text:
# Functoriality and Morita equivalence of operator algebras and Poisson manifolds associated to groupoidsDedicated to Dai Evans at his 50th birthday. The results in this paper were first presented in Cardiff on 10-10-2000.

## 1 Introduction

Kontsevich has introduced the idea of the “three worlds”, viz. commutative, Lie, and associative algebras, relating these worlds to each other and to “formal” noncommutative geometry . In the context of noncommutative geometry in the sense of Connes , and in particular of its relationship with quantum theory and quantization, three other worlds are relevant, namely von Neumann algebras, $`C^{}`$-algebras, and Poisson manifolds. Groupoids provide access to each of these.

Firstly, measured groupoids $`G`$  define von Neumann algebras $`W^{}(G)`$ in standard form . Secondly, Lie groupoids $`G`$  canonically define $`C^{}`$-algebras $`C^{}(G)`$ . Thirdly, one may canonically associate a Poisson manifold $`A^{}(G)`$ with a Lie groupoid $`G`$ .

For the most basic examples of these associations, first note that a set $`S`$ defines two entirely different groupoids. The first has $`S`$ as the total space $`G_1`$, and also as the base space $`G_0`$ of $`G`$. If $`S`$ is an analytic measure space $`(X,\mu )`$, this leads to $`W^{}(X)L^{\mathrm{}}(X,\mu )`$, and if $`S`$ is a manifold $`M`$ one obtains $`C^{}(M)C_0(M)`$, and $`A^{}(M)M`$ with zero Poisson bracket. The second is the pair groupoid of $`S`$, with $`G_1=S\times S`$ and $`G_0=S`$. In that case one has $`W^{}(X\times X)𝔅(L^2(X,\mu ))`$, $`C^{}(M\times M)𝔎(L^2(M))`$, and $`A^{}(M\times M)T^{}(M)`$.

If the groupoid is a group, one recovers the usual von Neumann algebra and $`C^{}`$-algebra defined by a locally compact group. The Poisson manifold defined by a Lie group is just the dual of the Lie algebra, equipped with the Lie–Poisson structure. Group actions define the associated action groupoids , which in turn reproduce the group measure space construction of Murray and von Neumann, the notion of a transformation group $`C^{}`$-algebra, and the class of semidirect Poisson structures, respectively (for the latter cf. ). For example, in the ergodic case all hyperfinite factors arise in this way.

Finally, the von Neumann algebras and $`C^{}`$-algebras defined by foliations  may be seen as special cases of the above constructions as well, where $`G`$ is the holonomy groupoid of a smooth foliation. This class of examples formed a major motivation for the development of noncommutative geometry.

For fixed $`G`$, there are certain relationships between these constructions. Under appropriate technical conditions, both measured and Lie groupoids may be seen as special instances of locally compact groupoids with Haar system ; see  and , respectively. The von Neumann algebra $`W^{}(G)`$ is then simply the weak closure of $`C^{}(G)`$ in its regular representation. The connection between $`A^{}(G)`$ and $`C^{}(G)`$ is deeper: $`C^{}(G)`$ is a strict deformation quantization of $`A^{}(G)`$. This means, among other things, that there exists a continuous field of $`C^{}`$-algebras over $`[0,1]`$, whose fiber above 0 is the commutative $`C^{}`$-algebra $`C_0(A^{}(G))`$, all other fibers being $`C^{}(G)`$. The $`C^{}`$-algebra of continuous cross-sections of this continuous field turns out to be the $`C^{}`$-algebra of the normal groupoid  defined by the embedding $`G_0G_1`$ of the unit space of $`G`$ into its total space (Connes’s tangent groupoid  corresponds to the special case of a pair groupoid $`G=M\times M`$).

In the present paper, we examine and compare the properties of the associations $`GW^{}(G)`$, $`GC^{}(G)`$ and $`GA^{}(G)`$ as a function of $`G`$. Our main result is that each of these maps is functorial, though not with respect to the obvious arrows defining the pertinent categories. The categories that are involved have the desirable property that isomorphism of objects is the same as Morita equivalence (as previously defined by Rieffel for von Neumann algebras and $`C^{}`$-algebras  and by Xu for Poisson manifolds ), so that functoriality implies that Morita equivalence is preserved.

Often involving different terminology, for von Neumann algebras many special cases of the latter property have been known for some time, starting with Mackey’s ergodic imprimitivity theorem , and including results in . For $`C^{}`$-algebras and Poisson manifolds the preservation of Morita equivalence was already known in full generality; see  and , respectively. Special cases of our functoriality results include also . We surmise that the computations in , taking place in the category KK of separable $`C^{}`$-algebras as objects and KK-groups as arrows, can be generalized to arbitrary Lie groupoids; they should then be related to our results as well.

The plan of this paper is as follows. In section 2 we deal with measured groupoids and von Neumann algebras, in section 3 we treat Lie groupoids and $`C^{}`$-algebras, and in section 4 we end with Lie groupoids and Poisson manifolds. Our main results are Theorems 2.1, 3.1, and 4.1.

The reader will notice that the category of measured groupoids and the category of Lie groupoids are defined in an apparently totally different way. The fact that these categories are actually closely related is explained in , to which we refer in general for motivation and for more details about the categories we use here. This includes the proof that, as already mentioned, in each case recognized notions of Morita equivalence turn out to coincide with isomorphism of objects in the pertinent category.

Notation We use the notation

$$A\times _B^{f,g}C=\{(a,c)A\times Cf(a)=g(c)\}$$

for the fiber product of sets $`A`$ and $`C`$ with respect to maps $`f:AB`$ and $`g:CB`$. The total space of a groupoid $`G`$ is denoted by $`G_1`$, and its base space by $`G_0`$. The source and target projections are called $`s:G_1G_0`$ and $`t:G_1G_0`$, and multiplication is a map $`m:G_2G_1`$, with $`G_2=G_1\times _{G_0}^{s,t}G_1`$. The inversion is denoted by $`I:G_1G_1`$. A functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }:GH`$ decomposes into $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i:G_iH_i`$, $`i=1,2`$, subject to the usual axioms.

## 2 Functoriality of $`GW^{}(G)`$

### 2.1 The category MG of measured groupoids and functors

The concept of a measured groupoid emerged from the work of Mackey on ergodic theory and group representations . For the technical development of this concept see . A different approach was initiated by Connes . The connection between measured groupoids and locally compact groupoids is laid out in .

###### Definition 2.1

A Borel groupoid is a groupoid $`G`$ for which $`G_1`$ is an analytic Borel space, $`I`$ is a Borel map, $`G_2G_1\times G_1`$ is a Borel subset, and multiplication $`m`$ is a Borel map. It follows that $`G_0`$ is a Borel set in $`G_1`$, and that $`s`$ and $`t`$ are Borel maps.

A left Haar system on a Borel groupoid is a family of measures $`\{\nu ^u\}_{uG_0}`$, where $`\nu ^u`$ is supported on the $`t`$-fiber $`G^u=t^1(u)`$, which is left-invariant in that

$$𝑑\nu ^{s(x)}(y)f(xy)=𝑑\nu ^{t(x)}(y)f(y)$$
(2.1)
for all $`xG_1`$ and all positive Borel functions $`f`$ on $`G_1`$ for which both sides are finite.

A measured groupoid is a Borel groupoid equipped with a Haar system as well as a Borel measure $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ on $`G_0`$ with the property that the measure class of the measure $`\nu `$ on $`G_1`$, defined by

$$\nu =_{G_0}𝑑\stackrel{~}{\nu }(u)\nu ^u,$$
(2.2)
is invariant under $`I`$ (in other words, $`\nu ^1=I(\nu )\nu `$).

Recall that the push-forward of a measure under a Borel map is given by $`t(\nu )(E)=\nu (t^1(E))`$ for Borel sets $`EG_0`$.

This definition turns out to be best suited for categorical considerations. It differs from the one in , which is stated in terms of measure classes. However, the measure class of $`\nu `$ defines a measured groupoid in the sense of , and, conversely, the latter is also a measured groupoid according to Definition 2.1 provided one removes a suitable null set from $`G_0`$, as well as the corresponding arrows in $`G_1`$; cf. Thm. 3.7 in . Similarly, Definition 2.1 leads to a locally compact groupoid with Haar system  after removal of such a set; see Thm. 4.1 in . A measured groupoid according to Connes  satisfies Definition 2.1 as well, with $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ constructed from the Haar system and a transverse measure . See all these references for extensive information and examples.

The fact that a specific choice of a measure in its class is made in Definition 2.1 is balanced by the concept of a measured functor between measured groupoids, which is entirely concerned with measure classes rather than individual measures. Moreover, one merely uses the measure class of $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$.

The measure $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ on $`G_0`$ induces a measure $`\widehat{\nu }`$ on $`G_0/G`$, as the push-forward of $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ under the canonical projection. Similarly for a measured groupoid $`H`$, for whose measures we will use the symbol $`\lambda `$ instead of $`\nu `$. We say that a functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is Borel if both $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ are. If so, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ induces a Borel map $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0:G_0/GH_0/H`$ in the obvious way.

###### Definition 2.2

A measured functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }:GH`$ between two measured groupoids is a Borel map that is algebraically a functor and satisfies $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0(\widehat{\nu })\widehat{\lambda }`$.

What we here call a measured functor is called a strict homomorphism in , and a homomorphism in . Also, note that in  various more liberal definitions are used (in that one does not impose that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a functor algebraically at all points), but it is shown in  that if one passes to natural isomorphism classes, this greater liberty gains little.

###### Definition 2.3

The category MG has measured groupoids as objects, and isomorphism classes of measured functors as arrows. (Here a natural transformation $`\nu :G_0H_1`$ between Borel functors from $`G`$ to $`H`$ is required to be a Borel map.) Composition is defined by $`[\mathrm{\Psi }][\mathrm{\Phi }]=[\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }]`$, and the unit arrow at a groupoid $`G`$ is $`1_G=[\text{id}_G]`$, where $`\text{id}_G:GG`$ is the identity functor.

### 2.2 The category W$`^{}`$ of von Neumann algebras and correspondences

Let $`𝔐,𝔑`$ be von Neumann algebras. Recall that an $`𝔐`$-$`𝔑`$ correspondence $`𝔐𝔑`$ is given by a Hilbert space $``$ carrying commuting normal unital representations of $`𝔐`$ and $`𝔑^{\text{op}}`$. See . The notion of isomorphism of correspondences is the obvious one: one requires a unitary isomorphism between the Hilbert spaces in question that intertwines the left and right actions.

Given two matched correspondences $`𝔐𝔑`$ and $`𝔑𝒦𝔓`$, one may define an $`𝔐`$-$`𝔓`$ correspondence $`𝔐_𝔑𝒦𝔓`$, called the relative tensor product or “Connes fusion” of the given correspondences. This constructions is a von Neumann algebraic version of the bimodule tensor product in pure algebra. Various definitions exist , which coincide up to isomorphism. This composition is associative up to isomorphism. A standard representation of a von Neumann algebra $`𝔐`$ on $`=L^2(𝔐)`$, unique up to unitary equivalence, is best seen as an $`𝔐`$-$`𝔐`$ correspondence with special properties. One of these is that $`L^2(𝔐)`$ acts as a two-sided unit for $`_𝔐`$, again merely up to isomorphism.

###### Definition 2.4

The category W$`^{}`$ has von Neumann algebras as objects, and isomorphism classes of correspondences as arrows, composed by the relative tensor product, for which the standard forms $`L^2(𝔐)`$ are units.

To detail, we here regard an isomorphism class $`[𝔐𝔑]`$ as an arrow from $`𝔐`$ to $`𝔑`$, so that the composition is

$$[𝔑𝒦𝔓][𝔐𝔑]=[𝔐_𝔑𝒦𝔓].$$

Using results in , it is easily seen that two von Neumann algebras are Morita equivalent iff they are isomorphic in W$`^{}`$ , and this is true iff there is a correspondence in which the commutant of one is isomorphic to the opposite algebra of the other, or iff they are stably isomorphic.

### 2.3 The map $`GW^{}(G)`$ as a functor

It is well known that a measured groupoid defines a von Neumann algebra in standard form . In this section, we extend the map $`GW^{}(G)`$ to a map from MG to W$`^{}`$, and establish its functoriality. The precise classes of Borel function $`f,g`$ on $`G_1`$ for which the formulae below are well defined are spelled out in the above papers; for example, one may assume that $`f,gII(G_1)`$ as defined in .

Let $`G`$ be a measured groupoid (cf. Definition 2.1). Convolution on $`G`$ is defined by

$$fg(x)=_{G_1}𝑑\nu ^{s(x)}(y)f(xy)g(y^1),$$
(2.3)
and involution is

$$f^{}(x)=\overline{f(x^1)}.$$
(2.4)
We here use the conventions in ; many authors include the modular homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Delta }:G_1_+`$ in (2.4), defined by $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)=d\nu (x)/d\nu ^1(x)`$. We write $`L^2(G)`$ for $`L^2(G_1,\nu )`$. For $`\psi L^2(G)`$ the formulae

$`\pi _L(f)\psi `$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}f)\psi ;`$ (2.5)
$`\pi _R(f)\psi `$ $`=`$ $`\psi f`$ (2.6)
define the left and right regular representations of $`II(G_1)`$; one then has $`W^{}(G)=\pi _L(II(G_1))^{\prime \prime }`$, which is in standard from with respect to $`J:L^2(G)L^2(G)`$ defined by

$$J\psi (x)=\mathrm{\Delta }(x)^{1/2}\psi ^{}(x).$$
(2.7)
One then has $`JW^{}(G)J=W(G)^{}=\pi _R(II(G_1))^{\prime \prime }`$.

We have now defined the alleged functor $`GW^{}(G)`$ on objects. To define it on arrows, let $`H`$ be a second measured groupoid $`H`$ (with Haar system $`\lambda `$), and let $`\mathrm{\Phi }:GH`$ be a measured functor (cf. Definition 2.2). Define a Hilbert space

$$L^2(\mathrm{\Phi })=L^2(G_0\times _{H_0}^{\mathrm{\Phi }_0,t}H_1,_{G_0}𝑑\stackrel{~}{\nu }(u)\lambda ^{\mathrm{\Phi }_0(u)}).$$
(2.8)
Compare (2.2). Also, define $`\pi _\lambda :II(G_1)𝔅(L^2(\mathrm{\Phi }))`$ and $`\pi _\rho :II(H_1)𝔅(L^2(\mathrm{\Phi }))`$ by

$`\pi _\lambda (f)\phi (u,h)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{G_1}}𝑑\nu ^u(y)\mathrm{\Delta }(y)^{1/2}f(y)\phi (s(y),\mathrm{\Phi }_1(y^1)h);`$ (2.9)
$`\pi _\rho (g)\phi (u,h)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{H_1}}𝑑\lambda ^{s(h)}(l)g(l^1)\phi (u,hl).`$ (2.10)
These expressions extend to $`fW^{}(G)`$ and $`gW^{}(H)`$ by continuity, and it is easily seen that one thus defines a correspondence $`W^{}(G)L^2(\mathrm{\Phi })W^{}(H)`$.

###### Theorem 2.1

The map $`W^{}:\text{MG}\text{W}^{}`$, defined on objects by $`W_0^{}(G)=W^{}(G)`$ as above, and on arrows (i.e., natural isomorphism classes of measured functors $`\mathrm{\Phi }:GH`$) by

$$W_1^{}([\mathrm{\Phi }])=[W^{}(G)L^2(\mathrm{\Phi })W^{}(H)],$$

is a functor.

Proof. For $`H=G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\text{id}`$ one easily sees that $`L^2(\text{id})L^2(G)`$, $`\pi _\lambda \pi _L`$, and $`\pi _\rho \pi _R`$ (the $``$ here standing for unitary equivalence). Hence one obtains the standard form

$$W_1^{}(\text{id})=[W^{}(G)L^2(G)W^{}(G)].$$

Since the unit arrows in W$`^{}`$ are precisely the standard forms, this shows that $`W^{}`$ maps units into units.

We now need to show that, for a third measured groupoid $`K`$ and a measured functor $`\mathrm{\Psi }:HK`$, one has

$`W^{}(G)L^2(\mathrm{\Phi })_{W^{}(H)}L^2(\mathrm{\Psi })W^{}(K)`$ (2.11)
$`W^{}(G)L^2(\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi })W^{}(K).`$ (2.12)
Since $`W^{}(H)L^2(H)`$ is in standard form, one can easily compute the relative tensor product by applying the general prescriptions in  to the case at hand. We use the notation in  and . Thus $`𝔄_IL^2(H)`$ is the left Hilbert algebra associated to the above standard form. This defines a normal semi-finite faithful weight $`\lambda `$ on $`W^{}(H)`$ by $`\lambda (f^{}f)=f_{L^2(H)}^2`$ for $`f𝔄_I`$, and $`\lambda (f^{}f)=\mathrm{}`$ otherwise. The space of $`\lambda `$-bounded vectors in $`L^2(\mathrm{\Psi })`$ is called $`D(L^2(\mathrm{\Psi }),\lambda )`$. One defines a sesquilinear form on $`L^2(\mathrm{\Phi })D(L^2(\mathrm{\Psi }),\lambda )`$ (algebraic tensor product over $``$) by sesquilinear extension of

$$(\phi _1\psi _1,\phi _2\psi _2)_0=(\phi _1,\pi _\rho (\psi _1,\psi _2_\lambda )\phi _2)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Phi })},$$
(2.13)
where $`\psi _1,\psi _2_\lambda W^{}(H)`$ in fact lies in $`𝔄_I`$, and may be determined by its property

$$(f,\psi _1,\psi _2_\lambda )_{L^2(H)}=(\psi _1,\pi _\lambda (Jf)\psi _2)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Psi })},$$
(2.14)
where $`f𝔄_I`$ is arbitrary. The form $`(,)_0`$ is positive semidefinite, and the completion of the quotient of $`L^2(\mathrm{\Phi })D(L^2(\mathrm{\Psi }),\lambda )`$ by the null space of $`(,)_0`$ in the induced norm is the Hilbert space $`L^2(\mathrm{\Phi })_{W^{}(H)}L^2(\mathrm{\Psi })`$. The actions of $`W^{}(G)`$ and $`W^{}(K)`$ on $`L^2(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ and $`D(L^2(\mathrm{\Psi }),\lambda )L^2(\mathrm{\Psi })`$ (which is stable under $`W^{}(K)`$), respectively, induce actions on $`L^2(\mathrm{\Phi })_{W^{}(H)}L^2(\mathrm{\Psi })`$, defining this Hilbert space as a $`W^{}(G)`$-$`W^{}(K)`$ correspondence.

Denoting the Haar system on $`K`$ by $`\rho `$, from (2.14) one easily finds

$$\psi _1,\psi _2_\lambda (h)=_{K_1}𝑑\rho ^{\mathrm{\Psi }_0(s(h))}(k)\overline{\psi _1(s(h),k)}\psi _2(t(h),\mathrm{\Psi }_1(h)k),$$
(2.15)
from which the form (2.13) may explicitly be computed. Now define

$$\stackrel{~}{U}:L^2(\mathrm{\Phi })D(L^2(\mathrm{\Psi }),\lambda )L^2(\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi })$$

by linear extension of

$$\stackrel{~}{U}(\phi \psi ):(u,k)_{H_1}𝑑\lambda ^{\mathrm{\Phi }_0(u)}(h)\phi (u,h)\psi (s(h),\mathrm{\Psi }_1(h^1)k).$$
(2.16)
Using (2.15) and (2.13), one finds that

$$(\stackrel{~}{U}(\phi _1\psi _1),\stackrel{~}{U}(\phi _2\psi _2))_{L^2(\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi })}=(\phi _1\psi _1,\phi _2\psi _2)_0.$$
(2.17)
Hence $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ descends to an isometric map $`U:L^2(\mathrm{\Phi })_{W^{}(H)}L^2(\mathrm{\Psi })L^2(\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi })`$. Using the fact that the underlying measure spaces are analytic, it is easily shown that the range of $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ is dense, so that $`U`$ is unitary. A simple computation finally shows that $`U`$ intertwines the pertinent actions of $`W^{}(G)`$ and $`W^{}(K)`$. This proves (2.12).

$`\mathrm{}`$

Since Morita equivalence for measured groupoids is isomorphism in MG, and Morita equivalence of von Neumann algebras is isomorphism in W$`^{}`$, it follows that the map $`GW^{}(G)`$ preserves Morita equivalence.

## 3 Functoriality of $`GC^{}(G)`$

### 3.1 The category LG of Lie groupoids and principal bibundles

Lie groupoids  play a central role in differential geometry, once one starts looking for them. This applies, in particular, to foliation theory . In addition, many physical systems can be modeled by Lie groupoids .

###### Definition 3.1

A Lie groupoid is a groupoid for which $`G_1`$ and $`G_0`$ are manifolds, $`s`$ and $`t`$ are surjective submersions, and $`m`$ and $`I`$ are smooth.

It follows that object inclusion is an immersion, that $`I`$ is a diffeomorphism, that $`G_2`$ is a closed submanifold of $`G_1\times G_1`$, and that for each $`qG_0`$ the fibers $`s^1(q)`$ and $`t^1(q)`$ are submanifolds of $`G_1`$. In this paper we include Hausdorffness in the definition of a manifold for simplicity, though the total space $`G_1`$ of the holonomy groupoid of a foliation usually fails to satisfy this condition. With more technical machinery, our results should extend to that case also.

The category LG, and the key concept of a principal bibundle occurring in its definition, arose in the work of Moerdijk , originally in the context of topos theory. Similar structures independently emerged in foliation theory . The connection between these two points of entry was made by Mrčun , from which the following definitions are taken. For the basic underlying notion of a Lie groupoid action cf. .

###### Definition 3.2

A $`G`$-$`H`$ bibundle is a manifold $`M`$ equipped with smooth maps $`M\stackrel{\tau }{}G_0`$ and $`M\stackrel{\sigma }{}H_0`$, a left $`G`$-action $`(x,m)xm`$ from $`G\times _{G_0}^{s,\tau }M`$ to $`M`$, and a right $`H`$ action $`(m,h)mh`$ from $`M\times _{H_0}^{t,\tau }H`$ to $`M`$, such that $`\tau (mh)=\tau (m)`$, $`\sigma (xm)=\sigma (m)`$, and $`(xm)h=x(mh)`$ for all $`(m,h)M\times H`$ and $`(x,m)G\times M`$. We write $`GMH`$.

Such a bibundle is called left principal when $`\sigma `$ is a surjective submersion, the $`G`$ action is free (in that $`xm=m`$ iff $`xG_0`$) and transitive along the fibers of $`\sigma `$. Equivalently, the map from $`G_1\times _{G_0}^{s,\tau }MM\times _{H_0}M`$ given by $`(x,m)(xm,m)`$ is a diffeomorphism.

A $`G`$-$`H`$ bibundle $`M`$ is called regular when it is left principal and the right $`H`$ action is proper (in that the map $`(m,h)(m,mh)`$ from $`M\times _{H_0}H`$ to $`M\times M`$ is proper).

Two $`G`$-$`H`$ bibundles $`M,N`$ are called isomorphic if there is a diffeomorphism $`MN`$ that intertwines the maps $`MG_0`$, $`MH_0`$ with the maps $`NG_0`$, $`NH_0`$, and in addition intertwines the $`G`$ and $`H`$ actions (the latter condition is well defined because of the former).

Note that the $`G`$ action in a left principal $`G`$-$`H`$ bibundle is automatically proper. In the topos literature a left principal bibundle is seen as a generalized map from $`H`$ to $`G`$, whereas in the foliation literature it is regarded as the graph of a map between the leaf spaces of the foliations defining $`G`$ and $`H`$.

Now suppose one has left principal bibundles $`GMH`$ and $`HNK`$. The fiber product $`M\times _{H_0}N`$ carries a right $`H`$ action, given by $`h:(m,n)(mh,h^1n)`$ (defined as appropriate). We denote the the orbit space by

$$M_HN=(M\times _HN)/H.$$
(3.1)
This is a manifold, and, indeed, a $`G`$-$`K`$ bibundle under the obvious maps. The “tensor product” $``$ is well defined on isomorphism classes. The canonical $`G`$-$`G`$ bibundle $`G`$, defined by putting $`M=H=G`$, $`\tau =t`$, and $`\sigma =s`$ in the above definitions, with left and right actions given by multiplication in the groupoid, is a left and a right unit for the bibundle tensor product (3.1), up to isomorphism.

###### Definition 3.3

The category LG has Lie groupoids as objects and isomorphism classes of regular (i.e., left principal and right proper) bibundles as arrows. The arrows are composed by (3.1), descending to isomorphism classes. The units $`1_G`$ in G are the isomorphism classes $`[GGG]`$ of the canonical bibundles.

A number of definitions of Morita equivalence of Lie groupoids have appeared in the literature ; it can be shown that these are all equivalent, and that two Lie groupoids are Morita equivalent iff they are isomorphic objects in LG .

### 3.2 The category C$`^{}`$ of $`C^{}`$-algebras and Hilbert bibundles

The definition of C$`^{}`$ is based on the concept of an $`𝔄`$-$`𝔅`$ Hilbert bimodule, which is what Rieffel  called an Hermitian $`𝔅`$-rigged $`𝔄`$-module, with strict continuity of the $`𝔄`$ action added. Thus an $`𝔄`$-$`𝔅`$ Hilbert bimodule is a Hilbert $`C^{}`$ module $``$ over $`𝔅`$, along with a nondegenerate $`^{}`$-homomorphism of $`𝔄`$ into $`_𝔅()`$. We write $`𝔄𝔅`$. Two $`𝔄`$-$`𝔅`$ Hilbert bimodules $`,`$ are called isomorphic when there is a unitary $`U_𝔅(,)`$; cf. , p. 24.

The canonical bimodule $`1_𝔅`$ over a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝔅`$ is defined by $`A,B_𝔅=A^{}B`$, and the left and right actions are given by left and right multiplication, respectively. Rieffel’s interior tensor product  maps an $`𝔄`$-$`𝔅`$ Hilbert bimodule $``$ and a $`𝔅`$-$``$ Hilbert bimodule $``$ into an $`𝔄`$-$``$ Hilbert bimodule $`\widehat{}_𝔅`$. This operation is well defined on unitary isomorphism classes, and $`1_𝔅`$ acts as a two-sided unit for $`\widehat{}_𝔅`$, up to isomorphism.

###### Definition 3.4

The category C$`^{}`$ has $`C^{}`$-algebras as objects, and isomorphism classes of Hilbert bimodules as arrows. The arrows are composed by Rieffel’s interior tensor product, for which the canonical Hilbert bimodules $`1_𝔄`$ are units.

This category was introduced independently in , and, in the guise of a bicategory (where the arrows are Hilbert bimodules rather than isomorphism classes thereof), in . It was shown in  that two $`C^{}`$-algebras are Morita equivalent as defined by Rieffel  iff they are isomorphic as objects in C$`^{}`$; also see  for a detailed proof. The nondegeneracy condition in the definition of the arrows in C$`^{}`$ is essential for this result.

It should be noted that Thm. 2.2 in  implies that the category W$`^{}`$ of Definition 2.4 is isomorphic to the subcategory of C$`^{}`$ consisting of von Neumann algebras as objects and normal selfdual Hilbert bimodules as arrows.

### 3.3 The map $`GW^{}(G)`$ as a functor

We will now prove that the map $`GC^{}(G)`$ mentioned in the Introduction may be extended so as to associate Hilbert bimodules to regular bibundles, thus defining a functor from LG to C$`^{}`$. Although it should be possible to use the geometric definition of $`C^{}(G)`$ in terms of half-densities , as in our previous direct proof that $`GC^{}(G)`$ preserves Morita equivalence , we find it much easier to regard a Lie groupoid as a locally compact groupoid with smooth Haar system (cf. the Introduction).

Specifically, a Lie groupoid $`G`$ has a left Haar system $`\{\nu ^q\}_{qG_0}`$ such that $`\nu ^q`$ is supported on $`t^1(q)`$ and is equivalent to Lebesgue measure in each coordinate chart (recall that $`t^1(q)`$ is a submanifold of $`G_1`$). Furthermore, for each $`fC_c^{\mathrm{}}(G_1)`$ the function $`q𝑑\nu ^q(x)f(x)`$ on $`G_0`$ is smooth. This endows $`C_c^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$ with the structure of a $`^{}`$-algebra under the operations (2.3) and (2.4). The groupoid $`C^{}`$-algebra $`C^{}(G)`$ is a suitable completion of the $`^{}`$-algebra $`C_c^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$; see  for the analogous case of $`C_c(G)`$, or  for the smooth case.

We have now defined the map $`GC^{}(G)`$ on objects. To define it on arrows, let $`GMH`$ be a regular bibundle (cf. Definition 3.2 for the notation that will be used throughout this chapter). A key fact is that a Haar system on $`G`$ defines a family of measures $`\{\mu ^r\}_{rH_0}`$ on $`M`$, where $`\mu ^r`$ is supported on $`\sigma ^1(r)`$, on which it is equivalent to Lebesgue measure in each coordinate chart. Moreover, for each $`fC_c^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ the function $`r𝑑\mu ^r(m)f(m)`$ on $`H_0`$ is smooth, and the family is $`H`$-equivariant (in the sense of ) with respect to $`\sigma `$, the given $`H`$ action on $`M`$, and the natural right $`H`$ action on $`H_0`$. This means that for each $`fC_c^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ one has

$$𝑑\mu ^{t(h)}(m)f(mh)=𝑑\mu ^{s(h)}(m)f(m).$$
(3.2)
Namely, for fixed $`rH_0`$ this system is defined by choosing $`m_0\sigma ^1(r)`$, and putting

$$𝑑\mu ^r(m)f(m)=𝑑\nu ^{\tau (m_0)}(x)f(x^1m_0).$$
(3.3)
Using (2.1), one verifies that this is independent of the choice of $`m_0`$ (despite the fact that $`\tau (m_0)`$ is not constant on $`\sigma ^1(r)`$). This definition is evidently possible because in a regular bibundle the $`G`$ action is principal over $`\sigma `$.

The following lemma is similar to Thm. 2.8 in , and also appeared in  for the locally compact case (this paper was drawn to our attention after the circulation of an earlier draft of this paper as an e-print); our assumptions are weaker, since we do not have an equivalence bibundle but merely a regular one. However, what is really used in  is precisely our regularity properties.

###### Lemma 3.1

Let $`GMH`$ be a regular bibundle. The formulae

$`\phi ,\psi `$ $`:`$ $`h{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu ^{t(h)}\overline{\phi (m)}\psi (mh)};`$ (3.4)
$`f\phi `$ $`:`$ $`m{\displaystyle 𝑑\nu ^{\tau (m)}(x)f(x)\phi (x^1m)};`$ (3.5)
$`\phi g`$ $`:`$ $`m{\displaystyle 𝑑\lambda ^{\sigma (m)}g(h^1)\phi (mh)},`$ (3.6)
where $`\phi ,\psi C_c^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$, $`fC_c^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$, and $`gC_c^{\mathrm{}}(H)`$, define functions in $`C_c^{\mathrm{}}(H)`$, $`C_c^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$, and $`C_c^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$, respectively. This equips $`C_c^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ with the structure of a pre Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module over $`C_c^{\mathrm{}}(H)`$ (seen as a dense subalgebra of $`C^{}(H)`$), on which $`C_c^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$ (seen as a dense subalgebra of $`C^{}(G)`$) acts nondegenerately by adjointable operators. This structure may be completed to a $`C^{}(G)`$-$`C^{}(H)`$ Hilbert bimodule, which we call $`(M)`$.

Proof It should now be obvious why the right $`H`$ action on a regular bibundle has to be proper, since this guarantees $`C_c^{\mathrm{}}(H)`$-valuedness of the inner product (otherwise, one could land in $`C^{\mathrm{}}(H)`$).

The necessary algebraic properties may be checked by elementary computations. The property $`\phi ,\psi ^{}=\psi ,\phi `$ follows from (3.2), the property $`\phi ,\psi g=\phi ,\psi g`$ is an identity, the properties $`\phi ,f\psi =f^{}\phi ,\psi `$ and $`(f_1f_2)\phi =f_1(f_2\phi )`$ require (3.3) and (2.1), and finally $`\phi (g_1g_2)=(\phi g_1)g_2`$ follows from (2.1) for $`\lambda `$.

The proof of positivity of $`,`$ is the same as in ; it follows from Prop. 2.10 in  and the argument of P. Green (Remark following Lemma 2 in ). This also proves the nondegeneracy of the action of $`C_c^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$ (and hence of the ensuing action of $`C^{}(G)`$).

We cannot use the entire argument in  to the effect that everything can be completed, since in  one has a $`C_c^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$-valued inner product as well. However, it is quite trivial to proceed, since by the above results $`C_c^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ is a pre Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module over $`C_c^{\mathrm{}}(H)`$, which can be completed to a Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module $`(M)`$ over $`C^{}(H)`$ in the standard way (cf. Ch. 1 in  or Cor. IV.2.1.4 in ). One then copies the proof in  of the property

$$f\phi ,f\phi f^2\phi ,\phi ,$$
(3.7)
where the norm is in $`C^{}(G)`$, to complete the argument.

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 3.1

The map $`C^{}:\text{LG}\text{C}^{}`$, defined on objects by $`C_0^{}(G)=C^{}(G)`$, and on arrows by

$$C_1^{}([GMH])=[C^{}(G)(M)C^{}(H)],$$

is a functor.

Proof We begin with the unit arrows. We claim that the construction in Lemma 3.1 maps the canonical bibundle $`GGG`$ into the canonical Hilbert bimodule $`C^{}(G)C^{}(G)C^{}(G)`$. It is easy to check from (3.4) - (3.6) that $`\phi ,\psi =\phi ^{}\psi `$, $`f\phi =f\phi `$, and $`\phi g=\phi g`$. These properties pass to the completions by continuity. Hence $`C^{}`$ preserves units.

Now let $`HNK`$ be a second regular bibundle, so that one may form the bibundle tensor product $`M_HN`$ (cf. (3.1)) and its associated $`C^{}(G)`$-$`C^{}(K)`$ Hilbert bimodule $`(M_HN)`$. To compare this with the $`C^{}(G)`$-$`C^{}(K)`$ Hilbert bimodule $`(M)\widehat{}_{C^{}(H)}(N)`$, we define a map $`\stackrel{~}{U}:C_c^{\mathrm{}}(M)_{}C_c^{\mathrm{}}(N)C_c^{\mathrm{}}(M_HN)`$ by

$$\stackrel{~}{U}(\phi _{}\psi ):[m,n]_H𝑑\lambda ^{\sigma (m)}(h)\phi (mh)\psi (h^1n).$$
(3.8)
Note that the right-hand side is well defined on $`[m,n]_H`$ rather than $`(m,n)`$ because of the invariance property (2.1) for $`H`$. This map was introduced by Mrčun  for smooth étale groupoids; we have merely replaced the counting measure by a general Haar system.

We now show that the map $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ leaves the kernel of the canonical projection

$$C_c^{\mathrm{}}(M)_{}C_c^{\mathrm{}}(N)(M)\widehat{}_{C^{}(H)}(N)$$

stable, that $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ has dense range, and that accordingly the corresponding quotient map $`U`$, extended by continuity, defines an isomorphism

$$(M)\widehat{}_{C^{}(H)}(N)(M_HN)$$
(3.9)
as $`C^{}(G)`$-$`C^{}(K)`$ Hilbert bimodules.

A lengthy but straightforward computation shows that

$$\stackrel{~}{U}(\phi _1_{}\psi _1,\stackrel{~}{U}(\phi _2_{}\psi _2)_{C^{}(K)}^{(M_HN)},$$

is equal to

$$\psi _1,\phi _1,\phi _2_{C^{}(H)}^{(M)}\psi _2_{C^{}(K)}^{(N)},$$

which by definition is equal to

$$\phi _1_{C^{}(H)}\psi _1,\phi _2_{C^{}(H)}\psi _2_{C^{}(K)}^{(M)\widehat{}_{C^{}(H)}(N)}.$$

Here $`\phi _{C^{}(H)}\psi `$ is the image of $`\phi _{}\psi `$ in $`(M)\widehat{}_{C^{}(H)}(N)`$. In view of the definitions of the various Hilbert $`C^{}`$-modules over $`C^{}(K)`$ involved, this computation implies that $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ quotients and extends to an isometry $`U`$ from $`(M)\widehat{}_{C^{}(H)}(N)`$ to $`(M_HN)`$.

Moreover, using the fact that $`M`$ and $`N`$ are manifolds, it is easily seen that $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ has a dense range in $`C_c^{\mathrm{}}(M_HN)`$ with respect to the inductive limit topology, so that it certainly has a dense range for the topology induced on $`C_c^{\mathrm{}}(M_HN)`$ by the norm on $`(M_HN)`$ as a Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module over $`C^{}(K)`$ (since the latter topology is finer than the former). Since $`C_c^{\mathrm{}}(M_HN)`$ is itself dense in $`(M_HN)`$ in the latter topology, it follows that $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ has dense range when seen as a map taking values in $`(M_HN)`$. Hence $`U`$ is an isometric isomorphism between $`(M)\widehat{}_{C^{}(H)}(N)`$ and $`(M_HN)`$ as Banach spaces.

Another elementary computation shows that

$$\stackrel{~}{U}(\phi _{}(\psi g))=\stackrel{~}{U}(\phi _{}\psi )g$$
(3.10)
for $`\phi C_c^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$, $`\psi C_c^{\mathrm{}}(N)`$, and $`gC_c^{\mathrm{}}(H)`$. This implies that

$$U(\phi _{C^{}(H)}(\psi g))=U(\phi _{C^{}(H)}\psi )g$$
(3.11)
for all $`\phi (M)`$, $`\psi (N)`$, and $`gC^{}(H)`$. The reason for this is that a continuous $`𝔅_0`$-linear map between two pre Hilbert $`C^{}`$ modules over a dense subalgebra $`𝔅_0`$ of $`𝔅`$ extends to a $`𝔅`$-linear map between the completions; this easily follows from the bound $`\psi BB\psi `$.

We conclude that $`U`$ is a $`C^{}(K)`$-linear isometric isomorphism, and hence by Thm. 3.5 in  it is actually unitary (in particular, it now follows that $`P`$ is adjointable).

Finally, analogously to (3.10) one obtains the equality

$$\stackrel{~}{U}(f(\phi _{}\psi )=f\stackrel{~}{U}(\phi _{}\psi ),$$
(3.12)
where $`fC_c^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$. This time, the passage of this property to the pertinent completions is achieved through (3.7), which leads to the bound $`A\psi A\psi `$ for any adjointable operator on a (pre) Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module. Thus $`U`$ is $`C^{}(G)`$-linear as well. This proves (3.9).

Hence $`C^{}`$ preserves composition of arrows, and Theorem 3.1 follows.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Since Morita equivalence of Lie groupoids is isomorphism in LG, and Morita equivalence of $`C^{}`$-algebras is isomorphism in C$`^{}`$, we recover the known result that the map $`GC^{}(G)`$ preserves Morita equivalence .

## 4 Functoriality of $`GA^{}(G)`$

The category on which the map $`A^{}`$ is going to be defined is as follows.

###### Definition 4.1

The category LGc has s-connected and s-simply connected Lie groupoids as objects, and isomorphism classes of left principal bibundles as arrows. The arrows and units are as in Definition 3.3.

In contrast with Definition 3.3, the class of objects is more restricted; this will be necessary for our functor to preserve units. On the other hand, the bibundles need not be right proper.

### 4.1 The category Poisson of Poisson manifolds and dual pairs

The definition of a suitable category of Poisson manifolds  is based on the theory of symplectic groupoids (cf.  and refs. therein). The objects in Poisson are defined as follows.

###### Definition 4.2

A Poisson manifold $`P`$ is called integrable when there exists an $`s`$-connected and $`s`$-simply connected symplectic groupoid $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$ over $`P`$.

This definition has been adapted from , where no connectedness requirements are made. When it exists, such a symplectic groupoid can be shown to be unique up to isomorphism (see  for Lie groupoids and  for symplectic groupoids). It is easily seen that a Poisson manifold is integrable iff it is Morita equivalent to itself in the sense of Xu .

The arrows in Poisson will be isomorphism classes of certain dual pairs. Given two Poisson manifolds $`P`$ and $`Q`$, a dual pair $`QSP`$ consists of a symplectic manifold $`S`$ and Poisson maps $`q:SQ`$ and $`p:SP^{}`$, such that $`\{q^{}f,p^{}g\}=0`$ for all $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(Q)`$ and $`gC^{\mathrm{}}(P)`$ . In a complete dual pair the maps $`p`$ and $`q`$ are complete; a Poisson map $`J:SP`$ is called complete when, for every $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(P)`$ with complete Hamiltonian flow, the Hamiltonian flow of $`J^{}f`$ on $`S`$ is complete as well (that is, defined for all times). Two $`Q`$-$`P`$ dual pairs $`Q\stackrel{q_i}{}\stackrel{~}{S}_i\stackrel{p_i}{}P`$, $`i=1,2`$, are isomorphic when there is a symplectomorphism $`\phi :\stackrel{~}{S}_1\stackrel{~}{S}_2`$ for which $`q_2\phi =q_1`$ and $`p_2\phi =p_1`$.

Based on results in , it can be shown that for integrable Poisson manifolds $`P`$ and $`Q`$, with associated s-connected and s-simply connected symplectic groupoids $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Q)`$, there is a natural bijective correspondence between complete dual pairs $`QSP`$ and symplectic bibundles $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Q)S\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$. In particular, the canonical symplectic bibundle associated to the dual pair $`P\stackrel{t}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)\stackrel{s}{}P`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$. Accordingly, we say that a dual pair is regular when it is complete and when the associated symplectic bibundle is left principal (it is not necessary to impose properness of the right $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$ action).

Let $`R`$ be a third integrable Poisson manifold, with associated s-connected and s-simply connected symplectic groupoid $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(R)`$, and let $`QS_1P`$ and $`PS_2R`$ be regular dual pairs. The embedding $`S_1\times _PS_2S_1\times S_2`$ is coisotropic ; we denote the corresponding symplectic quotient by $`S_1_PS_2`$. This is the middle space of a regular dual pair $`PS_1_PS_2R`$, which we regard as the tensor product of the given dual pairs. An alternative way of defining this tensor product is to construct the groupoid tensor product $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Q)S_1_{\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)}S_2\mathrm{\Gamma }(R)`$ of the associated symplectic bibundles . Thus we have

$$S_1_PS_2=S_1_{\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)}S_2$$
(4.1)
as symplectic manifolds, as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Q)`$-$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(R)`$ symplectic bibundles, and as $`Q`$-$`R`$ dual pairs. In any case, this tensor product is associative up to isomorphism, and the dual pair $`P\stackrel{t}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)\stackrel{s}{}P`$ is a two-sided unit for $`_P`$, up to isomorphism .

###### Definition 4.3

The category Poisson has integrable Poisson manifolds as objects, and isomorphism classes of regular dual pairs as arrows. The arrows are composed by the tensor product $``$, for which the dual pairs $`P\stackrel{t}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)\stackrel{s}{}P`$ are units.

The original reason for the introduction of this category was not so much the subsequent functoriality theorem, but rather the fact that two Poisson manifolds are Morita equivalent in the sense of Xu  iff they are isomorphic objects in Poisson . Moreover, we now have a classical analogue of the categories W$`^{}`$ and C$`^{}`$.

### 4.2 The map $`GA^{}(G)`$ as a functor

A Lie groupoid $`G`$ defines an associated “infinitesimal” object, its Lie algebroid $`A(G)`$ ; see  for reviews. The main point is that $`A(G)`$ is a vector bundle over $`G_0`$, endowed with an “anchor map” $`\alpha :A(G)T(G_0)`$ and a Lie algebra structure on its space of sections $`C^{\mathrm{}}(G_0,A(G))`$ that is compatible with the anchor map in a certain way.

It is of central importance to us that the dual vector bundle $`A^{}(G)`$ is a Poisson manifold in a canonical way , which generalizes the well-known Lie–Poisson structure on the dual of a Lie algebra. We look at the passage $`GA^{}(G)`$ as a classical analogue of the map $`GC^{}(G)`$.

Another important construction is that of the cotangent bundle $`T^{}(G)`$ of $`G`$. This is not merely a symplectic space (equipped, in our conventions , with minus the usual symplectic form on a cotangent bundle, so that we write $`T^{}(G)^{}`$ when this aspect is relevant), but a symplectic groupoid with $`T^{}(G)_1=T^{}(G_1)`$ over $`T^{}(G)_0=A^{}(G)`$  (also see  for a review). For simplicity we will write $`T^{}(G)`$ for $`T^{}(G_1)`$, and denote the source and target projections of $`T^{}(G)`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$, respectively.

###### Lemma 4.1

The Poisson manifold $`A^{}(G)`$ associated to a Lie groupoid $`G`$ is integrable (cf. Definition 4.2).

Proof We use Prop. 3.3 in  to infer the existence of an s-connected and s-simply connected Lie groupoid $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ for which $`A(G)=A(\stackrel{~}{G})`$. Since the Poisson structure on $`A^{}(G)`$ is entirely determined by the Lie algebroid structure of $`A(G)`$, one has $`A^{}(G)=A^{}(\stackrel{~}{G})`$. It may be checked from its definition that $`T^{}(G)`$ is s-connected and s-simply connected iff $`G`$ is, so that $`T^{}(\stackrel{~}{G})`$ is a s-connected and s-simply symplectic groupoid over $`A^{}(G)`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

In view of this lemma, we will henceforth assume that all Lie groupoids are s-connected and s-simply connected (dropping the tilde). Thus we have defined the map $`A^{}:\text{LGc}\text{Poisson}`$ on objects.

In order to define this map on arrows, we recall a number of results from , which we here combine into a lemma.

###### Lemma 4.2

Any bibundle $`GMH`$ (cf. Definition 3.2) defines a symplectic bimodule

$$A^{}(G)\stackrel{J_L^G}{}T^{}(M)^{}\stackrel{J_R^H}{}A^{}(H),$$
(4.2)
with associated symplectic bibundle

$$T^{}(G)^{}T^{}(M)^{}T^{}(H)^{}.$$
(4.3)
The explicit form of the “momentum map” $`J_R^H`$ is

$$J_R^H(\theta _m),\frac{dh(\lambda )}{d\lambda }_{|\lambda =0}_{\sigma (m)}=\theta _m,\frac{dmh(\lambda )}{d\lambda }_{|\lambda =0}_m,$$
(4.4)
where $`\theta _mT_m^{}(M)`$, $`\sigma (m)=h(0)`$, and $`h(\lambda )t^1(\sigma (m))`$, so that $`\dot{h}(0)`$ lies in $`A_{\sigma (m)}(H)`$ and $`J_R^H(\theta _m)A_{\sigma (m)}^{}(H)`$.

The associated right action of $`T^{}(H)`$ on $`T^{}(M)`$ is given by

$$\theta _m(\alpha _h)^1,\frac{dm(\lambda )}{d\lambda }_{|\lambda =0}_{mh^1}=\theta _m,\frac{dm(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{h}(\lambda )}{d\lambda }_{|\lambda =0}_m\alpha _h,\frac{d\stackrel{~}{h}(\lambda )}{d\lambda }_{|\lambda =0}_h,$$
(4.5)
where $`m(0)=mh^1`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{h}()`$ is a curve in $`H`$ satisfying $`\stackrel{~}{h}(0)=h`$ and $`\sigma (m(\lambda ))=t(\stackrel{~}{h}(\lambda ))`$. As explained in , eq. (4.5) is independent of the choice of $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ because of the compatibility condition $`J_R^H(\theta _m)=\stackrel{~}{s}(\alpha _h)`$ under which $`\theta _m(\alpha _h)^1`$ is defined; cf. Definition 3.2. Explicitly, this condition reads $`\sigma (m)=s(h)`$, along with

$$\theta _m,\frac{dm\chi (\lambda )}{d\lambda }_{|\lambda =0}_m=\alpha _h,\frac{dh\chi (\lambda )}{d\lambda }_{|\lambda =0}_h,$$
(4.6)
for all curves $`\chi ()t^1(s(h))`$ subject to $`\chi (0)=s(h)`$. Note that these formulae for right actions are not given in , but they may be derived from those for left actions, together with the formula $`\alpha ^1=I^{}(\alpha )`$ for the inverse in $`T^{}(G)`$ (where $`I:G_1G_1`$ is the inverse in $`G`$) .

The explicit form of $`J_L`$ will shortly be needed not for $`GMH`$, but for a second bibundle $`HNK`$; hence we state it for the latter. The momentum map $`J_L^H:T^{}(N)A^{}(H)`$, then, is given by

$$J_L^H(\eta _n),\frac{dh(\lambda )}{d\lambda }_{|\lambda =0}_{\rho (n)}=\eta _n,\frac{dh(\lambda )^1n}{d\lambda }_{|\lambda =0}_h,$$
(4.7)
where $`\eta _nT_n^{}(N)`$, $`\rho (n)=h(0)`$, and $`h(\lambda )t^1(\rho (n))`$; recall that $`\rho :NH_0`$ is the base map of the $`H`$ action on $`N`$.

The associated left action of $`T^{}(H)`$ on $`T^{}(N)`$ is given by

$$\alpha _h\eta _n,\frac{dn(\lambda )}{d\lambda }_{|\lambda =0}_{hn}=\eta _n,\frac{d\widehat{h}(\lambda )^1n(\lambda )}{d\lambda }_{|\lambda =0}_n+\alpha _h,\frac{d\widehat{h}(\lambda )}{d\lambda }_{|\lambda =0}_h,$$
(4.8)
where $`n(0)=hn`$, and $`\widehat{h}()`$ is a curve in $`H`$ satisfying $`\widehat{h}(0)=h`$ and $`\rho (n(\lambda ))=t(\widehat{h}(\lambda ))`$. The condition under which $`\alpha _h\eta _n`$ is defined is $`J_L^H(\eta _n)=\stackrel{~}{s}(\alpha _h)`$, which reads $`\rho (n)=s(h)`$, along with

$$\eta _n,\frac{d\chi (\lambda )^1n}{d\lambda }_{|\lambda =0}_n=\alpha _h,\frac{d\chi (\lambda )}{d\lambda }_{|\lambda =0}_h,$$
(4.9)
for $`\chi `$ as specified after (4.6). This completes the exposition of Lemma 4.2.

###### Theorem 4.1

The map $`A^{}:\text{LGc}\text{Poisson}`$, defined on objects by $`A_0^{}(G)=A^{}(G)`$ and on arrows by

$$A_1^{}([GMH])=[A^{}(G)T^{}(M)^{}A^{}(H)],$$

is a functor.

Proof The object map $`A_0^{}`$ is well defined between the given categories by Lemma 4.1. Turning to the unit arrows, we note that the construction in Lemma 4.2 maps the canonical bibundle $`GGG`$ into the symplectic bimodule

$$A^{}(G)\stackrel{\stackrel{~}{t}}{}T^{}(G)^{}\stackrel{\stackrel{~}{s}}{}A^{}(G).$$

To see this, recall that $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ are the source and target maps of the symplectic groupoid $`T^{}(G)^{}`$. The lemma follows because, as already remarked in , $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ as defined in  coincide with the momentum mappings $`J_R^G`$ and $`J_L^G`$ defined by Lemma 4.2, applied to the canonical bibundle. It is here that the assumption of s-connectedness and s-simply connectedness is essential.

We now turn to the composition of arrows. Let $`GMH`$ and $`HNK`$ be regular bibundles, with associated symplectic bimodules $`A^{}(G)T^{}(M)^{}A^{}(H)`$ and $`A^{}(H)T^{}(N)^{}A^{}(K)`$, respectively (cf. Lemma 4.2). We will prove that the tensor product

$$A^{}(G)T^{}(M)^{}_{A^{}(H)}T^{}(N)^{}A^{}(K)$$
(4.10)
of these symplectic bimodules is isomorphic to the symplectic bimodule

$$A^{}(G)T^{}(M_HN)^{}A^{}(K)$$
(4.11)
associated with the bibundle $`GM_HNK`$.

We omit all suffixes “-” (as in $`S^{}`$), unless strictly necessary. By (4.1) and (3.1) we have

$$T^{}(M)_{A^{}(H)}T^{}(N)=(T^{}(M)_{A^{}(H)}T^{}(N))/T^{}(H)$$
(4.12)
as $`A^{}(G)`$-$`A^{}(K)`$ symplectic bimodules. By (3.1), one has

$$T^{}(M_HN)=T^{}((M_{H_0}N)/H),$$
(4.13)
so we start by proving that

$$(T^{}(M)_{A^{}(H)}T^{}(N))/T^{}(H)T^{}((M_{H_0}N)/H)$$
(4.14)
as symplectic manifolds. To do so, we first show that

$$T^{}((M_{H_0}N)/H)(T^{}(M)_{A^{}(H)}T^{}(N))/$$
(4.15)
as manifolds, where $``$ is an equivalence relation defined as follows. For $`(\theta _m,\eta _n)T^{}(M)_{A^{}(H)}T^{}(N)`$ (i.e., $`\sigma (m)=\rho (n)`$ and $`J_R^H(\theta _m)=J_L^H(\eta _n)`$), $`hs^1(\sigma (m))`$, and $`(\theta _{mh^1}^{},\eta _{hn}^{})T^{}(M)_{A^{}(H)}T^{}(N)`$, we say that $`(\theta _{mh^1}^{},\eta _{hn}^{})(\theta _m,\eta _n)`$ iff for each pair of vectors $`\dot{m}(0)T_{mh^1}(M)`$ and $`\dot{n}(0)T_{hn}(N)`$ such that

$$\sigma _{}(\dot{m}(0))=\rho _{}(\dot{m}(0)),$$
(4.16)
there exists a curve $`h()`$ in $`H`$ with $`h(0)=h`$ and $`t(h(\lambda ))=\sigma (m(\lambda ))=\rho (n(\lambda ))`$ (the latter equality may be imposed for convenience because of (4.16)), such that

$`\theta _{mh^1}^{},{\displaystyle \frac{dm(\lambda )}{d\lambda }}_{|\lambda =0}_{mh^1}`$ $`+`$ $`\eta _{hn}^{},{\displaystyle \frac{dn(\lambda )}{d\lambda }}_{|\lambda =0}_{mh^1}=`$
$`\theta _m,{\displaystyle \frac{dm(\lambda )h(\lambda )}{d\lambda }}_{|\lambda =0}_m`$ $`+`$ $`\eta _n,{\displaystyle \frac{dh^1(\lambda )n(\lambda )}{d\lambda }}_{|\lambda =0}_n.`$ (4.17)
To prove (4.15), note that for any (possibly singular) smooth foliation $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of a manifold $`Q`$ with smooth leaf space $`Q/\mathrm{\Phi }`$ one has an isomorphism

$$C^{\mathrm{}}(Q/\mathrm{\Phi },T^{}(Q/\mathrm{\Phi }))C^{\mathrm{}}(Q,T(\mathrm{\Phi })_0^0),$$
(4.18)
where the right-hand side consists of all 1-forms $`\omega `$ on $`Q`$ that satisfy $`i_\xi \omega =0`$ (forming $`T(\mathrm{\Phi })^0T^{}(Q)`$) and $`i_\xi d\omega =0`$ (defining $`T(\mathrm{\Phi })_0`$), for all $`\xi C^{\mathrm{}}(Q,T(\mathrm{\Phi }))`$. This is well known for regular foliations (cf. ), and the proof is the same in the singular case (it merely depends on the smoothness of the leaf space). These conditions may be rewritten as $`i_\xi \omega =_\xi \omega =0`$ (where $``$ is the Lie derivative), or as $`i_\xi \omega =0`$ for all vector fields $`\xi `$ as above and $`\phi ^{}\omega =\omega `$ for all diffeomorphisms $`\phi `$ of $`Q`$ that are generated by such $`\xi `$. The isomorphism (4.18) is then given by $`\alpha \pi ^{}\alpha `$, where $`\pi :QQ/\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the canonical projection. In addition, one has

$$C^{\mathrm{}}(Q,T(\mathrm{\Phi })_0^0)C^{\mathrm{}}(Q/\mathrm{\Phi },T(\mathrm{\Phi })^0/),$$
(4.19)
where the equivalence relation $``$ on $`T(\mathrm{\Phi })^0`$ is defined by $`\beta ^{}\beta `$ iff $`\beta ^{}=\phi ^{}\beta `$ for some diffeomorphism $`\phi `$ as specified above. The isomorphism (4.19) associates a section $`q\beta (q)`$ with a section $`[q]_\mathrm{\Phi }[\beta (q)]_{}`$. Hence the ensuing isomorphism

$$C^{\mathrm{}}(Q/\mathrm{\Phi },T^{}(Q/\mathrm{\Phi }))C^{\mathrm{}}(Q/\mathrm{\Phi },T(\mathrm{\Phi })^0/)$$
(4.20)
is given by $`\alpha [\pi ^{}\alpha ]_{}`$.

We apply this to $`Q=M_{H_0}N`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the foliation by the orbits of the diagonal $`H`$ action. The condition of lying in $`T(\mathrm{\Phi })^0`$ then has $`T^{}(M)_{A^{}(H)}T^{}(N)`$ as its solution set, and the equivalence relation $``$ defined for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is precisely the one imposed by (4.17) and preceding text. This proves (4.15).

Next, we show that the equivalence relation $``$ on $`T^{}(M)_{A^{}(H)}T^{}(N)`$ coincides with $``$, defined as follows. We say that $`(\theta _{mh^1}^{},\eta _{hn}^{})(\theta _m,\eta _n)`$ iff there exists $`\alpha _hT_h^{}(H)`$ satisfying

$$\stackrel{~}{s}(\alpha _h)=J_R^H(\theta _m)$$
(4.21)
(and therefore also $`\stackrel{~}{s}(\alpha _h)=J_L^H(\eta _n)`$), such that for each pair of vectors $`\dot{m}(0)T_{mh^1}(M)`$ and $`\dot{n}(0)T_{hn}(N)`$ (not necessarily satisfying (4.16)), there exist curves $`\widehat{h}()`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{h}()`$ in $`H`$ subject to $`\widehat{h}(0)=\stackrel{~}{h}(0)=h`$, $`t(\stackrel{~}{h}(\lambda ))=\sigma (m(\lambda ))`$, $`t(\widehat{h}(\lambda ))=\rho (n(\lambda ))`$, for which one has

$`\theta _{mh^1}^{},{\displaystyle \frac{dm(\lambda )}{d\lambda }}_{|\lambda =0}_{mh^1}`$ $`+`$ $`\eta _{hn}^{},{\displaystyle \frac{dn(\lambda )}{d\lambda }}_{|\lambda =0}_{mh^1}=`$
$`\theta _m,{\displaystyle \frac{dm(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{h}(\lambda )}{d\lambda }}_{|\lambda =0}_m`$ $`+`$ $`\eta _n,{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{h}^1(\lambda )n(\lambda )}{d\lambda }}_{|\lambda =0}_n+`$
$`\alpha _h,{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{h}(\lambda )}{d\lambda }}_{|\lambda =0}_h`$ $``$ $`\alpha _h,{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{h}(\lambda )}{d\lambda }}_{|\lambda =0}_h.`$ (4.22)
We stress that $`\widehat{h}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ do, and $`\alpha _h`$ does not depend on the vectors $`\dot{m}(0)`$ and $`\dot{n}(0)`$. The full right-hand side of (4.22) is independent of the choice of $`\widehat{h}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$; cf. the comment following (4.6).

First, $``$ implies $``$ (i.e., $`ABAB`$), for if (4.16), and hence $`\sigma (m(\lambda ))=\rho (n(\lambda ))`$, holds, one may choose $`h=\stackrel{~}{h}=\widehat{h}`$, and the final line in (4.22) drops out, implying (4.17).

To prove the converse, we note that, since the bibundle $`GMH`$ is regular, the map $`\sigma :MH_0`$ is a surjective submersion, so that

$$T_m(M)T_m^\sigma (M)T_{\sigma (m)}(H_0).$$

Here $`T_m^\sigma (M)`$ is the kernel of $`\sigma _{}:T(M)T(H_0)`$ at $`m`$. This induces the decomposition

$$T_m(M)T_n(N)T_{(m,n)}^{\sigma =\rho }(M\times N)T_{\sigma (m)}(H_0),$$
(4.23)
where $`T_{(m,n)}^{\sigma =\rho }(M\times N)`$ is the kernel of $`\sigma _{}\rho _{}`$ at $`(m,n)`$. Explicitly, the decomposition of a given vector according to (4.23) reads

$$(\xi _1,\xi _2,\zeta )=(\xi _1,\rho _{}(\zeta ),\zeta )+(0,\xi _2\rho _{}(\zeta ),0),$$

where $`\xi _1T_m^\sigma (M)`$, $`\xi _2T_{\sigma (m)}(H_0)`$, and $`\zeta T_n(N)`$. Now, in order to verify (4.22) given (4.17), we examine the two possible cases allowed by (4.23). A dimension count shows that one can always choose $`\alpha _h`$ so as to satisfy (4.22) on $`T_{\sigma (m)}(H_0)`$. This is because in a Lie groupoid one has

$$T_h(H)T_h^t(H)T_{t(h)}(H_0),$$

and the condition (4.21) constrains $`\alpha _h`$ only on $`T_h^t(H)`$, leaving its value on $`T_{t(h)}(H_0)`$ free. On the other hand, if (4.16) holds, so that $`(\dot{m}(0),(\dot{n}(0))`$ lies in $`T_{(m,n)}^{\sigma =\rho }(M\times N)`$, and we assume (4.17), then (4.22) is satisfied for any $`\alpha _h`$, as one may choose $`\stackrel{~}{h}=\widehat{h}=h`$.

Hence $``$ implies $``$, and we have shown that these equivalence relations coincide. Comparing (4.22) with (4.5) and (4.8), and using (4.15), it is clear that (4.14) holds at the manifold level. But it is almost trivial that the identification we have made preserves the symplectic structure, so that (4.14) is valid for symplectic manifolds as well.

Finally, we need to verify that the symplectomorphism (4.14) is compatible with the $`A^{}(G)`$-$`A^{}(K)`$ symplectic bimodule structure that both sides have. This is, indeed, obvious from the explicit structure of the pertinent Poisson maps. For example, denoting the appropriate Poisson map from $`T^{}(M)^{}_{A^{}(H)}T^{}(N)^{}`$ to $`A^{}(G)`$ by $`\widehat{J}_L^G`$, we have $`\widehat{J}_L^G([\theta _m,\eta _n])=J_L^G(\theta _m)`$, so that

$$\widehat{J}_L^G([\theta _m,\eta _n]),\frac{d\gamma (\lambda )}{d\lambda }_{|\lambda =0}=\theta _m,\frac{d\gamma (\lambda )^1m}{d\lambda }_{|\lambda =0}.$$
(4.24)
Here $`[\theta _m,\eta _n]`$ is the equivalence class of $`(\theta _m,\eta _n)`$ under either the $`T^{}(H)`$ orbits or under the null foliation with respect to the inclusion $`T^{}(M)^{}_{A^{}(H)}T^{}(N)^{}T^{}(M)^{}\times T^{}(N)^{}`$; these coincide by (4.12).

On the other hand, $`\stackrel{~}{J}_L^G:T^{}(M_HN)^{}A^{}(G)`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{J}_L^G(\mathrm{\Theta }_{[m,n]_H}),\frac{d\gamma (\lambda )}{d\lambda }_{|\lambda =0}=\mathrm{\Theta }_{[m,n]_H},\frac{d[\gamma (\lambda )^1m,n]_H}{d\lambda }_{|\lambda =0}.$$
(4.25)
It is trivial from the explicit form of the isomorphism (4.14) described above that (4.24) is duly transferred to (4.25).

This completes the proof of the isomorphism between (4.10) and (4.11), and therefore of Theorem 4.1.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Since Morita equivalence of s-connected and s-simply connected Lie groupoids is isomorphism in LG’, and Morita equivalence of Poisson manifolds is isomorphism in Poisson, we recover the known result  that the map $`GA^{}(G)`$ preserves Morita equivalence.


format: text

text:
# Life time of resonances in transport simulations

## I Introduction

For the understanding of heavy-ion collisions semi-classical transport theory has become an indispensable tool (cf. e.g. ). The theoretical foundation of this approach goes back to the pioneering works on non-equilibrium quantum field theory . While former works have focused their attention more or less on the quasi-particle regime (see e.g.  and references therein) the extension of the formalism to off-shell phenomena has become a topic of growing interest in the last few years  since it has been realized that the collision rates present in high energetic nucleus-nucleus collisions typically are so large that an on-shell approximation seems to be inappropriate. In addition, the resonances excited during the reaction may have large decay widths. Therefore, a representation of these states by stable particles may not be a proper approximation.

The usual approach to solve a transport equation is the representation of the phase-space density by test-particles  (concerning off-shell extensions see ). If not only asymptotically stable states but also resonances are simulated by test-particles, one has to attribute a finite life time to those ‘resonance test-particles’, i.e. one has to demand that they decay after some time of propagation — provided that they had not suffered from a collision prior to their decay. Such resonance test-particles usually have arbitrary invariant masses (chosen according to their spectral distribution). The question which (in general energy- or mass-dependent) life time has to be attributed to the resonance test-particles is under present discussion . The commonly used recipe is to identify the life time with the inverse decay width of the resonance, evaluated for the respective invariant mass. Near threshold the width thus becomes small due to the available phase-space. Hence the life time — if identified with the inverse width — becomes large. In  it was suggested to rather calculate the life time from the time delay that the particles suffer which form the resonance. This time delay is given by the energy derivative of the phase shift measured for the particles which scatter by forming the resonance as an intermediate state. This quantity — and therefore also the life time calculated in this way — vanishes near threshold. Hence the two expressions for the life time show a completely different behavior as functions of the invariant mass of the resonance.

Recently a novel approach to the test-particle description of transport processes for states with a continuous mass spectrum has been presented in . There the formalism was outlined for a system of non-relativistic (asymptotically stable) states subject to elastic collisions. In principle, however, there is no obstacle to treat also resonances in the same framework and to answer the question about the proper life time for such states. Since in principle the creation and decay of particles is a matter of relativistic field theory we find it more appropriate to present the formalism here for a relativistic system. One of the goals of  was the derivation of the (non-relativistic) equations of motion for the test-particles. We do not repeat the straightforward generalization for the relativistic case here. The resulting relativistic equations of motion are given in  for energy-momentum independent self-energies and in  for arbitrary self-energies. We note that the way in which these equations are obtained in  is different from our approach . Nonetheless the resulting equations of motion are the same. (This issue is discussed in detail in .)

In the next Section we generalize the approach of  to a relativistic system (of scalar bosons). In this way we set the stage for a proper treatment of resonances and automatically also review the most important points of the formalism outlined in . In Sec. III we calculate the life time of resonances for various situations. We summarize our results in Sec. IV. An Appendix is added which contains some technical details.

## II Reviewing the derivation of the transport equation and the effective particle number density

We start out from the Kadanoff-Baym equations  for relativistic scalar fields (cf. e.g.  and references therein)

$`(\mathrm{}_1m^2)D^<(1,1^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\overline{1}\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{ret}}(1,\overline{1})D^<(\overline{1},1^{})+\mathrm{\Sigma }^<(1,\overline{1})D^{\mathrm{av}}(\overline{1},1^{})\right]},`$ (1)
$`(\mathrm{}_1m^2)D^>(1,1^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\overline{1}\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{ret}}(1,\overline{1})D^>(\overline{1},1^{})+\mathrm{\Sigma }^>(1,\overline{1})D^{\mathrm{av}}(\overline{1},1^{})\right]}`$ (2)
where we have introduced the two-point functions without ordering

$`iD^<(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi (y)\varphi (x),`$ (3)
$`iD^>(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi (x)\varphi (y)`$ (4)
and the retarded and advanced quantities

$`F^{\mathrm{ret}}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x_0y_0)\left[F^>(x,y)F^<(x,y)\right],`$ (5)
$`F^{\mathrm{av}}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(y_0x_0)\left[F^<(x,y)F^>(x,y)\right]`$ (6)
with $`F=D,\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The self-energy is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. After Wigner transformation

$$\overline{F}(X,p)=d^4ue^{ipu}F(X+u/2,Xu/2)$$
(7)
of all quantities a gradient expansion of the Kadanoff-Baym equations is performed. Next one neglects all contributions which are effectively of second or higher order in the derivative with respect to the center-of-mass variable $`X`$. In this way one ends up with a transport equation (cf.  for details of the relativistic case, the corresponding non-relativistic case is discussed in detail in )

$$\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒜[p^2m^2\mathrm{Re}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{\mathrm{ret}},S^<]𝒜[\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma },(p^2m^2\mathrm{Re}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{\mathrm{ret}})S^<]=\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }S^<i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^<𝒜$$
(8)
where we have introduced the following real-valued quantities:
two-point functions

$$S^{<,>}(X,p)=i\overline{D}^{<,>}(X,p),$$
(9)
spectral function***Note that the definition of the spectral function slightly differs from the non-relativistic version . In the non-relativistic limit there is the following connection between relativistic and non-relativistic quantities: $`𝒜_{\mathrm{rel}}𝒜_{\mathrm{nr}}/(4m)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{rel}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{nr}}`$. ($`s=p^2`$)

$$𝒜(X,p)=\frac{1}{2}\left(S^>(X,p)S^<(X,p)\right)=\frac{\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }(X,p)}{(p^2m^2\mathrm{Re}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{\mathrm{ret}}(X,p))^2+s\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(X,p)},$$
(10)
width

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(X,p)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{s}}\frac{i}{2}\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^>(X,p)\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^<(X,p)\right).$$
(11)
A typical example for the width and the corresponding spectral function is depicted in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively, for a toy model displaying the main features of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ baryon. Width and spectral function start to deviate from zero at threshold (here pion plus nucleon mass). The spectral function grows until the nominal resonance mass is reached. The width grows beyond that point. The large energy behavior is chosen such that $`\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ finally reaches a constant value. (Note that the displayed mass range for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is larger than the one for the spectral function.) Details of the calculation for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (and of the corresponding real part of the retarded self-energy) are deferred to the Appendix. They form the basis of all the plots which exemplify the relevant quantities.

It is worth noting that the spectral function is normalized

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{dp_0}{\pi }p_0𝒜=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d(p_0^2)}{\pi }𝒜=1,$$
(12)
if the real part of the retarded self-energy is connected to the width (imaginary part) via a (in general $`n`$-times subtracted) dispersion relation

$$\frac{^n}{p_0^n}\mathrm{Re}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{\mathrm{ret}}(X;p_0,\stackrel{}{p})=\frac{^n}{p_0^n}𝒫\frac{dk_0}{\pi }\frac{1}{p_0k_0}\sqrt{k_0^2\stackrel{}{p}^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(X;k_0,\stackrel{}{p})$$
(13)
where $`𝒫`$ denotes the principal value. An example for the real part of the retarded self-energy is shown in Fig. 3 (cf. the Appendix for details).

The generalized Poisson bracket used in (8) is defined as

$$[A,B]=_{X_0}A_{p_0}B_{p_0}A_{X_0}B\stackrel{}{}_XA\stackrel{}{}_pB+\stackrel{}{}_pA\stackrel{}{}_XB.$$
(14)
Note that the drift term inherent to any kinetic equation is hidden in

$$[p^2m^2,B]=2p_0_{X_0}B2\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{}_XB.$$
(15)
The r.h.s. of (8) can be expressed via the common gain and loss terms using the definitions (10) and (11):

$$\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }S^<i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^<𝒜=\underset{\mathrm{loss}}{\underset{}{\frac{i}{2}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^>S^<}}\underset{\mathrm{gain}}{\underset{}{\frac{i}{2}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^<S^>}}.$$
(16)
In the most general case of an interacting multi-particle state away from thermal equilibrium, the transport equation (8) is a rather involved integro-differential equation. Within the quasi-particle approximation a quite successful method to solve the corresponding transport equation is to use a test-particle ansatz for the phase-space density . From the drift and (generalized) Vlasov terms of the transport equation one deduces the equations of motion for the test-particles while the scattering integrals yield the appropriate cross-sections for the collisions among the test-particles. For the case at hand, i.e. beyond the quasi-particle approximation, it is suggestive to use also a test-particle representation

$$f(t,\stackrel{}{x};p)\underset{i}{}\delta ^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_i(t))\delta (p_0^2E_i^2(t))\delta ^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}_i(t)).$$
(17)
Note that here in contrast to the quasi-particle approximation the test-particles are allowed to have arbitrary energies not connected to their respective three-momentum by any on-shell condition. The remaining question is which quantity $`f`$ should be represented by test-particles.

So far we have reviewed the derivation of the transport equation (8) as outlined in more detail in . Albeit starting from the same transport equation we differ from the approach of  in what follows concerning the interpretation and use of this equation. In  the transport equation was merely used as a tool to determine the evolution of test-particles between collisions. In the approach presented here and in  we adopt the point of view that the transport equation (8) once solved as exactly as possible provides the appropriate propagation, scattering and decays of the test-particles. The differences between  and our approach are discussed in more detail in . One difference concerns exactly the question which quantity $`f`$ should be represented by test-particles.

There is an obvious constraint for such a quantity: the corresponding number of test-particles

$$N_{tp}=d^3x\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}p_0f(t,\stackrel{}{x};p)$$
(18)
has to remain constant during the propagation of the test-particles and also for elastic scattering events encoded by $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mathrm{elast}}^{<,>}`$. Only inelastic scatterings and particle decays both contained in

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mathrm{inelast}}^{<,>}=\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{<,>}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mathrm{elast}}^{<,>}$$
(19)
should change the number of test-particles $`N_{tp}`$. For the following considerations we need an important property of the elastic scattering part of the self-energies which is a consequence of detailed balance:

$$\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\left(i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mathrm{elast}}^<S^>i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mathrm{elast}}^>S^<\right)=0.$$
(20)
A natural choice for $`f`$ seems to be

$$f(t,\stackrel{}{x};p)\stackrel{\mathrm{?}}{=}S^<(t,\stackrel{}{x};p).$$
(21)
Indeed, the full Kadanoff-Baym equations (1, 2) conserve (18) with the choice (21) as long as only elastic interactions are present. (This was the reason for the choice (21) in .) However, we no longer deal with the full Kadanoff-Baym equations but with the transport equation (8) obtained from the former by gradient expansion. From (8) it is straightforward to get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}{\displaystyle d^3x\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}p_0S^<(t,\stackrel{}{x};p)}`$ (22)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}{\displaystyle d^3x\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}p_0KS^<}+{\displaystyle d^3x\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{4\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒜}\left(i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^<S^>i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^>S^<\right)}`$ (23)
with

$$K=\frac{1}{2p_0}\left(\frac{\mathrm{Re}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{\mathrm{ret}}}{p_0}+\frac{p^2m^2\mathrm{Re}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{\mathrm{ret}}}{\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{(\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma })}{p_0}\right).$$
(24)
Even if the self-energies are restricted to their elastic parts, the r.h.s. of (23) does not vanish. In contrast, for the choice

$$f=S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<:=2\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒜(1K)S^<$$
(25)
we deduce from (8) (cf. )

$$\frac{d}{dt}d^3x\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}p_0S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<(t,\stackrel{}{x};p)=d^3x\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{2}\left(i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^<S^>i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^>S^<\right).$$
(26)
Using (20) we find that this time derivative only deviates from zero in the presence of inelasticities. Hence we conclude that (25) is a proper choice for the test-particle number density. Note that the transport equation (8) constitutes an effective theory derived from the underlying full quantum field theory by gradient expansion. In this approximation scheme the parts of $`S^<(X,p)`$ with fast oscillations in $`X`$ are neglected. It is not hard to imagine that such a neglect necessitates the redefinition of conserved quantities as — in our case at hand — the particle number density. In the following we will refer to $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<`$ as the effective particle number density.

It is fortunate to rewrite the transport equation in terms of this quantity:

$`[p^2m^2\mathrm{Re}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{\mathrm{ret}},{\displaystyle \frac{S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<}{1K}}]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }}}[\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma },(p^2m^2\mathrm{Re}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{\mathrm{ret}}){\displaystyle \frac{S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<}{1K}}]`$ (27)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^>}{2\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒜(1K)}}S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^<S^>`$ (28)
with

$$S^>=2𝒜b$$
(29)
and the Bose enhancement factor

$$b=1+\frac{S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<}{4\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒜^2(1K)}.$$
(30)
To obtain (29) we have expressed $`S^>`$ in terms of $`𝒜`$ and $`S^<`$ according to (10). $`S^<`$ is expressed in terms of $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<`$ using (25). Note that in (global) thermal equilibrium the following relations hold:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill S^<(p)& =& 2n_B(p_0)𝒜(p)\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<(p)& =& 2n_B(p_0)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)𝒜^2(p)(1K(p))\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^<(p)& =& 2n_B(p_0)\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill b(p)& =& 1+n_B(p_0)\hfill \end{array}\}\text{thermal equilibrium}$$
(31)
where we have introduced the Bose distribution $`n_B`$.

The transport equation (28) forms the basis of the following considerations.

## III Life time of resonances

### A Vacuum case

For the most general off-equilibrium situation the transport equation (28) is rather complicated. To focus on the aspect relevant for our purpose we restrict ourselves to the following scenario: A bunch of resonances (which do not interact with each other) with invariant mass $`\sqrt{s}=\sqrt{p^2}`$ is uniformly distributed in vacuum and their decay time is determined. This allows for drastic simplifications of the transport equation. First of all, any dependence on $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ vanishes. Second, the gain rate $`i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^<`$ vanishes since no new resonances are formed. Finally, the self-energies do not depend on time. Thus we get

$$\left(2p_0\frac{\mathrm{Re}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{\mathrm{ret}}}{p_0}\right)\frac{1}{1K}_tS_{\mathrm{eff}}^<+\frac{(\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma })}{p_0}\frac{p^2m^2\mathrm{Re}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{\mathrm{ret}}}{\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1K)}_tS_{\mathrm{eff}}^<=\frac{i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^>}{2\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒜(1K)}S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<.$$
(32)
Using (11) (note: $`i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^<=0`$) and (24) one ends up with the very simple relation

$$2p_0_tS_{\mathrm{eff}}^<=\frac{i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^>}{2\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒜(1K)}S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<=\frac{1}{𝒜(1K)}S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<$$
(33)
from which the life time can be immediately read off:

$$\tau =2p_0𝒜(1K).$$
(34)
As an example the life time of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ baryon is given in Fig. 4 (full line). The expression on the r.h.s. can be rewritten by introducing the phase shift $`\delta `$ via

$$\mathrm{tan}\delta =\frac{\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{p^2m^2\mathrm{Re}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{\mathrm{ret}}}.$$
(35)
One finds

$$\tau =\frac{\delta }{p_0}.$$
(36)
$`\delta `$ is displayed in Fig. 5. It shows the typical behavior of a resonant scattering phase shift (here of pion-nucleon scattering), i.e. it is small for low invariant masses and rises strongly in the vicinity of the resonance peak mass. There it becomes $`90^{}`$.

Relation (36) agrees with the one found by Danielewicz and Pratt  but is in striking disagreement with the one commonly used in simulations of nucleus-nucleus collisions (see also the discussion in ), namely

$$\tau \stackrel{\mathrm{?}}{=}\frac{p_0}{\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }}.$$
(37)
(Note that in the rest frame of the resonance the latter expression reduces to $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ while the r.h.s. of (34) becomes $`2\sqrt{s}𝒜(1K)`$.)

Relation (36) can be easily understood if one considers the scattering of a wave packet on a potential : At large distances $`r`$ from the interaction region the scattered wave is given by

$$d^3k\psi (\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{p})\frac{e^{ikr}}{r}f(E_k,\theta _k)e^{iE_kt}$$
(38)
where $`\psi `$ denotes the wave packet amplitude. For an amplitude sharply peaked near $`\stackrel{}{k}=\stackrel{}{p}`$ one might expand the scattering amplitude $`f`$ around $`E_p`$:For simplicity we suppress the angular dependence.

$`f(E_k)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{ln}f(E_k)]\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{ln}f(E_p)+(E_kE_p){\displaystyle \frac{}{E_p}}\mathrm{ln}f(E_p)\right]`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`f(E_p)\mathrm{exp}\left[(E_kE_p){\displaystyle \frac{}{E_p}}\mathrm{ln}f(E_p)\right].`$ (40)
Hence the time delay which the scattered wave packet suffers is given by

$$\mathrm{Im}\left[\frac{}{E_p}\mathrm{ln}f(E_p)\right]=\frac{\delta }{E_p}$$
(41)
where we have introduced the phase shift (for a single channel with angular momentum $`l`$) via

$$f=\frac{1}{p}\mathrm{sin}\delta P_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta _p)e^{i\delta }.$$
(42)
Suppose now that two particles scatter by forming a resonance. In this case the time delay caused by their scattering can be identified with the life time of the formed resonance. This is exactly the essence of relation (36).

Both expressions (34) and (37) are displayed in Fig. 4. Obviously their shapes are completely different from each other. The most striking difference is their respective threshold behavior. While $`\tau `$ as given in (34) vanishes at threshold, in contrast $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ diverges there as the width vanishes. In addition, $`\tau `$ is peaked in the vicinity of the nominal resonance mass. There $`\tau `$ is roughly twice as large as $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The latter quantity decreases monotonically in that region. In spite of their completely different shapes, it is interesting to realize that there are intuitive interpretations for both expressions (34) and (37). If a resonance with arbitrary invariant mass is considered as a “real particle”, it is clear that its life time increases near threshold due to the limited phase-space available for the decay products. This consideration suggests formula (37) corresponding to the dashed line in Fig. 4. If, however, the resonance is considered as a quantum mechanical transient state the uncertainty principle applies. Hence the more the invariant mass of the resonance deviates from its pole mass the less time it is allowed to live. Qualitatively this is the essence of (34) displayed by the full line in Fig. 4. Clearly our derivation given above supports the latter interpretation, in spite of the fact that what we are aiming at is the appropriate life time of (resonance) test-particles which intuitively are regarded to be closer to real particles than to quantum mechanical states. Nonetheless the transport equation (28) derived from the underlying quantum field theory clearly demands that the appropriate life time is given by (34) instead of (37).

At this stage some words of clarification are necessary. For a sharp resonance it is well-known (e.g. ) that its “life time” is given by $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{on}\mathrm{shell}}`$ (in its rest frame) which seems to be in line with (37) but in contrast to (34) which roughly yields twice as much (cf. Fig. 4). This reasoning, however, is misleading. In the preceding paragraphs we studied the life time $`\tau `$ of a resonance with arbitrary invariant mass. In contrast, the well-known “life time” $`\tau `$ of a sharp resonance is a quantity averaged over the allowed energy (or invariant mass) range. As we shall see now both expressions (34) and (37), albeit completely different in shape, yield the same average value, if the width is sufficiently small. The natural choice for the probability (density) to find a resonance with energy $`p_0`$ is given by the spectral function (10). Recalling the normalization (12) we define

$$\tau :=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d(p_0^2)}{\pi }𝒜\tau .$$
(43)
To evaluate this average for both expressions (34) and (37) we restrict ourselves to the case of small width, i.e. a sharply peaked resonance. In this case we can neglect any energy dependence of the width and simply evaluate it at the pole mass:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{on}\mathrm{shell}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(p_0=E_p,\stackrel{}{p})$$
(44)
with $`E_p:=\sqrt{m^2+\stackrel{}{p}^2}`$. For simplicity we also neglect the real part of the retarded self-energy. As already pointed out in  the following relations hold (translated here to a relativistic system):

$$\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝒜}{2\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒜^2}\}\pi \delta (p^2m^2)\mathrm{sgn}(p_0)\text{for}\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{Re}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{\mathrm{ret}}0.$$
(45)
Hence we find for the expression (34)

$$\tau =\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d(p_0^2)}{\pi }\underset{\pi \delta \left(p^2m^2\right)}{\underset{}{2\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒜^2(1K)}}\frac{p_0}{\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{E_p}{m\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{on}\mathrm{shell}}}.$$
(46)
We get the same result using (37)

$$\frac{p_0}{\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d(p_0^2)}{\pi }𝒜\frac{p_0}{\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{E_p}{m\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{on}\mathrm{shell}}}.$$
(47)
In the rest frame of the resonance this reduces to the well-known expressionIt is interesting to mention that even for the exemplifying case of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ baryon displayed in the figures with its quite sizable on-shell width of $`120`$MeV the average values in (46) and (47) do not deviate much from each other: $`\tau 1.68`$fm/c, $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }1.55`$fm/c, $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{on}\mathrm{shell}}1.64`$fm/c.

$$\tau =1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{on}\mathrm{shell}}.$$
(48)
Note, however, that this relation provides only an average value of the life time. It does not answer the question how long a resonance with arbitrary invariant mass lives.

Concerning practical applications, i.e. transport simulations with test-particles, the previous considerations suggest the following two possibilities for states with a small width:

* One might represent $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<`$ by test-particles having arbitrary invariant masses. For small width the likelihood to produce a test-particle with a mass far away from the pole mass is of course negligibly small. Therefore basically all test-particles will have similar (but not exactly the same) invariant masses. The life time of a test-particle is given by (34).
* The second possibility is to attribute the on-shell mass to all test-particles. In this case the test-particles represent the integrated quantity $`d(p_0^2)S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<`$ instead of $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<`$. Consequently all test-particles have to decay with the same integrated (averaged) life time $`\tau =1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{on}\mathrm{shell}}`$.

Obviously, concerning states with a large width only the first possibility is reasonable. From a practical point of view a word of caution is necessary. To realize the first possibility one has to make sure that one has chosen enough test-particles to “fill out” the whole spectral distribution. Especially, if the test-particles in the tails of the spectral distribution are missing one might obtain an average life time which is too high since (cf. Fig. 4)

$$\tau _{sm^2}2/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{on}\mathrm{shell}}2\tau .$$
(49)
Hence for states with a small width the second possibility described above seems to be more practical.

It is worth to discuss the role of the factor $`(1K)`$ in the expression for the life time (34). Due to the contribution (cf. (24))

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{(\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma })}{p_0}$$
(50)
$`K`$ diverges at threshold, i.e. where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ vanishes. This is shown in Fig. 6. We also deduce from that figure that $`(1K)`$ remains positive for all values of $`s`$. This is a necessary consistency condition since the life time and also the effective particle number density (25) should not become negative (cf. the corresponding discussion in ). In Fig. 7 we compare the life time $`\tau `$ from (34) with the simpler quantity $`2\sqrt{s}𝒜`$. As can be seen the main effect of $`(1K)`$ on $`\tau `$ is to change the threshold behavior of the spectral function for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (cf. (A1,A2))

$$𝒜\mathrm{\Gamma }k_{\mathrm{rel}}^3\left(\sqrt{s}(m_N+m_\pi )\right)^{3/2}\text{for}\sqrt{s}m_N+m_\pi $$
(51)
to

$$\tau 𝒜(1K)\left(\sqrt{s}(m_N+m_\pi )\right)^{1/2}\text{for}\sqrt{s}m_N+m_\pi .$$
(52)
This explains the kink of $`\tau `$ at threshold as compared to the smooth rising of the spectral function. In total, however, $`\tau `$ and $`2\sqrt{s}𝒜`$ look rather similar, especially if compared to the completely different shape of $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ displayed in Fig. 4.

### B More than one decay channel

We now turn to an extension of the formalism applicable when there exists more than one decay channel for the resonance. While the total life time is given by (34) it is also important to know the partial decay rates (inverse life times) for the various channels. Formally this can be accounted for by realizing that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^>=:\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mathrm{tot}}^>`$ is given by a sum of the self-energies corresponding to the different decay channels:

$$i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mathrm{tot}}^>=\underset{j}{}i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_j^>=\underset{j}{}2\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }_j.$$
(53)
The latter equality makes sense if there are no production channels, i.e. $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_j^<=0`$. Now it is straightforward to deduce from (33) the evolution equation

$$_tS_{\mathrm{eff}}^<=\underset{j}{}\frac{1}{\tau _j}S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<$$
(54)
with the partial life times

$$\tau _j=\frac{2p_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tot}}𝒜(1K)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j}\tau _{\mathrm{tot}}$$
(55)
where we have attributed the index “tot” to all expressions calculated earlier to distinguish them from the expressions belonging to a single one of the decay channels. We note in passing that the probability for the resonance to decay into channel $`j`$ (branching ratio) agrees with the probability that one would deduce from (37):

$$\frac{\tau _{\mathrm{tot}}}{\tau _j}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tot}}}=\frac{\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tot}}}}{\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j}}.$$
(56)
### C In-medium case

So far, we have restricted our considerations to resonance decays in vacuum neglecting the production channels encoded in $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^<`$. If we want to study creation and decay of resonances in a medium, we have to take both loss and gain terms, i.e. the full r.h.s. of (28) into account. For simplicity we ignore the in general rather lengthy l.h.s. of (28) which describes the propagation of the test-particles according to drift term, Vlasov term, etc. For our purposes it is enough to study the simplified evolution equation

$$2p_0_tS_{\mathrm{eff}}^<=\frac{i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^>}{2\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒜(1K)}S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^<S^>.$$
(57)
In general, $`i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^>`$ and $`i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^<`$ are connected by detailed balance. For the case of thermal equilibrium this leads to the Kubo-Martin-Schwinger (KMS) boundary condition (cf. e.g. )

$$i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^<(p)=i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^>(p)e^{p_0/T}.$$
(58)
To simplify the discussion and to get a closer relation to the life time introduced above we assume in the following

$$i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^<(X,p)i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^>(X,p)$$
(59)
(concerning the thermal state we turn from a Bose to a Boltzmann distribution). Using (11) we find

$$i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^>(X,p)2\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }(X,p).$$
(60)
The KMS-condition (detailed balance) becomes

$$i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^<(p)2\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)e^{p_0/T}$$
(61)
while (57) simplifies to

$$_tS_{\mathrm{eff}}^<=\frac{1}{\tau }S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<+\frac{i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^<}{p_0}𝒜$$
(62)
where we have replaced $`b`$ as defined in (30) by 1. Hence we deduce that the effective loss rate is given by $`1/\tau `$ while the gain rate is $`i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^</p_0`$. However, since $`\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)/p_0`$ and not $`1/\tau `$ is connected to $`i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^</p_0`$ by detailed balance (61) one might worry about the correct thermal limit for the particle number density. Thermal equilibrium, i.e. a stationary solution for $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<`$ is reached if gain and loss terms cancel each other:

$$\frac{1}{\tau }S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<+\frac{i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^<}{p_0}𝒜0.$$
(63)
Using the definition of the life time (34) and the (simplified) KMS-condition (61) we end up with

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<4\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒜^2(1K)e^{p_0/T}4\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒜^2(1K)n_B$$
(64)
where we have replaced the Boltzmann by the Bose function in the last step.§§§Note that an exact treatment of the r.h.s. of (57) together with the exact KMS-condition (58) would have led immediately to the last expression of (64). We made the approximations only to get closer contact to the expression for the life time. Indeed this is the correct thermal limit for $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<`$ as already presented in (31). Hence we have shown that the combination of loss and gain terms on the r.h.s. of the transport equation (28) indeed yields the correct thermal limit for the effective particle number density $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<`$. Turning the argument around we conclude that attributing the life time (34) to a resonance only leads to thermodynamically consistent results if one realizes that the appropriate (effective) particle number density is given by $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<`$ introduced in (25) and not by $`S^<`$. Assuming erroneously that the test-particles which decay according to (34) represent $`S^<`$ one would essentially solve an evolution equation like

$$_tS^<=\frac{1}{\tau }S^<+\frac{i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^<}{p_0}𝒜\text{(wrong!)}$$
(65)
instead of (62). The thermal limit of the (wrong) equation (65) is of course given by

$$S^<4\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒜^2(1K)e^{p_0/T}\text{(wrong!)}$$
(66)
in contrast to the correct behavior (cf. (31))

$$S^<2𝒜n_B2𝒜e^{p_0/T}.$$
(67)
To conclude we have deduced the expression (34) for the life time from the transport equation (28) for $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<`$. In turn we have also shown that starting from the life time (34) for test-particles one has to realize that these test-particles represent $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<`$ and not $`S^<`$.Concerning these detailed balance considerations the use of $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the life time would be compatible with $`S^<`$.

## IV Summary

After a short review of the derivation of a transport equation from the underlying quantum field theoretical Kadanoff-Baym equations we have focused on the test-particle representation of the transport process. At present this seems to be the most promising tool to solve the transport equation in practice. We have pointed out (repeating the arguments of ) that the proper quantity which should be simulated by test-particles, i.e. which counts the test-particles per four-momentum and space volume, is given by the effective particle number density $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<`$ introduced in (25). Once this identification has been made it was straightforward to derive from the transport equation (28) the life time of the resonance test-particles. For the vacuum case we obtained expression (34) which can be rewritten as (36) confirming the result of Danielewicz and Pratt . As can be seen from Fig. 4 this result for the life time strongly differs from the inverse width prescription commonly used in transport simulations. If more than one decay channel for the resonance has to be considered, the partial life time is given by (55). The latter formula also applies if (in a medium) collisional broadening modifies the total width. Note that for the calculation of the life times the required spectral function as well as total and partial widths should be determined self-consistently for the in-medium case. Finally we have shown that the identification of the proper effective particle number density (25) and the relation for the life time (34) are intimately connected. On the one hand, the life time formula (34) is derived from the transport equation (28) for the effective particle number density (25). On the other hand, starting out from the formula for the life time and assuming thermal equilibrium leads to an expression for the particle number density which agrees with the thermodynamic limit of $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<`$.

In  it has been shown that the scattering cross sections for off-shell test-particlesHere “off-shell test-particles” denote test-particles with arbitrary invariant mass as they appear in the definition of $`f`$ in (17). By chance such test-particles even might be on their mass-shell — still we would call them “off-shell test-particles”. This phrase merely denotes a concept than a single particle, namely the concept that “off-shell test-particles” fill the generalized phase-space of four-momentum and coordinate space (weighted by their spectral distribution). In contrast “on-shell test-particles” live in usual phase-space. While “off-shell test-particles” represent $`f`$ “on-shell test-particles” represent $`d(p_0^2)f`$. These concepts are also discussed at page III A (items 1. and 2.). have to be modified to account for the fact that these test-particles represent the effective particle number density $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<`$ and not $`S^<`$. There are rather simple rules for the required modification:

* For each incoming off-shell test-particle the cross section has to be divided by

$$r=2\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒜(1K)$$
(68)
where all quantities refer to the (in-medium) properties of the off-shell test-particle, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is its total (in-medium) width etc.
* For each outgoing off-shell test-particle the Pauli blocking/Bose enhancement factor is given by (cf. (30))

$$1\frac{S_{\mathrm{eff}}^<}{4\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒜^2(1K)}.$$
(69)

In the same way the result for the life time can be understood: In complete analogy to the cross section the decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ has to be divided by (68). In that way the inverse of that quantity changes from $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ to (55) which is our expression for the life time. Whether these new rules for the calculation of cross sections and decay probabilities lead to observable effects in nucleus-nucleus collisions remains to be seen.

###### Acknowledgements.

I acknowledge fruitful discussions with J. Aichelin, V. Koch, and U. Mosel during the “Hirschegg 2000” workshop. These discussions initiated the work presented here. I also thank W. Cassing, C. Greiner, and S. Juchem for their helpful comments on the manuscript.

## A A simple model for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance

To exemplify the formulae given above we study a toy model for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance where spin (and also isospin) is neglected for simplicity. The width is determined by the $`\mathrm{\Delta }N\pi `$ decay channel:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\frac{\beta (s)}{\beta (m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2)}\text{for }\sqrt{s}m_N+m_\pi $$
(A1)
with

$$\beta (s)=\frac{k_{\mathrm{rel}}}{s}\frac{(k_{\mathrm{rel}}R)^2}{1+(k_{\mathrm{rel}}R)^2}.$$
(A2)
Here the momentum $`k_{\mathrm{rel}}`$ of $`\pi `$ and $`N`$ in the rest frame of the decaying $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance with invariant mass $`\sqrt{s}`$ is given by

$$k_{\mathrm{rel}}=\frac{\left[\left(s(m_N+m_\pi )^2\right)\left(s(m_Nm_\pi )^2\right)\right]^{1/2}}{2\sqrt{s}}.$$
(A3)
In (A2) we have included a Blatt-Weisskopf function  parametrized by the length parameter $`R`$. We adopt the following values to simulate the vacuum decay properties of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance: $`m_N=940`$MeV, $`m_\pi =140`$MeV, $`m_\mathrm{\Delta }=1232`$MeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=120`$MeV, and $`R=1`$fm.

Since $`\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ becomes constant for large energies the real part of the retarded self-energy can be calculated by a one-time subtracted dispersion relation according to (13). We choose the subtraction constant such that the real part of the self-energy vanishes for $`s=m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. In our simple vacuum model the energy integration in (13) can be rewritten in terms of the invariant mass squared. One finally gets:

$$\mathrm{Re}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{\mathrm{ret}}(s)=(sm_\mathrm{\Delta }^2)𝒫\underset{(m_N+m_\pi )^2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{ds^{}}{\pi }\frac{\sqrt{s^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s^{})}{(ss^{})(m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2s^{})}.$$
(A4)