text:
# Covariant First Order Differential Calculus on Quantum Euclidean Spheres

## 1. Introduction

For a number of years, quantum groups as examples of noncommutative geometric spaces with a rich additional algebraic structure have received a high interest, and their investigation has made great progress during the 1990s. As an important prerequisite for an understanding of their geometrical structure, covariant differential calculus on quantum groups has been studied to a high level. Starting from Woronowicz’s initiating work , construction and classification of covariant first order differential calculi, and investigation of their properties, were the topic of many papers, e.g. . Higher order differential calculus was the object of further work, like , and basic concept of noncommutative differential geometry were studied, e.g. .

In the last few years, investigations concerning covariant differential calculus on quantum homogeneous spaces—which are the class of noncommutative spaces next to quantum groups as judged by the mathematical structure—are increasing; nevertheless, much work has still to be done until a comparably deep understanding may be reached as for quantum groups. A general theory even for first order covariant differential calculus is still lacking. The number of non-trivial examples with well-understood differential structure is still small. Methods to construct first order differential calculi on certain classes of quantum homogeneous spaces are described in . A classifications of covariant first order differential calculi was given for Podleś’ quantum spheres in . Earlier work of the author resulted in similar classification results for the quantum spheres introduced by Vaksman and Soibelman  and for a class of quantum projective spaces . The method enabling all of these classifications which will be used also in this paper is based on screening morphisms of corepresentations of the underlying quantum group, namely $`\mathrm{SU}_q(N)`$ for all of the before-mentioned spaces.

The quantum Euclidean spheres $`\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$ which are the subject of this paper are quantum homogeneous spaces for the quantum groups $`\mathrm{O}_q(N)`$. As compared to the $`\mathrm{SU}_q(N)`$-based Vaksman-Soibelman spheres $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{S}}_q^{2N1}`$, this is supposed to be in some sense the more natural choice in deforming spheres to quantum spheres but the calculations become much more involved than in the case of the Vaksman-Soibelman spheres. Nevertheless, it turns out that in contrast to the great variety of different covariant first order differential calculi which were found in  for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{S}}_q^{2N1}`$, the classification theorem 1 for the quantum Euclidean spheres which is the first main result of this paper lists only two calculi under an appropriate classification constraint. The outstanding properties of these calculi make the quantum Euclidean spheres a promising object for further study.

## 2. The Quantum Euclidean Spheres $`𝐒_𝒒^{𝑵\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}}`$

### 2.1. Definitions for quantum spaces

Here and in the following our definitions are in accordance with . Let $`𝒜`$ be a coquasitriangular Hopf algebra (This is what we shall understand by a quantum group throughout the following.) Let $`𝒜`$ have the comultiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒜`$ and the counit $`\epsilon _𝒜`$. A pair $`(X,\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R})`$ consisting of an algebra $`X`$ and an algebra homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}:XX𝒜`$ is called a (right) quantum space for $`𝒜`$ if the following equalities hold: $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}\mathrm{id}_𝒜)\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}=(\mathrm{id}_X\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒜)\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}`$; $`(\mathrm{id}_X\epsilon _𝒜)\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}=\mathrm{id}_X`$. Then, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}`$ is called (right) coaction of $`𝒜`$ on $`X`$. For brevity, we shall also denote the quantum space itself by $`X`$. A quantum space $`(X,\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R})`$ (or, briefly, $`X`$) for $`𝒜`$ is called quantum homogeneous space if there exists an embedding $`\iota _X:X𝒜`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}=\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒜\iota _X`$, i.e. $`X`$ can be identified with a sub-algebra of $`𝒜`$, and its coaction is obtained then by restricting the comultiplication.

### 2.2. The quantum Euclidean spheres

Throughout the following, the deformation parameter $`q`$ is a positive real number different from $`1`$ unless stated otherwise.111For most considerations, $`q`$ could even be arbitrary complex, except $`0`$ and roots of unity; the restriction to real numbers is necessary only where $``$-structures are involved. Moreover, the dimension parameter $`N`$ will always be a natural number, $`N3`$. We shall always sum over pairs of upper and lower indices from $`1`$ to $`N`$.

Define $`X`$ to be the algebra with $`N`$ generators $`x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_N`$, and relations (cf. )

$`\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}x_{k}^{}x_l`$ $`=q^1x_ix_j+{\displaystyle \frac{q^{N1}q^{N3}}{1+q^{N2}}}K_{ij}^{kl}x_kx_l\text{,}`$ (1)
$`C^{kl}x_kx_l`$ $`=1\text{,}`$ (2)
where $`\widehat{R}^{}=\widehat{R}(qq^1)I+(qq^1)K`$ is the inverse of the R-matrix of the quantum group $`\mathrm{O}_q(N)`$,

$$\widehat{R}_{ij}^{kl}=q^{(k=l)(k=l^{})}(i=l)(j=k)+(qq^1)(i<l)((i=k)(j=l)K_{ij}^{kl})\text{,}$$

and

$`K_{ij}^{kl}`$ $`=C^{ij}C_{kl};`$ $`C^{ij}=C_{ij}`$ $`=q^{\varrho _i}(i=j^{})\text{.}`$
Here, $`(i=j)`$ and $`(i<j)`$ denote Kronecker and Heaviside symbols, resp.; by an apostrophe we denote the mapping $`{}_{}{}^{}:ii^{}=N+1i`$. The constants $`\varrho _i`$ are given by $`\varrho _i=\frac{N}{2}i`$ for $`i<\frac{N+1}{2}`$, $`0`$ for $`i=\frac{N+1}{2}`$, $`\frac{N}{2}i+1`$ for $`i>\frac{N+1}{2}`$.

A $``$-structure on $`\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$ is given by

$$x_i^{}=C^{ij}x_j\text{.}$$

By $`x_i(1+q^{N2})^{1/2}\left(u_i^1+q^{N/21}u_i^N\right)`$, cf. , $`X`$ (as a $``$-algebra) is embedded into $`\mathrm{O}_q(N)`$; the coaction

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}:XX\mathrm{O}_q(N),x_kx_iu_k^i$$

obtained by restricting the comultiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`\mathrm{O}_q(N)`$ then makes $`X`$ into a quantum homogeneous space for $`\mathrm{O}_q(N)`$ which we shall call Euclidean quantum sphere and denote by $`\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$.

## 3. First order differential calculus on quantum Euclidean spheres

### 3.1. Basic definitions

Let $`X`$ be an algebra. A first order differential calculus on $`X`$ is a pair $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{d})`$ of an $`X`$-bimodule $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and a linear mapping $`\mathrm{d}:X\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which fulfils the Leibniz rule, $`\mathrm{d}(xy)=\mathrm{d}xy+xy`$ for all $`x,yX`$, such that $`\mathrm{d}X`$ spans $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as a left module, i.e. $`\mathrm{Lin}\{x\mathrm{d}y|x,yX\}`$. The elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are called one-forms, while $`\mathrm{d}`$ is called differentiation map.

If $`(X,\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R})`$ is a quantum space for a quantum group $`𝒜`$, a first order differential calculus $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{d})`$ over $`X`$ is covariant if the well-defined linear mapping $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{R}:\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒜`$ given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{d}x)=(\mathrm{d}\mathrm{id}_𝒜)(\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}(x))`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{R}(x\omega y)=\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{R}(\omega )\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}(y)`$ for all $`x,yX`$, $`\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{R}`$ satisfies the identities $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{R}\mathrm{id}_𝒜)\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{R}=(\mathrm{id}_\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{R}`$, $`(\mathrm{id}_\mathrm{\Gamma }\epsilon _𝒜)\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{R}=\mathrm{id}_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

An important role in the investigation of covariant differential calculi over quantum spaces is played by (right-) invariant one-forms, i.e. those $`\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for which $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{R}(\omega )=\omega \mathrm{𝟏}_𝒜`$ is fulfilled.

If for a covariant first order differential calculus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ over $`X`$ an invariant one-form $`\omega _0`$ exist such that $`\mathrm{d}x=\omega _0xx\omega _0`$ holds for all $`xX`$, the calculus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is called inner.

Finally, if $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{d})`$ is a first order differential calculus over a $``$-algebra $`X`$ then $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{d})`$ is called a $``$-calculus if for any sum $`_kx_k\mathrm{d}y_k`$ where $`x_k,y_kX`$ which equals zero in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ even $`_k\mathrm{d}(y_k^{})x_k^{}`$ vanishes. In this case it makes sense to define $`:\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ via $`(\mathrm{d}x)^{}:=\mathrm{d}(x^{})`$.

### 3.2. Classification theorem

We shall consider free covariant first order differential calculi on $`\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$, i.e. calculi $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{d})`$ fulfilling the constraint that the differentials $`\mathrm{d}x_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, of the generators of $`\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$ generate the bimodule of one-forms as a free left module. Our main result is the following classification theorem for these calculi.

###### Theorem 1.

For $`N3`$, there exist two free covariant differential calculi $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ on $`\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$. If $`N6`$, any free covariant differential calculus on $`\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$ is either $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$.

The bimodule structure of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm `$ is given by

$`\mathrm{d}x_ix_j`$ $`=\pm \widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}x_{k}^{}\mathrm{d}x_l+(\pm q1)x_i\mathrm{d}x_j`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{q^Nq^{N2}}{1q^{N1}}}K_{ij}^{kl}x_k\mathrm{d}x_l+{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)(1+q^{N2})}{1q^{N1}}}C^{kl}x_ix_jx_k\mathrm{d}x_l\text{,}`$ (3)
where the upper signs are valid for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ and the lower ones for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$.

The proof of the classification theorem will be given in section 3.5.

We stress that both differential calculi described in the theorem exist for any $`N3`$; it’s the uniqueness statement that has to be restricted to $`N6`$ for technical reasons that become clear in section 3.5.

In the case $`N=3`$, the quantum Euclidean sphere $`\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$ is isomorphic to one of Podleś’ quantum spheres $`\mathrm{S}_{qc}`$, namely that with parameter $`c=0`$. In  where covariant first order differential calculi for the Podleś spheres were classified under a more general classification constraint, it was shown that on $`\mathrm{S}_{q0}`$ there exist exactly two free covariant first order differential calculi222Note that $`c=0`$ is an exceptional case—for most values of $`c`$, exactly one such calculus exists., which is in accordance with our result. Besides, it follows that our uniqueness statement is in fact true even in the case $`N=3`$ which is not covered by our proof.

We continue by discussing some properties of the differential calculi. First, we note that the bimodule structure can also be given in a form which allows to transform any given one-form into a right-module expression.

###### Corollary 2.

The bimodule structure of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ is described by

$`x_i\mathrm{d}x_j`$ $`=\pm \widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}\mathrm{d}x_kx_l+(\pm q1)\mathrm{d}x_ix_j`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{q^Nq^{N2}}{1q^{N1}}}K_{ij}^{kl}\mathrm{d}x_kx_l+{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)(1+q^{N2})}{1q^{N1}}}C^{kl}\mathrm{d}x_kx_lx_ix_j\text{.}`$ (4)
Proof: The equivalence of (3) and (4) is checked by direct calculation.∎

An important observation is that in both calculi there exists a 1-dimensional vector space of invariant one-forms, namely the multiples of

$$\mathrm{\Omega }:=C^{kl}x_k\mathrm{d}x_l\text{.}$$

One obtains from the bimodule structure given in the theorem that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }x_i=x_i\mathrm{\Omega }\pm \frac{q^1(1q)(1q^{N1})}{1+q^{N2}}\mathrm{d}x_i\text{,}$$

where again the upper and lower signs refer to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$, resp. With

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{}:=\pm q\frac{1+q^{N2}}{(1q)(1q^{N1})}\mathrm{\Omega }\text{,}$$

one therefore has $`\mathrm{d}x=\mathrm{\Omega }^{}xx\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ for all $`x\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$, which implies the following corollary.

###### Corollary 3.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ are inner calculi.

Finally, the question is to be answered whether our differential calculi are compatible with the $``$-structure of $`\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$.

###### Corollary 4.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ are $``$-calculi.

Proof: It is sufficient to prove that

$`x_j^{}\mathrm{d}x_i^{}`$ $`=\pm \widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}\mathrm{d}x_l^{}x_k^{}+(\pm q1)\mathrm{d}x_j^{}x_i^{}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{q^Nq^{N2}}{1q^{N1}}}K_{ij}^{kl}\mathrm{d}x_l^{}x_k^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)(1+q^{N2})}{1q^{N1}}}C^{kl}\mathrm{d}x_l^{}x_k^{}x_j^{}x_i^{}\text{.}`$ (5)
Using the defining relations of $`\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$ together with the definition of $`C^{ij}`$ and the Leibniz rule, one checks that

$$C^{kl}\mathrm{d}x_l^{}x_k^{}=C^{kl}C^{ks}C^{lt}\mathrm{d}x_tx_s=C^{ts}\mathrm{d}x_tx_s$$

Moreover, one has $`\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}C_{}^{ks}C^{lt}=C^{ik}C^{jl}\widehat{R}^{}_{lk}^{ts}`$ such that (5) becomes

$`C^{jt}C^{is}x_t\mathrm{d}x_s`$ $`=C^{jt}C^{is}(\pm \widehat{R}^{}{}_{ts}{}^{uv}\mathrm{d}x_ux_v+(\pm q1)\mathrm{d}x_tx_s`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{q^Nq^{N2}}{1q^{N1}}}K_{ts}^{uv}\mathrm{d}x_ux_v+{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)(1+q^{N2})}{1q^{N1}}}C^{uv}\mathrm{d}x_ux_vx_tx_s)\text{,}`$
which is equivalent to (4).∎

### 3.3. The classical limit

Note that the 1-dimensional space of invariant one-forms is still present in the “classical limit”, i.e. the limit $`q=1`$, of both calculi while no invariant one-forms exist in the classical commutative differential calculus. Indeed, the bimodule structure of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ in the limit $`q=1`$ takes the form

$`\mathrm{d}x_ix_j`$ $`=x_j\mathrm{d}x_i{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N1}}(i=j^{})\mathrm{\Omega }+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N1}}x_ix_j\mathrm{\Omega }`$
while that of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ becomes
$`\mathrm{d}x_ix_j`$ $`=x_j\mathrm{d}x_i2x_i\mathrm{d}x_j+2x_ix_j\mathrm{\Omega }\text{,}`$
both being noncommutative.

However, there is an important asymmetry between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ indicating that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ stands in a closer relation to the classical commutative calculus than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$. Namely, for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ in the classical limit one has $`\mathrm{\Omega }x=x\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for all $`x\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$, such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ loses in the limit the property of being an inner calculus; it can be factorised by the additional relation $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. The resulting differential calculus is obviously the classical commutative one, $`\mathrm{d}x_ix_j=x_j\mathrm{d}x_i`$. Such a factorisation is not possible for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ in the limit $`q=1`$ since we have for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ with $`q=1`$ the equality $`\mathrm{\Omega }x=x\mathrm{\Omega }2\mathrm{d}x`$ for all $`x\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$.333Instead, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ admits factorisation over the relation $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ in the case $`q=1`$.

In case $`N6`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ is in some sense the best one can get as an approximation of the classical commutative differential calculus on $`\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$ in the deformed case since there is no covariant first order differential calculus whose bimodule of one-forms decomposes in the same way into invariant subspaces for the coaction of $`\mathrm{O}_q(N)`$ as in the classical case. Namely, this would require (opposite to the case of a free calculus) that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ vanishes.

###### Corollary 5.

Let $`q\mathrm{IR}\{0,\pm 1\}`$, and $`N6`$. Then there exists no covariant first order differential calculus $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{d})`$ on $`\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ generated as a left module by $`\mathrm{d}x_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, for which all left-module relations within $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are generated by the relation $`C^{ij}x_i\mathrm{d}x_j=0`$.

The proof of this corollary will be given along with that of the classification theorem in 3.5.

### 3.4. A new basis for one-forms

From equations (3) it is obvious that the transformation of one-forms into their left-module expressions is non-linear in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm `$. For example, in transforming $`\mathrm{d}x_ix_j`$ to its left-module expression, besides members of the type $`x_k\mathrm{d}x_l`$ also expressions $`x_kx_lx_m\mathrm{d}x_n`$, with algebra elements of third degree, are obtained. Of course, this behaviour of the transformations is a great obstacle in doing more advanced calculations. Therefore, the question rises whether the equations describing the bimodule structure of the free covariant first order differential calculi on $`\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$ could be simplified to a purely linear structure like $`\gamma _ix_j=A_{ij}^{kl}x_k\gamma _l`$ by choosing a different basis $`\{\gamma _i\}`$ for the bimodule of one-forms.

For reasons of covariance, it is sufficient to coonsider sets of one-forms of type $`\gamma _i=\beta \mathrm{d}x_i+\alpha x_i\mathrm{\Omega }`$, with $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ independent on $`i`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm `$ are inner calculi, $`\beta `$ can’t vanish such that we can restrict ourselves to the ansatz $`\gamma _i=\mathrm{d}x_i+\alpha x_i\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

###### Proposition 6.

Let $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{d})`$ be one of the differential calculi $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_+,\mathrm{d})`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{},\mathrm{d})`$. Then there are exactly two real numbers $`\alpha `$, for which the set of one-forms $`\{\gamma _i:=\mathrm{d}x_i+\alpha x_i\mathrm{\Omega }|i=1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ forms a basis of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that the bimodule structure of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is described w.r.t. the basis $`\{\gamma _i\}`$ by

$$\gamma _ix_j=A_{ij}^{kl}x_k\gamma _l$$

with appropriate real coefficients $`A_{ij}^{kl}`$.

These values are

$`\alpha ^+`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1+q^{N2}}{1q^{N1}}}\text{,}`$ $`\alpha ^{}`$ $`=\pm q{\displaystyle \frac{1+q^{N2}}{1q^{N1}}}`$
where the upper signs are valid for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ while the lower ones refer to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$. W.r.t. the two bases $`\gamma _i^+:=\mathrm{d}x_i+\alpha ^+x_i\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\gamma _i^{}:=\mathrm{d}x_i+\alpha ^{}x_i\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the bimodule structure of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be written as

$`\gamma _i^+x_j`$ $`=\widehat{R}_{ij}^{kl}x_k\gamma _l^+\text{,}`$ $`\gamma _i^{}x_j`$ $`=\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}x_{k}^{}\gamma _l^{}\text{.}`$ (6)
Proof: Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$, and $`\gamma _i:=\mathrm{d}x_i+\alpha x_i\mathrm{\Omega }`$, with arbitrary $`\alpha \mathrm{IR}`$. Because of

$$C^{ij}x_i\gamma _j=C^{ij}(x_i\mathrm{d}x_j+\alpha C^{kl}x_ix_jx_k\mathrm{d}x_l)=(\alpha +1)C^{ij}x_i\mathrm{d}x_j$$

the inverse substitution is given by $`\mathrm{d}x_i=\gamma _i(\alpha /(\alpha +1))x_iC^{kl}x_k\gamma _l`$. We calculate

$`\gamma _ix_j`$ $`=\mathrm{d}x_ix_j+\alpha x_i\mathrm{\Omega }x_j`$
$`=\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}x_{k}^{}\mathrm{d}x_l+(q1)\left(1q^1\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1q^{N1}}{1+q^{N2}}}\right)x_i\mathrm{d}x_j`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{(1q)(1+q^{N2})}{1q^{N1}}}+\alpha \right)x_ix_j\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{q^{N2}(q^21)}{1q^{N1}}}C_{ij}\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`=\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}x_{k}^{}\gamma _l+(q1)\left(1q^1\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1q^{N1}}{1+q^{N2}}}\right)x_i\gamma _j`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{q^{N2}(q^21)}{\alpha +1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^{N1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^1\alpha }{1+q^{N2}}}\right)K_{ij}^{kl}x_k\gamma _l`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{q1}{\alpha +1}}\left(q^1\alpha ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1q^{N1}}{1+q^{N2}}}q^1\alpha (q1)+{\displaystyle \frac{1+q^{N2}}{1q^{N1}}}\right)C^{kl}x_ix_jx_k\gamma _l\text{.}`$ (7)
The bimodule structure w.r.t. the new basis is therefore linear if and only if the last coefficient is zero, i.e.

$`0`$ $`=\alpha ^2{\displaystyle \frac{(q1)(1+q^{N2})}{1q^{N1}}}q{\displaystyle \frac{(1+q^{N2})^2}{(1q^{N1})^2}}`$
$`=\left(\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1+q^{N2}}{1q^{N1}}}\right)\left(\alpha q{\displaystyle \frac{1+q^{N2}}{1q^{N1}}}\right)\text{.}`$
The two solutions for $`\alpha `$ as stated in the Proposition are now obvious; by inserting them into equation (7) one verifies (6). This completes the proof for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$; the case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ is treated in the same way.∎

Since we have to buy the particularly simple form of the bimodule structure in the $`\gamma ^\pm `$ bases with more complicated equations describing the differentiation map $`\mathrm{d}`$

$$\mathrm{d}x_i=\gamma _i^{}q\frac{1+q^{N2}}{1\pm q}x_iC^{kl}x_k\gamma _l^{}=\gamma _i^++q^{N+2}\frac{1+q^{N2}}{1\pm q}x_iC^{kl}x_k\gamma _l^+\text{,}$$

it is wise to keep in mind both types of basis for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to use each one when appropriate, depending on the kind of calculations to be done.

The $``$-structure still takes a simple form in the new bases.

###### Corollary 7.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_+,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\}`$. Then $`(\gamma _i^+)^{}=q^1C^{ij}\gamma _j^{}`$; $`(\gamma _i^{})^{}=qC^{ij}\gamma _j^+`$.

Proof: We prove the first equality for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$.

$`(\gamma _i^+)^{}`$ $`=\mathrm{d}x_i^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1+q^{N2}}{1q^{N1}}}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}x_i^{}=C^{ij}\left(\mathrm{d}x_j+{\displaystyle \frac{1+q^{N2}}{1q^{N1}}}\mathrm{\Omega }x_j\right)`$
$`=C^{ij}\left(\mathrm{d}x_j+{\displaystyle \frac{1+q^{N2}}{1q^{N1}}}x_j\mathrm{\Omega }+(q^11)\mathrm{d}x_j\right)=q^1C^{ij}\gamma _j^{}\text{.}`$
The proofs of the remaining statements are analogous.∎

### 3.5. Proof of the classification statements

The most important tool which will be employed in our proofs of the classification theorem 1 and Corollary 5 is to analyse morphisms of corepresentations of $`𝒜=\mathrm{O}_q(n)`$ (co-) acting on the algebra $`X=\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$ and its tensor products. In this way, covariance and the algebraic constraints are exploited to find the general structure, with unknown coefficients, for the bimodule structure of the desired differential calculi; then the generating relations of the algebra and the definitions for differential calculi are evaluated to determine the coefficients.

The same principle underlies the proofs given by Apel and Schmüdgen in  (for Podleś’ quantum spheres) and by the author in  and  (for the Vaksman-Soibelman quantum spheres and quantum projective spaces, resp.).

First we observe that since $`q`$ is not a root of unity, the corepresentation theory for $`\mathrm{O}_q(N)`$ is quite similar to that of the undeformed matrix group  for which the formalism of Young frames can be used .

Denote by $`V(k)`$ the vector space of those polynomials of degree $`k`$ in the generators $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_N`$ of $`X`$, and by $`V_\mathrm{r}(k)`$ the vector subspace of all those degree $`k`$ polynomials which by virtue of the defining relations (1) and (2) of $`\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$ are equal to polynomials of lower degree. Let $`W(k)`$ be the vector space complement of $`V_\mathrm{r}(k)`$ in $`V(k)`$. The coaction $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}`$ induces corepresentations $`\pi (k):W(k)W(k)𝒜`$. In particular, $`\pi (0)`$ is the trivial corepresentation $`1_X1_X1_𝒜`$, denoted also by (0), and $`\pi (1)`$ is the fundamental corepresentation, $`x_ix_ju_i^j`$, which corresponds to the Young frame           .

We can now use the Young frame formalism for the orthogonal quantum group $`\mathrm{O}_q(N)`$ to calculate the higher corepresentations $`\pi (k)`$ and the tensor products $`\pi (k)\pi (1)`$ successively. Note that $`\pi (k+1)`$ is obtained by cancelling those summands of $`\pi (k)\pi (1)`$ which are annihilated by the commutation relation (1) or reduced to lower degree by the inhomogeneous relation (2).

$`\pi (0)\pi (1)`$ $`=\text{ }\text{ }\text{}\text{}\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{;}`$
$`\pi (1)\pi (1)`$ $`=\text{ }\text{ }\text{}\text{}\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{}\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\text{(0)}\text{;}`$ $`\pi (2)`$ $`=\text{ }\text{ }\text{}\text{}\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{;}`$
$`\pi (2)\pi (1)`$ $`=\text{ }\text{ }\text{}\text{}\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{}\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\text{ }\text{ }\text{}\text{}\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{;}`$ $`\pi (3)`$ $`=\text{ }\text{ }\text{}\text{}\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{;}`$
$`\pi (3)\pi (1)`$ $`=\text{ }\text{ }\text{}\text{}\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{}\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\text{ }\text{ }\text{}\text{}\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{;}`$ $`\pi (4)`$ $`=\text{ }\text{ }\text{}\text{}\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{;}`$
$`\pi (4)\pi (1)`$ $`=\text{ }\text{ }\text{}\text{}\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{}\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+\text{ }\text{ }\text{}\text{}\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{;}`$ $`\pi (5)`$ $`=\text{ }\text{ }\text{}\text{}\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{.}`$
These equalities give the correct decompositions of $`\pi (k)`$ and $`\pi (k)\pi (1)`$ into irreducible corepresentations for $`N6`$; for smaller $`N`$ some of the summands do not exist, or decompose. This is the reason why we can guarantee completeness of our classification only under this assumption. For $`k5`$, the corepresentations of both $`\pi (k)`$ and $`\pi (k)\pi (1)`$ contain only Young frames with 4 and more columns.

In the language of corepresentations, the classification constraint of Theorem 1 says precisely that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is generated by $`\mathrm{d}V(1)`$ as a left module. As a vector space with a corepresentation of $`\mathrm{O}_q(N)`$, $`\mathrm{d}V(1)`$ is the same as $`V(1)`$; therefore $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the sum of invariant vector spaces for all (irreducible components of) corepresentations $`\pi (k)\pi (1)`$, $`k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$; for the same reason, the vector subspace $`\mathrm{d}V(1)V(1)`$ of all $`\mathrm{d}x_ix_j`$ decomposes into the invariant vector spaces for the corepresentation $`\pi (1)\pi (1)`$.

The bimodule structure is described by a transformation that sends one-forms from $`\mathrm{d}V(1)V(1)`$ to left-module expressions in $`X\mathrm{d}V(1)`$. The covariance condition requires that this transformation must transform each invariant subspace for an irreducible corepresentation of the quantum group to an isomorphic subspace. Thus, the transformation is necessarily a linear combination of all morphisms from irreducible invariant subspaces in $`\mathrm{d}V(1)V(1)V(1)V(1)`$ to isomorphic invariant subspaces in $`X\mathrm{d}V(1)XV(1)`$.

Searching the sums of Young frames representing $`\pi (k)\pi (1)`$ for frames which are also contained in $`\pi (1)\pi (1)`$, indicating isomorphic invariant subspaces, we find that           occurs in $`\pi (1)\pi (1)`$ and in $`\pi (3)\pi (1)`$ while            and (0) occur only in $`\pi (1)\pi (1)`$ itself. Therefore one has four relevant morphisms and gets the ansatz

$`\mathrm{d}x_ix_j`$ $`=\alpha _1(P_+)_{ij}^{kl}x_k\mathrm{d}x_l+\alpha _2(P_{})_{ij}^{kl}x_k\mathrm{d}x_l`$
$`+\alpha _3(P_0)_{ij}^{kl}x_k\mathrm{d}x_l+\alpha _4(P_+)_{ij}^{st}C^{kl}x_sx_tx_k\mathrm{d}x_l`$
for the bimodule structure of any free covariant first order differential calculus on $`\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$. Here, $`P_+`$ is the projector onto the subspace corresponding to           , $`P_{}`$ the projector onto the subspace corresponding to            , and $`P_0`$ the projector onto the subspace for (0). Since the projectors are less convenient for later calculation, we use the fact that $`\widehat{R}^{}`$, the identity $`I`$, and $`K`$ are three independent linear combinations of $`P_+`$, $`P_{}`$ and $`P_0`$, spanning therefore the same vector space of transformations, and that the multiplication $`x_sx_t`$ in the last summand in fact does itself the job of $`P_+`$ because it involves a symmetrisation via relations (1) and (2). We can therefore rewrite the ansatz as

$$\mathrm{d}x_ix_j=a_1\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}x_{k}^{}\mathrm{d}x_l+a_2x_i\mathrm{d}x_j+a_3K_{ij}^{kl}x_k\mathrm{d}x_l+a_4C^{kl}x_ix_jx_k\mathrm{d}x_l$$
(8)
with unknown coefficients $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$, $`a_3`$ and $`a_4`$.

The changed constraint in Corollary 5 requiring the calculus to contain the left-module relations generated by $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ means that the subspace for (0) is cancelled from $`\pi (1)\pi (1)`$ and that for           from $`\pi (3)\pi (1)`$ in the decomposition of $`X\mathrm{d}V(1)`$. This reduces the number of possible morphisms to 2, and with essentially the same arguments as before the ansatz

$$\mathrm{d}x_ix_j=a_1\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}x_{k}^{}\mathrm{d}x_l+a_2x_i\mathrm{d}x_j$$
(9)
is obtained.

We return now to equation (8). To determine the coefficients we use first the conditions

$`C^{ij}(\mathrm{d}x_ix_j+x_i\mathrm{d}x_j)`$ $`=0\text{,}`$ (10)
$`\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}(\mathrm{d}x_kx_l+x_k\mathrm{d}x_l)q(\mathrm{d}x_ix_j+x_i\mathrm{d}x_j)`$ $`=0\text{,}`$ (11)
$`C^{kl}\mathrm{d}x_ix_kx_l`$ $`=\mathrm{d}x_i\text{,}`$ (12)
$`\widehat{R}_{kl}^{st}\mathrm{d}x_ix_sx_tq\mathrm{d}x_ix_kx_l+{\displaystyle \frac{qq^1}{1+q^{N2}}}C_{kl}\mathrm{d}x_i`$ $`=0\text{,}`$ (13)
the first two of which arise by differentiating the defining relations of $`\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$ while the last two ones result from the bimodule requirement and the defining relations of $`\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$. Since covariance and freeness are guaranteed by the construction leading to (8), these equations which completely encode the compatibility of bimodule structure with differentiation are everything which remains to be satisfied.

Each of the equations (10)–(13) is evaluated by transforming it via (8) to left-module form444Part of these calculations has been carried out with the aid of a computer algebraic program. and comparing coefficients for elements of $`X\mathrm{d}V(1)`$.555The coefficient comparisons involved are admissible only if there are enough algebraically independent elements in $`X\mathrm{d}V(1)`$ but this requirement is met for $`N6`$.

From (10) and (11) we derive

$`a_2`$ $`=qa_11;`$ $`a_4`$ $`=1q^{N1}a_1a_2{\displaystyle \frac{q^2(1+q^{N2})(1q^N)}{q^21}}a_3`$
and eliminate $`a_2`$ and $`a_4`$. After doing so, we obtain from (12) and (13) among others the conditions

$$a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}1=0\text{;}$$

$$1a_3q^{N3}\frac{q^21}{1+q^{N2}}a_1+q^1\frac{1+q^N}{1+q^{N2}}a_1a_3+\frac{1+q^N}{1+q^{N2}}a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=0\text{.}$$

By computing for each of the two possible values for $`a_1`$ the other coefficients, we find that two sets of coefficients are still possible, namely

$`a_1`$ $`=1\text{,}`$ $`a_2`$ $`=q1\text{,}`$ $`a_3`$ $`=q^{N2}{\displaystyle \frac{q^21}{1q^{N1}}}\text{,}`$ $`a_4`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(1q)(1+q^{N2})}{1q^{N1}}}\text{;}`$
$`a_1`$ $`=1\text{,}`$ $`a_2`$ $`=q1\text{,}`$ $`a_3`$ $`=q^{N2}{\displaystyle \frac{q^21}{1q^{N1}}}\text{,}`$ $`a_4`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(1+q)(1+q^{N2})}{1+q^{N1}}}\text{.}`$
Inserting these into (8) yields equation (3) from the theorem for the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ cases, resp. To finish the proof of the theorem, one checks that (10)–(13) are satisfied by both sets of coefficients. For this last step, the assumption $`N6`$ is not needed.

To prove Corollary 5, conditions (11)–(13) have to be exploited in the same manner but with the simpler assumption (9). Equation (10) is trivially satisfied in this case. The calculations are essentially the same as above but simpler. Equation (11) leads again to $`a_2=qa_11`$; from (13) we get then, among other conditions,

$`a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ $`=1`$ and $`a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(q+q^1)a_1+1`$ $`=0`$
which contradict each other except for $`q=\pm 1`$. This completes the proof.

## 4. Higher order differential calculus and symmetry

### 4.1. Basic definitions

If the geometric structure of quantum spaces is to be investigated, first order differential calculus is an insufficient tool since even simple concepts of differential geometry require at least second order differential forms to be formulated. That’s why we shall turn our interest now to higher order differential calculus.

Given a covariant first order differential calculus $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{d})`$ over a quantum homogeneous space $`X`$, consider a pair $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{},\mathrm{d})`$ consisting of a graded algebra $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}`$ and a linear mapping $`\mathrm{d}:\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}`$ such that the degree $`0`$ and $`1`$ components of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}`$ are isomorphic to $`X`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, resp. Let the multiplication of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}`$ be denoted by $``$, with the convention that the $``$ sign may be omitted if one of the factors involved is of degree zero (i.e. an element of $`X`$). Suppose further that the following statements hold for $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{},\mathrm{d})`$: The mapping $`\mathrm{d}`$ increases the degree by $`1`$; $`\mathrm{d}`$ extends the differential of the first order calculus and fulfils the graded Leibniz rule, $`\mathrm{d}(\vartheta _1\vartheta _2)=\mathrm{d}\vartheta _1\vartheta _2+(1)^d\vartheta _1\mathrm{d}\vartheta _2`$, for $`\vartheta _1,\vartheta _2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}`$ where $`d`$ is the degree of $`\vartheta _1`$; and $`\mathrm{dd}=0`$. Finally, assume that the covariance map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{R}`$ from the first order calculus can be extended to a map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{R}^{}:\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}𝒜`$ making $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}`$ into a covariant $`X`$-bimodule. If all these properties are fulfilled, the pair $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{},\mathrm{d})`$ is called a covariant higher order differential calculus over $`X`$ which extends $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{d})`$.

First, one observes that for any first order differential calculus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ over a quantum homogeneous space, there exists a universal higher order differential calculus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{u}^{}`$ extending $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ from which any other calculus with the above properties can be obtained by factorisation. Relations of this calculus can be successively computed started with those of the first order differential calculus and applying the definition of higher order differential calculus but in general the universal calculus is difficult to handle and displays properties which make not much sense for geometric investigations, such as unlimited order of differential forms on deformations of finite-dimensional manifolds. Therefore it is mostly of merely algebraic interest.

A second approach to higher order differential calculus is based on an antisymmetrisation procedure, cf. . For this, a “braiding” map $`\sigma :\mathrm{\Gamma }_X\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_X\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is required which must be an algebra homomorphism satisfying the braid (or quantum Yang-Baxter) equation

$$(\sigma \mathrm{id})(\mathrm{id}\sigma )(\sigma \mathrm{id})=(\mathrm{id}\sigma )(\sigma \mathrm{id})(\mathrm{id}\sigma )\text{.}$$

The algebra $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}`$ is then obtained by factorising $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ over an ideal which is generated by the kernel of $`(\mathrm{id}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }}\sigma )`$.

In the literature several versions for the construction of the ideal can be found. All of them agree in their second order component but differences occur in higher orders, leading possibly to different external algebras. For a detailed comparison in the case of the quantum group $`\mathrm{SL}_q(N)`$ see .

An advantage of the antisymmetrisation approach lies in the symmetry information encoded in $`\sigma `$ which merits an interest of its own in further exploring of the differential structure.

### 4.2. Second order relations in the universal higher order differential calculus extending $`𝚪_\mathbf{+}`$

For the remaining part of this article, we shall base our considerations on the first order differential calculus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ over $`X=\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$.

The first order differential calculus determines a unique universal higher order differential calculus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{u}^{}`$ over $`\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$ which extends $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$. In the following we want to give relations which have to hold in this higher order differential calculus. In particular, we want to give a full account of the relations of second order.

Since iterated differentiation is involved in the calculations, we prefer to use the $`\mathrm{d}x_i`$ basis for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

###### Proposition 8.

All left-module relations in the module $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of two-forms in the universal higher order differential calculus on $`\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$ extending $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ are generated by the set of relations

$`0`$ $`=\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}\mathrm{d}x_k\mathrm{d}x_l+q\mathrm{d}x_i\mathrm{d}x_jq{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)(1+q^{N2})}{1q^{N1}}}x_i\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{d}x_j`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)(1+q^{N2})}{1q^{N1}}}\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}x_{k}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{d}x_l{\displaystyle \frac{(1+q^2)(1+q^{N2})^2}{(1q^{N1})^2}}x_ix_jC^{kl}x_k\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{d}x_l`$
$`+q^{N2}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+q)(1+q^2)(1+q^{N2})}{(1q^{N1})^2}}K_{ij}^{kl}x_k\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{d}x_l\text{,}`$ (14)
$`0`$ $`=\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }+2q{\displaystyle \frac{1+q^{N2}}{(1q)(1q^{N1})}}C^{kl}x_k\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{d}x_l\text{.}`$ (15)
Proof: We start by differentiating equations (3) for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ using the graded Leibniz rule. By transforming all involved summands to left-module expressions, we obtain a relation which necessarily holds in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{u}^{}`$.

$`0`$ $`=\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}\mathrm{d}x_k\mathrm{d}x_l+q\mathrm{d}x_i\mathrm{d}x_jq^{N1}{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)^2(1+q)(1+q^{N2})}{(1q^{N1})^2}}x_i\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{d}x_j`$
$`+q^2{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)(1+q^{N2})}{1q^{N1}}}x_ix_j\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }+q{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)(1+q^{N2})}{1q^{N1}}}\widehat{R}^{}{}_{jk}{}^{st}C_{}^{kl}x_ix_s\mathrm{d}x_t\mathrm{d}x_l`$
$`q^{N2}{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)^2(1+q)(1+q^{N2})}{(1q^{N1})^2}}\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}x_{k}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{d}x_l`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)(1+q^{N2})}{1q^{N1}}}\widehat{R}^{}{}_{kl}{}^{tu}\widehat{R}_{}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{sk}C_{}^{lv}x_sx_t\mathrm{d}x_u\mathrm{d}x_v`$
$`q^{N2}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+q)(1q)}{1q^{N1}}}C_{ij}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }+{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)(1q^3)(1+q^{N2})^2}{q(1q^{N1})^2}}C^{kl}x_ix_jx_k\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{d}x_l`$
$`q^{N3}{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)^2(1+q)(1+q^{N2})}{(1q^{N1})^2}}K_{ij}^{kl}x_k\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{d}x_l`$
This equation is resolved for $`\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}\mathrm{d}x_k\mathrm{d}x_l`$; by substituting the resulting expression on the right-hand side of the identity

$$\widehat{R}^{}{}_{jk}{}^{st}C_{}^{kl}x_ix_s\mathrm{d}x_t\mathrm{d}x_l=\left(\widehat{R}^{}{}_{sj}{}^{tl}C_{}^{ks}+(qq^1)(I_{sj}^{tl}K_{sj}^{tl})C^{ks}\right)x_ix_s\mathrm{d}x_t\mathrm{d}x_l\text{,}$$

a new equation is obtained which contains again $`\widehat{R}^{}{}_{jk}{}^{st}C_{}^{kl}x_ix_s\mathrm{d}x_t\mathrm{d}x_l`$ on its right-hand side. Resolving for this term, one finds

$`\widehat{R}^{}{}_{jk}{}^{st}C_{}^{kl}x_ix_s\mathrm{d}x_t\mathrm{d}x_l`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1q^{N2}q^{N1}+q^N}{1q^{N1}}}x_i\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{d}x_j+(1q)x_ix_j\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)(1+q^{N2})}{1q^{N1}}}C^{kl}x_ix_jx_k\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{d}x_l\text{,}`$
which simplifies the original relation to

$`0`$ $`=\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}\mathrm{d}x_k\mathrm{d}x_l+q\mathrm{d}x_i\mathrm{d}x_j+q{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)(1+q^{N2})}{1q^{N1}}}x_i\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{d}x_j`$
$`q^1{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)(1q+q^2)(1+q^{N2})}{1q^{N1}}}x_ix_j\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)(1+q^{N2})}{1q^{N1}}}\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}x_{k}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{d}x_l`$
$`+q^{N3}{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)(1+q^3)}{1q^{N1}}}C_{ij}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)^2(1+q^{N2})^2}{(1q^{N1})^2}}C^{kl}x_ix_jx_k\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{d}x_l`$
$`+q^{N2}{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)^2(1+q)(1+q^{N2})}{(1q^{N1})^2}}K_{ij}^{kl}x_k\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{d}x_l\text{.}`$
We shall denote the right-hand side of this equation, with the $``$ signs replaced by $`_X`$ (and thus $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by $`\mathrm{d}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }:=C^{ij}\mathrm{d}x_i_X\mathrm{d}x_j`$), by $`[𝐑_{ij}]`$.

By factorising the free left $`\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$-module $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_X\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ generated by $`\mathrm{d}x_i\mathrm{d}x_j`$ over the relations $`[𝐑_{ij}]=0`$, a left $`\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$-module $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^2`$ is obtained. This is not a bimodule, and therefore still not $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, because if this were the case, it would follow from equation (3) and $`[𝐑_{ij}]=0`$ that

$`0`$ $`=[𝐑_{ij}]x_k=[𝐑_{ijk}^{}]`$
$`=A_1x_ix_jx_k\mathrm{d}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }+A_2C_{ij}x_k\mathrm{d}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }+A_3C_{jk}x_i\mathrm{d}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }+A_4C_{tk}\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{st}x_{s}^{}\mathrm{d}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`+A_5C^{mn}x_ix_jx_kx_m\mathrm{\Omega }_X\mathrm{d}x_n+A_6C_{ij}C^{mn}x_kx_m\mathrm{\Omega }_X\mathrm{d}x_n`$
$`+A_7C_{jk}C^{mn}x_ix_m\mathrm{\Omega }_X\mathrm{d}x_n+A_8C_{tk}\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{st}C_{}^{mn}x_sx_m\mathrm{\Omega }_X\mathrm{d}x_n\text{,}`$
where

$`A_5`$ $`=2q^3{\displaystyle \frac{\begin{array}{cc}(1+q^{N2})^2\hfill & (12q+2q^22q^3+2q^42q^5+q^6q^{N1}\hfill \\ & +2q^N2q^{N+1}+q^{N+2}+2q^{N+4}3q^{N+5}+q^{N+6})\hfill \end{array}}{(1q^{N1})^3}}\text{,}`$
$`A_6`$ $`=2q^{N5}{\displaystyle \frac{\begin{array}{cc}(1+q^{N2})\hfill & (12q+2q^3q^5q^6+q^7q^{N1}+2q^N\hfill \\ & 3q^{N+2}+q^{N+3}+3q^{N+4}q^{N+5}2q^{N+6}+q^{N+7})\hfill \end{array}}{(1q^{N1})^3}}\text{,}`$
$`A_7`$ $`=qA_8=2q^{N3}{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)^4(1+q)^2(1+q^{N2})}{(1q^{N1})^2}}\text{,}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{A_5}{A_1}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{A_6}{A_2}}={\displaystyle \frac{A_7}{A_3}}={\displaystyle \frac{A_8}{A_4}}=T:=2q{\displaystyle \frac{1+q^{N2}}{(1q)(1q^{N1})}}\text{.}`$
To make $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^2`$ into a bimodule, it has to be factorised again over the relation

$$[𝐑_{ijk}^{}]=0\text{.}$$
(16)
We observe that there is an $`S0`$ such that

$$C^{ij}(A_1x_ix_jx_k+A_2C_{ij}x_k+A_3C_{jk}x_i+A_4C_{tk}\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{st}x_{s}^{})=Sx_k\text{.}$$

Because of this fact and the equality

$`[𝐑_{ijk}^{}]=`$
$`(A_1x_ix_jx_k+A_2C_{ij}x_k+A_3C_{jk}x_i+A_4C_{tk}\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{st}x_{s}^{})(\mathrm{d}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }+TC^{mn}x_m\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{d}x_n)\text{,}`$
the relation (16) implies

$$0=C^{rk}C^{ij}x_r[𝐑_{ijk}^{}]$$

and thus

$$\mathrm{d}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }+TC^{mn}x_m\mathrm{\Omega }_X\mathrm{d}x_n=0\text{.}$$
(17)
Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^2`$ be the left module obtained by factorising $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^2`$ over the relation (17).

Since in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^2`$ the equalities

$`[𝐑_{ij}]x_k`$ $`=0`$ and $`(\mathrm{d}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }+TC^{mn}x_m\mathrm{\Omega }_X\mathrm{d}x_n)x_k`$ $`=0`$
are satisfied, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^2`$ is in fact a $`\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$-bimodule and therefore isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.∎

### 4.3. Braiding symmetry and antisymmetrisation

From the simple bimodule structure of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ w.r.t. the basis $`\{\gamma _i\}`$ where either $`\gamma _i=\gamma _i^+`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, or $`\gamma _i=\gamma _i^{}`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, one easily guesses the ansatz for a covariant “braiding” homomorphism which underlies the following theorem.

###### Theorem 9.

Let $`X=\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$, and either $`\gamma _i=\gamma _i^+`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$ or $`\gamma _i=\gamma _i^{}`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$. For any real number $`\alpha `$, the equation

$$\sigma (\gamma _i_X\gamma _j)=\alpha \widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}\gamma _{k}^{}_X\gamma _l$$

continues to a well-defined covariant homomorphism $`\sigma :\mathrm{\Gamma }_X\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_X\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which satisfies the braid relation.

Proof: Since all tensor products of differential modules in the following have to be taken over the quantum space $`\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}`$, we shall often write $``$ instead of $`_X`$ or $`_{\mathrm{S}_q^{N1}}`$ in the following.

First, let $`\sigma _\mathrm{L}:\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the left module homomorphism defined by $`\sigma _\mathrm{L}(\gamma _i\gamma _j)=\alpha \widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}\gamma _{k}^{}\gamma _l`$. Because of

$`\sigma _\mathrm{L}(\gamma _i\gamma _jx_k)\sigma _\mathrm{L}(\gamma _i\gamma _j)x_k`$
$`=\sigma _\mathrm{L}(\widehat{R}^{}{}_{iu}{}^{st}\widehat{R}_{}^{}{}_{jk}{}^{uv}x_{s}^{}\gamma _t\gamma _v)\alpha \widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{uv}\gamma _{u}^{}\gamma _vx_k`$
$`=\alpha (\widehat{R}^{}{}_{tv}{}^{wp}\widehat{R}_{}^{}{}_{iu}{}^{st}\widehat{R}_{}^{}{}_{jk}{}^{uv}\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ut}{}^{sw}\widehat{R}_{}^{}{}_{vk}{}^{tp}\widehat{R}_{}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{uv})x_s\gamma _w\gamma _p=0\text{,}`$
$`\sigma _\mathrm{L}`$ is also a right module homomorphism, i.e. $`\sigma `$ is a well-defined bimodule homomorphism.

Second, with the abbreviations $`\sigma _1:=\sigma _X\mathrm{id}_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\sigma _2:=\mathrm{id}_\mathrm{\Gamma }_X\sigma `$, we obtain

$`(\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _1\sigma _2)(\gamma _i\gamma _j\gamma _k)`$
$`=\alpha ^3(\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ut}{}^{sw}\widehat{R}_{}^{}{}_{vk}{}^{tp}\widehat{R}_{}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{uv}\widehat{R}^{}{}_{tv}{}^{wp}\widehat{R}_{}^{}{}_{iu}{}^{st}\widehat{R}_{}^{}{}_{jk}{}^{uv})\gamma _s\gamma _w\gamma _p=0\text{,}`$
i.e. the braid relation is fulfilled.

Finally, for the mapping $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{R}:\mathrm{\Gamma }_X\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_X\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{O}_q(N)`$ (where the multiplication of $`\mathrm{O}_q(N)`$ makes the second tensor factors of both $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{R}`$ images into one element of the quantum group) one has

$`(\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{R})\sigma (\gamma _i\gamma _j)=\alpha \widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}\gamma _{s}^{}\gamma _tu_k^su_l^t`$
$`=\alpha \widehat{R}^{}{}_{kl}{}^{st}\gamma _{s}^{}\gamma _tu_i^ku_j^l=(\sigma \mathrm{id}_\mathrm{\Gamma })(\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{R})(\gamma _i\gamma _j)\text{,}`$
which guarantees the covariance of $`\sigma `$.∎

Remark: Obviously, $`\sigma `$ is invertible, with the inverse $`\sigma ^1`$ defined by

$$\sigma ^1(\gamma _i\gamma _j)=\alpha ^1\widehat{R}_{ij}^{kl}\gamma _k\gamma _l\text{.}$$

###### Corollary 10.

The homomorphism $`\sigma `$ constructed in Theorem 9 is independent on the choice $`\gamma _i=\gamma _i^+`$ or $`\gamma _i=\gamma _i^{}`$.

Proof: Define $`\sigma ^{}`$ and $`\sigma _+`$ via

$$\sigma ^{}(\gamma _i^{}\gamma _j^{})=\alpha \widehat{R}_{ij}^{kl}\gamma _k^{}\gamma _l^{}\text{,}\sigma ^+(\gamma _i^+\gamma _j^+)=\alpha \widehat{R}_{ij}^{kl}\gamma _k^+\gamma _l^+\text{.}$$

From Proposition 6 and the bimodule structure of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ it follows that

$`\gamma _i^+\gamma _j^+`$ $`=\gamma _i^{}\gamma _j^{}(1+q^{N2})C^{kl}x_ix_k\gamma _k^{}\gamma _l^{}`$
$`(1+q^{N2})C^{vt}\widehat{R}^{}{}_{uv}{}^{ts}\widehat{R}_{}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{ku}x_{k}^{}x_l\gamma _s^{}\gamma _t^{}`$
$`+q^2(1+q^{N2})^2C^{kl}C^{st}x_ix_jx_kx_s\gamma _t^{}\gamma _l^{}`$
$`(qq^1)(1+q^{N2})C^{ul}\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ju}{}^{sk}x_{i}^{}x_s\gamma _k^{}\gamma _l^{}`$
$`(q^21)(1+q^{N2})C^{kl}x_ix_j\gamma _k^{}\gamma _l^{}\text{.}`$
From this one can calculate $`\alpha ^1\sigma ^{}(\gamma _i^+\gamma _j^+)`$ as well as $`\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}\gamma _{k}^{+}\gamma _l^+`$. One finds that both equal the expression

$`\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}\gamma _{k}^{}\gamma _l^{}(1+q^{N2})C^{su}\widehat{R}^{}{}_{uj}{}^{kl}x_{i}^{}x_s\gamma _l^{}\gamma _l^{}`$
$`(1+q^{N2})C^{kl}\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{st}x_{s}^{}x_k\gamma _l^{}\gamma _t^{}+q(1+q^{N2})^2C^{kl}C^{st}x_ix_jx_kx_s\gamma _t^{}\gamma _l^{}`$
$`(qq^1)(1+q^{N2})C^{kl}x_ix_k\gamma _l^{}\gamma _j^{}`$
which means that $`\sigma ^+`$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$ are identical.∎

The following corollary specifies the way in which $`\sigma `$ can be used to define a higher order differential calculus extending $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ via antisymmetrisation. Note that the expressions $`[𝐈]`$ and $`[\mathrm{𝐈𝐈}]`$ correspond to the right-hand sides of the relations (14), (15) from Proposition 8

###### Corollary 11.

Let $`X`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\gamma _i`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\sigma `$ be as in Theorem 9. If and only if $`\alpha =q`$, the homomorphism $`(\mathrm{id}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }}\sigma )`$ annihilates the two expressions $`[𝐈],[\mathrm{𝐈𝐈}]\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ defined by

$`[𝐈]`$ $`:=\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}\mathrm{d}x_k\mathrm{d}x_l+q\mathrm{d}x_i\mathrm{d}x_j`$
$`q{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)(1+q^{N2})}{1q^{N1}}}x_iC^{mn}x_m\mathrm{d}x_n\mathrm{d}x_j`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)(1+q^{N2})}{1q^{N1}}}\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}x_{k}^{}C^{mn}x_m\mathrm{d}x_n\mathrm{d}x_l`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(1+q^2)(1+q^{N2})^2}{(1q^{N1})^2}}x_ix_jC^{kl}x_kC^{mn}x_m\mathrm{d}x_n\mathrm{d}x_l`$
$`+q^{N2}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+q)(1+q^2)(1+q^{N2})}{(1q^{N1})^2}}K_{ij}^{kl}x_kC^{mn}x_m\mathrm{d}x_n\mathrm{d}x_l\text{,}`$
$`[\mathrm{𝐈𝐈}]`$ $`:=C^{mn}\mathrm{d}x_m\mathrm{d}x_n+2q{\displaystyle \frac{1+q^{N2}}{(1q)(1q^{N1})}}C^{kl}C^{mn}x_kx_m\mathrm{d}x_n\mathrm{d}x_l\text{.}`$
Proof: That the parameter $`\alpha `$ must be chosen as $`q`$ in order for $`[𝐈]`$ and $`[\mathrm{𝐈𝐈}]`$ to be annihilated by $`(\mathrm{id}\sigma )`$ is obvious. Let therefore

$$\sigma (\gamma _i_X\gamma _j)=q\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}\gamma _{k}^{}_X\gamma _l\text{.}$$

By calculation, we obtain successively

$`\mathrm{d}x_i_X\mathrm{d}x_j=\gamma _i_X\gamma _jq{\displaystyle \frac{1+q^{N2}}{1+q}}C^{mn}x_ix_m\gamma _n_X\gamma _j`$
$`+q^2{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)(1+q^{N2})}{1+q}}C^{mn}x_ix_j\gamma _m_X\gamma _n`$
$`+q{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)(1+q^{N2})}{1+q}}\widehat{R}^{}{}_{jm}{}^{kl}C_{}^{mn}x_ix_k\gamma _l_X\gamma _n`$
$`q{\displaystyle \frac{1+q^{N2}}{1+q}}\widehat{R}^{}{}_{tm}{}^{kl}\widehat{R}_{}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{st}C_{}^{mn}x_sx_k\gamma _l_X\gamma _n`$
$`+q^4{\displaystyle \frac{(1+q^{N2})^2}{(1+q)^2}}C^{mn}C^{st}x_ix_jx_sx_m\gamma _n_X\gamma _t\text{,}`$
$`[𝐈]=q\gamma _i_X\gamma _j+\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}\gamma _{k}^{}_X\gamma _lq{\displaystyle \frac{1+q^{N2}}{1+q}}C^{mn}x_ix_m\gamma _n_X\gamma _j`$
$`+q^1{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)(1+q^2)(1+q^{N2})}{1q^{N1}}}C^{mn}x_ix_j\gamma _m_X\gamma _n`$
$`q^2{\displaystyle \frac{1+q^{N2}}{1+q}}\widehat{R}^{}{}_{jm}{}^{kl}C_{}^{mn}x_ix_k\gamma _l_X\gamma _n`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1+q^{N2}}{1+q}}\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}C_{}^{mn}x_kx_m\gamma _n_X\gamma _l`$
$`q{\displaystyle \frac{1+q^{N2}}{1+q}}\widehat{R}^{}{}_{tm}{}^{kl}\widehat{R}_{}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{st}C_{}^{mn}x_sx_k\gamma _l_X\gamma _n`$
$`q^{N3}{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)(1+q^3+q^N)}{1q^{N1}}}K_{ij}^{kl}\gamma _k_X\gamma _l`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)(1+q^2(1+q^{N2})^2}{(1+q)(1q^{N1})}}C^{mn}C^{st}x_ix_jx_sx_m\gamma _n_X\gamma _t`$
$`+q^{N2}{\displaystyle \frac{(1q+2q^2q^3q^{N+1})(1+q^{N2})}{1q^{N1}}}K_{ij}^{kl}C^{mn}x_kx_m\gamma _n_X\gamma _l\text{,}`$
$`C^{ij}\mathrm{d}x_i_X\mathrm{d}x_j={\displaystyle \frac{2q^{N1}+q^N}{1+q}}C^{ij}\gamma _i_X\gamma _j`$
$`q{\displaystyle \frac{(1+q^{N2})(1+q^N)}{(1+q)^2}}C^{ij}C^{mn}x_ix_m\gamma _n_X\gamma _j\text{,}`$
$`[\mathrm{𝐈𝐈}]=q^{N1}C^{ij}\gamma _i_X\gamma _j+q{\displaystyle \frac{(1+q^{N2})(1q^N)}{1q^2}}C^{ij}C^{mn}x_ix_m\gamma _n_X\gamma _j\text{,}`$
and finally

$`(\mathrm{id}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }}\sigma )[𝐈]`$ $`=0\text{,}`$ $`(\mathrm{id}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }}\sigma )[\mathrm{𝐈𝐈}]`$ $`=0\text{.}`$
It follows that a higher order differential calculus extending $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ is obtained by factorising $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ over the ideal generated by the kernel of $`(\mathrm{id}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }}\sigma )`$ if and only if $`\alpha =q`$ which will be assumed from now on.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^{}`$ be this higher order differential calculus. Although $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^{}`$ is smaller than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{u}^{}`$, it still contains nonvanishing differential forms of arbitrarily high order, e.g. $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

In fact, $`(\mathrm{id}\sigma )`$ cancels the component from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ belonging to projector $`P_+`$ but leaves the $`P_0`$ component intact. To complete antisymmetrisation, the latter has to be zeroed by an additional factorisation. Obviously, factorisation does not destroy the property of being a higher order differential calculus.

###### Corollary 12.

Let the higher order differential calculus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma 0}^{}`$ be given by factorisation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^{}`$ over the additional relation $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma 0}^{}`$ is generated as a left $`X`$-module by the set of all differential forms $`\gamma _{i_1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{i_s}`$ where $`0sN`$ and $`1i_1<\mathrm{}<i_sN`$.

Proof: By virtue of the bimodule structure of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, any differential form in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma 0}^{}`$ can be written as a sum of products $`x\gamma _{i_1}\gamma _{i_2}\mathrm{}\gamma _{i_s}`$ with $`xX`$, $`s0`$ and $`i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_s\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$. Moreover, from $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ it follows that

$`C^{ij}\gamma _i\gamma _j`$ $`=0\text{,}`$ $`C^{ij}C^{kl}x_ix_k\gamma _l\gamma _j`$ $`=0\text{.}`$
Using

$$(\mathrm{id}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }}\sigma )(\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}\gamma _{k}^{}\gamma _l+q\gamma _i\gamma _j)=q^{N1}(q^21)K_{ij}^{kl}\gamma _k\gamma _l$$

we obtain therefore

$$\widehat{R}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}\gamma _{k}^{}\gamma _l+q\gamma _i\gamma _j=0\text{.}$$
(18)
This commutation relation for the $`\gamma _i`$s allows to replace any product $`\gamma _i\gamma _j`$, $`i>j`$ with a sum of products $`\gamma _k\gamma _l`$ with $`k<l`$ and $`k+l=i+j`$. Furthermore, the relation implies that the product $`\gamma _i\gamma _i`$ is zero if $`2iN+1`$ while for $`2i=N+1`$ it can be replaced by a sum of products $`\gamma _k\gamma _l`$ with $`k<l`$ and again $`k+l=i+j`$.

Assume now we are given the product $`\gamma _{i_1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{i_r}\gamma _{i_{r+1}}\mathrm{}\gamma _{i_s}`$ where $`i_ri_{r+1}`$ holds for some $`r`$. Applying (18) as described before at positions $`r`$ and $`r+1`$ we transform the given product either to zero or to a sum of new products $`\gamma _{i_1^{}}\mathrm{}\gamma _{i_r^{}}\gamma _{i_{r+1}^{}}\mathrm{}\gamma _{i_s^{}}`$ where $`i_k=i_k^{}`$ for all $`kr,r+1`$ such that $`i_1^{}+i_2^{}+\mathrm{}+i_k^{}=i_1+i_2+\mathrm{}+i_k`$ whenever $`kr`$ while $`i_1^{}+i_2^{}+\mathrm{}+i_r^{}i_1+i_2+\mathrm{}+i_r1`$. Since in each resulting product in each step one of the index sums $`i_1^{}+i_2^{}+\mathrm{}+i_k^{}`$ is by at least one smaller than the corresponding sum in its predecessor, and since none of the index sums can become negative, the procedure terminates after a finite number of steps, yielding only products with $`i_r<i_{r+1}`$ for all $`r`$. This completes the proof.∎

## Acknowledgement

I want to thank Dr. István Heckenberger for many helpful discussions.

Part of the work included in this paper was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft within the programme of Graduiertenkolleg Quantenfeldtheorie, Leipzig.


format: text

text:
# Polarized 𝐽/𝜓 production in deep inelastic scattering at HERA

## I Introduction

Studies of heavy quarkonium production in high energy collisions provide important information on both perturbative and nonperturbative QCD. In the conventional picture, the heavy quarkonium production is described in the color-singlet model (CSM). In this model, it is assumed that the heavy quark pair must be produced in a color-singlet state at short distance with the same angular-momentum quantum number as the charmonium which is eventually observed. However, with the recent Tevatron data on high $`p_T`$ $`J/\psi `$ production, this color-singlet picture for heavy quarkonium production has become questionable, The observed cross section is larger than the theoretical prediction of the color-singlet model by a factor of about $`3050`$. This is called the $`J/\psi `$ ($`\psi ^{}`$) surplus problem. On the theoretical side, the naive color-singlet model has been supplanted by the nonrelativistic QCD (NRQCD) factorization formalism , which allows the infrared safe calculation of inclusive charmonium production and decay rates. In this approach, the production process is factorized into short and long distance parts, while the latter is associated with the nonperturbative matrix elements of four-fermion operators. So, for heavy quarkonium production, the quark-antiquark pair does not need to be in the color-singlet state in the short distance production stage, which is at the scale of $`1/m_Q`$ ($`m_Q`$ is the heavy quark mass). At this stage, the color configuration other than the singlet is allowed for the heavy quark pair, such as color-octet. The later situation for heavy quarkonium production is called the color-octet mechanism. In this production mechanism, heavy quark-antiquark pair is produced at short distances in a color-octet state, and then hadronizes into a final state quarkonium (physical state) nonperturbatively. The color-octet terms in the gluon fragmentation to $`J/\psi `$($`\psi ^{}`$) have been considered to explain the $`J/\psi `$($`\psi ^{}`$) surplus problems discovered by CDF . Taking the nonperturbative $`𝒪_8^{J/\psi }(^3S_1)`$ and $`𝒪_8^\psi ^{}(^3S_1)`$ as input parameters, the CDF surplus problem for $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ can be explained as the contributions of color-octet terms due to gluon fragmentation.

Apart from the NRQCD factorization approach (NRQCD FA) mentioned above, there are also other approaches for describing heavy quarkonium production in literature advocated in these years, such as the Color Evaporation Model, and the model of heavy quarkonium production with interactions with comoving fields.

Even though the color-octet mechanism has achieved some successes in describing the production and decay of heavy quarkonia, more tests of this mechanism are still needed. Recently, the photoproduction data from HERA  put a question about the color-octet predictions for the inelastic photoproduction of $`J/\psi `$ (possible solutions for this problem have been suggested in). Most recently, the CDF collaboration have reported their preliminary measurements on the polarizations of the promptly produced charmonium and bottomonium states, which appear not to support the color-octet predictions that the directly produced $`S`$-wave quarkonia have transverse polarization at large $`p_T`$. This discrepancy between the experimental results and the theoretical predictions shows that the predictions of NRQCD color-octet mechanism on the polarizations of heavy quarkonium productions may be questionable. However, the final conclusion about this problem can be achieved only if the polarizations of charmonium production in other processes are also measured and compared with theoretical predictions. In this paper, we will study the polarization of $`J/\psi `$ production in deep inelastic scattering (DIS) processes at HERA collider. The relevant photoproduction processes have been studied in , and the leading order color-octet $`J/\psi `$ production and polarization in DIS have been studied in  (from $`21`$ virtual photon subprocesses). These processes contribute to $`J/\psi `$ production in the forward direction. In this paper, we will complete these studies by calculating the $`J/\psi `$ production in DIS from the NLO color-octet processes, i.e., from the virtual photon $`22`$ subprocesses. With these calculations, we can study the $`z`$ distributions of $`J/\psi `$ production and polarization in DIS processes at HERA, which will compensate the previous studies in the photoproduction process. Moreover, since the photon virtuality $`Q^2`$ can be large, electroproduction is a better process from which to test the color-octet mechanism and to extract the NRQCD long distance matrix elements than photoproduction. The latter process lacks any large energy scale other than the charm quark mass, and consequently, higher order perturbative corrections to leading order calculations are expected to be large. In addition, nonperturbative effects, such as higher twist corrections to the parton model, are less effectively suppressed in photoproduction than in electroproduction at large $`Q^2`$.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we will give the polarized cross section formula for the inelastic $`J/\psi `$ production at the electron-proton collider. Here, we adopt the Weizsäcker-Williams approximation to calculate the electroproduction cross section with the photoproduction cross section. The numerical results are given in Sec. III. We will display the polarized cross sections for both the photon-proton collisions and electron-proton collisions. In Sec. IV, we give the conclusions.

## II polarized cross section formulas

The polar angular distribution in $`J/\psi l^+l^{}`$ decay is given by

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }1+\alpha \mathrm{cos}^2\theta ,$$
(1)
where $`\theta `$ is the angle between the lepton three-momentum in the $`J/\psi `$ rest frame and the polarization axis. $`\alpha `$ is the polar angle asymmetry parameter,

$$\alpha =\frac{13\xi }{1+\xi },$$
(2)
where

$$\xi =\frac{d\sigma (epeJ/\psi (\lambda =0)X)}{_\lambda d\sigma (epeJ/\psi (\lambda )X)}.$$
(3)
Here $`\lambda `$ is the helicity of the produced $`J/\psi `$. $`\lambda =0`$ means $`J/\psi `$ is longitudinally polarized, and $`\lambda =\pm 1`$ transversely polarized.

In the Born approximation, the electroproduction cross section $`\sigma (epeJ/\psi X)`$ is related to the $`\gamma ^{}p`$ cross section by

$$\frac{d\sigma (epeJ/\psi X)}{dydQ^2}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_T\sigma _T(\gamma ^{}pJ/\psi X)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\sigma _L(\gamma ^{}pJ/\psi X).$$
(4)
Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{T,L}`$ are the flux factors of the transversely and longitudinally polarized virtual photons respectively,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_T=\frac{\alpha (1+(1y)^2)}{2\pi yQ^2},\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=\frac{\alpha (1y)}{\pi yQ^2},$$
(5)
where $`y=k_\gamma ^{}P/k_eP`$ is the fraction of the lepton’s energy lost in the proton rest frame. In the typical kinematic region of HERA experiments, the difference between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$ is negligible. So, in practice, we can simplify the cross section formula of Eq.(4) as

$$\frac{d\sigma (epeJ/\psi X)}{dydQ^2}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_T\sigma _{tot}(\gamma ^{}pJ/\psi X),\mathrm{and},\sigma _{tot}=\sigma _T+\sigma _L.$$
(6)
$`\sigma _T`$ and $`\sigma _L`$ are the cross sections for the transversely and longitudinally polarized virtual photons respectively.

There are two types of contributions to the $`\gamma ^{}p`$ cross section: the direct photoproduction and the resolved photon production. The latter contribution is through the partonic content of $`\gamma ^{}`$ in the reactions. The cross section formulas (polarized and unpolarized) for the relevant partonic processes of these resolved photon production processes can be found in . In the following we will calculate the polarized cross sections for the direct virtual photon ($`Q^2>0`$) processes, which include the following partonic channels,

$`\gamma ^{}+g(c\overline{c})[{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(1)},{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(8)},{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)},{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{(8)}]+g;`$ (7)
$`\gamma ^{}+q/\overline{q}(c\overline{c})[{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(8)},{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)},{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{(8)}]+q/\overline{q}.`$ (8)
In this paper, we calculate the above $`22`$ subprocess contributions to production of $`J/\psi `$, and present the $`z`$ distribution of the production rate. For this purpose, in the following we will not consider the $`21`$ subprocess contributions, because these contributions only take place in the forward region.

To calculate these virtual photon subprocesses, we employ the helicity amplitude method. Following , we choose the polarization vectors for the incident and the outgoing gluons as

$`\overline{)}e_2^{(\pm )}=N_e[\overline{)}p_2\overline{)}p_3\overline{)}q(1\gamma _5)+\overline{)}q\overline{)}p_3\overline{)}p_2(1\pm \gamma _5)],`$ (9)
$`\overline{)}e_3^{(\pm )}=N_e[\overline{)}p_3\overline{)}q\overline{)}p_2(1\gamma _5)+\overline{)}p_2\overline{)}q\overline{)}p_3(1\pm \gamma _5)].`$ (10)
Where $`q=p_1+\frac{Q^2}{2p_1p_2}p_2`$ , $`p_1^2=Q^2`$ and $`p_1`$ is the momentum for the incident photon. $`p_2,p_3`$ and $`e_2,e_3`$ are the momenta and the polarization vectors for the incident gluon and outgoing gluon respectively. The normalization factor $`N_e`$ is

$$N_e=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2(Q^2M^2+\widehat{s}\widehat{u})\widehat{t}}},$$
(11)
where M is the mass of $`J/\psi `$. The Mandelstam invariants $`\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u}`$ are defined as

$$\widehat{s}=(p_1+p_2)^2,\widehat{t}=(p_2p_3)^2,\widehat{u}=(p_1p_3)^2,$$
(12)
and they satisfy the relation

$$\widehat{s}+\widehat{t}+\widehat{u}=M^2Q^2.$$

For the transversely polarized photons, we have the following projection operator,

$$P_{\mu \nu }^{\gamma T}=ϵ_\mu ^{}(T)ϵ_\nu (T)=g_{\mu \nu }+\frac{p_{2\mu }q_\mu +p_{2\nu }q_\nu }{p_2q},$$
(13)
and for the longitudinally polarized photons, we have

$$P_{\mu \nu }^{\gamma L}=ϵ_\mu ^{}(L)ϵ_\nu (L)=\frac{1}{Q^2}(p_{1\mu }+\frac{Q^2}{p_1p_2}p_{2\mu })(p_{1\nu }+\frac{Q^2}{p_1p_2}p_{2\nu }).$$
(14)
Providing with the above defined polarized vectors and polarized projection tensors, we can calculate the amplitude squared for the partonic processes with the definite helicities of the incident and the outgoing partons. After summing up the helicities and colors, we express the amplitude squared as the following form

$$(ijJ/\psi ^{(\lambda )}X)=\underset{n}{}F_{ij}^{(\lambda )}[n]𝒪_n^{J/\psi },$$
(15)
where the short-distance coefficients $`F`$ can be written as

$`F_{ij}^{(\lambda )}[n]`$ $`=`$ $`A_{ij}[n][ϵ^{}(\lambda )ϵ(\lambda )]`$ (19)
$`+B_{ij}[n][ϵ^{}(\lambda )p_1ϵ(\lambda )p_1]`$
$`+C_{ij}[n][ϵ^{}(\lambda )p_2ϵ(\lambda )p_2]`$
$`+D_{ij}[n][ϵ^{}(\lambda )p_1][ϵ(\lambda )p_2].`$
Here $`n`$ denote the intermediated states, which include $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(1)},{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(8)},{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)},{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{(8)}`$. The $`A,B,C,D`$ functions for different partonic processes are listed in the Appendix.

For convenience, we consider the $`J/\psi `$ polarization in the target frame. In this frame, the covariant expression for the polarization vector of $`J/\psi `$ with helicity $`\lambda =0`$ reads

$$ϵ_\mu ^{(\lambda =0)}(p_\psi )=\frac{1}{M}p_{\psi \mu }\frac{M}{p_\psi p_2}p_{2\mu }.$$
(20)
With this equation and Eqs.(15-19), we can calculate the polarized cross sections, and obtain the polar angle asymmetry parameter $`\alpha `$ in Eq.(2).

We have checked that our cross section formulas can reproduce the photoproduction cross section formulas  at $`Q^2=0`$, and that the unpolarized cross section for the color-singlet process is consistent with that of .

## III Numerical results

The production rate of $`J/\psi `$ and its polarization parameter $`\alpha `$ depend on the sizes of the NRQCD long distance matrix elements, including the color-singlet matrix elements and the color-octet matrix elements. We choose these matrix elements as

$`𝒪_1^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`1.16GeV^3,`$ (21)
$`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`1.06\times 10^2GeV^3,`$ (22)
$`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`3.0\times 10^2GeV^3,`$ (23)
$`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{})/m_c^2`$ $`=`$ $`1.0\times 10^2GeV^3,`$ (24)
$`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(2J+1)𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}).`$ (25)
The color-singlet matrix element $`𝒪_1^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{})`$ can be related to the $`c\overline{c}`$ wave function at the origin, and can be taken from the leptonic decay width of $`J/\psi `$. The last equation comes from the approximation of heavy quark spin symmetry of NRQCD. The value of the color-octet matrix element $`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{})`$ is taken from a fit to the large $`p_T`$ $`J/\psi `$ production at the Tevatron. This matrix element is not important to $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction both for the production rate and the polarization parameter $`\alpha `$. On the other hand, the other two color-octet matrix elements, $`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})`$ and $`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{})`$, are known to be very important in the inelastic $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction . However, their values are not well determined from the present experimental data on $`J/\psi `$ productions. Here, we just follow Ref.  and take their values tentatively as listed above (which are also consistent with the naive NRQCD velocity scaling rules) to see what are their contributions to the cross section and the polarization $`\alpha `$ of $`J/\psi `$ production in DIS at HERA. For the numerical evaluation, we choose $`m_c=1.5GeV`$, and set the renormalization scale and the factorization scale both equal to $`\mu ^2=(2m_c)^2+Q^2`$. For the parton distribution functions of the proton, we use the Glück-Reya-Vogt (GRV) LO parameterization.

We first display the $`z`$ distribution of the inelastic $`J/\psi `$ production rate in DIS region at HERA, comparing the theoretical predictions with the ZEUS data ***These data have also been compared with the theoretical predictions in . However, this study is not relevant to the electroproduction process because the author made an approximation for the cross sections of virtual photon processes by using those of real photon processes. . The kinematic region is $`2GeV^2<Q^2<80GeV^2`$ and $`40GeV<W_{\gamma ^{}p}<180GeV`$. In Fig. 1, the dotted line is for the color-singlet contribution, the dotted-dashed line for the direct virtual photon contributions from the color-octet processes, and the dashed line for the resolved virtual photon contributions from the color-octet processes. For the above two components of the color-octet contributions, we choose the color-octet matrix elements of $`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})`$ and $`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{})`$ as $`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})=𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{})/m_c^2=0.008GeV^3.`$ And the solid lines correspond to the NRQCD FA predictions (including the color-singlet contributions and the color-octet contributions) for the two choices of the color-octet matrix elements: (I) for the lower solid line,

$`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`3.0\times 10^2GeV^3,`$ (26)
$`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{})/m_c^2`$ $`=`$ $`0;`$ (27)
(II) for the upper solid line,

$`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (28)
$`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{})/m_c^2`$ $`=`$ $`1.0\times 10^2GeV^3.`$ (29)
¿From this figure, we can also see that the rapid increase of the color-octet predictions at large $`z`$ is not supported by the experimental data. This is similar to the case of the $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction ($`Q^2=0`$), and may indicate that at large $`z`$ the calculations of the color-octet processes are also unreliable due to higher order $`v^2`$ contributions. On the other hand, we find that the color-singlet contributions are consistent with the experimental data in the major region of $`z`$. However, as indicated by the color-singlet photoproduction processes calculations, the color-singlet cross sections have large theoretical uncertainties due to input parameters such as the normalization and factorization scales and the charm quark mass. In this context, it is difficult to immediately conclude that the experimental data are just saturated by the color-singlet contributions and there is no more space for the color-octet contributions. Especially, in the lower $`z`$ region the experimental data lie above the color-singlet contributions, where the dominant contributions come from the color-octet channels in the resolved photon processes. (The color-singlet contributions in the resolved photon processes is much smaller than the color-octet contributions, and is not presented in Fig. 1). This may be viewed as a hint of the need of the color-octet contributions in describing the experimental data on $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction in the lower $`z`$ region.

We now turn to study the angular distributions of $`J/\psi `$ productions. Since the decay angular distribution parameter $`\alpha `$ is normalized, its dependence on parameters that affect the absolute normalization of the production cross sections, such as the charm quark mass, the strong coupling constant, the renormalization and factorization scales and the parton distribution functions, cancels to a large extent and does not constitute a significant uncertainty. That is to say, in some sense, the polarization parameter as a tool for testing production mechanism is more efficient than the absolute production rate. In Fig. 2, we first display the polarization parameter $`\alpha `$ as a function of $`z`$ for the $`\gamma ^{}p`$ processes, where the c.m. energy of $`\gamma ^{}p`$ system is set to be $`W_{\gamma ^{}p}=100GeV`$. Here in this figure we do not include the resolved photon processes contributions. The solid lines are for the CSM predictions, and the other two lines are for the NRQCD FA (including both the color-singlet and color-octet contributions) corresponding to the two choices of the color-octet matrix elements: the dashed lines for the choice of Eq. (26) and the dotted-dashed lines for the choice of Eq. (28). In order to see the $`Q^2`$ dependence of the polarization, we choose four typical values for $`Q^2`$: $`0,4,10,40GeV^2`$. From these plots, we can see that the polarization parameter $`\alpha `$ in large $`z`$ region change from positive values to negative values as $`Q^2`$ increases. This means that in large $`z`$ region $`J/\psi `$ production will be dominantly longitudinally polarized at high $`Q^2`$. Especially, the polarization parameter $`\alpha `$ for CSM predictions are more sensitive to $`Q^2`$ than those for the NRQCD FA predictions. At high $`Q^2`$, e.g., $`Q^2=40GeV^2`$, the difference on $`\alpha `$ between CSM and NRQCD FA can be distinguished for large $`z`$ $`J/\psi `$ production (see Fig. 2). In this case, the CSM prediction approaches to $`\alpha =0.7`$ while the NRQCD FA predictions are both above $`0.4`$ for the two choices of the color-octet matrix elements (Eqs. (26) and (28)). In addition, we note that if $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)}`$ channel dominates $`J/\psi `$ production the polarization parameter $`\alpha `$ will be close to zero because in this case the produced $`J/\psi `$ are unpolarized, which can also be seen from Fig. 2.

In Fig. 3, we show the parameter $`\alpha `$ as a function of $`z`$ for $`ep`$ collisions at HERA (including the resolved photon contributions). As in Fig. 2, we choose two typical regions for $`Q^2`$: (a) $`2GeV^2<Q^2<80GeV^2`$, and (b) $`10GeV^2<Q^2<80GeV^2`$. From this figure, we also find that the $`J/\psi `$ polarization changes with $`Q^2`$. Especially, at higher $`Q^2`$, the difference on $`\alpha `$ between CSM predictions and NRQCD FA predictions become more distinctive. In the two regions of lower and larger $`z`$, the polarization parameter $`\alpha `$ have different features. In the lower $`z`$ region, the NRQCD FA predicts $`J/\psi `$ being transversely polarized for the octet matrix elements choice of Eq. (28), while the CSM predicts $`J/\psi `$ to be only slightly polarized (almost compatible with unpolarized). We note that in this region, the dominant contributions in the NRQCD FA come from the color-octet resolved photon processes (see Fig. 1), which have the similar properties as they have for $`J/\psi `$ hadroproduction, contributing to $`J/\psi `$ transverse polarization. In Fig. 3, for larger $`z`$, on the other hand we find that the CSM predicts $`J/\psi `$ being more polarized, which is however longitudinal. The NRQCD FA predicts $`J/\psi `$ less polarized (also longitudinally if $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{(8)}`$ dominates). Again, we note if $`J/\psi `$ production is dominated by $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)}`$ channel, it will be unpolarized as that for $`\gamma ^{}p`$ processes.

In the above analyzes, we present the NRQCD FA predictions of the polarization parameters $`\alpha `$ by using the color-octet matrix elements as in Eqs. (26) and (28). However, there are other sets of parameterizations for the two color-octet matrix elements $`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})`$ and $`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{})`$ in the literature. With these rather small values for the two color-octet matrix elements , the above predictions of $`\alpha `$ in the NRQCD FA will be changed. For example, if we follow the values obtained in , the two equations of (26) and (28) will be changed to

$`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`5.72\times 10^3GeV^3,`$ (30)
$`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{})/m_c^2`$ $`=`$ $`0;`$ (31)
for case (I), and

$`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (32)
$`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{})/m_c^2`$ $`=`$ $`1.62\times 10^3GeV^3,`$ (33)
for case (II). If we use the above values for the matrix elements of $`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})`$ and $`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{})`$, the difference of the polarization parameter $`\alpha `$ between the CSM and the NRQCD FA will be reduced, because with these rather small values for the color-octet matrix elements the color-octet contributions to $`J/\psi `$ production are much less important than those with parameterizations of Eqs. (26) and (28). This influence is presented in Fig. 4, where we show the same plot as in Fig. 3 but with the new parameterizations of the color-octet matrix elements as in Eqs. (30) and (32). From this figure, we can see that the difference between these two approaches is reduced, though in some regions there are still some differences.

## IV conclusions

In this paper, we have calculated $`J/\psi `$ production and polarization in DIS at $`ep`$ colliders in the energy region relevant to HERA. Compensating for the previous color-octet leading order calculations, we have calculated the cross sections for the $`\gamma ^{}p`$ $`22`$ subprocesses which are needed for theoretical evaluations of the $`z`$ distributions of the production rate and the polarization parameter $`\alpha `$. For the inclusive production distributions, we find that the color-singlet contributions are consistent with the experimental data in the major region of $`z`$ ($`z>0.4`$). Only in the low $`z`$ regions, there are some hints of the need of the color-octet contributions to describe the experimental data.

For the polarization of $`J/\psi `$ in DIS processes, we find the parameter $`\alpha `$ changes with $`Q^2`$. Especially, at higher $`Q^2`$, difference on $`\alpha `$ between the CSM and the NRQCD FA become more distinctive. In the two regions of lower and larger $`z`$, the polarization parameter $`\alpha `$ have different features. In the lower $`z`$ region, the NRQCD FA predicts $`J/\psi `$ being transversely polarized if the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{(8)}`$ channel dominates, while the CSM $`J/\psi `$ being almost unpolarized. On the other hand, in the larger $`z`$ region the CSM predicts $`J/\psi `$ being longitudinally polarized, while the NRQCD FA predicts $`J/\psi `$ being unpolarized if the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)}`$ channel dominates. In conclusion, the polarization of $`J/\psi `$ in DIS processes at $`ep`$ colliders will give another independent test for the production mechanism and help to clarify the present problem concerning the disagreement of the theoretical predictions with the experimental data on polarization in hadroproduction processes at the Tevatron.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank M. Krämer for sending us their amplitude codes of Ref.. This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the State Education Commission of China, and the State Commission of Science and Technology of China.

##

In this appendix, we list the $`A,B,C,D`$ functions of Eq.(19) in the short distance coefficients of the amplitude squared for every partonic processesIt is easy to check that our $`A,B,C,D`$ functions reproduce the results of Ref. in the photoproduction limit. Using these expressions, one can also get the unpolarized cross sections for different subprocesses, which were reproduced by the authors of  for the $`\gamma _T^{}+g(q)`$ processes. However, there is a factor of $`2`$ difference from theirs for the $`\gamma _L^{}+g(q)`$ processes except the $`\gamma _L^{}+gc\overline{c}({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{},\underset{¯}{\text{8}})+g`$ process. We note, however, that our unpolarized cross sections for the color-singlet processes $`\gamma _{T/L}^{}+gc\overline{c}({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{},\underset{¯}{\text{1}})+g`$ are consistent with those of . The computer code for these expressions can be obtained by requiring to ktchao@pku.edu.cn.. For convenience, we define the following variables relevant to the Mandelstam invariants ($`\widehat{s}`$, $`\widehat{t}`$, and $`\widehat{u}`$): $`s=2p_1p_2=\widehat{s}+Q^2,u=2p_1p_3=\widehat{u}+Q^2,t=2p_2p_3=\widehat{t}`$

$`\gamma _T^{}+gc\overline{c}({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{},\underset{¯}{\text{1}})+g`$:

$$F=\frac{16M(4\pi )^3\alpha \alpha _s^2e_c^2𝒪_1^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{})}{27(s+t)^2(s+u)^2(t+u)^2s^2},$$
(34)
$`a=s^2[stu(s+t+u)(st+tu+su)^2]2Q^2(Q^2t^2+stu)(s^2+t^2),`$ (35)
$$b=2s^2[2Q^2t^2(s^2+t^2)(s+t+u)],$$
(36)
$`c`$ $`=`$ $`2[4Q^6t^2+4Q^4t(sut^2tu)+2Q^2s(st^2+su^2s^2tt^2utu^2)`$ (38)
$`s^2(s+t+u)(s^2+u^2)],`$
$$d=4s[Q^2t(2Q^2ts^2t^2tu)s^3(s+t+u)].$$
(39)
$`\gamma _L^{}+gc\overline{c}({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{},\underset{¯}{\text{1}})+g`$: $`F`$ is the same as Eq.(34) and $`b=0`$,

$`a=2Q^2t^3(Q^2t+su),`$ (40)
$`c=4Q^2[2Q^2(Q^2t^2+stut^3t^2u)+su(st)(t+u)],`$ (41)
$`d=4Q^2st[su+t(Q^2M^2)].`$ (42)
$`\gamma _{T,L}^{}+gc\overline{c}({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{},\underset{¯}{\text{8}})+g`$: the functions are the same as the above $`\gamma _{T,L}^{}+gc\overline{c}({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{},\underset{¯}{\text{1}})+g`$ processes but multiplied by the factor

$$\frac{15}{8}\frac{𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{})}{𝒪_1^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{})}.$$
(43)
$`\gamma _T^{}+gc\overline{c}({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{},\underset{¯}{\text{8}})+g`$:

$`Fa`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(4\pi )^3\alpha \alpha _s^2e_c^2𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})}{Ms^2t(s+t)^2(s+u)^2(t+u)^2}}(Q^2t+su)[4Q^4t^2u^2+4Q^2stu(t^2+u^2+tu+ts+us)`$ (45)
$`+s^2(s^4+t^4+u^4+(s+t+u)^4)].`$
$`\gamma _L^{}+gc\overline{c}({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{},\underset{¯}{\text{8}})+g`$:

$`Fa`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4(4\pi )^3\alpha \alpha _s^2e_c^2𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})}{Ms^2(s+t)^2(s+u)^2(t+u)^2}}Q^2[2Q^4t^2u^2+2Q^2stu(t^2+2u^2+tu+ts+us)`$ (47)
$`+s^2((t^2+u^2)(t^2+2tu+2u^2)+2s(t+u)(t^2+tu+u^2)+s^2(t+u)^2)].`$
$`\gamma _T^{}+gc\overline{c}({}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{},\underset{¯}{\text{8}})+g`$:

$$F=\frac{24(4\pi )^3\alpha \alpha _s^2e_c^2𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{})}{M^3s^2t^2(s+t)^3(s+u)^4(t+u)^3},$$
(48)
$`a`$ $`=`$ $`t[8Q^8t^2(s^2+t^2)(s^2tu)(stu^2)+2Q^6t(s^3(5t^5+3t^4u8t^3u^2+16t^2u^3+2u^5)`$ (65)
$`s^2t(t^5+9t^4u+4t^3u^210tu^42u^5)+s^4(7t^47t^3u+4t^2u^22tu^3+4u^4)st^2u(6t^4`$
$`+11t^3ut^2u^2+5tu^3u^4)+s^5(7t^3+9t^2u2tu^2+8u^3)+4s^6(2t^2+u^2)+2(t+u)s^7`$
$`t^6u^2+3t^5u^3+5t^4u^4+t^3u^5)2Q^4(s^4(5t^6+7t^5u5t^4u^2+6t^3u^38t^2u^4+5tu^52u^6)`$
$`s^2t^2(t^6+8t^5u+12t^4u^2+5t^3u^3+10t^2u^45tu^5u^6)+s^5(9t^5+2t^4u+4t^3u^25t^2u^3`$
$`+8tu^44u^5)+s^3tu(t^5+7t^4u+t^3u^2+7t^2u^3tu^4+u^5)+s^6(9t^4+7t^3u2t^2u^2+8tu^3`$
$`6u^4)(t+u)st^3u(2t^4+8t^3u+5t^2u^2+9tu^3+2u^4)+s^7(9t^3+4t^2u+5tu^24u^3)`$
$`+s^8(3t2u)(t+u)t^8u^22t^7u^3t^6u^4)+Q^2s(s^3(3t^7+29t^6u+56t^5u^2+34t^4u^3`$
$`+26t^3u^4+6t^2u^56tu^66u^7)+s^4(11t^6+30t^5u+6t^4u^28t^3u^322t^2u^413tu^518u^6)`$
$`+s^2tu(8t^6+45t^5u+76t^4u^2+60t^3u^3+49t^2u^4+11tu^5u^6)+2s^5(7t^5+5t^4u3t^3u^2`$
$`14t^2u^311tu^414u^5)+s^6(14t^4+13t^3u8t^2u^219tu^328u^4)+st^2u^2(t+u)(7t^4`$
$`+24t^3u+18t^2u^2+18tu^3+5u^4)+s^7(11t^3+t^2u12tu^218u^3)+2(t+u)^2t^5u^3`$
$`+3(t+u)(t2u)s^8)+s^4u^2(10t^6+48t^5u+80t^4u^2+67t^3u^3+45t^2u^4+19tu^5+3u^6)`$
$`+s^5u(6t^6+48t^5u+108t^4u^2+114t^3u^3+85t^2u^4+45tu^5+12u^6)+s^6(t^6+22t^5u+80t^4u^2`$
$`+114t^3u^3+102t^2u^4+61tu^5+22u^6)+s^7(2t^5+27t^4u+67t^3u^2+85t^2u^3+61tu^4+26u^5)`$
$`+s^3tu^3(t+u)(6t^4+16t^3u+11t^2u^2+8tu^3+3u^4)+s^8(t^4+19t^3u+45t^2u^2+45tu^3`$
$`+22u^4)+s^9u(11t^2+19tu+12u^2)+s^2t^4u^4(t+u)^2+s^{10}u3(t+u)]`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`2[4Q^4t^2(stu^2)(2s^4ts^4u2s^3tus^3u^24s^2t^2u2s^2tu^2st^3u2st^2u^2t^3u^2)`$ (73)
$`2Q^2st(s^3(2t^52t^4u13t^3u^216t^2u^35tu^42u^5)+s^2t(t^5t^4u13t^3u^212t^2u^3`$
$`10tu^42u^5)+s^4(8t^4+9t^3u8t^2u^23tu^34u^4)+s^5(11t^3+6t^2u+tu^24u^3)`$
$`+st^2u(t+u)(t^34t^2utu^22u^3)+s^6(6t^2+5tu2u^2)2t^3u^3(t^2+tu+u^2)+2s^7t)`$
$`s^4t(t^6+10t^5u+25t^4u^2+23t^3u^3+25t^2u^4+16tu^5+4u^6)s^5t(t^5+10t^4u+21t^3u^2`$
$`+19t^2u^3+17tu^4+12u^5)+s^7(4t^4t^3u+2t^2u^23tu^3+2u^4)s^3t^2u(t+u)(2t^4+9t^3u`$
$`+3t^2u^2+8tu^3+4u^4)+s^6t(2t^45t^3u10t^2u^23tu^310u^4)`$
$`+s^8(3t^3+t^2u2tu^2+2u^3)s^2t^5u^2(t^2+2tuu^2)+s^9t(tu)]M^2`$
$`c`$ $`=`$ $`2[16Q^8t^3(s^2tu)(stu^2)4Q^6t^2(s^2(t^4+3t^3u+4tu^34u^4)+su(2tu)(3t^3`$ (85)
$`+5t^2u+2tu^2+2u^3)s^3(t+2u)(5t^2tu+4u^2)4s^4(t^2+u^2)2(t+u)s^5+t^4u^2`$
$`5t^3u^36t^2u^42tu^5)+4Q^4t(s^2(t^6+8t^5u+9t^4u^2+8t^3u^3+10t^2u^4+tu^5+2u^6)`$
$`+stu(2t^5+10t^4u+11t^3u^2+13t^2u^3+7tu^4+u^5)+s^3u(t^4+t^3u+6t^2u^23tu^3+4u^4)`$
$`s^4(t^4t^3u8t^2u^2+2tu^36u^4)s^5(2t^33t^2u+2tu^24u^3)+s^6(t^2+tu+2u^2)`$
$`+t^6u^2+2t^5u^3t^3u^5t^2u^6)+2Q^2st(su^3(11t^4+10t^3u+6t^2u^2tu^32u^4)+s^2u^2(11t^4`$
$`+9t^3u+t^2u^2+3tu^35u^4)+s^4(5t^4+5t^3u12t^2u^26tu^318u^4)+s^3u(5t^416t^2u^2`$
$`5tu^312u^4)+2s^5(2t^3t^2utu^27u^3)+s^6(3t^2+3tu5u^2)2tu^5(2t^2+2tu+u^2)`$
$`+2s^7t)+s^5u(2t^5+18t^4u+6t^3u^215t^2u^3tu^42u^5)+s^6u(13t^4+12t^3u15t^2u^2`$
$`6tu^36u^4)+s^4tu^2(4t^4+18t^3u+12t^2u^2tu^3+3u^4)+s^3tu^3(2t^4+13t^3u+7t^2u^2`$
$`+tu^3+u^4)+s^7(tu)(t^3+8t^2u+7tu^2+6u^3)s^8(2t^2+tu2u^2)(tu)`$
$`+s^2t^2u^5(t^22tuu^2)(tu)s^9t]M^2`$
$`d`$ $`=`$ $`2[8Q^6t^3(stu^2)(2s^3s^2u3stusu^2tu^2)+4Q^4t^2(stu^2(t^3+2t^2u+6tu^2+u^3)`$ (95)
$`+s^4t(5t^2+7tu+4u^2)s^3u(t+u)(2t^2+3tu+3u^2)s^2u(2t^2+u^2)(t^2+4tu+u^2)`$
$`+s^5(5t+2u)(t+u)+2s^6(2t+u)+t^4u^3+t^3u^4+2t^2u^5)+2Q^2st(s^2(2t^6+14t^5u+37t^4u^2`$
$`+42t^3u^3+37t^2u^4+18tu^5+2u^6)+stu(4t^5+15t^4u+31t^3u^2+33t^2u^3+25tu^4+6u^5)`$
$`+s^3(3t^5+21t^4u+30t^3u^2+22t^2u^3+19tu^4+3u^5)+s^4(7t^4+18t^3u+8t^2u^2+14tu^3u^4)`$
$`+s^5(7t^3+9t^2u+11tu^23u^3)+s^6(7t^2+12tuu^2)+2t^2u^2(t^2+tu+2u^2)(t^2+tu+u^2)`$
$`+4s^7t)s^6(t^57t^4u+3t^3u^2+29t^2u^3+6tu^4+4u^5)s^7(3t^4+4t^3u+19t^2u^2+10tu^3`$
$`+8u^4)+s^3t^2u^2(t^4+4t^3u+19t^2u^2+18tu^3+6u^4)s^5t(t+u)(t^4t^3u15t^2u^2+9tu^3`$
$`8u^4)(t+u)s^4tu(t^45t^3u15t^2u^212tu^35u^4)s^8(5t^3+4t^2utu^2+4u^3)`$
$`+s^2t^3u^3(t^3+t^2u+5tu^2+u^3)2(tu)s^9t]M^2`$
$`\gamma _L^{}+gc\overline{c}({}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{},\underset{¯}{\text{8}})+g`$: $`F`$ is the same as Eq.(48),

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`Q^2t^2[8Q^6t^3(s^2tu)(stu^2)2Q^4t^2(su(6t^4+11t^3ut^2u^2+5tu^3u^4)+s^2(t^4+9t^3u`$ (104)
$`+3t^2u^2+5tu^32u^4)s^3(5t^3+9t^2u+tu^2+9u^3)2s^4(4t^2+tu+3u^2)2(t+u)s^5`$
$`+t^4u^23t^3u^35t^2u^4tu^5)+2Q^2t(s^2(t^6+8t^5u+11t^4u^2+6t^3u^3+16t^2u^4+4tu^5+2u^6)`$
$`s^4(6t^4+14t^3u+11t^2u^2+8tu^37u^4)s^3u(3t^4+14t^3u+6t^2u^2+2tu^35u^4)+(2t^4`$
$`+8t^3u+5t^2u^2+9tu^3+2u^4)stu(t+u)s^5(8t^3+7t^2u+6tu^25u^3)(3tu)(t+u)s^6`$
$`+t^6u^2+2t^5u^3+t^4u^4)+s(s+u)(s^5(t+u)(3t^2+u^2)+s^4(9t^4+14t^3u+12t^2u^2+2tu^3+3u^4)`$
$`+s^3(9t^5+24t^4u+32t^3u^2+20t^2u^3+7tu^4+4u^5)+s^2(3t^6+18t^5u+44t^4u^2+42t^3u^3`$
$`+27t^2u^4+8tu^5+2u^6)+5st^6u+25st^5u^2+35st^4u^3+25st^3u^4+12st^2u^5+2stu^6`$
$`+2t^6u^2+4t^5u^3+2t^4u^4)],`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`4(s+t)^2(s+u)t^2M^2Q^2[2Q^2tu(stu^2)+s(s^2t^2s^2u^2+st^3stu^22su^32t^2u^2`$ (106)
$`2tu^32u^4)]`$
$`c`$ $`=`$ $`4Q^2tM^2[8Q^6t^2(s^2tu)(stu^2)2Q^4t(s^2(t^4+3t^3u+4tu^34u^4)+(2tu)su(3t^3`$ (114)
$`+5t^2u+2tu^2+2u^3)(t+2u)s^3(5t^2tu+4u^2)4s^4(t^2+u^2)2(t+u)s^5+t^4u^2`$
$`5t^3u^36t^2u^42tu^5)+2Q^2(s^2(t^6+8t^5u+9t^4u^2+10t^3u^3+9t^2u^4+tu^5+2u^6)`$
$`+stu(2t^5+10t^4u+11t^3u^2+13t^2u^3+7tu^4+u^5)s^4(t^4t^3u4t^2u^2tu^36u^4)`$
$`s^3u(t+2u)(t^33t^2u+2tu^22u^3)+s^5u(t^2+tu+4u^2)+2s^6u(t+u)+t^6u^2+2t^5u^3`$
$`t^3u^5t^2u^6)s(s+u)(3s^5t^2+6s^5tu+3s^5u^2+4s^4t^3+9s^4t^2u+10s^4tu^2+5s^4u^3`$
$`+6s^3t^3u+15s^3t^2u^2+14s^3tu^3+7s^3u^4s^2t^5+2s^2t^4u+12s^2t^3u^2+13s^2t^2u^3+5s^2tu^4`$
$`+3s^2u^5st^5u6st^4u^26st^3u^34st^2u^4+stu^5+2su^6+4t^3u^4+4t^2u^5+2tu^6)]`$
$`d`$ $`=`$ $`4Q^2t[4Q^4t^2(stu^2)(2s^3s^2u3stusu^2tu^2)+2Q^2t((2t^4+8t^3u+t^2u^2+4tu^3`$ (120)
$`+u^4)s^2us^4(5t^3+7t^2u+4u^3)+s^3u(4t^3+5t^2u+6tu^2+u^3)stu^2(t^3+2t^2u+6tu^2+u^3)`$
$`s^5(7t^2+3tu+4u^2)2s^6(t+u)t^4u^3t^3u^42t^2u^5)+s(s+u)(s^5(3t^2+2tuu^2)`$
$`+s^4(6t^3+4t^2u+4tu^22u^3)+s^3(t^4+2t^2u^23u^4)s^2(4t^5+12t^4u+12t^3u^2+14t^2u^3`$
$`+8tu^4+2u^5)2st^612st^5u21st^4u^224st^3u^319st^2u^46stu^52t^6u4t^5u^2`$
$`8t^4u^36t^3u^44t^2u^5)]`$
$`\gamma _T^{}+qc\overline{c}({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{},\underset{¯}{\text{8}})+q`$:

$$F=\frac{(4\pi )^3\alpha \alpha _s^2e_q^2𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{})}{9(Q^2s)^2(Q^2u)^2M^3s^2},$$
(121)
$`a`$ $`=`$ $`(Q^2t+su)\{2Q^4(s+t)^22Q^2s[(2t+s)(s+t+u)tu]+s^2[(s+t)^2+(t+u)^2]\},`$ (122)
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`4s^2(Q^2u)[Q^2(s+t)sM^2],`$ (123)
$`c`$ $`=`$ $`4[2Q^8t+2Q^6(s^2+3st+t^2+tu)4Q^4st(t+u+s)+Q^2s^2(2t^2u^2s^24su)`$ (125)
$`+2(t+u)s^3u+2s^4u],`$
$`d`$ $`=`$ $`8s^2(Q^2u)(Q^4+Q^2tsM^2),`$ (126)
where $`e_q`$ is the electric charge of the light quark $`q`$.

$`\gamma _L^{}+qc\overline{c}({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{},\underset{¯}{\text{8}})+q`$: $`F`$ is the same as Eq.(121) and $`b=0`$, $`d=0`$,

$$a=2Q^2t(s+t)^2(Q^2s)^2,$$
(127)
$$c=8Q^2tM^2(Q^2s)^2.$$
(128)
$`\gamma _T^{}+qc\overline{c}({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{},\underset{¯}{\text{8}})+q`$: $`b=c=d=0`$

$`Fa`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4(4\pi )^3\alpha \alpha _s^2e_c^2𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})}{9s^2Mt(s+u)^2}}[2Q^4t^2+2Q^2st(s+u)+s^4+s^2u^2].`$ (129)
$`\gamma _L^{}+qc\overline{c}({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{},\underset{¯}{\text{8}})+q`$: $`b=c=d=0`$

$`Fa`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8(4\pi )^3\alpha \alpha _s^2e_c^2𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})}{9s^2M(s+u)^2}}Q^2(Q^2t+su).`$ (130)
$`\gamma _T^{}+qc\overline{c}({}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{},\underset{¯}{\text{8}})+q`$:

$$F=\frac{16(4\pi )^3\alpha \alpha _s^2e_c^2𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{})}{3M^3s^2t^2(s+u)^4}$$
(131)
$`a`$ $`=`$ $`t[8(s^2+t^2)Q^6t+2Q^4(s^2(5t^2+4tu+2u^2)+2st^2(2tu)+2s^4+4s^3t+4t^4+4t^3u`$ (135)
$`+t^2u^2)+2Q^2s(su(tu)(4t+3u)s^3(3t+5u)+tu(2t+u)^2s^2u(t+5u)3s^4)`$
$`+s^2(u^2(4t^2+6tu+3u^2)+2su(4t+5u)(t+u)+2s^3(3t+5u)`$
$`+2s^2(t+u)(2t+7u)+3s^4)]`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`8M^2[Q^2t(s^2(3t+u)+st(t+u)+s^3+t^2u)s^2(s+u)((s+t)^2+tu)]`$ (136)
$`c`$ $`=`$ $`8M^2[4Q^6t^2+2Q^4t((st)^2+(t+u)^2)+Q^2t(4tsu(s+u)(su)^2)`$ (138)
$`+s^2(u+s+2t)(u+s)^2]`$
$`d`$ $`=`$ $`8M^2[2Q^4t^2(3s+u)+Q^2t(su(4t+u)2(tu)s^2+s^3+2tu^2)`$ (140)
$`+s^2(s+u)(2s(u+s)+t(u+3s))]`$
$`\gamma _L^{}+qc\overline{c}({}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{},\underset{¯}{\text{8}})+q`$: $`F`$ is the same as Eq.(131)

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`2Q^2t^2[4Q^4t^2+Q^2t(2s(2tu)3s^2+(2t+u)^2)`$ (142)
$`+s(s+u)(4st+su+(2t+u)^2)]`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`8Q^2t^2M^2(s+u)(s+t)`$ (143)
$`c`$ $`=`$ $`8Q^2tM^2[4Q^4t+2Q^2((st)^2+(t+u)^2)(s+u)((su)^24st)]`$ (144)
$`d`$ $`=`$ $`8Q^2tM^2[2Q^2t(3s+u)(s+2t)(s+u)^2]`$ (145)
Figure Captions

FIG. 1. The differential cross section $`d\sigma /dz`$ as a function of $`z`$ for $`J/\psi `$ production in DIS at HERA: $`2GeV^2<Q^2<80GeV^2`$, $`40GeV<W_{\gamma ^{}p}<180GeV`$. The dotted line is for the color-singlet contributions, the dotted-dashed line for the direct virtual photon contributions from the color-octet processes, and the dashed line for the resolved virtual photon contributions from the color-octet processes, where octet matrix elements take values as $`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})=𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{})/m_c^2=0.008GeV^3`$. The solid lines correspond to the total cross sections for the two choices of the color-octet matrix elements: (I) the lower solid line for choice of Eq. (26), and (II) the upper solid line for Eq. (28).

FIG. 2. The polarization parameter $`\alpha `$ as a function of $`z`$ in $`\gamma ^{}p`$ processes, where $`W_{\gamma ^{}p}=100GeV`$ with four typical values for $`Q^2`$. The solid lines are for the CSM predictions, and the other two lines are for the NRQCD FA predictions (including both the color-singlet and color-octet contributions): the dashed lines for the choice of Eq. (26) and the dotted-dashed lines for the choice of Eq. (28).

FIG. 3. $`\alpha `$ as a function of $`z`$ for $`J/\psi `$ production in DIS at HERA. The definitions of the curves are the same as those of Fig. 2.

FIG. 4. The same as the plot of Fig. 3, but with different parameterizations for the color-octet matrix elements (here Eqs. (30) and (32) are used). The solid lines is the CSM prediction, and the other two lines are for the NRQCD FA predictions: the dashed line for the parameterization of Eq. (30) and the dotted-dashed line for the parameterization of Eq. (32).