$$(𝔽,2b)\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔽,0).$$
$`(5.20)`$
We define

$$[u,v]_2=_2(u)_1(v)_1(u)_2(v)+b(u_1(v)_1(u)v,u_2v=u_2(v)+buv$$
$`(5.21)`$
for $`u,v𝒜`$.

Then $`(𝒜,[,]_2,_2)`$ forms a Gel’fand-Dorfman bialgebra by Theorem 3.5. On $`R_𝒜`$, the structure map (5.10) is determined by

$`Y_2^+(u_{\alpha ,i},z)u_{\beta ,j}`$ $`=`$ $`[(\alpha _1(\beta _2+b)(\alpha _2+b)\beta _1))u_{\alpha +\beta ,i+j}+(i(\beta _2+b)j(\alpha _2+b))u_{\alpha +\beta ,i+j1}`$
$`+(\beta _2+b)u_{\alpha +\beta ,i+j}]z^1+(\alpha _2+\beta _2+2b)u_{\alpha +\beta ,i+j}z^2.(5.22)`$
for $`\alpha =(\alpha _1,\alpha _2),\beta =(\beta _1,\beta _2)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`i,jJ`$. When $`\alpha _2=2b\beta _2`$, (5.22) becomes

$$Y_2^+(u_{\alpha ,i},z)u_{\beta ,j}=(\beta _2+b)[(\alpha _1+\beta _1+)u_{\alpha +\beta ,i+j}+(i+j)u_{\alpha +\beta ,i+j1}]z^1.$$
$`(5.23)`$
Set

$$R_2=\underset{\alpha =(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)\mathrm{\Gamma },\alpha _22b}{}𝔽[]u_{\alpha ,i}+\underset{\beta =(\beta _1,2b)\mathrm{\Gamma },jJ}{}𝔽[][(\beta _1+)u_{\beta ,j}+ju_{\beta ,j1}].$$
$`(5.24)`$
Then $`R_2`$ forms a subalgebra of $`(R_𝒜,,Y_2^+(,z))`$ by (5.23), that is,

$$R_2R_2,Y_2^+(u,z)vR_2[z^1]\text{for}u,vR_2.$$
$`(5.25)`$
Theorem 5.3 (Xu, \[X7\]). The conformal algebra $`(R_2,,Y_2^+(u,z))`$ is a simple cubic conformal algebra if $`b=0`$ and is a simple quartic conformal algebra if $`b0`$.

References

L. Ausland, Simple transitive groups of affine motions, Amer. J. Math. 99 (1977), 809-826.

A. A. Balinskii and S. P. Novikov, Poisson brackets of hydrodynamic type, Frobenius algebras and Lie algebras, Soviet Math. Dokl. Vol. 32 (1985), No. 1, 228-231.

R. Block, On torsion-free abelian groups and Lie algebras, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 9 (1958), 613-620.

V. T. Filipov, A class of simple nonassociative algebras, Mat. Zametki 45 (1989), 101-105.

D. Fried and W. Goldman, Three dimensional affine crystallographic groups, Adv. Math. 47 (1983), 1-49.

I. M. Gel’fand and L. A. Dikii, Asymptotic behaviour of the resolvent of Sturm-Liouville equations and the algebra of the Korteweg-de Vries equations, Russian Math. Surveys 30:5 (1975), 77-113.

I. M. Gel’fand and I. Ya. Dorfman, Hamiltonian operators and algebraic structures related to them, Funkts. Anal. Prilozhen 13 (1979), 13-30.

V. G. Kac, Vertex algebras for beginners, University lectures series, Vol 10, AMS. Providence RI, 1996.

J. Marshall Osborn, Novikov algebras, Nova J. Algebra & Geom. 1 (1992), 1-14.

—, Simple Novikov algebras with an idempotent, Commun. Algebra 20 (1992), No. 9, 2729-2753.

—, Infinite dimensional Novikov algebras of characteristic 0, J. Algebra 167 (1994), 146-167.

—, Modules for Novikov algebras, Proceeding of the II International Congress on Algebra, Barnaul, 1991.

—, Modules for Novikov algebras of characteristic 0, Commun. Algebra 23 (1995), 3627-3640.

J. Marshall Osborn and E. Zel’manov, Nonassociative algebras related to Hamiltonian operators in the formal calculus of variations, J. Pure. Appl. Algebra 101 (1995), 335-352.

X. Xu, On simple Novikov algebras and their irreducible modules, J. Algebra 185 (1996), 905-934.

—, Novikov-Poisson algebras, J. Algebra 190 (1997), 253-279.

—, Variational calculus of supervariables and related algebraic structures, J. Algebra 223 (2000), 396-437.

—, Quadratic conformal superalgebras, J. Algebra 231 (2000), 1-38.

—, Equivalence of conformal superalgebras to Hamiltonian superoperators, to appear in Algebra Colloquium 8 (2001), 63-92.

—, On classification of simple Novikov algebras and their irreducible modules over a field with characteristic 0, ArXiv:Math.QA/0008072, 2000.

—, Algebraic Theory of Hamiltonian Superoperators, a monograph, initial preprint.

E. I. Zel’manov, On a class of local translation invariant Lie algebras, Soviet Math. Dokl. Vol 35 (1987), No. 1, 216-218.

Department of Mathematics, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, center, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong