text:
# 1 Introduction.

## 1 Introduction.

Recently there has been proposed  a very general argument (reviewed below) connecting the realization of magnetic $`Z_N`$ symmetry, and the vacuum expectation values of the spatial ’t Hooft loop V and spatial Wilson loop W in SU(N) gauge theory. The motivation for these arguments is the study of confinement/deconfinement phase transitions in such theories. In 2+1 dimensions the role of the spatial ’t Hooft loop operator is played by the magnetic vortex operator $`V(x)`$ which creates a magnetic vortex at $`x`$. The magnetic vortex operator is a canonical operator that acts on the physical Hilbert space of theory, unlike the Polyakov loop which is also used to study the phase structure of gauge theories, but which is not a canonical operator . An important part of the aforementioned argument concerns the locality of this magnetic vortex operator. In this note we study the locality properties of the magnetic vortex operator in 2+1 dimensional gauge theories when a Chern-Simons term is included for the gauge field. We consider first the case of compact U(1) and then SU(N). Including the Chern-Simons term does not alter the classical compact gauge symmetries of the system, but we might expect new behavior because the Chern-Simons term generates massive gauge degrees of freedom at the perturbative level .

Several related issues have been studied previously. In the absence of the Chern-Simons term, compact QED in 2+1 dimensions is confining due to monopoles , while SU(N) Yang-Mills in 2+1 dimensions is confining due to the condensation of $`Z_N`$ monopoles . The existence of similar monopoles with a Chern-Simons term included has been analyzed for compact $`U(1)`$ in , and for SU(N) in . The general picture emerging from these studies is that confinement of electric charge is destroyed by the inclusion of the Chern-Simons term due to the binding of monopole-antimonopole pairs. However, these instanton-based approaches involve complex instantons, whose physical interpretation is acknowledged to be incompletely understood . We thus feel it will be helpful to analyze these models in a different but complementary manner. Compact Maxwell-Chern-Simons theories have also been studied on the lattice in , also revealing bound monopole-antimonopole pairs. The strong coupling limit of SU(N) Yang-Mills-Chern-Simons theories, and in particular the Polyakov loop, have been analyzed in  using the connection to topological field theories. And a Hamiltonian analysis  of SU(N) Yang-Mills-Chern-Simons theories indicates that the Wilson loop is expected not to have an area law behavior. Cornwall has argued  that there is a phase transition at a finite value of the Chern-Simons coefficient due to an interplay of perturbative and non-perturbative mass generation effects. As further motivation, much is known about the existence and properties of magnetic vortices in Chern-Simons theories coupled to matter fields . Here, instead, we want to focus on the question of vortices in the theory with just gauge fields, and no additional matter fields.

The key objects in this discussion are the spatial Wilson loop operator (along the spatial boundary of the system):

$`W=\mathrm{Tr}𝒫\mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle _C\mathrm{}}𝑑x_iA_i\}`$ (1)
and the magnetic vortex creation operator $`V(x)`$, whose precise definition will be given below for the U(1) and SU(N) cases \[see (11) and (41)\]. In the SU(N) case, W generates the discrete $`Z_N`$ global symmetry, while $`V(x)`$ can be viewed as a canonical local order parameter for this symmetry . Together, W and V satisfy the ’t Hooft algebra :

$`WV(x)W^{}=e^{\frac{2\pi i}{N}}V(x)`$ (2)
The general argument developed in  for SU(N) Yang-Mills, without a Chern-Simons term, can be briefly summarized as follows.

First, one establishes that $`V(x)`$ is a local canonical order parameter that maps physical states to physical states, and so can be used to distinguish the phases of the theory in a gauge invariant manner. Given this, consider the theory at zero temperature. The spatial Wilson loop operator (the generator of the magnetic $`Z_N`$ symmetry) acts on the ground state by transforming the $`Z_N`$-non invariant fields. There are two natural possibilities:

(i) the ground state is $`Z_N`$ invariant, so that $`<V>=0`$. The operator W only has an effect near the boundary, so W has a perimeter law behavior. In this case, we expect vortex states in the spectrum, to carry the unbroken $`Z_N`$ symmetry.

(ii) the ground state breaks $`Z_N`$, so that $`<V>0`$. Now W acts nontrivially in the bulk so that W has an area law behavior. In this case we expect no vortices in the spectrum.

At higher temperatures, these correspondences no longer hold. Even in an unbroken phase, the thermal ensemble involves states with nontrivial $`Z_N`$ charges, so that W acts significantly in the bulk and so generically has an area law behavior even though the symmetry is restored.

In this note, we ask how much of this argument is modified by the inclusion of a Chern-Simons term. We will show that the Wilson loop still generates the appropriate discrete symmetry. But Yang-Mills-Chern-Simons (YMCS) theories are completely massive, and so the Wilson loop is expected to have a perimeter law behavior . By the previous argument it should then follow that the magnetic symmetry is unbroken and the spectrum should contain vortex states. There is one way to avoid this conclusion. The relation between the VEV of $`W`$ and $`V`$ only holds if $`V`$ is a local operator. The question of locality of $`V`$ has not been studied in YMCS theories. Thus it is possible that $`V`$ is nonlocal, in which case the magnetic symmetry does not actually have a local order parameter. If that is the case the symmetry can be unbroken, $`W`$ may have perimeter law and there could still be no magnetic vortex states. We note that a similar situation occurs in YM theories with fundamental matter. This is the question we want to address in this note. We want to examine more carefully the question of locality of the vortex operator in YMCS and understand whether the spectrum contains magnetic vortices.

In Section 2 we start our discussion by considering a simpler theory - compact electrodynamics with CS term. Conceptual questions here are similar but the technical side is much simpler. Our results are somewhat surprising. We find that generically the theory does indeed contain local vortex operators and a global discreet magnetic symmetry which is unbroken. Nevertheless in the continuum limit there are no magnetic vortices in the spectrum. The reason is that the energy of such a vortex is logarithmically UV divergent. We find however that with a particular scaling of the CS coefficient (logarithmically vanishing when UV cutoff is removed) the energy of the vortex becomes finite. This suggests that the theory may indeed have a phase with finite energy vortex states and vanishing photon mass. In Section 3 we extend our discussion to non-Abelian YMCS theories. We find that here again the local gauge invariant vortex field exists. The situation in the continuum limit appears to be similar to the Abelian case with a possible vortex phase at small values of the CS coefficient. Section 4 contains a short summary of our results.

## 2 Compact QED with the Chern Simons term.

The Lagrangian of Abelian Chern Simons theory in the formal continuum limit is

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g^2}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }A_\mu _\nu A_\rho `$ (3)
The gauge coupling $`g^2`$ has dimension of mass and $`\kappa `$ is dimensionless. Equations of motion read as $`_\nu F^{\mu \nu }=\kappa g^2ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu A_\rho `$. The mass of the gauge particle is $`M=\kappa g^2`$. The canonical structure of the theory is simplest in the Hamiltonian gauge, $`A_0=0`$.

The Hamiltonian is

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}(E_i^2+B^2)`$ (4)
with canonical momenta related to the time derivatives of the fields by $`\mathrm{\Pi }^i=\frac{1}{g^2}\dot{A}_i+\frac{\kappa }{2}ϵ^{ij}A_j`$.

The gauge fields and canonical momenta form the canonical algebra, and the algebra involving the electric fields is

$`[E_i(\stackrel{}{x}),E_j(\stackrel{}{y})]=i\kappa g^4ϵ_{ij}\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}),[A_i(\stackrel{}{x}),E_j(\stackrel{}{y})]=ig^2\delta _{ij}\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})`$ (5)
The Gauss law,

$`_iE^i\kappa g^2ϵ^{ij}_iA_j=0`$ (6)
on a given spatial slice $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which we take to be the plane, generates time independent local gauge transformations. The elements of the local gauge group near a point $`x_0\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ take the form

$`U(x_0)=\text{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}i{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}d^2x\lambda (x,x_0)\left(_iE^ig^2\kappa ϵ^{ij}_iA_j\right)\right\}`$ (7)
such that $`UAU^1=A+d\lambda `$. In the non-compact theory $`\lambda `$ should be a single-valued function on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that the eigenvalue of the operator (7) on physical states is unity. Singular $`\lambda `$’s correspond to transformations which are in general nontrivial on the physical states.

Our interest however is in the compact theory. This means that magnetic vortices of flux $`2\pi `$ must be physically unobservable. As discussed in  this amounts to further restricting the physical Hilbert space to states which are trivial under the action of the vortex operator.

In other words certain large gauge transformations must act on the physical states trivially in the compact theory as opposed to the non-compact one. The compact gauge group therefore includes these singular gauge transformations in addition to the regular ones, which form the gauge group in the noncompact theory. Consider a multi-valued angle function $`\theta (x,x_0)`$ which is singular at one point and has a discontinuity along a straight curve $`C(x_0)`$ that starts at the point $`x_0`$ and goes to infinity. The operator of the gauge transformation with this singular gauge function creates a magnetic vortex. Its explicit form (after partial integration and dropping a boundary term owing to the fact that all gauge invariant fields decay at infinity) is

$`\stackrel{~}{V}(x_0)=\text{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}i{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}d^2x\stackrel{~}{_i}\theta (xx_0)\left(E^ig^2\kappa ϵ^{ij}A_j\right)\}`$ (8)
We have defined

$`\stackrel{~}{_i}\theta (xx_0)=_i\theta (xx_0)2\pi ϵ_{ij}c(x)_j\delta (xC(x_0))={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{ij}(xx_0)_j}{(xx_0)^2}}`$ (9)
$`c(x)_j`$ is a unit vector tangent to the curve $`C(x,x_0)`$.

We may want to include $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ into the compact gauge group. However to be part of the gauge group, it must commute (at least weakly) with other elements of the group. One can check explicitly that $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x,x_0)`$ does not commute with the elements of the noncompact group. To rectify this situation we define, following  a slightly modified operator

$`V(C,x_0)=\text{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi i}{g^2}}ϵ_{ij}{\displaystyle d^2xc(x)_j\delta (xC(x,x_0))E_i(x)}`$ (10)
This operator is merely a “collection” of the electric fields which are perpendicular to the curve $`C(x_0)`$. More explicitly one can write it in the following form

$`V(C,x_0)=\text{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi i}{g^2}}ϵ_{ij}{\displaystyle _C}𝑑l_iE_j(x)`$ (11)
Gauge invariance of this operator, $`[V,U]=0`$, follows immediately. We also need to check the commutativity of $`V(x)`$ with $`V(y)`$. Defining the volume form $`v=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ij}dx^idx^j`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ we have the following commutation rules,

$`V(C_0)V(C_1)=V(C_1)V(C_0)\text{exp}\left\{i8\pi ^2\kappa L(C_0,C_1)\right\}`$ (12)
Where $`L(C_1,C_2)=_\mathrm{\Sigma }v\delta ^2(C_0C_1)`$. It is clear that if the curves cross each other then $`L=\pm 1`$ and if they are parallel $`L=0`$. In order that $`V`$ be a Lorentz scalar the commutator should not depend on the curves $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ To guarantee this we need to set

$`4\pi \kappa =k`$ (13)
We find therefore that the requirement of compactness quantizes the coefficient of the Chern Simons term very much like in the non-Abelian theory .

To see that (11) creates magnetic vortices of integer strength it is enough to consider the commutator

$`[B(x),V^m(x_0)]=2\pi m\delta ^2(xx_0)V^m(x_0),m.`$ (14)
Therefore $`V^m(x_0)`$ creates a point-like magnetic vortex of vorticity $`m`$ and magnetic flux $`2\pi m`$. Being gauge invariant this operator also creates an electric charge

$`Q={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}d^2x_iE^i={\displaystyle \frac{k}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}d^2xB={\displaystyle \frac{mk}{2}}`$ (15)
Since $`V`$ has to be included in the gauge group, the magnetic flux and the electric charge created by it must be unobservable. Therefore the Hamiltonian of the theory must commute with $`V`$. The noncompact Hamiltonian eq.(4) does not quite do the job. It should be modified but in such a way that in the continuum limit the same form is recovered for smooth fields. The modified Hamiltonian that satisfies these conditions has been suggested in . Since the UV structure is important for our considerations, it is most usefully presented in the lattice notations

$`H_B={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^4g^2n^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\left(1\text{Re}e^{ina^2B(x)}\right),H_E={\displaystyle \frac{m^2g^2}{4\pi ^2a^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\left(1\text{Re}e^{i2\pi \frac{a}{mg^2}ϵ_{ij}\widehat{n}_jE_i(x)}\right),`$ (16)
$`a`$ is the lattice spacing and $`m,n`$ and $`\widehat{n}_j`$ is the unit vector parallel to the link. The normalization of the electric and magnetic terms is such that in the naive continuum limit $`a0`$ they reduce to $`B^2`$ and $`E^2`$ respectively.

Using the Gauss’ law one can see that if $`2n=k`$ , the magnetic part $`H_B`$ becomes a combination of the vortex operators $`V`$. Therefore without loss of generality we assume $`2n<k`$. For $`m=1`$ the electric part of the Hamiltonian is also a sum of a fundamental vortex and anti-vortex, and we take $`m>1`$.

Now that we have the formulation of the compact CS QED we can ask about the locality properties of vortex operators. The operator $`V`$ we have considered so far is of no interest of itself, since is is trivial on all physical states. We thus have to look at the operators which create magnetic flux smaller than $`2\pi `$

$`V_p(C,x_0)=\text{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{2p\pi i}{g^2}}ϵ_{ij}{\displaystyle _C}𝑑l_iE_j(x),p`$ (17)
Here $`p`$ is a rational number $`p(0,1)`$. The question we are asking is, are there such values of $`p`$ for which $`V_p`$ is a gauge invariant local operator. The gauge invariance with respect to the noncompact gauge group is straightforward, since $`V_p`$ only depends on the electric field, and the electric field itself is gauge invariant. However $`V_p`$ should also commute with the ”fundamental” vortex $`V`$, since $`V`$ is part of the gauge group. Therefore we have

$`[V,V_p]=0kp=l\text{and}\text{ }l<k.`$ (18)
This condition is already informative. For example we see that there are no non-trivial vortices in $`k=1`$ theory. The condition of locality requires that $`V_p(x)`$ commute with each other at different points $`x`$ and $`y`$. This commutator also should be independent of the contour $`C`$ in the definition eq.(17).

$`[V_p(x),V_p(y)]=0kp^2=r`$ (19)
Both equations (18) and (19) have to be satisfied for the existence of non-trivial local vortices. Whether it is possible or not to satisfy these equations clearly depends on the CS coefficient $`k`$. For example there are no solutions for $`k=2`$ and $`k=3`$ theories. For $`k=4`$ we can choose $`l=2`$ and this gives a vortex of vorticity $`p=1/2`$. In general one can solve the constraints in the following way. Writing CS coefficient in terms of its prime factors, $`k=q_1q_2q_3\mathrm{}q_m`$, where all $`q_i`$ are not necessarily different, one has the following two conditions to satisfy

$`q_1q_2q_3\mathrm{}q_mp=l,q_1q_2q_3\mathrm{}q_mp^2=r.`$ (20)
The first condition is solved if $`p`$ divides $`k`$ which means, without loss of generality, we have

$`p={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q_1q_2q_3\mathrm{}q_i}},\text{where}\text{ }i<m`$ (21)
Using this in the second condition one can see that the most general form of $`k`$ which allows vortices will be

$`\text{If}\text{ }k=t^2zp={\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}},t2\text{and}\text{ }t,z`$ (22)
For example if $`k`$ is a prime number there are no solutions. Generically it is easier to find a solution at large values of $`k`$.

The above relations also show that should a solution exist, there is always a vortex of minimal vorticity. All the other local vortices are simple powers of this minimal vortex. For example for $`k=36`$, the above conditions give three solutions (and their integer multiples) , $`p=(1/2,1/3,1/6)`$. Obviously “p= 1/6” is the minimal vortex. The minimal value of $`p=\frac{1}{w}`$ determines the global magnetic symmetry group of the theory as $`Z_w`$.

One last requirement that $`V_p`$ should satisfy, is locality with respect to the energy density eq.(16). In obvious notation

$`[h_E(x),V_p(y)]=0,xy{\displaystyle \frac{kp}{m}}`$ (23)
This can always be satisfied by choosing $`m=k`$. To satisfy the other condition

$`[h_B(x),V_p(y)]=0{\displaystyle \frac{np}{2}}`$ (24)
we can take $`n=2`$. Certainly one can define other Hamiltonians which will be compatible with the above conditions. We see therefore that for those values of $`k`$ for which vortex operators are local with respect to each other we can always choose the Hamiltonian such that they are also local relative to the Hamiltonian density.

Thus we conclude that for many values of $`k`$ local physical vortex operators exist. They are order parameters for a global $`Z_w`$ magnetic symmetry. The value of $`w`$ is determined by $`k`$ through the solution of the equations for minimal $`p`$. Thus the argument described in the introduction applies and, at least in the lattice theory there are vortex states. Calculating their energy in the lattice theory is not a simple matter. However the interesting question is whether these states survive in the continuum limit. That is to say, whether their energy stays finite as the lattice spacing approaches zero.

We note that the continuum limit of the theory (16) is a slightly delicate matter. One must certainly take the limit $`a0`$. However since we expect in the continuum the scaling $`B`$ and $`E`$ to be $`ga^{3/2}`$, to guarantee the expandability of the electric exponential in eq.(16) we should take $`gka^{1/2}1`$. For the expandability of the magnetic exponential we should keep $`ga^{1/2}1`$. These two conditions are compatible if $`k1`$. With this scaling the mass of the photon can be also kept finite in the continuum limit. One should keep in mind that this scaling of the couplings is sufficient to get the continuum limit, but it may not be necessary. In particular it could certainly happen that at finite $`k`$ the scaling of $`B`$ and $`E`$ changes close to the cutoff and the continuum limit still exists.

In the continuum limit for smooth configurations of the fields the theory is described by the Lagrangian eq.(3). However while solving continuum equations we may sometimes encounter field configurations with fast variations. For these configurations it is important to take into account the compactness of the theory. In particular consider the electric field created by the ”minimal” vortex operator $`V_{1/w}`$.

$`[V(x),E_i(y)]=E_i(y)+e_i(x,y),e_i(x,y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{w}}g^4\kappa \widehat{n}(y)_i\delta (yC(x,y))`$ (25)
where $`\widehat{n}(y)`$ is the vector tangential the curve $`C`$ at the point $`y`$. Since the operator $`V(x)`$ is local, its only observable action in the compact theory is at the point $`x`$. However if we just calculate the energy using the naive Hamiltonian eq.(4) we find infrared divergence proportional to the length of the curve $`C`$. Clearly if faced with this type of configurations in continuum calculations we should subtract this infrared divergence by hand. Rather than do this we find it convenient to think about it in the following way. Let us split the general electric field configuration into a smooth piece and a piece that contains arbitrary number of strings of the type of eq.(25)

$`E^i=E_{smooth}^i+e^i`$ (26)
and subtract the contribution of $`e_i`$ in the Hamiltonian. The only remnant of $`e_i`$ then is in the Gauss’ law, since $`e_i`$ of eq.(25) corresponds to a pointlike charge $`\frac{k}{2w}`$ at the point $`x`$. Thus the smooth field $`E_{smooth}^i`$ satisfies not the naive Gauss’ law, but rather a modified one

$`_iE_{smooth}^i|_{\mathrm{mod}\frac{k}{2w}\delta ^2(x)}\kappa g^2ϵ^{ij}_iA_j=0`$ (27)
In other words we can work entirely in terms of $`E_{smooth}`$ if we remember that we may allow Gauss’ law to be violated by the presence of pointlike charges of charge $`\kappa g^2/w`$. The appearance of $`w`$ in this way is the only remnant of the compactness of the theory. In the following we will work in terms of the smooth fields but will drop the subscript $`smooth`$ for brevity.

With this caveat in mind, to determine the energy of the magnetic vortex in the continuum limit we now should solve the continuum equations of motion. For a minimum vorticity solution $`1/w`$ following  one can take the time independent symmetric ansatz,

$`A_i(r)=ϵ_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{x_j}{r^2}}[g(r){\displaystyle \frac{1}{w}}]A_0(r)=h(r)`$ (28)
The equations of motion read

$`g^{\prime \prime }(r){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}g^{}(r)rMh^{}(r)=0,`$ (29)
$`h^{\prime \prime }(r)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}h^{}(r){\displaystyle \frac{M}{r}}g^{}(r)=0,`$ (30)
where $`M=g^2\kappa `$. We are looking for the solutions with vorticity $`1/w`$. The magnetic field is $`B=\frac{1}{r}g^{}(r)`$ so we impose $`g(0)=1/w`$ and $`g(\mathrm{})=0`$ and we also demand that the fields decay exponentially at infinity. The solution under these conditions can be found as

$`g(r)={\displaystyle \frac{Mr}{w}}K_1(Mr),B(r)={\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{w}}K_0(Mr)`$ (31)
$`h(r)={\displaystyle \frac{M}{w}}K_0(Mr)E^i={\displaystyle \frac{x^iM^2}{wr}}K_1(Mr),`$ (32)
where $`K_0,K_1`$ are the Bessel functions.The energy of this vortex follows as

$`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{g^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}r𝑑r\{({\displaystyle \frac{dh}{dr}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{dg}{dr}})^2\}`$ (33)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \kappa }{w^2}}M\left(\gamma _E+\text{ln}2\text{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\right)`$ (34)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the ultraviolet cutoff scale.

This result warrants several comments. First, we see that the energy of the vortex is IR finite. This is closely related to the fact that the locality of the operator $`V_{1/w}`$ allowed us to ”violate” the Gauss’ law. Looking at the electric and magnetic fields in eqn (32) we indeed see that the naive Gauss’ law is violated precisely by the amount allowed by eq.(27). Without this deficit in the Gauss law any solution would have infrared divergent energy. This is because any nonvanishing magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ would require a long range electric field $`E_ig^2\mathrm{\Phi }\kappa \frac{x_i}{x^2}`$ to satisfy the Gauss’ law. The Coulomb energy of this field is logarithmically divergent in IR. The absence of this long range piece in the field and the associated IR divergence in the energy is what distinguishes the compact and the noncompact theory.

Second, the energy is UV divergent. Thus the magnetic vortices do not survive in the continuum limit as finite energy excitations. This of course does not contradict our original argument. The $`Z_w`$ symmetry is unbroken in the vacuum and excitations carrying the quantum numbers of this symmetry are very heavy. The symmetry therefore seems completely irrelevant for the low energy dynamics. The curious thing though is that although the energy of the vortex is large, it is still much lower than the natural ultraviolet scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The vortices therefore are not genuine ultraviolet objects in the lattice theory, but rather occupy an intermediate scale between the UV scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the IR scale M. In fact bringing $`M`$ down to zero makes vortices light. At $`M=\mu \mathrm{ln}^1\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu }`$ the energy of the vortex is finite<sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4The reader may wonder why we are not bothered by the factor $`\kappa `$ in eq.(34). After all we saw that in the continuum limit naturally $`\kappa \mathrm{}`$. The point is that the flux of the minimal vortex generically scales as $`w^2k`$. For example if $`k=x^2`$ with some integer $`x`$, then clearly the minimal solution of the eq.(22) corresponds to $`w=x`$. Thus $`k/w^2`$ is finite in the continuum limit.. This behavior in fact is very reminiscent of vortices in the Higgs phase of the Abelian Higgs model. The mass of such a vortex at weak coupling is very large; $`MM_v^2/g^2\mathrm{ln}M_H/M_v`$, where $`M_v`$ is the mass of the massive photon and $`M_H`$ is the mass of the Higgs particle. However as the photon mass decreases, that is as the theory approaches the phase transition line, vortices become light. On the phase transition itself they in fact become massless and condense in the Coulomb phase. It is not unlikely that similar phenomenon occurs in our model. As $`\kappa `$ decreases at fixed $`g^2`$ the photon becomes lighter, and the mass of the vortex also decreases. It could happen that at some value of $`\kappa `$ the vortices actually become massless and drive a phase transition into a phase with broken magnetic symmetry. A transition of precisely such type was conjectured to happen in the lattice model at $`k=8`$ in  and was seen in the variational calculation of . Of course, within the naive continuum limit we consider here we are unable to see such behavior. However the fact that the vortices become light within the validity of the naive continuum limit is quite suggestive in this respect. It is interesting to note that if the vortices indeed condense, the magnetic $`Z_w`$ symmetry is spontaneously broken. By virtue of the argument given in the introduction this means that the low $`k`$ phase is confining.

## 3 Non-Abelian theories.

We now want to extend our analysis to non-Abelian theories. We will study the $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory with the the Lagrangian

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}\text{tr}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\kappa ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }\text{tr}\left(A_\mu _\nu A_\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}A_\mu A_\nu A_\lambda \right)`$ (35)
CS coefficient has the well known quantization, $`4\pi \kappa =k`$ . We denote $`A_\mu =A_\mu ^aT^a`$ and $`\text{tr}[T^a,T^b]=\frac{1}{2}\delta ^{ab}`$ The Lie algebra generators obey $`[T^a,T^b]=f^{abc}T^c`$. The field strength and the covariant derivative are $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu +[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]`$, $`D_\mu =_\mu +[A_\mu ,]`$. The classical equations of motion follow as

$`D_\mu F^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^2\kappa ϵ^{\nu \lambda \mu }F_{\lambda \mu }=0`$ (36)
The canonical structure of this theory is similar to the Abelian case. In the $`A_0^a=0`$ gauge we have

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_i^a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}E_i^a+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}ϵ^{ij}A_j^a,\text{where}\text{ }E_i^a=\dot{A}_i^a.`$ (37)
The Hamiltonian is

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}\{(E_i^a)^2+(B^a)^2\},\text{where}\text{ }B^a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{ij}F_{ij}^a.`$ (38)
The canonical algebra is

$`[E_i^a(\stackrel{}{x}),E_j^b(\stackrel{}{y})]=i\delta ^{ab}\kappa g^4ϵ_{ij}\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}),[A_i^a(\stackrel{}{x}),E_j^b(\stackrel{}{y})]=ig^2\delta ^{ab}\delta _{ij}\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})`$ (39)
In terms of the momenta the Gauss law is

$`(D_i\mathrm{\Pi }_i)^a={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}ϵ^{ij}_iA_j^a`$ (40)
In the non Abelian YMCS theory, the large Wilson loop still commutes with the Hamiltonian. This is obvious in the Hamiltonian formalism, since the commutation relation between the vector potential and the chromoelectric field is unaffected by the presence of the CS term. The form of the Hamiltonian in terms of $`A_i`$ and $`E_i`$ is also the same as without the CS term. Since $`W`$ is a function of $`A_i`$ only, its commutator with the Hamiltonian is exactly the same as in the theory without CS. Therefore the fundamental Wilson loop still generates a symmetry.

Again our question is whether the theory admits local vortex operators. In the non-Abelian theory our choices are more limited than in compact QED. In the SU(N) Yang Mills theory, the only candidates for local operators are those that create quantized flux . The vortex operator in YM theory is :

$$V(x)=\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{4\pi i}{g^2N}_Cdy^iϵ_{ij}\mathrm{Tr}(YE_i(y))$$
(41)
where the hyper charge generator $`Y`$ is defined as

$$Y=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,\mathrm{},(N1))$$
(42)
and the electric field is taken in the matrix notation $`E_i=T^aE_i^a`$. It can be proven that in SU(N) YM theory, this operator despite its nonlocal and gauge non-invariant appearance is in fact a local, gauge invariant, Lorentz scalar field . The way it was constructed there was to require that it satisfies the ’tHooft algebra  with the fundamental Wilson loop

$`V^{}(x)W(C)V(x)=\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi i}{N}}n(x,C)\}W(C)`$ (43)
with $`n(x,C)`$ being the linking number on the plane between the point $`x`$ and the closed curve $`C`$.

We claim that the operator in (41) is also the appropriate vortex operator when a Chern-Simons term is included for the gauge field. The commutation relation (43) is still satisfied by the expression (41). However an additional requirement was that $`V`$ be gauge invariant. Here we should be more specific what we mean by that. The expression (41) is not explicitly gauge invariant since it depends on the chromoelectric field in the hyper charge direction. However for $`\kappa =0`$ it has been proven that the matrix elements of $`V`$ between physical states (those that satisfy Gauss’ law) and non-physical states (non-singlet under gauge transformations) vanish. This means that when we calculate matrix elements of any number of operators $`V`$ between gauge invariant states, only intermediate states from the physical sector contribute and so the form (41) can be safely used even though it is not explicitly gauge invariant. Let us briefly recap the proof. The wave functional of any physical state in a theory without Chern Simons term depends only on gauge invariant characteristics of the vector potential, i.e. only on the values of Wilson loops over all possible contours.

$$\mathrm{\Psi }[A_i]=\mathrm{\Psi }[\{W(C)\}]$$
(44)
Consider the action on such a state of the operator $`V(x)`$ and its gauge transform $`V_\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$.

$`V|\mathrm{\Psi }>`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_V[A_i]=\mathrm{\Psi }[\{VW(C)V^{}\}]`$
$`V_\mathrm{\Omega }|\mathrm{\Psi }>`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_V^\mathrm{\Omega }[A_i]=\mathrm{\Psi }[\{V_\mathrm{\Omega }W(C)V_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\}]`$ (45)
The action of $`V(x)`$ and $`V_\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$ on the Wilson loop is identical - they both multiply it by the center group phase (which stays unaffected by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$) if $`x`$ is inside $`C`$ and do nothing otherwise. Therefore

$$V|\mathrm{\Psi }>=V_\mathrm{\Omega }|\mathrm{\Psi }>$$
(46)
for any physical state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Thus we have

$$\mathrm{\Omega }V|\mathrm{\Psi }>=\mathrm{\Omega }V\mathrm{\Omega }^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }>=V|\mathrm{\Psi }>$$
(47)
where the first equality follows from the fact that a physical state is invariant under action of any gauge transformation $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the second equality follows from eq.(46). But this equation is nothing but the statement that the state $`V|\mathrm{\Psi }>`$ is physical, i.e. invariant under any nonsingular gauge transformation. Thus we have proved that $`V`$ transforms a physical state into another physical state.

In the Chern-Simons theory the vortex operator should also be gauge invariant. We thus have to check that it transforms a physical state into another physical state. The difference with the pure YM theory is that the wave function of a gauge invariant state does not depend only on the Wilson loops. The physical wave function should satisfy the following equation

$`i(D_i{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta A_i}})^a\mathrm{\Psi }[A]={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}ϵ_{ij}_iA_j^a\mathrm{\Psi }[A]`$ (48)
The general form of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ has been determined in  in terms of certain nonlinear variables. For our purposes we find it more convenient to work directly in terms of the vector potentials $`A_i`$. Let us take $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in the form

$`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{exp}\{iS\}`$ (49)
Then the eikonal $`S`$ satisfies a linear inhomogeneous equation

$`D_i^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta A_i^b}}S[A]={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}ϵ_{ij}_iA_j^a`$ (50)
The solution of the homogeneous equation is indeed any functional that depends on Wilson loops $`S_0[W]`$. We can find a particular solution of the inhomogeneous equation using the following argument. $`S[A]`$ must be a functional whose change under a standard gauge transformation of vector potentials $`\delta A_i=D_i\lambda `$ is proportional to $`\frac{\kappa }{2}d^2xϵ_{ij}_iA_j^a\lambda ^a`$. Such a functional can be represented as a Chern Simons action on a space with a boundary. Let us introduce an additional coordinate $`\tau [\mathrm{},1]`$ and functions of three coordinates $`A_i(x,\tau )`$ so that at the boundary $`\tau =1`$, the value of these functions is equal to the value of the vector potentials in our theory $`A_i(x,\tau =1)=A_i(x)`$. Let us write the Chern Simons term (in the Weyl gauge) on this manifold

$`S_{CS}={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^1}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle d^2xϵ_{ij}A_i^a(x,\tau )\dot{A}_j^a(x,\tau )}`$ (51)
Under the $`\tau `$ independent gauge transformation this action changes by a boundary term

$`\delta S_{CS}={\displaystyle d^2xϵ_{ij}\lambda ^a(x)_iA_j^a(x,\tau =1)}={\displaystyle d^2xϵ_{ij}\lambda ^a(x)_iA_j^a(x)}`$ (52)
which is precisely of the form required to satisfy eq.(50). A particular solution of eq.(50) is therefore

$`S_p={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}S_{CS}={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^1}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle d^2xϵ_{ij}A_i^a(x,\tau )\dot{A}_j^a(x,\tau )}`$ (53)
The introduction of the extra coordinate $`\tau `$ and the expression eq.(51) is not at all unnatural. One should view this extra coordinate as parameterizing a curve in the field space. With this interpretation we have

$`d\tau \dot{A}_j(x,\tau )=\delta A_i`$ (54)
and

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^1}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle d^2xϵ_{ij}A^i(x,\tau )\dot{A}_j(x,\tau )}={\displaystyle _𝒞}\delta A_iϵ_{ij}A_j`$ (55)
where the line integral is taken over the trajectory $`𝒞`$ in the field space which ends at the point $`\{A_i(x)\}`$.

We have thus determined the general form of the wave function of a physical state in the YMCS theory to be

$`\mathrm{\Psi }[A]=\mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^1}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle d^2xϵ_{ij}A^i(x,\tau )\dot{A}_j(x,\tau )}\}\mathrm{\Psi }_0[W]`$ (56)
Now it is straightforward to see how the vortex operator acts on it. Under the action of the vortex operator

$`V(x)A_i^a(y,\tau )V^{}(x)=A_i(x,\tau )+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{N}}\text{Tr}YT^aϵ_{ij}{\displaystyle 𝑑z_j\delta ^2(zC(x,y))}`$ (57)
Remembering that $`E_i^a=g^2\mathrm{\Pi }_i^a+g^2\kappa ϵ_{ij}A_j^a`$, we see that the change in the phase factor in the wave functional is exactly cancelled by the $`A`$-dependent term in the vortex operator eq.(41).

$`V(x)e^{iS_p}V^{}(x)=e^{iS_p}.`$ (58)
Thus

$`V\mathrm{\Psi }[A]=\mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^1}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle d^2xϵ_{ij}A^i(x,\tau )\dot{A}_j(x,\tau )}\}\mathrm{\Psi }_0[V^{}WV]`$ (59)
Clearly a gauge transformed vortex operator $`V_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has exactly the same action on the wave functional $`\mathrm{\Psi }[A]`$,

$`V\mathrm{\Psi }=V_\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (60)
which establishes gauge invariance of $`V`$ in the same sense as in the YM theory.

We now can check the locality of the operator $`V`$ by calculating straightforwardly the relevant commutation relation. A simple calculation gives $`[V(x),V(y)]=0`$. Thus the operators are local with respect to each other. When considering the locality with respect to the Hamiltonian density we are faced with the same ambiguity as in the Abelian theory. The electric part of naive continuum Hamiltonian is not local relative to $`V`$, since $`E_i`$ is shifted by the action of $`V`$ along the curve $`C`$. Just like in the Abelian case one should consider a properly regularized version of $`H`$ in order to be able to draw a definite conclusion. In the non-Abelian case such a regularized Hamiltonian is not available. However in the Abelian case we saw that there is quite a lot of flexibility in defining such a regularized version. In particular we saw that whenever the vortex operators were local with respect to each other, we were always able to define the local Hamiltonian density. We expect that this situation persists in the non-Abelian theory too.

The situation in the continuum limit is again similar to the Abelian case. There are no finite energy solutions of the non-Abelian equations of motion which have finite vorticity. The only way to find such solutions would be again to relax the Gauss’ law constraint by allowing point like charges which correspond to the singular chromoelectric field created by $`V`$. However again those IR finite configurations will have UV logarithmically divergent energy. In fact taking Abelian ansatz the YM equations of motion reduce to those we considered in the previous section and thus lead to the same energy dependence on the UV cutoff. Strictly speaking this conclusion is only valid for large enough value of $`k`$, since for small $`k`$ quantum corrections to this classical analysis may be large. Thus again it is possible that at small $`k`$ the theory is in a different phase as suggested in .

## 4 Summary.

To summarize, we have studied the question of locality of the vortex creation operator in compact Chern- Simons theories. We have found that compact CS QED does admit local vortex operators for many values of the CS coefficient $`k`$. The energy of the vortex excitations however generically is logarithmically UV divergent in the continuum limit. With a particular scaling of the CS coefficient these vortices become light and might condense at small values of $`k`$. Our results for non-Abelian CSYM theory are similar. Local vortex operators exist, but the particles that carry vorticity are heavy in the continuum limit.

These results are broadly compatible with suggestions made in the literature that at low values of the Chern Simons coefficient the YMCS theory might undergo a phase transition. If this happens it is very likely that this other phase has a broken magnetic symmetry and is therefore confining. This is a very interesting possibility which seems worthwhile exploring by numerical lattice methods.

## 5 Acknowledgments

G.D. is supported in part by the U.S. DOE grant DE-FG02-92ER40716.00, by PPARC grant PPA/V/S/1998/00910, and thanks Balliol College and the Theoretical Physics Department at Oxford for their hospitality. A.K. is supported by PPARC. The research of B. T. is supported by PPARC Grant PPA/G/O/1998/00567.

References


format: text

text:
# The Double and Dual of a Quasitriangular Lie Bialgebra

## 1 Introduction

Knowing explicitly the Lie algebra structure of the double of a Lie bialgebra is necessary for the classification of the Poisson homogeneous spaces and symplectic leaves of the corresponding Poisson–Lie groups.

To be more precise, let $`𝔤`$ be a Lie bialgebra over a field $`k`$ and $`𝒟(𝔤)`$ be its double. By the dual Lie bialgebra $`𝔤^{}`$ of $`𝔤,`$ we will mean the standard dual Lie bialgebra of $`𝔤,`$ equipped with opposite cobracket. When $`k=`$ or $``$ the connected, simply connected Poisson–Lie groups with tangent Lie bialgebras $`𝔤,`$ $`𝔤^{}`$ and $`𝒟(𝔤)`$ will be denoted by $`G,`$ $`G^{},`$ and $`𝒟(G).`$ $`𝒟(G)`$ and $`G^{}`$ are called the double and dual Poisson–Lie groups of $`G,`$ respectively. Let $`j:G𝒟(G)`$ and $`j^{}:G^{}𝒟(G)`$ be the group homomorphisms corresponding to the embeddings $`𝔤𝒟(𝔤)`$ and $`𝔤^{}𝒟(𝔤).`$

According to a result of Drinfeld , the Poisson homogeneous spaces for $`G`$ with connected stabilizers are in one to one correspondence with the orbits of the adjoint action of $`G`$ on the variety of the Lagrangian subalgebras $`𝔩`$ of $`𝒟(𝔤)`$ for which $`𝔩𝔤`$ integrates to a closed subgroup of $`G.`$

By a Theorem of Semenov-Tian-Shansky , the symplectic leaves of $`G`$ are the orbits of the (local) dressing action of $`G^{}`$ on $`G`$ which is the lifting under $`G𝒟(G)/j^{}(G^{})`$ of the left action of $`G^{}`$ on $`𝒟(G)/j^{}(G^{}).`$ Again to work with it in a concrete situation, one needs an explicit description of $`𝒟(G)`$ and of the images of $`G`$ and $`G^{}`$. For $`G`$ semisimple, the symplectic leaves of $`G`$ were described using this procedure by Hodges and Levasseur  for the standard bialgebra structure and by Yakimov  for the structures associated to a general Belavin-Drinfeld $`r`$-matrix.

If the Lie bialgebra $`𝔤`$ is quasitriangular with an $`r`$-matrix $`r,`$ the structure of $`𝒟(𝔤)`$ is encoded in the structure of the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ and the $`r`$-matrix. For a factorizable Lie bialgebra it was shown by Reshetikhin and Semenov-Tian-Shansky  that $`𝒟(𝔤)𝔤𝔤`$. Stolin  and Levendorskii, Soibelman  showed for triangular structures on complex simple Lie algebras and their compact real forms that $`𝒟(𝔤)𝔤𝔤^{}`$. These results enable one to construct $`𝒟(G)`$ as $`G\times G`$ and $`G𝔤^{}`$ respectively. The goal of this note is to extend these results to the general case; that is, to give an explicit description of $`𝒟(𝔤)`$ and of the embeddings $`𝔤,𝔤^{}𝒟(𝔤)`$ in terms of the $`r`$-matrix and then to lift this description to a construction of $`𝒟(G)`$.

Next we briefly explain our results. The subspace $`𝔣`$ of $`𝔤`$ spanned by all components of the tensor $`r+r^{21}S^2(𝔤)`$ is an ideal of $`𝔤.`$ In Section 3 we show that $`𝒟(𝔤)`$ is an extension of the semidirect sum $`𝔤𝔣`$ by an abelian Lie algebra. The 2-cocycle $`\alpha `$ defining the extension is computed in Section 4. Section 5 deals with the image of $`𝔤^{}𝒟(𝔤)`$ under this isomorphism. It is described in terms of an explicit 1-cochain for a subalgebra $`𝔟`$ of $`𝔤𝔣`$ whose coboundary is essentially the restriction of $`\alpha `$ to $`𝔟.`$ In Section 6 we lift this construction to a construction of $`𝒟(G)`$ as an extension of $`GF`$ by $`𝔣^{}`$, generalizing the above descriptions of $`𝒟(G)`$ in the factorizable and triangular cases. In Section 7 we specialize the results to the two limiting cases of triangular and factorizable structures, i.e. $`r+r^{21}=0`$ or of full rank.

No assumptions will be made on the ground field $`k`$ and unless otherwised specified all Lie bialgebras can be infinite dimensional. For a vector space $`V`$ over $`k,`$ the natural pairing between $`\xi V^{}`$ and $`vV`$ will be denoted both by $`\xi (v)`$ and $`\xi ,v.`$ The symbol $``$ will be used for both semidirect sums and products of Lie algebras and Lie groups.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Nicolai Reshetikhin and Sei-Qwon Oh for fruitful discussions.

## 2 Lie bialgebras

Recall that a Lie bialgebra $`𝔤`$ with Lie bracket $`[.,.]`$ and Lie cobracket $`\delta `$ is called quasitriangular if there exists an element $`r𝔤𝔤`$ such that

$$\delta (x)=(\mathrm{ad}_x\mathrm{id}+\mathrm{id}\mathrm{ad}_x)r,x𝔤$$

and $`r`$ satisfies the Yang–Baxter equation

$$[r_{12},r_{13}]+[r_{12},r_{23}]+[r_{13},r_{23}]=0.$$

Let $`𝔤^{}`$ be the dual Lie bialgebra of $`𝔤`$ with opposite cobracket as explained in the introduction. (This convention is not essential since in Sections 3–7 we only work with the Lie algebra structure of $`𝔤,`$ $`𝔤^{},`$ and $`𝒟(𝔤).)`$ There are two natural Lie bialgebra homomorphisms $`r_\pm :𝔤^{}𝔤`$ (see ), given by

$`r_+(\xi )=(\xi \mathrm{id})r,`$ (2.1)
$`r_{}(\xi )=(\mathrm{id}\xi )r,\xi 𝔤^{}.`$ (2.2)
Recall also that the double Lie bialgebra $`𝒟(𝔤)`$ of $`𝔤`$ is characterized by the properties

1. $`𝒟(𝔤)𝔤𝔤^{}`$ as a coalgebra,

2. $`𝔤`$ and $`𝔤^{}`$ are subalgebras of $`𝒟(𝔤)`$ and two elements $`x𝔤𝒟(𝔤)`$ and $`\xi 𝔤^{}𝒟(𝔤)`$ commute as

$$[x,\xi ]=\mathrm{ad}_x^{}(\xi )\mathrm{ad}_\xi ^{}(x)$$
(2.3)
where $`\mathrm{ad}^{}`$ denotes the coadjoint actions of both $`𝔤`$ and $`𝔤^{}.`$

There is a canonical nondegenerate invariant bilinear form on $`𝒟(𝔤)`$ given by

$$x_1+\xi _1,x_2+\xi _2:=\xi _1,x_2+\xi _2,x_1,x_i𝔤,\xi _i𝔤^{}$$
(2.4)
with respect to which $`(𝒟(𝔤),𝔤,𝔤^{})`$ is a Manin triple. For details we refer to .

## 3 An exact sequence

Let $`𝔣𝔤`$ denote the span of all components of the tensor

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=r+r_{21}S^2(𝔤).$$
(3.1)
Since $`\delta `$ is skewsymmetric, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is $`\mathrm{ad}_𝔤`$ invariant. This implies that $`𝔣`$ is an ideal of $`𝔤.`$ Denote by $`𝔣^{}`$ the subspace of $`𝔤^{}`$ orthogonal to $`𝔣𝔤:`$

$$𝔣^{}=\{\eta 𝔤^{}\eta ,y=0,y𝔣\}.$$
(3.2)
In terms of the maps $`r_\pm ,`$ $`𝔣`$ and $`𝔣^{}`$ are given by

$`𝔣=\mathrm{Im}(r_+r_{}),`$ (3.3)
$`𝔣^{}=\mathrm{Ker}(r_+r_{}).`$ (3.4)
Define two linear maps

$$p_\pm :𝒟(𝔤)𝔤$$

by

$$p_\pm (x+\xi )=x+r_\pm (\xi );x𝔤𝒟(𝔤),\xi 𝔤^{}𝒟(𝔤).$$
(3.5)
The following result is due to Majid \[8, 8.2.7\]; we include a proof for completeness.

###### Proposition 3.1

The maps $`p_\pm :𝒟(𝔤)𝔤`$ are homomorphisms of Lie algebras.

In fact the maps $`p_\pm `$ are homomorphisms of Lie bialgebras since $`𝒟(𝔤)𝔤𝔤^{}`$ as a coalgebra, but we will not need this fact here.

In the proof of this proposition and below we will use the following simple fact.

###### Lemma 3.2

For all $`\xi 𝔤^{}`$ and $`x𝔤`$

$`\mathrm{ad}_\xi ^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`(\xi \mathrm{id})((\mathrm{ad}_x\mathrm{id}+\mathrm{id}\mathrm{ad}_x)r)`$
$`=`$ $`(\mathrm{id}\xi )((\mathrm{ad}_x\mathrm{id}+\mathrm{id}\mathrm{ad}_x)r).`$
Proof. For an arbitrary $`\xi _0𝔤^{}`$

$`\mathrm{ad}_\xi ^{}(x),\xi _0=x,[\xi ,\xi _0]`$
$`=\delta (x),\xi \xi _0=(\xi \mathrm{id})((\mathrm{ad}_x\mathrm{id}+\mathrm{id}\mathrm{ad}_x)r),\xi _0.`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
Proof of Proposition 3.1. The restrictions of $`p_\pm `$ to $`𝔤𝒟(𝔤)`$ and $`𝔤^{}𝒟(𝔤)`$ coincide with $`r_\pm `$ and thus are homomorphisms. We are left with checking that

$$[p_\pm (x),p_\pm (\xi )]=p_\pm ([x,\xi ])$$

for $`x𝔤𝒟(𝔤),`$ $`\xi 𝔤^{}𝒟(𝔤).`$ Using Lemma 3.2, for the map $`p_+`$ one computes

$`p_+([x,\xi ])`$ $`=`$ $`p_+(\mathrm{ad}_x^{}(\xi )\mathrm{ad}_\xi ^{}(x))`$
$`=`$ $`(\mathrm{ad}_x^{}(\xi )\mathrm{id})r\mathrm{ad}_\xi ^{}(x)`$
$`=`$ $`(\xi \mathrm{id})((\mathrm{ad}_x\mathrm{id})r)+(\xi \mathrm{id})((\mathrm{ad}_x\mathrm{id}+\mathrm{id}\mathrm{ad}_x)r)`$
$`=`$ $`[x,r_+(\xi )]=[p_+(x),p_+(\xi )]`$
$`\mathrm{}`$

The kernels of $`p_\pm `$ are

$$\mathrm{Ker}p_\pm =(\mathrm{id}r_\pm )𝔤^{}.$$
(3.6)
###### Lemma 3.3

The algebras $`\mathrm{Ker}p_+`$ and $`\mathrm{Ker}p_{}`$ mutually commute in $`𝒟(𝔤).`$

Proof. Since $`\mathrm{Ker}p_\pm `$ are ideals of $`𝒟(𝔤),`$ for any $`\xi _1,\xi _2𝔤^{}`$

$$[(\mathrm{id}r_+)\xi _1,(\mathrm{id}r_{})\xi _2]=(\mathrm{id}r_+)\xi $$

for some $`\xi 𝔤^{}.`$ Comparing the components in $`𝔤^{}𝒟(𝔤)`$ of the two sides of this equality, we get

$$\xi =[\xi _1,\xi _2]\mathrm{ad}_{r_+(\xi _1)}^{}(\xi _2)+\mathrm{ad}_{r_{}(\xi _2)}^{}(\xi _1).$$
(3.7)
Thus Lemma 3.3 is equivalent to the vanishing of the above expression for all $`\xi _1,\xi _2𝔤^{}.`$ For an arbitrary $`x𝔤`$

$`[\xi _1,\xi _2]\mathrm{ad}_{r_+(\xi _1)}^{}(\xi _2)+\mathrm{ad}_{r_{}(\xi _2)}^{}(\xi _1),x`$
$`=\xi _1\xi _2,\delta (x)+\xi _2,\mathrm{ad}_{r_+(\xi _1)}(x)\xi _1,\mathrm{ad}_{r_{}(\xi _2)}(x)`$
$`=\xi _1\xi _2,\delta (x)(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{ad}_x)r(\mathrm{ad}_x\mathrm{id})r=0.`$
$`\mathrm{}`$

Combine the maps $`p_\pm `$ into the single morphism

$$p:𝒟(𝔤)𝔤𝔤,p(d)=(p_+(d),p_{}(d)).$$
(3.8)
Using (3.3), for its image we obtain

$`\mathrm{Im}p`$ $`=`$ $`\{(x+r_+(\xi ),x+r_{}(\xi ))x𝔤,\xi 𝔤^{}\}`$ (3.9)
$`=`$ $`\{(x_0,x_0+y)x_0𝔤,y𝔣\}`$
$``$ $`𝔤𝔣.`$
In the semidirect sum $`𝔤𝔣,`$ $`𝔤`$ acts on $`𝔣`$ via the adjoint action (recall that $`𝔣`$ is an ideal of $`𝔤).`$ The resulting map $`𝒟(𝔤)𝔤𝔣,`$ given by $`x+\xi (x+r_+(\xi ),(r_+r_{})\xi ),`$ $`x𝔤,`$ $`\xi 𝔤^{}`$ will still be denoted by $`p`$. This map was also constructed and discussed by Majid \[8, 8.2.6\].

Similarly, from (3.4) we see that the kernel of $`p`$ is

$`\mathrm{Ker}p`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Ker}p_+\mathrm{Ker}p_{}`$ (3.10)
$`=`$ $`(\mathrm{id}r_+)(\mathrm{Ker}(r_+r_{}))`$
$`=`$ $`(\mathrm{id}r_+)𝔣^{}.`$
Lemma 3.3 implies that $`\mathrm{Ker}p`$ is an abelian subalgebra of $`𝒟(𝔤).`$

Equip the space $`𝔣^{}`$ with the structure of abelian Lie algebra. Then the map

$$i=(\mathrm{id}r_+)|_𝔣^{}:𝔣^{}𝒟(𝔤)$$
(3.11)
is an embedding of Lie algebras.

To summarize:

###### Proposition 3.4

The sequence

$$0𝔣^{}\stackrel{i}{}𝒟(𝔤)\stackrel{p}{}𝔤𝔣0$$
(3.12)
is exact.

Note that $`𝔣^{},`$ considered as a subspace of $`𝔤^{},`$ is not an abelian Lie algebra in general. For example if $`𝔤`$ is a triangular Lie bialgebra, $`𝔣^{}=𝔤^{}`$ but $`𝔤^{}`$ is not always abelian.

## 4 Description of the extension

According to the previous section, $`𝒟(𝔤)`$ is an extension of $`𝔤𝔣`$ by the abelian Lie algebra $`𝔣^{}`$. Thus, there is an induced representation of $`𝔤𝔣`$ on $`𝔣^{}`$ and the extension is uniquely defined by an element of $`H^2(𝔤𝔣,𝔣^{})`$ (see, for instance, \[1, XIV.5\] or \[4, VII.4\]). To describe these structures, we need to fix a splitting $`S:𝔤𝔣𝒟(𝔤)`$ of (3.12) in the category of vector spaces, i.e. $`pS=\mathrm{id}_{𝔤𝔣},`$ such that S(0)=0. From (3.9) one sees that such splitting may be defined by a right inverse map $`s:𝔣𝔤^{}`$ of $`(r_+r_{}):𝔤^{}𝔣`$ (i.e. $`(r_+r_{})s=\mathrm{id}_𝔣).`$ The desired splitting $`S:𝔤𝔣𝒟(𝔤)`$ can then be defined by

$$S(x,y)=x+r_+s(y)s(y)𝒟(𝔤),x𝔤,y𝔣$$
(4.1)
(the elements of $`𝔤𝔣`$ will be represented as ordered pairs).

###### Lemma 4.1

The maps $`\mathrm{id}r_\pm :𝔤^{}𝒟(𝔤)`$ are $`𝔤`$-module homomorphisms. That is, $`(\mathrm{id}r_\pm )(\mathrm{ad}_x^{}\xi )=[x,(\mathrm{id}r_\pm )\xi ]`$ for all $`x𝔤`$ and all $`\xi 𝔤^{}`$.

Proof. In the $`r_+`$ case we have

$`[x,(\mathrm{id}r_+)\xi ]`$ $`=`$ $`[x,r_+\xi ]+\mathrm{ad}_x^{}\xi \mathrm{ad}_\xi ^{}x`$
$`=`$ $`(\xi \mathrm{id})(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{ad}_x)r+\mathrm{ad}_x^{}\xi \mathrm{ad}_\xi ^{}x`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{ad}_x^{}\xi +(\xi \mathrm{id})(\mathrm{ad}_x\mathrm{id})r`$
$`=`$ $`(\mathrm{id}r_\pm )(\mathrm{ad}_x^{}\xi ).`$
The argument for $`r_{}`$ is analogous. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 4.2

The action of $`𝔤𝔣`$ on $`𝔣^{}`$ induced from the extension

$$0𝔣^{}\stackrel{i}{}𝒟(𝔤)\stackrel{p}{}𝔤𝔣0$$

is given by $`(x,y)\eta =\mathrm{ad}_x^{}(\eta )`$ for $`x𝔤`$, $`y𝔣,`$ and $`\eta 𝔣^{}`$.

Proof. The action is given by $`(x,y)\eta =i^1([S(x,y),i(\eta )])`$. Now Lemma 3.3 implies that $`i(𝔣^{})`$ is in the center of $`\mathrm{Ker}p_+`$ and therefore

$`[S(x,y),i(\eta )]`$ $`=`$ $`[x(\mathrm{id}r_+)s(y),(\mathrm{id}r_+)\eta ]=[x,(\mathrm{id}r_+)\eta ]`$
$`=`$ $`(\mathrm{id}r_+)(\mathrm{ad}_x^{}(\eta )).`$
by Lemma 4.1. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let us briefly recall the construction of an extension of a Lie algebra $`𝔥`$ by an $`𝔥`$-module $`V`$ associated to an element of $`H^2(𝔥,V)`$. Let $`\alpha Z^2(𝔥,V)`$ be a representative of the cohomology class $`[\alpha ]H^2(𝔥,V)`$. Then the extension of $`𝔥`$ by $`V`$ associated to $`\alpha `$ is the vector space $`𝔥V`$ equipped with the bracket

$$[(h_1,v_1),(h_2,v_2)]=([h_1,h_2],h_1v_2h_2v_1+\alpha (h_1,h_2)).$$

We will denote such an extension by $`𝔥_\alpha V`$.

Returning to $`𝒟(𝔤)`$, notice that it follows easily from Lemma 4.1 that for any $`x𝔤`$ and $`y𝔣`$,

$$\mathrm{ad}_x^{}(s(y))s([x,y])𝔣^{}.$$

Hence we may define a 2-form, $`\alpha :(𝔤𝔣)(𝔤𝔣)𝔣^{}`$ by

$`\alpha ((x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2))`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ad}_{x_1}^{}(s(y_2))+\mathrm{ad}_{x_2}^{}(s(y_1))\mathrm{ad}_{y_1}^{}(s(y_2))`$ (4.2)
$`+`$ $`s([x_1,y_2][x_2,y_1]+[y_1,y_2]).`$
###### Theorem 4.3

The form $`\alpha `$ is a 2-cocycle and

$$𝒟(𝔤)(𝔤𝔣)_\alpha 𝔣^{}.$$
(4.3)
Proof. The cohomology class associated to the extension

$$0𝔣^{}\stackrel{i}{}𝒟(𝔤)\stackrel{p}{}𝔤𝔣0$$

is the class of the 2-cocycle

$$i^1([S(x_1,y_1),S(x_2,y_2)]S([(x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2)])).$$

But

$`[S(x_1,y_1),S(x_2,y_2)]=[x_1(\mathrm{id}r_+)s(y_1),x_2(\mathrm{id}r_+)s(y_2)]`$
$`=[x_1,x_2]+(\mathrm{id}r_+)(\mathrm{ad}_{x_1}^{}(s(y_2))+\mathrm{ad}_{x_2}^{}(s(y_1))\mathrm{ad}_{y_1}^{}(s(y_2)))`$
and

$$S([(x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2)])=[x_1,x_2](\mathrm{id}r_+)\left([x_1,y_2][x_2,y_1]+[y_1,y_2]\right)$$

So

$$[S(x_1,y_1),S(x_2,y_2)]S([(x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2)])=(\mathrm{id}r_+)(\alpha ((x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2)))$$

as required. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 4.4

In the case when $`𝔤`$ admits a nondegenerate invariant bilinear form, $`𝔤^{}`$ can be identified as a linear space with $`𝔤`$ and $`r_\pm `$ can be thought of as linear endomorphisms of $`𝔤.`$ In Theorem 4.3 $`𝔣^{}`$ may be replaced by the orthogonal complement to $`𝔣`$ in $`𝔤`$ and the coadjoint representation $`\mathrm{ad}^{}`$ of $`𝔤`$ with the adjoint one. The results of the following section can be reformulated in a similar way.

## 5 The embeddings of $`𝔤`$ and $`𝔤^{}`$ in $`𝒟(𝔤)`$

It is clear that in the identification (4.3), $`𝔤`$ is embedded in $`𝒟(𝔤)`$ by

$$x(x,0)_\alpha 0(𝔤𝔣)_\alpha 𝔣^{},x𝔤$$
(5.1)
(see eqs. (3.11) and (4.1)).

From the definition of $`s`$ it follows that for any $`\xi 𝔤^{}`$

$$\xi s(r_+r_{})\xi 𝔣^{}.$$

This easily gives

$$\xi =S(r_+(\xi ),(r_+r_{})\xi )+i(\xi s(r_+r_{})\xi ),\xi 𝔤^{}.$$

Thus the embedding of $`𝔤^{}`$ in $`(𝔤𝔣)_\alpha 𝔣^{}𝒟(𝔤)`$ is given by

$$\xi (r_+(\xi ),(r_+r_{})\xi )_\alpha (\xi s(r_+r_{})\xi ).$$
(5.2)
In this section we describe in an invariant way the image of this embedding.

It will be more convenient to work with the algebra

$$𝔞:=\{(x_1,x_2)x_i𝔤,x_2x_1𝔣\}𝔤𝔤$$
(5.3)
isomorphic to $`𝔤𝔣.`$ The corresponding isomorphism as shown in (3.9) is $`(x_1,x_2)(x_1,x_2x_1).`$ In terms of $`𝔞`$ the identification (4.3) is

$$𝒟(𝔤)𝔞_\alpha 𝔣^{}$$
(5.4)
and the corresponding action of $`𝔞`$ on $`𝔣^{}`$ is

$$(x_1,x_2)\eta =\mathrm{ad}_{x_1}^{}(\eta )𝔣^{},(x_1,x_2)𝔞,\eta 𝔣^{}.$$
(5.5)
It is also straightforward to write $`\alpha `$ as a 2-cocycle for $`𝔞`$ with values in $`𝔣^{}.`$ From (5.2) it follows that $`𝔤^{}`$ is embedded in $`𝔞_\alpha 𝔣^{}𝒟(𝔤)`$ by

$$\xi (r_+(\xi ),r_{}(\xi ))_\alpha (\xi s(r_+r_{})\xi ),\xi 𝔤^{}.$$
(5.6)
We first state a general classification of subalgebras of extensions of the form $`𝔥_\alpha V`$ where $`V`$ is an $`𝔥`$-module and $`\alpha Z^2(𝔥,V)`$. Let $`p:𝔥_\alpha V𝔥`$ and $`q:𝔥_\alpha VV`$ be the projections $`p(h,v)=h`$ and $`q(h,v)=v`$. (Recall from the previous section that the map (3.8) is a special case of the first projection.)

###### Lemma 5.1

Let $`𝔟𝔥`$ and let $`W`$ be a $`𝔟`$-submodule of $`V`$. Let $`\beta :𝔟V/W`$ be a 1-cochain whose coboundary is $`\sigma \alpha |_𝔟`$ where $`\sigma `$ denotes the projection $`VV/W.`$ Define

$$𝔟_W^\beta =\{(x,v)x𝔟,v+W=\beta (x)\}.$$

Then $`𝔟_W^\beta `$ is a Lie subalgebra of $`𝔥_\alpha V`$.

###### Theorem 5.2

If $`𝔨`$ is a Lie subalgebra of $`𝔥_\alpha V`$, then $`𝔨`$ is of the form $`𝔟_W^\beta `$ where $`𝔟=p(𝔨)`$, $`W=𝔨V`$ and $`\beta :𝔨V/W`$ is given by $`\beta (k)=q(p^1(k))+W`$.

We now identify the image of $`𝔤^{}`$ inside $`𝔞_\alpha 𝔣^{}`$. It follows from (5.2) that $`W=\mathrm{Ker}r_+\mathrm{Ker}r_{}`$. The projection $`𝔟=p(𝔤^{})`$ can be given the following conceptual description.

Define $`𝔤_\pm =\mathrm{Im}r_\pm `$ and $`𝔫_\pm =r_\pm (\mathrm{Ker}r_{}).`$ Recall from  that $`𝔫_\pm `$ are ideals of $`𝔤_\pm .`$ The map $`\theta :𝔤_+/𝔫_+𝔤_{}/𝔫_{}`$ given by

$$\theta (r_+(\xi )+𝔫_+)=r_{}(\xi )+𝔫_{},\xi 𝔤^{}$$

is well defined and is an isomorphism of Lie algebras. It is called the Cayley transform of the $`r`$-matrix $`r.`$ The projections from $`𝔤_\pm `$ to $`𝔤_\pm /𝔫_\pm `$ will be denoted by $`\pi _\pm .`$

Let $`𝔟`$ be the subalgebra of $`𝔞(𝔤_+𝔤_{})𝔤𝔤`$ consisting of the elements $`(x_+,x_{})𝔤_+𝔤_{}`$ such that

$$\theta \pi _+(x_+)=\pi _{}(x_{}).$$
(5.7)
The following lemma is a direct consequence from the definition of $`\theta `$ (cf. ).

###### Lemma 5.3

The image of $`𝔤^{}𝒟(𝔤)`$ under the projection $`p:𝒟(𝔤)𝔞`$ coincides with $`𝔟𝔞:`$

$$p(𝔤^{})=𝔟.$$

The projection $`p|_𝔤^{}:𝔤^{}𝔞`$ factors through to an isomorphism $`\overline{p}:𝔤^{}/W𝔟`$ given by

$$\overline{p}(\xi +W)=(r_+(\xi ),r_{}(\xi )).$$

Hence the 1-cochain $`\beta :𝔟\overline{𝔣}^{}`$ of Theorem 5.2 in this situation will be given by

$`\beta (x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{p}^1(x_1,x_2)\sigma s(r_+r_{})\overline{p}^1(x_1,x_2)`$ (5.8)
$`=`$ $`\overline{p}^1(x_1,x_2)\sigma s(x_1x_2).`$
This description can be summarized as follows.

###### Theorem 5.4

The image of $`𝔤^{}`$ inside $`𝒟(𝔤)`$ under the isomorphism $`𝒟(𝔤)𝔞_\alpha 𝔣^{}`$ coincides with the subalgebra $`𝔟_W^\beta `$ where $`𝔟`$ is the algebra described in Lemma 5.3, $`W=\mathrm{Ker}r_+\mathrm{Ker}r_{}`$ and $`\beta :𝔟𝔣^{}/W`$ is as described in (5.8).

###### Remark 5.5

To describe the Manin triple $`(𝒟(𝔤),𝔤,𝔤^{})`$ completely, we are left with expressing the canonical bilinear form (2.4) on $`𝒟(𝔤)`$ in terms of the identification $`𝒟(𝔤)𝔞_\alpha 𝔣^{}.`$ This is needed for example for the description of the Poisson homogeneous spaces for the Poisson–Lie groups with tangent Lie bialgebra $`𝔤`$ as explained in the introduction. For any

$$d=(x_1,x_2)_\alpha \eta 𝔞_\alpha 𝔣^{}$$

set

$`\xi (d):=\eta +s(r_+r_{})(x_1x_2),`$
$`x(d):=x_1r_+(x(d)).`$
Using equations (5.1) and (5.6), it is easy to show that the composition of the isomorphisms $`𝔞_\alpha 𝔣^{}𝒟(𝔤)𝔤+𝔤^{}`$ is given by $`d(x(d),\xi (d)).`$ This implies that the bilinear form (2.4) on $`𝔞_\alpha 𝔣^{}𝒟(𝔤)`$ is given by

$$d_1,d_2:=\xi (d_1),x(d_2)+\xi (d_2),x(d_1),d_i𝔞_\alpha 𝔣^{}.$$

## 6 Applications to Poisson–Lie groups

Let $`G`$ be a finite dimensional connected, simply connected quasitriangular Poisson–Lie group with Lie bialgebra $`𝔤.`$ (The ground field $`k`$ is assumed to be $``$ or $`.)`$ As an application of Theorems 4.3 and 5.4, we explicitly construct the double and dual Poisson–Lie groups $`𝒟(G),`$ $`G^{}`$ of $`G.`$ (Recall from the introduction that they are the simply connected Poisson–Lie groups with tangent Lie bialgebras $`𝒟(𝔤)`$ and $`𝔤^{},`$ respectively.) We also describe the image of $`G^{}`$ under the induced map $`j^{}:G^{}𝒟(G)`$ from the embedding of $`𝔤^{}`$ into $`𝒟(𝔤)`$.

We start with some general remarks on group extensions. Assume that $`H`$ is a Lie group and $`V`$ is an $`H`$-module. A normalized analytic 2-cocycle $`𝒜Z^2(H,V)`$ gives rise to the extension $`H_𝒜V`$ which as a manifold is $`H\times V`$ and has multiplication law

$$(h_1,v_1)(h_2,v_2)=(h_1h_2,v_1+h_1v_2+𝒜(h_1,h_2)).$$

If $`𝔥=\mathrm{Lie}(H)`$ and the derivative of $`𝒜`$ is $`\alpha Z^2(𝔥,V),`$ then $`\mathrm{Lie}(H_𝒜V)𝔥_\alpha V`$. When $`H`$ is simply connected any such Lie algebra cocycle $`\alpha `$ can be lifted (uniquely) to an analytic Lie group cocycle $`𝒜`$ .

Abstract subgroups of $`H_𝒜V`$ can be described in a fashion analogous to Theorem 5.2. Let $`B`$ be a subgroup of $`H`$ and let $`\widehat{W}`$ be a subgroup of $`V`$ that is $`B`$-invariant. Denote by $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ the projection $`VV/\widehat{W}`$. A 1-cochain $`:BV/\widehat{W}`$ with coboundary $`\widehat{\sigma }𝒜|_B`$ gives rise to the subgroup

$$B_{\widehat{W}}^{}=\{(b,v)bB,v+\widehat{W}=(b)\}$$

of $`H_𝒜V.`$ Analogously to Theorem 5.2, all abstract subgroups of $`H_𝒜V`$ are obtained in this way. If $`B`$ is a Lie subgroup, $`\widehat{W}`$ is closed in $`V`$ and $``$ is analytic, then $`B_{\widehat{W}}^{}`$ is a Lie subgroup. Let $`𝔟`$ be the Lie algebra of $`B`$ and let $`W`$ be the connected component of $`\widehat{W}`$ (which is of course a subspace of $`V`$). The derivative of $``$ is a map $`\beta :𝔟V/W`$ with coboundary $`\sigma \alpha |_𝔟`$. In the notation of Lemma 5.1, $`\mathrm{Lie}(B_{\widehat{W}}^{})𝔟_W^\beta `$.

The converse is a little more subtle. Let $`𝔟`$ be a Lie subalgebra of $`𝔥`$ and let $`B`$ be the connected subgroup of $`H`$ corresponding to it. Fix a 1-cochain $`\beta `$ of $`𝔟`$ with values in $`V/W`$ and coboundary $`\sigma \alpha |_𝔟`$ and let $`𝔟_W^\beta `$ be the corresponding subalgebra of $`𝔥_\alpha V`$. Denote by $`\eta :\stackrel{~}{B}B`$ the universal cover of $`B`$, and let $`𝒜_{\stackrel{~}{B}}`$ be the induced 2-cocycle on $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$.

###### Lemma 6.1

The cochain $`\beta `$ of $`𝔟`$ can be integrated to a unique 1-cochain $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ with values in $`V/W`$ and coboundary $`\sigma 𝒜_{\stackrel{~}{B}}.`$ The subgroup $`\stackrel{~}{B}_W^\stackrel{~}{}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{𝒜_{\stackrel{~}{B}}}V`$ is then a simply connected Lie group with Lie algebra $`𝔟_W^\beta `$. The embedding $`𝔟_W^\beta 𝔥_\alpha V`$ yields a map $`j^{}:\stackrel{~}{B}_W^\stackrel{~}{}H_𝒜V`$ given by $`j^{}(\stackrel{~}{b}_{𝒜_{\stackrel{~}{B}}}v)=\eta (\stackrel{~}{b})_𝒜v.`$ Its image is the connected subgroup of $`H_𝒜V`$ with Lie algebra $`𝔟_W^\beta `$ and is of the form $`B_{\widehat{W}}^{}`$ where $`\widehat{W}=\sigma ^1((\mathrm{Ker}\eta ))`$.

Proof. Denote by $`K`$ the connected subgroup of $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{𝒜_{\stackrel{~}{B}}}V`$ with Lie algebra $`𝔟_W^\beta .`$ Clearly $`KW`$ and the projection on the first component $`p:K\stackrel{~}{B}`$ factors through to a projection $`p_W:K/W\stackrel{~}{B}.`$ The induced map on Lie algebras is an isomorphism. Since $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ is simply connected, $`p_W`$ is also an isomorphism and $`KV=W.`$ Hence $`K`$ is of the type $`\stackrel{~}{B}_W^\stackrel{~}{}`$ for a suitable map $`\stackrel{~}{}:\stackrel{~}{B}V/W.`$ Now $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ must be an analytic cochain on $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ with coboundary $`\sigma 𝒜_{\stackrel{~}{B}}`$ because $`K`$ is a Lie subgroup of $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{𝒜_{\stackrel{~}{B}}}V.`$ The uniqueness of a cocycle $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ with the prescribed properties follows from the uniqueness of a connected Lie subgroup with given tangent Lie bialgebra.

The fact that $`\stackrel{~}{B}_W^\stackrel{~}{}`$ is simply connected trivially follows from the simply connectedness of $`\mathrm{Ker}p_W=W`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}p_W=\stackrel{~}{B}.`$ $`\mathrm{}`$

Denote by $`F`$ the connected subgroup of $`G`$ with $`\mathrm{Lie}(F)=𝔣`$ and by $`GF`$ the semidirect product where $`G`$ acts on $`F`$ by the adjoint action. Since $`𝔣`$ is an ideal, $`F`$ is closed, normal and simply connected \[13, 3.18\]. Hence $`GF`$ is also simply connected. As remarked above the 2-cocycle $`\alpha `$ of $`𝔤𝔣`$ (see (4.2)) can be integrated to a 2-cocycle $`𝒜(.,.)`$ for the action of $`GF`$ on $`𝔣^{}`$ given by

$$(g,f)(\eta ):=\mathrm{Ad}_g^{}(\eta )$$
(6.1)
The derivative of this action is of course the action of $`𝔤𝔣`$ on $`𝔣^{}`$ from Lemma 4.2.

Consider the group

$$D=(GF)_𝒜𝔣^{}.$$

Since

$$\mathrm{Lie}(D)(𝔤𝔣)_\alpha 𝔣^{}$$

is isomorphic to the underlying Lie algebra of the double Lie bialgebra $`𝒟(𝔤),`$ $`D`$ can be equipped with the Sklyanin Poisson structure (see, for instance, ). The resulting Poisson–Lie group is the double of $`G.`$ As in the Lie algebra case, we can equivalently use the group

$$A=\{(g_1,g_2)G\times Gg_1^1g_2F\}GF$$

and write $`𝒜`$ as a 2-cocycle for the action of $`A`$ on $`𝔣^{}`$ induced from (6.1) (cf. also (5.5)). Then

$$DA_𝒜𝔣^{}.$$

Denote by $`G_\pm `$ the connected subgroups of $`G`$ with tangent Lie algebras $`𝔤_\pm .`$ Let $`B`$ be the connected subgroup of $`G_+\times G_{}`$ with $`\mathrm{Lie}(B)=𝔟.`$ If the isomorphism
$`\theta :𝔤_+/𝔫_+𝔤_{}/𝔫_{}`$ can be integrated to a group isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Theta }:G_+/N_+G_{}/N_{}`$ for some closed (not necessarily connected) subgroups $`N_\pm `$ of $`G`$ with $`\mathrm{Lie}(N_\pm )=𝔫_\pm `$ (taken the minimal possible), then $`B`$ is explicitly given by

$$B=\{(g_1,g_2)G_+\times G_{}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Pi }_+(g_1)=\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(g_2)\}$$
(6.2)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\pm `$ denote the homomorphisms $`G_\pm G_\pm /N_\pm .`$ As above $`\eta :\stackrel{~}{B}B`$ will denote the simply connected cover of $`B.`$

Combining Theorem 5.4 and Lemma 6.1 we obtain:

###### Theorem 6.2

Let $`G`$ be a connected, simply connected quasitriangular Poisson–Lie group. Let $`F`$ be the connected normal Lie subgroup with Lie algebra $`𝔣`$. Then the double Poisson–Lie group of $`G`$ is isomorphic, as a Lie group, to $`(GF)_𝒜𝔣^{}A_𝒜𝔣^{}`$ where $`𝒜`$ is a normalized analytic 2-cocycle on $`GF`$ with derivative $`\alpha `$. The dual Poisson-Lie group $`G^{}`$ is of the form $`\stackrel{~}{B}_W^\stackrel{~}{}`$ where $`W=\mathrm{Ker}r_+\mathrm{Ker}r_{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}:\stackrel{~}{B}V/W`$ is the unique analytic 1-cochain on $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ with coboundary $`\sigma 𝒜_{\stackrel{~}{B}}`$ and derivative $`\beta `$. The image of $`G^{}`$ in $`𝒟(G)`$ is of the form $`B_{\widehat{W}}^{}`$ where $`\widehat{W}=\sigma ^1(\stackrel{~}{}(\mathrm{Ker}\eta ))`$ is a Lie subgroup of $`V`$ with connected component $`W`$ and $`:BV/\widehat{W}`$ is a 1-cochain on $`B`$ induced from $`\stackrel{~}{}.`$

## 7 Special cases

In this section we treat some cases of the results from the previous ones and compare them to the available results in the literature.

### 7.1 Factorizable Lie bialgebras

Recall that a quasitriangular Lie bialgebra $`(𝔤,r)`$ is called factorizable if $`\mathrm{\Omega }=r+r_{21}S^2(𝔤)`$ is nondegenerate, or in other words if $`𝔣=𝔤.`$ In this case $`𝔣^{}=0`$ and $`p`$ defines an isomorphism

$$𝒟(𝔤)𝔞=𝔤𝔤.$$

The results from Section 5 reduce to the fact that in the above identification, $`𝔤^{}𝒟(𝔤)`$ is isomorphic to the subalgebra $`𝔟𝔤_+𝔤_{},`$ defined in (5.7). This recovers the following result of Reshetikhin and Semenov-Tian-Shansky .

###### Corollary 7.1

The double of a factorizable Lie bialgebra $`𝔤`$ is isomorphic, as a Lie algebra, to $`𝔤𝔤.`$ Under this isomorphism, the dual $`𝔤^{}`$ coincides with the subalgebra $`𝔟`$ of $`𝔤𝔤`$ defined in (5.7) and $`𝔤`$ with its diagonal subalgebra.

In particular Corollary 7.1 and Section 6 imply that the double of any simply connected factorizable Poisson–Lie group is isomorphic to $`G\times G`$ as a Lie group. The image of the dual Poisson–Lie group of $`G`$ inside $`𝒟(G)`$ coincides with the group $`B`$ constructed in Section 6, see (6.2).

### 7.2 Triangular Lie bialgebras

Let $`(𝔤,r)`$ be a triangular Lie bialgebra, that is $`r_{21}=r.`$ This means that $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ and consequently $`𝔣=0,`$ $`𝔣^{}=𝔤^{}.`$ Hence the map $`s`$ is trivial and the exact sequence (3.12) naturally splits $`(\alpha =0).`$

###### Corollary 7.2

The double $`𝒟(𝔤)`$ of a triangular Lie bialgebra $`𝔤`$ is isomorphic as a Lie algebra to the semidirect sum of $`𝔤`$ and an abelian Lie algebra $`𝔤^{}`$

$$𝒟(𝔤)𝔤𝔤^{}$$
(7.1)
where $`𝔤`$ acts on $`𝔤^{}`$ via the coadjoint action.

Next we specialize the results from Section 5 to the triangular case. The Lie algebras coincides with $`𝔤_+=𝔤_{}.`$ The space $`W`$ is $`\mathrm{Ker}r_+`$ and thus $`𝔤^{}/W𝔤_+^{}.`$ The map $`r_+:𝔤^{}𝔤_+`$ factors through to an isomorphism $`\overline{r}_+:𝔤^{}/W𝔤_+.`$ Its inverse

$$\beta :=\overline{r}_+^1:𝔤_+𝔤^{}/\mathrm{Ker}r_+𝔤_+^{}$$
(7.2)
is a 1-cocycle for the coadjoint representation of $`𝔤_+.`$

###### Corollary 7.3

For a triangular Lie bialgebra $`𝔤,`$ the image of the embedding $`𝔤^{}𝒟(𝔤)𝔤𝔤^{}`$ coincides with

$$(𝔤_+)_{\mathrm{Ker}r_+}^\beta =(\mathrm{id},\sigma ^1\beta )(𝔤_+)𝔤_+𝔤^{}.$$

where $`\beta `$ is the 1-cocycle (7.2) for the coadjoint representation of $`𝔤_+.`$

As in Section 5, $`\sigma :𝔤^{}𝔤_+^{}𝔤^{}/\mathrm{Ker}r_+`$ denotes the natural projection. Notice that the image of $`𝔤^{}`$ in $`𝒟(𝔤)`$ can be more simply described as

$$\{(r_+(\xi ),\xi )\xi 𝔤^{}\}𝔤𝔤^{}.$$

However, this description, although explicit, is less useful because it cannot be lifted directly to the level of Poisson–Lie groups.

Let $`G`$ be a simply connected triangular Poisson–Lie group and $`𝔤=\mathrm{Lie}(G)`$. Then the double Poisson–Lie group of $`G`$ is isomorphic, as a Lie group, to $`G𝔤^{}.`$ The dual Poisson–Lie group $`G^{}`$ of $`G`$ is isomorphic to $`(\stackrel{~}{G}_+)_{\mathrm{Ker}r_+}^\stackrel{~}{}`$ where $`\eta :\stackrel{~}{G}_+G_+`$ is the simply connected cover of $`G_+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}:\stackrel{~}{G}_+𝔤^{}/\mathrm{Ker}r_+`$ is the unique 1-cocycle on $`\stackrel{~}{G}_+`$ with derivative $`\beta .`$ The image of $`G^{}`$ in $`G𝔤^{}`$ will be of the form $`(G_+)_{\widehat{W}}^{}`$ where $`\widehat{W}=\stackrel{~}{}(\mathrm{Ker}\eta )+\mathrm{Ker}r_+`$ and $`:G_+𝔤^{}/\widehat{W}`$ is the 1-cochain on $`G_+`$ induced from $`\stackrel{~}{}.`$ These results can be easily restated in terms of $`T^{}GG𝔤^{}.`$

Notice that if $`\beta `$ is a coboundary (i.e., of the form $`\beta (x)=ad_x^{}(\xi )`$ for some $`\xi 𝔤_+^{})`$ then $`\stackrel{~}{}:\stackrel{~}{G}_+𝔤_+^{}𝔤^{}/\mathrm{Ker}r_+`$ is just the map $`\stackrel{~}{}(g)=(\mathrm{Ad}_g^{}\mathrm{id})\xi .`$ Since $`\mathrm{Ker}\eta `$ acts trivially on $`𝔤^{},`$ $`\widehat{W}=\mathrm{Ker}r_+`$ and $`:\stackrel{~}{G}_+𝔤_+^{}𝔤^{}/\mathrm{Ker}r_+`$ is given by the same formula as $`\stackrel{~}{}`$.

Given the (nondegenerate) 1-cocycle $`\beta `$ of $`𝔤_+`$ with values in $`𝔤_+^{},`$ one can define a (nondegenerate) 2-cocycle $`\gamma (.,.)`$ of $`𝔤_+`$ with values in the ground field $`k`$ defined by

$$\gamma (x_1,x_2)=\beta (x_1),x_2,x_i𝔤_+.$$

This makes the pair $`(𝔤_+,\gamma )`$ a quasi-Frobenius Lie algebra, see . When $`\beta `$ is nondegenerate, so is $`\gamma `$ and the pair $`(𝔤_+,\gamma )`$ becomes a Frobenius Lie algebra.

In the special case of a triangular bialgebra structure on a real compact form $`𝔤`$ of a complex simple Lie algebra $`𝔤_{},`$ Corollaries 7.2 and 7.3 were obtained by Levendorskii and Soibelman . Although in this case additional simplifications occur $`(r𝔥𝔥`$ for a Cartan subalgebra $`𝔥`$ of $`𝔤),`$ their proof can be extended to the general case of triangular bialgebras. As the one by Reshetikhin and Semenov-Tian-Shansky , it relies on a direct construction of a Manin triple.
Sketch of a second proof of Corollary 7.2. Let $`𝔡`$ denote the semidirect sum $`𝔤𝔤^{},`$ defined in Corollary 7.2. Equip it with the following natural invariant bilinear form

$$(x_1,\xi _1),(x_2,\xi _2)=\xi _1,x_2+\xi _2,x_1,x_i𝔤,\xi _i𝔤^{}.$$

It is clear that this form is nondegenerate and $`\mathrm{ad}`$ invariant. Define the linear maps:

$`j:𝔤𝔡,j(x)=(x,0),`$
$`j^{}:𝔤^{}𝔡,j^{}(\xi )=(r_+(\xi ),\xi ).`$
By a direct computation one checks that $`j`$ and $`j^{}`$ are homomorphisms of Lie algebras and the images $`j(𝔤)𝔤,`$ $`j^{}(𝔤^{})𝔤^{}`$ are Lagrangian subalgebras of $`𝔡.`$ Thus $`(𝔡,j(𝔤),j^{}(𝔤^{}))`$ is a Manin triple and $`𝒟(𝔤)𝔡`$ as a Lie algebra. $`\mathrm{}`$

If the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ admits an invariant bilinear form, $`𝔤^{}`$ can be identified, as a vector space, with $`𝔤`$ and the coadjoint action substituted with the adjoint one. In this case Corollary 7.2 simply means that

$$𝒟(𝔤)𝔤[t]/(t^2)$$
(7.3)
where $`t`$ is a free variable. In addition $`W=\mathrm{Ker}r_+`$ can be identified with $`𝔤_+^{}`$ and $`\sigma `$ thought of as projection $`𝔤𝔤/𝔤_+^{}.`$ Then $`\beta `$ is a 1-cocycle of $`𝔤_+`$ with values in $`𝔤/𝔤_+^{}`$ made a $`𝔤_+`$ module using the adjoint action. (Everywhere the orthogonal complement is taken with respect to the nondegenerate form on $`𝔤.)`$ Corollary 7.3 can be rephrased as follows.

###### Corollary 7.4

If $`𝔤`$ is a triangular Lie bialgebra admitting a nondegenerate bilinear form, then

$$𝒟(𝔤)𝔤[t]/(t^2)$$

and the image of the embedding $`𝔤^{}𝒟(𝔤)`$ is

$$(\mathrm{id}+t\sigma ^1\beta )(𝔤_+)𝔤[t]/(t^2).$$

Any complex simple triangular Lie algebra is of the type considered in Corollary 7.4. In this case we recover a result of Stolin, . The proof in  relies on works of Berman, Moody and Benkart, Zelmanov on Lie algebras graded by finite root systems. One of the motivations for this work was to show that Corollaries 7.2 and 7.3 follow from the triangularity of the bialgebra structure without assuming simplicity of the algebra.