text:
# Classical Yang-Baxter equation and the 𝐴_∞-constraint

## 1. Identities between triple Massey products and $`r`$-matrices

### 1.1. Massey products in $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-categories and in triangulated categories

Recall that an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ category consists of a class of objects, a collection of (graded) vector spaces of morphisms between them equipped with operations $`m_n(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)`$ which associate to any sequence $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_n`$ of composable morphisms ($`n1`$) a new morphism (of degree $`_i\mathrm{deg}(a_i)+2n`$). These operations should satisfy the set of equations similar to the associativity equations which we call $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-constraint. They have form

$$\pm m_k(a_1,\mathrm{},a_i,m_l(a_{i+1},\mathrm{},a_{i+l}),\mathrm{},a_n)=0$$

where $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_n`$ is a sequence of composable morphisms, the sum is taken over all subsegments in the segment of integers $`[1,n]`$. The choice of signs is rather subtle (and non-unique). We follow the sign convention of . For more details regarding this definition see . We always impose the condition that our $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-category has strict identity morphisms, i.e. $`m_1`$-closed elements $`\mathrm{id}_X\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,X)`$ for every object $`X`$, which are units with respect to $`m_2`$ and such that any higher product $`m_n`$ ($`n3`$) which has $`\mathrm{id}_X`$ as one of the arguments vanishes.

Loosely speaking Massey products in $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-categories are expressions in $`m_n`$’s which are invariant under arbitrary homotopy of $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-structure (see  for the definition). Unfortunately, the corresponding formalism seems to be absent in the existing literature except in the particular case of a differential graded category which can be considered as an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-category with $`m_n=0`$ for $`n>2`$.

On the other hand, there is a definition of Massey products in triangulated categories (see  IV.2, ). These products coincide with the differential graded Massey products in the case when the triangulated category $`𝒟`$ is enhanced in the sense of Bondal-Kapranov’s paper . By definition this means that $`𝒟`$ is obtained by taking cohomology of a pretriangulated dg-category (the property of a dg-category to be pretriangulated means that certain convolutions exist). Note that according to Kontsevich’s philosophy (see , ) this pretriangulated dg-category should be considered as a primary object (considered up to $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-equivalence).

The enhanced triangulated category we are interested in is $`D^b(X)`$ — the bounded derived category of coherent sheaves on a projective variety $`X`$ over a field $`k`$ (see ). Let us denote by $`D_{dg}^b(X)`$ the corresponding pretriangulated dg-category. The objects of $`D_{dg}^b(X)`$ are bounded complexes of coherent sheaves while the morphisms are given by some standard complexes computing the corresponding $`\mathrm{Ext}`$’s. According to general principles of homological perturbation theory (see , , ,) there exists an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-category $`D_{\mathrm{}}^b(X)`$ with the same objects as $`D_{dg}^b(X)`$ such that $`D_{\mathrm{}}^b(X)`$ is $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-equivalent to $`D_{dg}^b(X)`$ and $`m_1=0`$ in $`D_{\mathrm{}}^b(X)`$. Then Massey products in $`D^b(X)`$ (as in triangulated category) and in $`D_{\mathrm{}}^b`$ (as in $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-category) are the same. The advantage of considering $`D_{\mathrm{}}^b`$ is that we can apply $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-constraint to derive some non-trivial relations between Massey products. On the other hand, Massey products in triangulated categories are easier to compute and they often have a geometric interpretation.

In this paper we will only consider triple Massey products of the particular kind. First, let us recall the definition in the context of triangulated categories. Let $`X,Y,Z,T`$ be objects of a triangulated category $`𝒟`$, $`f\mathrm{Hom}(X,Y)`$, $`g\mathrm{Hom}^1(Y,Z):=\mathrm{Hom}(Y,Z[1])`$, $`h\mathrm{Hom}(Z,T)`$ be morphisms, such that $`gf=0`$, $`hg=0`$. Then the Massey product

$$MP(f,g,h)\mathrm{coker}(\mathrm{Hom}(X,Z)\mathrm{Hom}(Y,T)\stackrel{(h,f)}{}\mathrm{Hom}(X,T))$$

is defined as follows. Let

$$Z\stackrel{\alpha }{}C\stackrel{\beta }{}Y\stackrel{g}{}Z[1]\mathrm{}$$

be a distinguished triangle. Then by assumption there exist morphisms $`\stackrel{~}{f}\mathrm{Hom}(X,C)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{h}\mathrm{Hom}(C,T)`$ such that

$$\beta \stackrel{~}{f}=f,$$

$$\stackrel{~}{h}\alpha =h.$$

The Massey product $`MP(f,g,h)`$ is defined as the class of the element

$$\stackrel{~}{h}\stackrel{~}{f}\mathrm{Hom}(X,T).$$

Now let us give a definition of the corresponding triple Massey products in the context of $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-categories (see ). Let $`X,Y,Z,T`$ be objects in an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-category $`𝒞`$. Let us denote by $`H𝒞`$ the graded category obtained from $`𝒞`$ by taking cohomologies of $`\mathrm{Hom}`$ with respect to $`m_1`$. Then for every triple of morphisms $`f\mathrm{Hom}_{H𝒞}^i(X,Y)`$, $`g\mathrm{Hom}_{H𝒞}^j(Y,Z)`$, $`h\mathrm{Hom}_{H𝒞}^k(Z,T)`$ such that $`gf=0`$, $`hg=0`$ we can define their Massey product

$$MP(f,g,h)\mathrm{coker}(\mathrm{Hom}_{H𝒞}^{i+j1}(X,Z)\mathrm{Hom}_{H𝒞}^{j+k1}(Y,T)\stackrel{(h,f)}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{H𝒞}^{i+j+k1}(X,T)).$$

For this we choose $`m_1`$-closed elements $`\stackrel{~}{f}\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞^i(X,Y)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞^j(Y,Z)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{h}\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞^k(Z,T)`$ representing $`f`$, $`g`$ and $`h`$. Furthermore, by assumption we have

$$m_2(\stackrel{~}{f},\stackrel{~}{g})=m_1(p),$$

$$m_2(\stackrel{~}{g},\stackrel{~}{h})=m_1(q)$$

for some $`p\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞^{i+j1}(X,Z)`$, $`q\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞^{j+k1}(Y,T)`$. Then we define $`MP(f,g,h)`$ as the class of the $`m_1`$-closed element

$$m_3(\stackrel{~}{f},\stackrel{~}{g},\stackrel{~}{h})m_2(p,\stackrel{~}{h})+(1)^{\mathrm{deg}f}m_2(\stackrel{~}{f},q)$$

(the fact that it is $`m_1`$-closed follows from the $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-constraint). When $`m_3=0`$ this definition coincides with the usual definition given in dg-context. On the other hand, if $`m_1=0`$ then this Massey product coincides with $`m_3`$. Finally, we claim that this Massey product is preserved under any equivalence of $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-categories. This is a consequence of the following result.

###### Proposition 1.1.

Let $`F:𝒞𝒞^{}`$ be an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-functor between $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-categories, let $`HF:H𝒞H𝒞^{}`$ be the induced functor between the corresponding graded categories. Then

$$HF(MP(f,g,h)=MP(HF(f),HF(g),HF(h)).$$

Proof. Let $`F=(F_n)`$ where $`F_n`$ are maps from $`n`$-tuples of composable morphisms in $`𝒞`$ to morphisms in $`𝒞^{}`$. According to the definition of the $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-functor we have

$$m_2(F_1\stackrel{~}{f},F_1\stackrel{~}{g})=F_1m_2(\stackrel{~}{f},\stackrel{~}{g})m_1F_2(\stackrel{~}{f},\stackrel{~}{g})=F_1m_1(p)m_1F_2(\stackrel{~}{f},\stackrel{~}{g}).$$

Since $`F_1`$ commutes with $`m_1`$ we get

$$m_2(F_1\stackrel{~}{f},F_1\stackrel{~}{g})=m_1(F_1(p)F_2(\stackrel{~}{f},\stackrel{~}{g})).$$

Similarly,

$$m_2(F_1\stackrel{~}{g},F_1\stackrel{~}{h})=m_1(F_1(q)F_2(\stackrel{~}{g},\stackrel{~}{h})).$$

Thus, the triple Massey product $`MP(HF(f),HF(g),HF(h))`$ is represented by the element

$$m_3(F_1\stackrel{~}{f},F_1\stackrel{~}{g},F_1\stackrel{~}{h})m_2(F_1(p)F_2(\stackrel{~}{f},\stackrel{~}{g}),F_1\stackrel{~}{h})+(1)^{\mathrm{deg}f}m_2(F_1\stackrel{~}{f},F_1(q)F_2(\stackrel{~}{g},\stackrel{~}{h})).$$

Using the identity

$`m_3(F_1\stackrel{~}{f},F_1\stackrel{~}{g},F_1\stackrel{~}{h})+m_2(F_2(\stackrel{~}{f},\stackrel{~}{g}),F_1\stackrel{~}{h})(1)^{\mathrm{deg}f}m_2(F_1\stackrel{~}{f},F_2(\stackrel{~}{g},\stackrel{~}{h}))=`$
$`F_1m_3(\stackrel{~}{f},\stackrel{~}{g},\stackrel{~}{h})F_2(m_2(\stackrel{~}{f},\stackrel{~}{g}),\stackrel{~}{h})(1)^{\mathrm{deg}f}F_2(\stackrel{~}{f},m_2(\stackrel{~}{g},\stackrel{~}{h}))m_1F_3(\stackrel{~}{f},\stackrel{~}{g},\stackrel{~}{h}).`$
we can rewrite the element representing $`MP(HF(f),HF(g),HF(h))`$ as follows:

(1.1)
$$\begin{array}{c}F_1m_3(\stackrel{~}{f},\stackrel{~}{g},\stackrel{~}{h})m_2(F_1(p),F_1\stackrel{~}{h})+(1)^{\mathrm{deg}f}m_2(F_1\stackrel{~}{f},F_1(q))\hfill \\ F_2(m_1(p),\stackrel{~}{h})(1)^{\mathrm{deg}f}F_2(\stackrel{~}{f},m_1(q))m_1F_3(\stackrel{~}{f},\stackrel{~}{g},\stackrel{~}{h}).\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that the last term is a coboundary, hence, it can be omitted. On the other hand, we have

$$m_2(F_1p,F_1\stackrel{~}{h})F_1m_2(p,\stackrel{~}{h})F_2(m_1(p),\stackrel{~}{h})mod\mathrm{Im}(m_1)$$

and

$$m_2(F_1\stackrel{~}{f},F_1q)F_1m_2(\stackrel{~}{f},q)+F_2(\stackrel{~}{f},m_1(q))mod\mathrm{Im}(m_1).$$

Substituting this in (1.1) we obtain that $`MP(HF(f),HF(g),HF(h))`$ is represented by

$$F_1m_3(\stackrel{~}{f},\stackrel{~}{g},\stackrel{~}{h})F_1m_2(p,\stackrel{~}{h})+(1)^{\mathrm{deg}f}F_1m_2(\stackrel{~}{f},q).$$

Therefore, it coincides with $`HF(MP(f,g,h))`$. ∎

Both the definitions above can be slightly generalized: instead of considering a decomposable tensor $`fgh`$ one can take any tensor in the appropriate subspace of $`\mathrm{Hom}^i(X,Y)\mathrm{Hom}^j(Y,Z)\mathrm{Hom}^k(Z,T)`$. We leave this to the reader (in the context of triangulated categories the corresponding definition can be found in ).

### 1.2. Generic identity and the associative Yang-Baxter equation

Let $`𝒞`$ be an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-category with $`m_1=0`$. Assume that we have two families $``$ and $`^{}`$ of objects of $`𝒞`$ with the following properties:

(i) for every pair of distinct objects $`X_1,X_2`$ (resp. $`Y_1,Y_2^{}`$) one has $`\mathrm{Hom}^{}(X_1,X_2)=0`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{Hom}^{}(Y_1,Y_2)=0`$);

(ii) for every $`X`$ and every $`Y^{}`$ the space $`\mathrm{Hom}^{}(X,Y)`$ is concentrated in degree $`0`$, the space $`\mathrm{Hom}^{}(Y,X)`$ is concentrated in degree $`1`$ and a perfect pairing

$$,:\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y)\mathrm{Hom}^1(Y,X)k$$

is given.

In this situation we can consider the triple products

$$m_3:\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_1,Y_1)\mathrm{Hom}^1(Y_1,X_2)\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_2,Y_2)\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_1,Y_2)$$

and

$$m_3:\mathrm{Hom}^1(Y_1,X_2)\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_2,Y_2)\mathrm{Hom}^1(Y_2,X_1)\mathrm{Hom}^1(Y_1,X_1)$$

where $`X_1,X_2`$, $`X_1X_2`$, $`Y_1,Y_2^{}`$, $`Y_1Y_2`$. Using the vanishing of the spaces $`\mathrm{Hom}^{}(X_1,X_2)`$ and $`\mathrm{Hom}^{}(Y_1,Y_2)`$ and the condition $`m_1=0`$ one can immediately see that the corresponding Massey products coincide with $`m_3`$. We assume in addition that the pairing from (ii) is compatible with these triple products in the following sense:

(iii) for every $`f_1\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_1,Y_1)`$, $`g_1\mathrm{Hom}^1(Y_1,X_2)`$, $`f_2\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_2,Y_2)`$, $`g_2\mathrm{Hom}^1(Y_2,X_1)`$ one has

$$m_3(f_1,g_1,f_2),g_2=f_1,m_3(g_1,f_2,g_2)=m_3(f_2,g_2,f_1),g_1.$$

Note that the condition (iii) is satisfied when $`𝒞`$ has a structure of cyclic $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-category in the sense of .

Using the duality from (ii) we can rewrite the tensor corresponding to $`m_3`$ as a linear map

$$r_{Y_1Y_2}^{X_1X_2}:\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_1,Y_1)\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_2,Y_2)\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_2,Y_1)\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_1,Y_2).$$

###### Theorem 1.

For any triples of distinct objects $`X_1,X_2,X_3`$, $`Y_1,Y_2,Y_3^{}`$ one has

(1.2)
$$(r_{Y_1Y_2}^{X_3X_2})^{12}(r_{Y_1Y_3}^{X_1X_3})^{13}(r_{Y_2Y_3}^{X_1X_3})^{23}(r_{Y_1Y_2}^{X_1X_2})^{12}+(r_{Y_1Y_3}^{X_1X_2})^{13}(r_{Y_2Y_3}^{X_2X_3})^{23}=0$$

as a map

$$\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_1,Y_1)\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_2,Y_2)\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_3,Y_3)\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_2,Y_1)\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_3,Y_2)\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_1,Y_3).$$

In addition the following skew-symmetry holds:

(1.3)
$$(r_{Y_1Y_2}^{X_1X_2})^{21}=r_{Y_2Y_1}^{X_2X_1}.$$

Proof. The skew-symmetry follows easily from the property (iii). Using it we can rewrite the equation (1.2) as follows

$$(r_{Y_2Y_3}^{X_1X_3})^{23}(r_{Y_1Y_2}^{X_1X_2})^{12}+c.p.=0$$

where “c.p.” stands for the terms obtained from the first one by cyclic permutation of indices.

Let us consider any six elements $`f_i\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_i,Y_i)`$, $`g_i\mathrm{Hom}^1(Y_i,X_{i+1})`$, where $`i/3`$ (so that $`X_4:=X_1`$). The definition of $`r_{Y_1Y_2}^{X_1X_2}`$ is equivalent to the following formula:

$$r_{Y_1Y_2}^{X_1X_2}(f_1f_2),g_1_1=m_3(f_1,g_1,f_2),$$

where $`\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}_1`$ denotes the result of applying the pairing $`\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}`$ in the first component of the tensor product. It follows that

$$(r_{Y_2Y_3}^{X_1X_3})^{23}(r_{Y_1Y_2}^{X_1X_2})^{12}(f_1f_2f_3),g_1g_2_{12}=m_3(m_3(f_1,g_1,f_2),g_2,f_3)$$

where $`\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}_{12}`$ denotes the pairing $`\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}`$ applied in the first two components of the tensor product. Thus, we have

$$(r_{Y_2Y_3}^{X_1X_3})^{23}(r_{Y_1Y_2}^{X_1X_2})^{12}(f_1f_2f_3),g_1g_2g_3=m_3(m_3(f_1,g_1,f_2),g_2,f_3),g_3.$$

Using property (iii) we can rewrite this formula as follows:

(1.4)
$$(r_{Y_2Y_3}^{X_1X_3})^{23}(r_{Y_1Y_2}^{X_1X_2})^{12}(f_1f_2f_3),g_1g_2g_3=m_3(f_1,g_1,f_2),m_3(g_2,f_3,g_3).$$

On the other hand, applying the $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-constraint to five composable morphisms $`f_1,g_1,f_2,g_2,f_3`$ and using property (i) we get

(1.5)
$$m_3(m_3(f_1,g_1,f_2),g_2,f_3)+m_3(f_1,m_3(g_1,f_2,g_2),f_3)m_3(f_1,g_1,m_3(f_2,g_2,f_3))=0.$$

Pairing this identity with $`g_3`$ and using property (iii) we get

(1.6)
$$\begin{array}{c}m_3(f_1,g_1,f_2),m_3(g_2,f_3,g_3)+m_3(f_3,g_3,f_1),m_3(g_1,f_2,g_2)+\\ m_3(f_2,g_2,f_3),m_3(g_3,f_1,g_1)=0.\end{array}$$

Let $`A`$ be an associative $`k`$-algebra with a unit. For a tensor $`r_{Y_1Y_2}^{X_1X_2}A_kA`$ depending on two sets of variables $`X_1,X_2`$, $`Y_1,Y_2^{}`$ the equation (1.2) can be considered as an associative version of the classical Yang-Baxter equation. In the case when there is no dependence on variables we obtain the equation

$$r^{12}r^{13}r^{23}r^{12}+r^{13}r^{23}=0$$

which was considered in  in connection with infinitesimal Hopf algebras.

Now let $`k=`$. Similar to the case of the usual classical Yang-Baxter equation it is natural to consider solutions with complex variables $`X_i,Y_j`$ such that $`r=r(u,v)`$ is a meromorphic function of $`u=X_1X_2`$ and $`v=Y_1Y_2`$ (where $`u`$ and $`v`$ vary in the neighborhood of $`0`$). Then the equation can be rewritten in the form (0.1) while the skew-symmetry equation becomes the equation (0.2). Using the above theorem we will construct below elliptic solutions of the AYBE satisying the condition (0.2) with values in the matrix algebra $`\mathrm{Mat}(n,)`$ which specialize to the standard elliptic $`r`$-matrices for $`\mathrm{sl}_n()`$ as $`u`$ tends to $`0`$. This limit procedure works more generally as follows. We say that a solution $`r(u,v)`$ of the AYBE is unitary if it satisfies the equation (0.2). Similarly, a unitary solution of the CYBE is a solution satisfying the equation $`\overline{r}^{21}(v)=\overline{r}(v)`$.

###### Lemma 1.2.

Let $`r(u,v)`$ be a unitary solution of the AYBE with values in $`\mathrm{Mat}(n,)`$. Let $`\mathrm{pr}:\mathrm{Mat}(n,)\mathrm{sl}_n()`$ be the projection along scalar matrices. Assume that $`(\mathrm{pr}\mathrm{pr})(r(u,v))`$ has a limit as $`u0`$. Then $`\overline{r}(v)=(\mathrm{pr}\mathrm{pr})(r(u,v))|_{u=0}`$ is a unitary solution of the CYBE.

Proof. Applying the permutation of the first two factors to the equation (0.1) and making a change of variables $`(v,v^{})(v,v+v^{})`$, $`(u,u^{})(u^{},u)`$ we obtain

$$r^{21}(u,v)r^{23}(u+u^{},v^{})r^{13}(u+u^{},v+v^{})r^{21}(u^{},v)+r^{23}(u^{},v^{})r^{13}(u,v+v^{})=0.$$

Using the equation (0.2) this equation can be rewritten as follows:

$$r^{12}(u,v)r^{23}(u+u^{},v^{})+r^{13}(u+u^{},v+v^{})r^{12}(u^{},v)+r^{23}(u^{},v^{})r^{13}(u,v+v^{})=0.$$

Subtracting this equation from (0.1) we get

$$[r^{12}(u^{},v),r^{13}(u+u^{},v+v^{})][r^{23}(u+u^{},v^{}),r^{12}(u,v)]+[r^{13}(u,v+v^{}),r^{23}(u^{},v^{})]=0.$$

Finally, applying $`\mathrm{pr}\mathrm{pr}`$ and substituting $`u=u^{}=0`$ we obtain that $`\overline{r}(v)`$ satisfies CYBE. ∎

There is a natural notion of equivalence for the solutions of (1.2). Namely, if $`\phi _Y^X`$ is a function with values in $`A^{}`$ (invertible elements in $`A`$) and $`r_{Y_1Y_2}^{X_1X_2}`$ is a solution of (1.2) then

$$\stackrel{~}{r}_{Y_1Y_2}^{X_1X_2}=(\phi _{Y_1}^{X_2}\phi _{Y_2}^{X_1})r_{Y_1Y_2}^{X_1X_2}(\phi _{Y_1}^{X_1}\phi _{Y_2}^{X_2})^1$$

is also a solution of (1.2). We will call the solutions $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$ and $`r`$ equivalent. On the other hand, if $`\psi _Y`$ is a function with values in $`\mathrm{Aut}(A)`$ then we can construct a new solution by looking at

$$(\psi _{Y_1}\psi _{Y_2})r_{Y_1Y_2}^{X_1X_2}.$$

However, in the case of the matrix algebra this doesn’t give anything new since all automorphisms are inner.

It is easy to see that if $`r(u,v)`$ is a solution of (0.1) then

$$c_1\mathrm{exp}(c_2uv)r(u,v)$$

is also a solution for arbitrary constants $`c_1^{}`$ and $`c_2`$. We will call this operation rescaling of a solution.

It seems reasonable to conjecture that all unitary solutions of (0.1) with values in the matrix algebra satisfying the non-degeneracy condition (that the tensor $`r(u,v)`$ is non-degenerate for generic $`u,v`$) are equivalent (up to rescaling) to either elliptic or trigonometric or rational solution similar to the Belavin-Drinfeld classification in . In section 4 we will check our conjecture in the simplest case $`n=1`$, i.e. we will classify scalar unitary solutions of (0.1).

### 1.3. Classical Yang-Baxter equation

Now we will express the “limit” of $`r_{Y_1Y_2}^{X_1X_2}`$ as $`X_2`$ tends to $`X_1`$ directly in terms of $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-structure. We will see that in the case $`X_1=X_2`$ the Massey products have smaller domain of definition and smaller range and that the corresponding tensor satisfies the CYBE.

We still consider an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-category $`𝒞`$ with $`m_1=0`$. Now assume that we have an object $`X`$ and a family of objects $``$ in $`𝒞`$, such that the following properties hold:

(i)’ For every pair of distinct objects $`Y_1,Y_2`$ one has $`\mathrm{Hom}^{}(Y_1,Y_2)=0`$; the spaces $`\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,X)`$ and $`\mathrm{Hom}^1(X,X)`$ are one-dimensional, $`\mathrm{Hom}^i(X,X)=0`$ for $`i0,1`$.

(ii)’ for every $`Y`$ the space $`\mathrm{Hom}^{}(X,Y)`$ is concentrated in degree $`0`$, the space $`\mathrm{Hom}^{}(Y,X)`$ is concentrated in degree $`1`$ and the composition map

$$m_2:\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y)\mathrm{Hom}^1(Y,X)\mathrm{Hom}^1(X,X)k$$

is a perfect pairing.

In this situation we can consider the Massey product induced by the triple product

(1.7)
$$m_3:\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_1)\mathrm{Hom}^1(Y_1,X)\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_2)\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_2)$$

where $`Y_1,Y_2`$, $`Y_1Y_2`$. The domain of definition of the corresponding triple Massey product contains tensors $`_if_ig_ih`$ such that

$$\underset{i}{}m_2(f_i,g_i)=0.$$

The value of the Massey product on such a tensor is an element of $`\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_2)`$ defined up to addition of a scalar multiple of $`h`$. It is more convenient to consider the product (1.7) as a linear map

$$\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_1)\mathrm{Hom}^1(Y_1,X)\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_2)).$$

Then the corresponding Massey product is the map

(1.8)
$$K_{X,Y_1}\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_2))/k\mathrm{id},$$

where $`K_{X,Y_i}\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_i)\mathrm{Hom}^1(Y_i,X)`$ is the kernel of $`m_2`$.

For every finite-dimensional vector space $`V`$ over $`k`$ let us denote by $`\mathrm{sl}(V)\mathrm{End}(V)`$ the subspace of traceless endomorphisms, and $`\mathrm{pgl}(V)=\mathrm{End}(V)/k\mathrm{id}`$. We have a canonical isomorphism $`\mathrm{sl}(V)^{}\mathrm{pgl}(V)`$ induced by self-duality of $`\mathrm{End}(V)`$.

Let us choose a linear isomorphism $`\mathrm{tr}:\mathrm{Hom}^1(X,X)k`$. Then using the pairing

$$,=\mathrm{tr}m_2:\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_i)\mathrm{Hom}^1(Y_i,X)k$$

we can identify $`\mathrm{Hom}^1(Y_i,X)`$ with the dual space to $`\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_i)`$. In view of this duality the triple product (1.7) can be considered as a tensor

$$\stackrel{~}{r}_{Y_1,Y_2}\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_1))\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_2)).$$

On the other hand, $`K_{X,Y_1}`$ can be identified with the subspace $`\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_1))\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_1))`$. Thus, we can rewrite the map (1.8) as a linear map

$$\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_1))\mathrm{pgl}(\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_2))$$

or equivalently as a tensor

$$r_{Y_1,Y_2}=r_{Y_1,Y_2}^X\mathrm{pgl}(\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_1))\mathrm{pgl}(\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_2)).$$

It is easy to see that $`r_{Y_1,Y_2}`$ is the image of $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{Y_1,Y_2}`$ under the natural projection. By Proposition 1.1 the tensor $`r_{Y_1,Y_2}`$ is invariant under any homotopy of $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-structure.

We assume in addition that

(iii)’ for every $`f_i\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_i)`$, $`g_i\mathrm{Hom}^1(Y_i,X)`$, $`i=1,2`$, one has

$$m_3(f_1,g_1,f_2),g_2=f_1,m_3(g_1,f_2,g_2)=m_3(f_2,g_2,f_1),g_1.$$

###### Theorem 2.

For every triple of distinct objects $`Y_1,Y_2,Y_3`$ one has

(1.9)
$$[r_{Y_1,Y_2}^{12},r_{Y_1,Y_3}^{13}]+[r_{Y_1,Y_2}^{12},r_{Y_2,Y_3}^{23}]+[r_{Y_1,Y_3}^{13},r_{Y_2,Y_3}^{23}]=0$$

in the Lie algebra $`\mathrm{pgl}(\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_1))\mathrm{pgl}(\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_2))\mathrm{pgl}(\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_3))`$. In addition the following skew-symmetry holds:

(1.10)
$$r_{Y_1,Y_2}^{21}=r_{Y_2,Y_1}.$$

Proof. Let us consider six elements $`f_i\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_i)`$, $`g_i\mathrm{Hom}^1(Y_i,X)`$, where $`i/3`$, such that $`f_i,g_i=0`$ for all $`i`$. In fact, the argument below should (and can) be applied to a slightly more general data: each tensor $`f_ig_i`$ should be replaced by an arbitrary element of $`K_{X,Y_i}`$. However, we restrict ourself to the case of decomposable tensors to simplify notations. By definition we have

$$\stackrel{~}{r}_{Y_1,Y_2}(f_1f_2),g_1g_2=m_3(f_1,g_1,f_2),g_2.$$

Together with the property (iii)’ this immediately implies the skew-symmetry of $`r`$. Using it we can rewrite the equation (1.9) in the following form:

$$[r_{Y_1,Y_2}^{12},r_{Y_2,Y_3}^{23}]+c.p.=0.$$

It is easy to see that

$`\stackrel{~}{r}_{Y_2,Y_3}^{23}\stackrel{~}{r}_{Y_1,Y_2}^{12}(f_1f_2f_3),g_1g_2g_3=m_3(m_3(f_1,g_1,f_2),g_2,f_3),g_3=`$
$`m_3(f_1,g_1,f_2),m_3(g_2,f_3,g_3).`$
The $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-constraint applied to the morphisms $`f_1`$, $`g_1`$, $`f_2`$, $`g_2`$, $`f_3`$ differs from (1.5) by one additional term:

$`m_3(m_3(f_1,g_1,f_2),g_2,f_3)+m_3(f_1,m_3(g_1,f_2,g_2),f_3)m_3(f_1,g_1,m_3(f_2,g_2,f_3))`$
$`m_2(m_4(f_1,g_1,f_2,g_2),f_3)=0.`$
However, this additional term drops out when we apply pairing with $`g_3`$ since $`m_4(f_1,g_1,f_2,g_2)`$ is a multiple of $`\mathrm{id}_X`$ and $`f_3,g_3=0`$. Thus, the equality (1.6) still holds in our situation. It follows that the tensor

$$\stackrel{~}{r}_{Y_2,Y_3}^{23}\stackrel{~}{r}_{Y_1,Y_2}^{12}+c.p.\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_1)\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_2)\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_3))$$

is orthogonal to $`\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_1))\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_2))\mathrm{sl}(\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_3))`$. Hence, its projection to

$$\mathrm{pgl}(\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_1))\mathrm{pgl}(\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_2)\mathrm{pgl}(\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_3))$$

is zero. Similar statement holds for the tensor $`\stackrel{~}{r}^{12}\stackrel{~}{r}^{23}+c.p.`$ so we are done. ∎

Assuming in addition that all the spaces $`\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y)`$ for $`Y`$ have the same dimension $`n`$ (this is true in all examples) we can choose isomorphisms $`\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y)k^n`$ and consider $`r_{Y_1,Y_2}`$ as an element of $`\mathrm{pgl}_n\mathrm{pgl}_n`$. Then the map $`(Y_1,Y_2)r_{Y_1,Y_2}`$ defined on all pairs such that $`Y_1\simeq ̸Y_2`$ is a solution of the CYBE for $`\mathrm{pgl}_n`$. A different choice of isomorphisms $`\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y)k^n`$ leads to an equivalent solution. In the case $`k=`$ one often has a situation when objects $`X_i`$ and $`Y_j`$ are parametrized by complex variables and all the spaces $`\mathrm{Hom}(X_i,Y_j)`$ can be identified with $`^n`$ in such a way that tensors $`r_{Y_1,Y_2}^{X_1,X_2}`$ (resp. $`r_{Y_1,Y_2}^X`$) depend only on differences of complex parameters corresponding to $`X_1,X_2`$ and $`Y_1,Y_2`$. In this case the solutions of the CYBE corresponding to $`r_{Y_1,Y_2}^X`$ are obtained from the solutions of the AYBE corresponding to $`r_{Y_1,Y_2}^{X_1,X_2}`$ by the limit procedure described in lemma 1.2.

The above proof also shows that the tensor $`r_{Y_1,Y_2}\mathrm{pgl}_n\mathrm{pgl}_n`$ has the following property in addition to the CYBE: there exists a lifting $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{Y_1,Y_2}\mathrm{gl}_n\mathrm{gl}_n`$ of $`r_{Y_1,Y_2}`$ such that

$$\stackrel{~}{r}_{Y_2,Y_3}^{23}\stackrel{~}{r}_{Y_1,Y_2}^{12}+c.p.$$

projects to zero in $`\mathrm{pgl}_n^3`$. It would be interesting to study which solutions of the CYBE satisfy this property.

### 1.4. Spherical objects

Let $`𝒟`$ be a triangulated category over a field $`k`$, such that all spaces $`\mathrm{Hom}(X,Y)`$ are finite-dimensional. We use the notation $`\mathrm{Hom}^i(X,Y):=\mathrm{Hom}(X,Y[i])`$.

Following  we call an object $`F𝒟`$ $`n`$-spherical if $`\mathrm{Hom}^i(F,F)=0`$ for $`i0,n`$, $`\mathrm{Hom}^0(F,F)\mathrm{Hom}^n(F,F)k`$, and for every $`X𝒟`$ the composition map

$$\mathrm{Hom}^i(F,X)\mathrm{Hom}^{ni}(X,F)\mathrm{Hom}^n(F,F)k$$

is a perfect pairing.

In the case when $`𝒟`$ is enhanced in the sense of  one can define the autoequivalence $`T_F:𝒟𝒟`$ such that for every object $`X𝒟`$ with $`\mathrm{Hom}^i(F,X)=0`$ for $`i0`$ there is an exact triangle

$$\mathrm{Hom}^0(F,X)FXT_FX\mathrm{}$$

The case when $`𝒟`$ is a subcategory in the bounded derived category of quasicoherent sheaves on a projective variety was considered in details by Seidel and Thomas in . The general case of an enhanced triangulated category is similar. It seems that the construction of the functor $`T_F`$ can be generalized to the case when $`𝒟`$ has a structure of triangulated $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-category as defined by Kontsevich .

It is easy to see that all spherical objects in the derived category of coherent sheaves on an elliptic curve $`E`$ are (up to shift) either simple vector bundles or structure sheaves of points. In particular, we observe that the group of autoequivalences of $`D^b(E)`$ acts transitively on the set of isomorphism classes of spherical objects. It seems to be an interesting problem to classify spherical objects in the case when $`E`$ is replaced by a singular projective curve of arithmetic genus $`1`$. It is natural to consider only such curves for which the structure sheaf $`𝒪`$ coincides with the dualizing sheaf. In this case $`𝒪`$ and structure sheaves of smooth points are spherical. The corresponding functor $`T_𝒪`$ together with tensorings by line bundles and automorphisms of the curve generate a large group of autoequivalences of the derived category. In particular, we obtain a lot of spherical objects. However, it is not known whether in this case the group of autoequivalences acts transitively on spherical objects.

### 1.5. Non-degeneracy criterion

From now on we will always work in an enhanced triangulated category which has a cyclic symmetry considered as an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-category. We also keep the notations of sections 1.3 and 1.4. Recall that a tensor $`tV_1V_2`$ is called non-degenerate if it induces an isomorphism $`V_1^{}V_2`$. We define the non-degeneracy condition for the tensor $`r_{Y_1Y_2}^{X_1X_2}`$ by considering it as an element of

$$(\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_1,Y_1)^{}\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_2,Y_1))(\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_2,Y_2)^{}\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_1,Y_2)).$$

###### Theorem 3.

Assume that $`Y_1`$ and $`Y_2`$ are $`1`$-spherical. Then the tensor $`r_{Y_1Y_2}^{X_1X_2}`$ (resp. $`r_{Y_1,Y_2}^X`$) is non-degenerate if and only if $`\mathrm{Hom}^i(T_{Y_2}X_1,T_{Y_1}X_2)=0`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{Hom}^i(T_{Y_2}X,T_{Y_1}X)=0`$) for $`i=1,2`$.

Proof. Let us first consider the tensor $`r_{Y_1,Y_2}^X`$. Using the definition of the Massey product in the context of triangulated categories (see section 1.1) we obtain that $`r_{Y_1,Y_2}^X`$ corresponds to the composition map

(1.11)
$$\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,T_{Y_1}X)\mathrm{Hom}^0(T_{Y_1}X,Y_2)\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_2).$$

More precisely, the exact triangle

$$XT_{Y_1}X\mathrm{Hom}^1(Y_1,X)Y_1\mathrm{}$$

induces the exact sequence

$$0\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,X)\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,T_{Y_1}X)K_{X,Y_1}0$$

and an isomorphism

$$\mathrm{Hom}^0(T_{Y_1}X,Y_2)\stackrel{~}{}\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_2).$$

Thus, we have a commutative diagram

(1.12)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,T_{Y_1}X)& \stackrel{\alpha }{}\mathrm{Hom}^0(T_{Y_1}X,Y_2)^{}\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_2)& \mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_2)^{}\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_2)\\ \text{}& & \text{}\\ K_{X,Y_1}& \text{}& \mathrm{pgl}(\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_2))\end{array}$$

where the map $`\alpha `$ is obtained from (1.11) by dualization. By definition the map $`\alpha `$ sends the one-dimensional subspace $`\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,X)\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,T_{Y_1}X)`$ to the span of the identity in $`\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_2))`$. Thus, the tensor $`r_{Y_1Y_2}^X`$ is non-degenerate if and only if $`\alpha `$ is an isomorphism. To this end we observe that $`\alpha `$ is obtained by applying the functor $`\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,\mathrm{?})`$ to the second arrow of the following exact triangle:

$$T_{Y_2}^1T_{Y_1}XT_{Y_1}X\mathrm{Hom}^0(T_{Y_1}X,Y_2)^{}Y_2\mathrm{}$$

If $`\mathrm{Hom}^i(X,T_{Y_2}^1T_{Y_1}X)=0`$ for $`i=0,1`$ then clearly, $`\alpha `$ is an isomorphism. To show that the converse is true we have to check that $`\mathrm{Hom}^1(X,Y_2)=0`$ and $`\mathrm{Hom}^1(X,T_{Y_1}X)=0`$. The first vanishing holds by the assumption (ii)’. From the exact triangle defining $`T_{Y_1}X`$ we obtain the following long exact sequence:

$$\mathrm{Hom}^0(X,Y_1)\mathrm{Hom}^1(Y_1,X)\mathrm{Hom}^1(X,X)\mathrm{Hom}^1(X,T_{Y_1}X)\mathrm{Hom}^1(X,Y_1)\mathrm{Hom}^1(Y_1,X)\mathrm{}$$

Now the condition (ii)’ implies that the first arrow is surjective and the last term vanishes, hence, $`\mathrm{Hom}^1(X,T_{Y_1}X)=0`$.

In the case of the tensor $`r_{Y_1Y_2}^{X_1X_2}`$ the proof is very similar (but more simple): one has natural isomorphisms

$$\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_1,T_{Y_1}X_2)\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_1,Y_1)\mathrm{Hom}^1(Y_1,X_2),$$

$$\mathrm{Hom}^0(T_{Y_1}X_2,Y_2)\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_2,Y_2),$$

while the corresponding Massey product is given by a composition

$$\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_1,T_{Y_1}X_2)\mathrm{Hom}^0(T_{Y_1}X_2,Y_2)\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_1,Y_2)$$

Thus, the non-degeneracy is equivalent to the condition that the map

$$\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_1,T_{Y_1}X_2)\mathrm{Hom}^0(T_{Y_1}X_2,Y_2)^{}\mathrm{Hom}^0(X_1,Y_2)$$

is an isomorphism. Now the proof can be completed similar to the case of $`r_{Y_1Y_2}^X`$. ∎

### 1.6. Solutions associated with simple vector bundles

Now let us consider a more specific situation in which the general categorical setup described above is realized. Namely as an enhanced triangulated category we will take the derived category of a projective curve $`C`$ of arithmetic genus $`1`$. The objects $`X_i`$ will be simple vector bundles while the objects $`Y_i`$ will be structure sheaves of smooth points. For simplicity let us assume that $`C`$ is reduced and it is either irreducible or it is a union of $`^1`$’s intersecting transversally. Then the dualizing sheaf of $`C`$ is $`𝒪_C`$ which implies that most of the conditions (i)-(iii) (resp. (i)’-(iii)’) are satisfied automatically. More precisely, to check them one can use the following two lemmas (which are easy consequences of Riemann-Roch theorem and Serre duality on the curve $`C`$).

###### Lemma 1.3.

Let $`V`$ be a vector bundle on $`C`$. Then $`\chi (C,V)=\mathrm{deg}V`$ where $`\mathrm{deg}(V)`$ is the sum of degrees of restrictions of $`V`$ to irreducible components of $`C`$.

###### Lemma 1.4.

Let $`X`$ be a simple vector bundle on $`C`$ or a structure sheaf of a smooth point on $`C`$. Then $`\mathrm{Ext}^i(X,X)=0`$ for $`i0,1`$, $`\mathrm{Ext}^1(X,X)k`$ and the pairing

$$\mathrm{Hom}(X,Y)\mathrm{Hom}(Y,X[1])\mathrm{Ext}^1(X,X)k$$

is non-degenerate for any object $`Y`$ of the bounded derived category of coherent sheaves on $`C`$.

The only remaining condition to be checked is that all $`\mathrm{Hom}^0`$ and $`\mathrm{Ext}^1`$ between two simple bundles in question vanish. For example, this is true when these bundles are of the form $`(V,V)`$ where $``$ is a line bundle on $`C`$ which has degree zero and is not annihilated by $`\mathrm{rk}V`$ in $`\mathrm{Pic}(C)`$. The corresponding triple Massey products are computed in the following theorem.

###### Theorem 4.

(a) Let $`V_1`$, $`V_2`$ be a pair of simple bundles on $`C`$ such that $`\mathrm{Hom}^0(V_1,V_2)=\mathrm{Ext}^1(V_1,V_2)=0`$. Let $`y_1,y_2`$ be a pair of distinct smooth points of $`C`$. Then the tensor

$$r_{𝒪_{y_1},𝒪_{y_2}}^{V_1,V_2}V_{1,y_1}V_{2,y_1}^{}V_{1,y_2}^{}V_{2,y_2}$$

corresponds to the following composition

$$\mathrm{Hom}(V_{1,y_1},V_{2,y_1})\text{}\mathrm{Hom}(V_1,V_2(y_1))\text{}\mathrm{Hom}(V_{1,y_2},V_{2,y_2})$$

where the map

$$\mathrm{Res}_y:\mathrm{Hom}(V_1,V_2(y))\stackrel{~}{}\mathrm{Hom}(V_{1,y},V_{2,y})$$

is obtained by taking the residue at a smooth point $`y`$, the map $`\mathrm{ev}_y`$ is the evaluation at a point $`y`$.

(b) Let $`V`$ be a simple bundle on $`C`$. Then the tensor

$$r_{𝒪_{y_1},𝒪_{y_2}}^V\mathrm{sl}(V_{y_1})\mathrm{sl}(V_{y_2})$$

corresponds to the composition

$$\mathrm{sl}(V_{y_1})\text{}H^0(C,\mathrm{ad}V(y_1))\text{}\mathrm{sl}(V_{y_2})$$

where $`\mathrm{ad}V`$ is the bundle of traceless endomorphisms of $`V`$.

(c) If $`V_2\simeq ̸V_1(y_2y_1)`$ (resp. $`V\simeq ̸V(y_2y_1)`$) then the tensor $`r_{𝒪_{y_1},𝒪_{y_2}}^{V_1,V_2}`$ in (a) (resp. $`r_{𝒪_{y_1},𝒪_{y_2}}^V`$ in (b)) is non-degenerate.

Proof. (a) Let us choose an isomorphism between the dualizing sheaf on $`C`$ and $`𝒪_C`$. By Serre duality we have

$$\mathrm{Ext}^1(𝒪_{y_1},V_2)\mathrm{Hom}(V_2,𝒪_{y_1})^{}V_{2,y_1}.$$

Moreover, the universal extension sequence

$$0V_2U\mathrm{Ext}^1(𝒪_{y_1},V_2)𝒪_{y_1}0$$

can be identified with the canonical exact sequence

(1.13)
$$0V_2V_2(y_1)V_2(y_1)|_{y_1}0$$

where the isomorphism $`𝒪(y_1)|_{y_1}𝒪_{y_1}`$ is induced by the trivialization of the dualizing sheaf on $`C`$. Now by definition of the triple Massey products in triangulated categories we have to consider the composition map

$$\mathrm{Hom}(V_1,V_2(y_1))\mathrm{Hom}(V_2(y_1),𝒪_{y_2})\mathrm{Hom}(V_1,𝒪_{y_2})$$

and use the isomorphisms

$$\mathrm{Hom}(V_1,V_2(y_1))\stackrel{~}{}\mathrm{Hom}(V_1,V_2|_{y_1})$$

$$\mathrm{Hom}(V_2(y_1),𝒪_{y_2})\stackrel{~}{}\mathrm{Hom}(V_2,𝒪_{y_2})$$

induced by the sequence (1.13). By definition the first of these isomorphisms is given by taking the residue at $`y_1`$, so we arrive at the required description of the Massey product.

(b) The proof is analogous to (a) and is omitted.

(c) It is known (see ) that for any smooth point $`yC`$ the object $`𝒪_y`$ is spherical and the corresponding functor $`T_{𝒪_y}`$ is given by tensoring with the line bundle $`𝒪_C(y)`$. Thus, by theorem 3 the tensor $`r_{𝒪_{y_1},𝒪_{y_2}}^{V_1,V_2}`$ is non-degenerate if and only if

$$\mathrm{Ext}^i(V_1(y_2),V_2(y_1))=0$$

for $`i=0,1`$. Note that the Riemann-Roch theorem for vector bundles on $`C`$ implies that

$$h^1(C,V_1^{}V_2(y_1y_2))=h^0(C,V_1^{}V_2(y_1y_2)).$$

Since $`V_1`$ and $`V_2(y_1y_2)`$ are non-isomorphic simple bundles we have $`\mathrm{Hom}(V_1,V_2(y_1y_2))=0`$, therefore $`\mathrm{Ext}^1(V_1,V_2(y_1y_2))=0`$. The case of the tensor $`r_{𝒪_{y_1},𝒪_{y_2}}^V`$ is similar. ∎

Combining this theorem with theorem 2 we obtain non-degenerate solutions of the AYBE and of the CYBE associated with simple bundles on a projective curve $`C`$ of arithmetic genus $`1`$ with trivial dualizing sheaf. More precisely, we also have to choose a connected component $`C_0`$ of $`C`$ in which points $`y_i`$ vary. If we fix a point $`y_0C`$ and a uniformization of $`C_0C^{reg}`$ compatible with the group law on the set of smooth points $`C^{reg}`$ of $`C`$, then we can consider the tensor $`r`$ as depending on complex parameters (two parameters in the case of the AYBE and one parameter in case of the CYBE). It is known that in the case when $`C`$ is an elliptic curve one obtains all non-degenerate elliptic solutions of the CYBE by the procedure described in Theorem 4 (b). In section 3 we will construct a simple bundle of rank $`2`$ on the union of two $`^1`$’s intersecting in two points. Considering points on two different components of this curve we will obtain two different trigonometric solutions of the CYBE for $`\mathrm{sl}_2`$. In each of these cases (elliptic and trigonometric for $`\mathrm{sl}_2)`$ we also construct solutions of the AYBE specializing to the solutions of the CYBE.

## 2. Elliptic solutions

### 2.1. Non-degenerate elliptic solutions

Let $`E`$ be an elliptic curve over a field $`k`$, $`V`$ be a simple vector bundle on $`E`$, i.e. such that $`\mathrm{Hom}(V,V)k`$. Note that $`V`$ is a $`1`$-spherical object in the derived category of coherent sheaves on $`E`$. Assume that $`V`$ has positive degree $`d`$. Then we can apply the construction of the tensor $`r_{Y_1Y_2}^{X_1X_2}`$ (resp. $`r_{Y_1,Y_2}^X`$) from section 1.2 (resp. section 1.3) to $`X_i`$ varying in a family of line bundles of degree zero (resp. $`X=𝒪_E`$), $`Y_j`$ varying in a family of bundles obtained from $`V`$ be translation. Note that this is essentially equivalent to the situation of section 1.6 since applying the Fourier-Mukai transform to structure sheaves of points one gets line bundles of degree $`0`$. Let $`eE`$ be the neutral element. We fix a trivialization of $`detV`$ (top wedge power of $`V`$) at $`e`$. For every $`xE(k)`$ let us consider the following line bundle on $`E`$ trivialized at $`e`$:

$$𝒫_x^d=t_x^{}detV(detV)^1(detV)^1|_x$$

where $`t_x:EE`$ is the translation by $`x`$. Note that $`𝒫_x^d`$ depends on $`V`$ only through its degree $`d`$ which is reflected in the notation. The map $`x𝒫_x^d`$ is a homomorphism from $`E(k)`$ to the Picard group of $`E`$. Furthermore, if we denote

$$x,y^d=(𝒫_x^d)|_y$$

then $`\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}^d`$ is a symmetric biextension of $`E\times E`$. We claim that there exists a line bundle $`L`$ on $`E`$ such that for every $`xE(k)`$ there is a canonical isomorphism

$$t_{rx}^{}VL|_x𝒫_x^dV,$$

where $`r`$ is the rank of $`V`$. Indeed, since the isomorphism class of a simple vector bundle is determined by its determinant it suffices to check that $`t_{rx}^{}V`$ and $`𝒫_x^dV`$ have the same determinants which is clear (in fact, using the theorem of the cube one can show that $`L(detV)^r`$). Thus, for every $`x,yE(k)`$ we have a sequence of isomorphisms

$`\mathrm{Hom}(𝒫_x^d,t_y^{}V)H^0(E,𝒫_x^dt_y^{}V)x,y^dH^0(E,𝒫_x^dV)`$
$`x,y^dL^1|_xH^0(E,t_{rx}^{}V)x,y^dL^1|_xH^0(E,V).`$
Thus, the function

$$(x_1,x_2;y_1,y_2)r_V(x_1,x_2;y_1,y_2):=r_{t_{y_1}^{}V,t_{y_2}^{}V}^{𝒫_{x_1}^d,𝒫_{x_2}^d}$$

takes values in

$$x_2x_1,y_1y_2^d\mathrm{End}(H^0(E,V))\mathrm{End}(H^0(E,V))$$

while the function

$$(y_1,y_2)r_V(y_1,y_2):=r_{t_{y_1}^{}V,t_{y_2}^{}V}^𝒪$$

takes values in $`\mathrm{pgl}(H^0(E,V))\mathrm{pgl}(H^0(E,V))`$. Note that $`r_V(x_1,x_2;y_1,y_2)`$ is defined only when $`𝒫_{x_1}^d\simeq ̸𝒫_{x_2}^d`$ and $`t_{y_1}^{}V\simeq ̸t_{y_2}^{}V`$ which happens presicely when $`d(x_1x_2)0`$ and $`d(y_1y_2)0`$ in $`E`$. Similarly, $`r^V(y_1,y_2)`$ is defined for $`d(y_1y_2)0`$ in $`E`$. Also it is easy to see that $`r_V(x_1,x_2;y_1,y_2)`$ (resp. $`r_V(y_1,y_2)`$) actually depends only on the differences $`x_1x_2`$ and $`y_1y_2`$ (resp. on $`y_1y_2`$). So we will use the notation

$$r_V(x;y)=r_V(0,x;0,y),$$

$$r_V(y)=r_V(0,y).$$

Now we will show that the non-degeneracy criterion of theorem 3 applies to these tensors for generic values of parameters.

###### Proposition 2.1.

Assume that $`x,yE(k)`$ are such that $`dx0`$, $`dy0`$, $`d(dyx)0`$ (resp. $`yE(k)`$ is such that $`d^2y0`$).Then the tensor $`r_V(x,y)`$ (resp. $`r_V(y)`$) is non-degenerate.

Proof. Using the action of a central extension of $`\mathrm{SL}_2()`$ of $`D^b(E)`$ (see , ) we can find an autoequivalence $`S:D^b(E)D^b(E)`$ which sends a pair of bundles $`(V,t_y^{}V)`$ to the pair of sheaves $`(𝒪_{y_1},𝒪_{y_2})`$ for some points $`y_1y_2`$. Then $`S(𝒪_E)`$ and $`S(𝒫_x^d)`$ are simple vector bundles of rank $`d`$. Since the twist functors $`T_{𝒪_{y_i}}`$ are just tensorings by $`𝒪_E(y_i)`$ we have only to check that

$$S(𝒪_E)(y_2)\simeq ̸S(𝒫_x^d)(y_1)$$

and $`S(𝒪_E)(y_2)\simeq ̸S(𝒪_E)(y_1)`$. Since a simple vector bundle is determined up to an isomorphism by its determinant, it suffices to check that

$$det(S(𝒪_E))(d(y_2y_1))\simeq ̸det(S(𝒫_x^d)).$$

$$det(S(𝒪_E))(d(y_2y_1))\simeq ̸det(S(𝒪_E)).$$

It is easy to see that we have an equality $`y_2y_1=\pm dy`$ in the group $`E(k)`$. Changing $`S`$ by $`[id_E]^{}S`$ if necessary we can assume that $`y_2y_1=dy`$. Then considering the action of $`S`$ on $`K_0(E)`$ we derive the isomorphism

$$det(S(𝒫_x^d))det(S(𝒪_E))(x^{}e)$$

where $`x^{}=dx`$ in $`E(k)`$. Our assertion follows. ∎

Thus, in the case $`k=`$ using some uniformization $`\pi :E`$ we can consider the functions

$$r_V(u,v):=r_V(\pi (u),\pi (v))$$

and

$$r_V(u):=r_V(\pi (u))$$

as meromorphic solutions of the AYBE and CYBE respectively satisfying some additional conditions (namely, the unitarity and the non-degeneracy conditions).

In particular, $`r_V(u)`$ is a solution of CYBE satisfying all the additional conditions imposed by Belavin and Drinfeld in . The explicit formulas of section 2.2 imply that $`r_V(v)`$ has poles at the points of the lattice $`\pi ^1(E_d)`$ (and is periodic with respect to the lattice $`\pi ^1(0)`$). In order to find the place of $`r_V(u)`$ in Belavin-Drinfeld classification we have to determine the automorphisms

$$A_\gamma :\mathrm{pgl}(H^0(E,V))\mathrm{pgl}(H^0(E,V))$$

for all $`\gamma \pi ^1(E_d)`$ such that

$$r_V(u+\gamma )=(A_\gamma 1)r_V(u)$$

(see Prop.4.3 of ). Note that by periodicity of $`r_V(u)`$ with respect to $`\pi ^1(0)`$ the automorphism $`A_\gamma `$ depends only on $`\pi (\gamma )E_d`$.

Let $`H`$ be the Heisenberg group associated with $`V`$. Recall that $`H`$ is the central extension of $`E_d`$ (the subgroup of points of order $`d`$ in $`E`$) by $`𝔾_m`$. Points of $`H`$ are pairs $`(x,\alpha )`$ where $`xE_d`$, $`\alpha :Vt_x^{}V`$ is an isomorphism. The space $`H^0(E,V)`$ is an irreducible representation of $`H`$ in a natural way. This induces a natural action of $`E_d=H/𝔾_m`$ on $`\mathrm{pgl}(H^0(E,V))`$. It is easy to see that the automorphism $`A_\gamma `$ above is given by the action of $`\pi (\gamma )E_d`$.

The solution $`r_V(u)`$ gets replaced by an equivalent one if we replace $`V`$ by $`T(V)`$ where $`V`$ is any autoequivalence of $`D^b(E)`$ preserving $`𝒪_E`$. Thus, the only data on which $`r_V(u)`$ depends are $`(d=\mathrm{deg}(V),r=\mathrm{rk}(V)modd)`$. Note that the rank $`r`$ is relatively prime to $`d`$ since $`V`$ is simple. It follows that the solutions for $`\mathrm{pgl}_d`$ are numbered by $`(/d)^{}`$. The choice of $`r(/d)^{}`$ precisely corresponds to a choice of a primitive $`d`$-th root of unity in Belavin-Drinfeld’s picture.

### 2.2. Explicit formulas

Now we assume that $`k=`$ and write explicit formulas for the above solutions. The elliptic solutions of the AYBE can be expressed in terms of the Kronecker function

(2.1)
$$F(u,v)=\frac{\theta _{11}^{}(0)}{2\pi i}\frac{\theta _{11}(u+v)}{\theta _{11}(u)\theta _{11}(v)}$$

where

$$\theta _{11}(u,\tau )=\underset{n}{}(1)^n\mathrm{exp}(\pi i(n+\frac{1}{2})^2\tau +2\pi i(n+\frac{1}{2})u),$$

$`\theta _{11}^{}`$ is the derivative of $`\theta _{11}(u,\tau )`$ with respect to $`u`$. When we want to stress the dependance of $`F`$ on $`\tau `$ we will write $`F(u,v,\tau )`$. Kronecker discovered the following series expansion:

$$F(u,v)=\underset{(m+\frac{1}{2})(n+\frac{1}{2})>0}{}\mathrm{sign}(m+\frac{1}{2})\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i(mn\tau +mv+nu))$$

where $`m,n`$ are integers, $`0<\mathrm{Im}(u),\mathrm{Im}(v)<\mathrm{Im}(\tau )`$. Let us introduce a little bit more notation. For a pair of rational numbers $`(p,q)`$ we set

(2.2)
$$F_{p,q}(u,v)=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i(pq\tau +pv+qu))F(u+p\tau ,v+q\tau ).$$

For $`0<\mathrm{Im}(u),\mathrm{Im}(v)<ϵ`$ where $`ϵ`$ is sufficiently small, one has

$$F_{p,q}(u,v)=\underset{(m,n)^2+(p,q),(m+ϵ)(n+ϵ)>0}{}\mathrm{sign}(m+ϵ)\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i(mn\tau +mv+nu)).$$

Note that we have the symmetry relation

$$F_{p,q}(u,v)=F_{q,p}(v,u).$$

This kind of series appear in the computation of triple Fukaya compositions corresponding to the Massey products defining $`r_V(u,v)`$.

Let us consider first the case $`r=1`$, so $`V=L`$ is a line bundle of degree $`d`$. We denote by $`(e_i,i/d)`$ the natural basis in $`H^0(E,L)`$ consisting of theta-functions with characteristics. Let $`e_i^{}`$ be the dual basis in $`H^0(E,L)^{}`$. Then using the correspondence between our Massey products and triple Fukaya compositions (see ) one can derive the following formula:

$$m_3(e_i,e_j^{},e_k)=F_{\frac{ij}{d},\frac{jk}{d}}(du,dv,d\tau )e_{ij+k}.$$

Hence,

(2.3)
$$r_L(u,v)=\underset{ji=i^{}j^{}}{}F_{\frac{ji}{d},\frac{ij^{}}{d}}(du,dv,d\tau )e_{ij}e_{i^{}j^{}}$$

where $`e_{ij}`$ is the standard basis in the matrix algebra $`\mathrm{Mat}(d,)`$. In the simplest case when $`d=1`$ we obtain just the function $`F(u,v)`$, so the AYBE in this case specializes to the following identity:

(2.4)
$$F(u^{},v)F(u+u^{},v+v^{})F(u+u^{},v^{})F(u,v)+F(u,v+v^{})F(u^{},v^{})=0.$$

To find formulas for the corresponding solutions of the CYBE we project the tensor $`r_L(u,v)\mathrm{Mat}(d,)\mathrm{Mat}(d,)`$ to $`\mathrm{sl}_d\mathrm{sl}_d`$ and then set $`u=0`$. Using the above formula for $`r_L(u,v)`$ we obtain

(2.5)
$$\overline{r}(v):=(\mathrm{pr}\mathrm{pr})(r_L(u,v))=\underset{ji=i^{}j^{}0}{}F_{\frac{ji}{d},\frac{ij^{}}{d}}(du,dv,d\tau )e_{ij}e_{i^{}j^{}}+\underset{i,i^{}}{}G_{ii^{}}(du,dv,d\tau )e_{ii}e_{i^{}i^{}}$$

where

$$G_j(x,y,\tau )=F_{0,\frac{j}{d}}(x,y,\tau )\frac{1}{d}\underset{k/d}{}F_{0,\frac{k}{d}}(x,y,\tau )$$

When passing to the limit $`u0`$ in the formula (2.5) we are going to use the following relation between the Kronecker function $`F(u,v)`$ and the Weierstrass zeta-function observed in . Let $`\zeta (x)=\zeta (x,\tau )`$ denotes the Weierstrass zeta-function associated with the lattice $`+\tau `$. Then according to , Cor.1.2, we have

$$\left(2\pi iF(x,y)\frac{1}{x}\right)|_{x=0}=\zeta (y)y\eta _1$$

where $`\eta _1=2\zeta (\frac{1}{2})`$. It follows that for any function $`g:/d`$ with $`_{j/d}g(j)=0`$ we have

$$\left(2\pi i\underset{j/d}{}g(j)F_{0,\frac{j}{d}}(x,y)\right)|_{x=0}=\underset{j/d}{}g(j)\zeta (y+\frac{j}{d}\tau )+(2\pi i\eta _1\tau )\underset{j/d}{}\frac{g(j)j}{d}.$$

Using the Legendre relation $`\eta _1\tau \eta _2=2\pi i`$, where $`\eta _2=2\zeta (\frac{\tau }{2})`$, we can rewrite this formula as follows:

(2.6)
$$\left(2\pi i\underset{j/d}{}g(j)F_{0,\frac{j}{d}}(x,y)\right)|_{x=0}=\underset{j/d}{}g(j)\zeta _{0,\frac{j}{d}}(y,\tau ).$$

where we use the notation (6.1). In particular, we obtain

$$2\pi iG_j(0,y,\tau )=\zeta _{0,\frac{j}{d}}(y,\tau )\frac{1}{d}\underset{k/d}{}\zeta _{0,\frac{k}{d}}(y,\tau ).$$

Now the expression for the solutions of the CYBE takes form

(2.7)
$$\begin{array}{c}2\pi i\overline{r}(v)=_{ji=i^{}j^{}0}2\pi iF_{\frac{ji}{d},\frac{ij^{}}{d}}(0,dv,d\tau )e_{ij}e_{i^{}j^{}}+\hfill \\ _{i,i^{}}(\zeta _{0,\frac{ii^{}}{d}}(dv,d\tau )\frac{1}{d}_{k/d}\zeta _{0,\frac{k}{d}}(dv,d\tau ))e_{ii}e_{i^{}i^{}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Using formulas (6.2) and (6.4) we can rewrite this as follows:

(2.8)
$$\begin{array}{c}2\pi i\overline{r}(v)=_{ji=i^{}j^{}0}_{a/d}\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i\frac{a(ji)}{d})[\zeta _{\frac{a}{d},\frac{ij^{}}{d}}(v,\tau )\zeta _{\frac{a}{d},0}(\frac{ij}{d}\tau ,\tau )]e_{ij}e_{i^{}j^{}}+\hfill \\ _{i,i^{}}[\frac{1}{d}_{a/d}\zeta _{\frac{a}{d},\frac{ii^{}}{d}}(v,\tau )\frac{1}{d^2}_{a,b/d}\zeta _{\frac{a}{d},\frac{b}{d}}(v,\tau )]e_{ii}e_{i^{}i^{}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The case $`r>1`$ can be easily reduced to the case $`r=1`$ using a representation of the bundle $`V`$ as the direct image of a line bundle $`L`$ under the isogeny $`/+r\tau /+\tau `$. It is easy to see that in this situation one has

$$r_V(u,v;\tau )=r_L(ru,v,r\tau ).$$

## 3. Trigonometric solutions for $`\mathrm{sl}_2`$

It turns out that computations of Massey products are easier in the case of a reducible curve. Also in order to obtain all non-degenerate solutions of the CYBE for $`\mathrm{sl}_2`$ it is necessary to consider a curve with $`2`$ components. Because of this we chose to study the solutions of the AYBE and the CYBE arising from simple bundles of rank $`2`$ on such a curve.

### 3.1. Construction of simple bundles of rank $`2`$ on a reducible curve

Let $`C=C_1C_2`$ be the union of two $`^1`$’s glued (transversally) by two points. In other words, $`C_1=C_2=^1`$ and the point $`0`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{}`$) on $`C_1`$ is identified with the point $`0`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{}`$) on $`C_2`$. A vector bundle $`V`$ on $`C`$ is given by the following data:

$$(V_1,V_2,\alpha _0:V_{1,0}\stackrel{~}{}V_{2,0},\alpha _{\mathrm{}}:V_{1,\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{}V_{2,\mathrm{}})$$

where $`V_i`$ is a bundle on $`C_i`$, $`i=1,2`$, $`V_{i,x}`$ denotes the fiber of $`V_i`$ at the point $`x`$. For each $`\lambda k^{}`$ let us define the rank-$`2`$ bundle $`V^\lambda `$ on $`C`$ as follows:

$$V_1^\lambda =𝒪_^1𝒪_^1,$$

$$V_2^\lambda =𝒪_^1𝒪_^1(1),$$

$$\alpha _0=\mathrm{id},\alpha _{\mathrm{}}=S_\lambda :=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \lambda \\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$

Here we use the trivialization of $`𝒪_^1(1)`$ at $`0`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{}`$) induced by the standard trivialization of $`𝒪_^1(1)`$ on the complement to $`\mathrm{}`$ (resp. $`0`$).

###### Lemma 3.1.

The bundle $`V^\lambda `$ is simple.

Proof. An endomorphism of $`V^\lambda `$ is given by a pair of endomorphisms $`f_1:V_1^\lambda V_1^\lambda `$ and $`f_2:V_2^\lambda V_2^\lambda `$, such that $`f_1(0)=f_2(0)`$ (this follows from $`\alpha _0=\mathrm{id}`$) and

$$f_2(\mathrm{})S_\lambda =S_\lambda f_1(\mathrm{}).$$

Note that $`f_1`$ has constant coefficients so $`f_1=f_1(0)=f_1(\mathrm{})`$. The endomorphism $`f_2`$ is lower-triangular (since $`\mathrm{Hom}(𝒪_^1(1),𝒪_^1)=0`$), hence, $`f_1`$ and $`S_\lambda f_1S_\lambda ^1`$ are both lower-triangular which implies that $`f_1`$ is diagonal. Notice that the diagonal part of $`f_2`$ is constant, so we deduce that

$$f_1=S_\lambda f_1S_\lambda ^1$$

which is possible only if $`f_1`$ is proportional to the identity. Finally, it is easy to see that $`f_2`$ is completely determined by $`f_2(0)`$ and $`f_2(\mathrm{})`$, so the only endomorphisms of $`V`$ are scalar multiples of the identity. ∎

### 3.2. Computation

Now we are going to apply theorem 4 to compute the solutions of the AYBE and the CYBE associated with bundles $`V^\lambda `$. For this we have to describe the space of morphisms $`\mathrm{Hom}(V^{\lambda _1},V^{\lambda _2}(y))`$, where $`\lambda _ik^{}`$, $`y`$ is a smooth point of $`C`$. There are two different cases to consider depending on whether $`yC_1`$ or $`yC_2`$.

Case 1. $`yC_1`$. Then a morphism $`V^{\lambda _1}V^{\lambda _2}(y)`$ is given by a pair of morphisms on $`^1`$:

$$A:𝒪_^1𝒪_^1𝒪_^1(y)𝒪_^1(y),$$

$$B:𝒪_^1𝒪_^1(1)𝒪_^1𝒪_^1(1)$$

satisfying the conditions $`A_0=B_0`$ and

$$S_{\lambda _2}A_{\mathrm{}}=B_{\mathrm{}}S_{\lambda _1}.$$

We claim that such a morphism is completely determined by $`B`$ which can be arbitrary. Indeed, considering $`A`$ as an endomorphism of $`𝒪_^1^2`$ with a pole of the first order at $`y`$ we can write it uniquely in the form

$$A=\frac{1}{zy}A^{}+\frac{z}{zy}A^{\prime \prime }$$

where $`A^{},A^{\prime \prime }`$ are some regular endomorphisms of $`𝒪_^1^2`$, $`z=\frac{z_1}{z_0}`$. Now we have

$$A_0=\frac{A^{}}{y},A_{\mathrm{}}=A^{\prime \prime },$$

hence $`A`$ is uniquely recovered from $`A_0`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$. Thus, to every $`B\mathrm{End}(𝒪_{𝒫^1}𝒪_^1(1))`$ we can associate the morphism $`(A,B):V^{\lambda ^1}V^{\lambda _2}(y)`$ with

$$A=\frac{y}{yz}B_0+\frac{z}{zy}S_{\lambda _2}^1B_{\mathrm{}}S_{\lambda _1}.$$

In this description the residue morphism

$$\mathrm{Res}_y:\mathrm{Hom}(V^{\lambda _1},V^{\lambda _2}(y))\mathrm{Mat}(2,k)$$

is given by the formula

$$BS_{\lambda _2}^1B_{\mathrm{}}S_{\lambda _1}B_0$$

(here we use a local trivialization of $`\omega _C`$ given by the form $`\frac{dz}{z}`$). Let us write

$$B=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ bz_0+cz_1& d\end{array}\right).$$

Then we have

$$\mathrm{Res}_y:B\left(\begin{array}{cc}da& \lambda _1c\\ b& \lambda _1\lambda _2^1ad\end{array}\right).$$

On the other hand, if $`y_1,y_2C_1`$ are distinct points then after applying the above computation to $`y=y_1`$ we can consider the evaluation map

$$\mathrm{ev}_{y_2}:\mathrm{Hom}(V^{\lambda _1},V^{\lambda _2}(y_1))\mathrm{Mat}(2,k):B\frac{y_1}{y_1y_2}B_0+\frac{y_2}{y_2y_1}S_{\lambda _2}^1B_{\mathrm{}}S_{\lambda _1}.$$

Thus, we can compute the map

$`\mathrm{ev}_{y_2}\mathrm{Res}_{y_1}^1:\mathrm{Mat}(2,k)\mathrm{Mat}(2,k):\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{y_1y_2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{a+d}{\lambda _1\lambda _2^11}& 0\\ c& \frac{\lambda _1\lambda _2^1a+d}{\lambda _1\lambda _2^11}\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{y_2}{y_2y_1}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\lambda _1\lambda _2^1a+d}{\lambda _1\lambda _2^11}& b\\ 0& \lambda _1\lambda _2^1\frac{a+d}{\lambda _1\lambda _2^11}\end{array}\right).`$
Note that this map depends only on $`\lambda =\lambda _1\lambda _2^1`$ and $`\mu =y_1y_2^1`$. Thus, from theorem 4 we obtain the following solution of the AYBE (where $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ should be considered as multiplicative variables which are exponents of the additive variables appearing in (0.1)):

(3.1)
$$\begin{array}{c}r(\lambda ,\mu )=\frac{1}{(1\lambda )(1\mu )}\left((\mu e_{11}e_{22})(e_{11}+\lambda e_{22})+(\lambda e_{11}+\mu e_{22})(e_{11}+e_{22})\right)+\hfill \\ \frac{1}{1\mu }e_{21}e_{12}+\frac{\mu }{1\mu }e_{12}e_{21}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Projecting this tensor to $`\mathrm{sl}_2`$ we obtain the corresponding solution of the CYBE:

(3.2)
$$r(\mu )=\frac{1+\mu }{4(1\mu )}hh+\frac{e_{21}e_{12}+\mu e_{12}e_{21}}{1\mu }.$$

where $`h=e_{11}e_{22}`$.

Case 2. $`yC_2`$. Then a morphism $`V^{\lambda _1}V^{\lambda _2}(y)`$ is given by a pair of morphisms on $`^1`$:

$$A:𝒪_^1𝒪_^1𝒪_^1𝒪_^1,$$

$$B:𝒪_^1𝒪_^1(1)(𝒪_^1𝒪_^1(1))(y)$$

satisfying the conditions $`A=B_0`$ and $`S_{\lambda _2}A=B_{\mathrm{}}S_{\lambda _1}.`$ Such a morphism is completely determined by $`B`$ which should satisfy the condition

$$B_0=S_{\lambda _2}^1B_{\mathrm{}}S_{\lambda _1}.$$

Considering $`B`$ as an endomorphism of $`𝒪_^1𝒪_^1(1)`$ with a pole of the first order at $`y`$ we can write it in the form

$$B=\frac{1}{zy}B^{}+\frac{z}{zy}B^{\prime \prime }+\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{t}{z_1z_0y}\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$

where $`B^{}`$ and $`B^{\prime \prime }`$ are regular endomorphisms of $`𝒪_^1𝒪_^1(1)`$, $`tk`$, $`\frac{1}{z_1z_0y}`$ is a section of $`𝒪_^1(1)`$ with the pole at $`y`$. However, this presentation is non-unique: we can add to $`B^{}`$ a lower-triangular endomorphism vanishing at $`0`$ and change $`B^{\prime \prime }`$ appropriately. To get rid of this ambiguity we impose the condition that $`B_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ is diagonal. Then $`B^{}`$ and $`B^{\prime \prime }`$ are unique. Furthermore, in this case $`B^{}`$ is uniquely determined by $`B_0^{}`$. On the other hand, we have

$$B_0=\frac{B_0^{}+te_{12}}{y},$$

$$B_{\mathrm{}}=B_{\mathrm{}}^{\prime \prime }+te_{12},$$

hence we get the equation

$$B_0^{}+te_{12}=yS_{\lambda _2}^1(B_{\mathrm{}}^{\prime \prime }+te_{12})S_{\lambda _1}.$$

Solving this equation for $`B_0^{}`$ and $`t`$ we obtain that for

$$B^{\prime \prime }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a^{\prime \prime }& 0\\ b^{\prime \prime }z_0+c^{\prime \prime }z_1& d^{\prime \prime }\end{array}\right)$$

one has $`t=y\lambda _1c^{\prime \prime }`$ and

$$B_0^{}=y\left(\begin{array}{cc}d^{\prime \prime }& 0\\ y\lambda _1\lambda _2^1c^{\prime \prime }& \lambda _1\lambda _2^1a^{\prime \prime }\end{array}\right).$$

Thus, all the data can be recovered from $`B^{\prime \prime }`$ which can be arbitrary. Now we can compute the map $`\mathrm{Res}_y`$. Notice that the difference from the previous case is that we have to choose a trivialization of $`V^{\lambda _1}`$ and $`V^{\lambda _2}`$ at $`y`$ (since now $`y`$ belongs to the component $`C_2`$ on which these bundles are non-trivial). Our choice for $`V^\lambda `$ will correspond to the trivialization of $`𝒪_^1(1)`$ at $`y`$ given by the non-vanishing section $`f_\lambda ^1z_0`$, where $`f_\lambda `$ is some invertible function on $`^1\{0,\mathrm{}\}`$. Then using $`B^{\prime \prime }`$ as a coordinate on $`\mathrm{Hom}(V^{\lambda _1},V^{\lambda _2})`$ we obtain

$$\mathrm{Res}_y(B^{\prime \prime })=\frac{B_y^{}}{y}+B_y^{\prime \prime }+\frac{t}{y}e_{12}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a^{\prime \prime }d^{\prime \prime }& f_{\lambda _1}^1(y)\lambda _1c^{\prime \prime }\\ f_{\lambda _2}(y)(b^{\prime \prime }+y(1+\lambda _1\lambda _2^1)c^{\prime \prime })& d^{\prime \prime }\lambda _1\lambda _2^1a^{\prime \prime }\end{array}\right)$$

On the other hand, using the above construction for $`y=y_1`$ and taking a point $`y_2y_1`$ in $`C_2`$ we can compute the evaluation map

$`\mathrm{ev}_{y_2}:\mathrm{Hom}(V^{\lambda _1},V^{\lambda _2}(y_1))\mathrm{Mat}(2,k):`$
$`B^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y_2y_1}}B_{y_2}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{y_2}{y_2y_1}}B_{y_2}^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{t}{y_2y_1}}e_{12}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{y_2}{y_2y_1}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}a^{\prime \prime }y_1y_2^1d^{\prime \prime }& f_{\lambda _1}^1(y_2)\lambda _1c^{\prime \prime }\\ f_{\lambda _2}(y_2)(b^{\prime \prime }+(y_2+y_1^2y_2^1\lambda _1\lambda _2^1)c^{\prime \prime })& d^{\prime \prime }y_1y_2^1\lambda _1\lambda _2^1a^{\prime \prime }\end{array}\right).`$
Finally, we compute the map

$`\mathrm{ev}_{y_2}\mathrm{Res}_{y_1}^1:\mathrm{Mat}(2,k)\mathrm{Mat}(2,k):\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\mu }}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{(1\mu \lambda )a+(1\mu )d}{1\lambda }& f_{\lambda _1}(y_2)^1f_{\lambda _1}(y_1)b\\ f_{\lambda _2}(y_2)[f_{\lambda _1}(y_1)(y_1y_2)(1\mu \lambda )\lambda _1^1b+f_{\lambda _2}(y_1)^1c]& \frac{(1\mu )\lambda a+(1\mu \lambda )d}{1\lambda }\end{array}\right)`$
where we denoted $`\lambda =\lambda _1\lambda _2^1`$, $`\mu =y_1y_2^1`$. Now we observe that if we set

$$f_\lambda (y)=\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}y^{\frac{1}{2}}$$

then the above matrix will depend only on $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$. Thus, we obtain the following solution of the AYBE (in the multiplicative notation):

(3.3)
$$\begin{array}{c}r(\lambda ,\mu )=\frac{1\lambda \mu }{(1\lambda )(1\mu )}(e_{11}e_{11}+e_{22}e_{22})+\frac{\lambda e_{11}e_{22}+e_{22}e_{11}}{1\lambda }+\hfill \\ \frac{\mu ^{\frac{1}{2}}}{1\mu }e_{21}e_{12}+\frac{\mu ^{\frac{1}{2}}}{1\mu }e_{12}e_{21}+((\lambda \mu )^{\frac{1}{2}}(\lambda \mu )^{\frac{1}{2}})e_{21}e_{21}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Applying the projection to $`\mathrm{sl}_2`$ and setting $`\lambda =1`$ we get the following solution of the CYBE:

(3.4)
$$r(\mu )=\frac{1+\mu }{4(1\mu )}hh+\frac{\mu ^{\frac{1}{2}}e_{21}e_{12}+\mu ^{\frac{1}{2}}e_{12}e_{21}}{1\mu }+(\mu ^{\frac{1}{2}}\mu ^{\frac{1}{2}})e_{21}e_{21}.$$

where $`h=e_{11}e_{22}`$. It is easy to see that our solutions (3.2) and (3.4) are equivalent to the solutions (6.9) and (6.10) in  which represent two distinct equivalence classes of non-degenerate trigonometric solutions of the CYBE for $`\mathrm{sl}_2`$. Note that we actually constructed a solution $`r_{y_1,y_2}`$ of the equation (1.9) depending on parameters $`y_1,y_2C^{reg}`$ (with a pole at $`y_1=y_2`$) which specializes to the above two solutions when $`y_i`$ vary in one of the two components of $`C`$.

## 4. Scalar solutions of AYBE

In this section we are going to study the equation (0.1) in the case when $`n=1`$, i.e. when $`r(u,v)`$ is $``$-valued.

###### Theorem 5.

Let $`r(u,v)`$ be a non-zero meromorphic function in the neighborhood of $`(0,0)`$ satisfying the equations

$$r(u^{},v)r(u+u^{},v+v^{})r(u+u^{},v^{})r(u,v)+r(u,v+v^{})r(u^{},v^{})=0,$$

$$r(u,v)=r(u,v).$$

Then there exist constants $`c_1,c_3,c_4^{}`$ and $`c_2`$ such that $`c_1\mathrm{exp}(c_2uv)r(c_3u,c_4v)`$ is one of the following functions:

1) $`F_\tau (u,v)=F(u,v,\tau )`$ (Kronecker’s function),

2) $`F_{\mathrm{}}(u,v):=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(v)\mathrm{exp}(u)}{(\mathrm{exp}(u)1)(\mathrm{exp}(v)1)}`$,

3) $`\frac{a}{u}+\frac{b}{v}`$$`a,b`$.

Proof. Assume first the divisor of poles of $`r`$ doesn’t contain $`u=0`$. Substituting $`u=0`$ in the equation we obtain

(4.1)
$$r(u^{},v)r(u^{},v+v^{})r(u^{},v^{})r(0,v)+r(0,v+v^{})r(u^{},v^{})=0.$$

Substiting $`u^{}=0`$ we get

$$(r(0,v)+r(0,v^{}))r(0,v+v^{})=r(0,v)r(0,v^{}).$$

Note that $`r(0,v)`$ is not identically zero: otherwise (4.1) would imply that $`r(u,v)`$ is identically zero. Hence, we can write the last equation as

$$\frac{1}{r(0,v+v^{})}=\frac{1}{r(0,v)}+\frac{1}{r(0,v^{})}.$$

Thus, multiplying $`r`$ by a constant we can assume that

$$r(0,v)=\frac{1}{v}.$$

Substituting this in (4.1) we obtain

$$r(u^{},v)r(u^{},v+v^{})=r(u^{},v^{})(\frac{1}{v}\frac{1}{v+v^{}}).$$

Using the equality $`r(u^{},v)=r(u^{},v)`$ we can rewrite this as follows

$$r(u^{},v)r(u^{},v+v^{})v(v+v^{})=r(u^{},v^{})v^{}.$$

This implies that

(4.2)
$$r(u,v)v=\mathrm{exp}(c(u)v)$$

for some meromorphic function $`c(u)`$. Substituting this in the original equation we get

$$\frac{\mathrm{exp}(c(u^{})v+c(u+u^{})(v+v^{}))}{v(v+v^{})}\frac{\mathrm{exp}(c(u+u^{})v^{}+c(u)v)}{vv^{}}+\frac{\mathrm{exp}(c(u)(v+v^{})+c(u^{})v^{})}{v^{}(v+v^{})}=0$$

Multiplying by $`v+v^{}`$ and collecting terms with $`1/v`$ and $`1/v^{}`$ we get

$$\frac{\mathrm{exp}((c(u+u^{})c(u)c(u^{}))v)1}{v}=\frac{1\mathrm{exp}((c(u)+c(u^{})c(u+u^{}))v^{})}{v^{}}.$$

This immediately implies that

$$c(u+u^{})=c(u)+c(u^{}),$$

hence

$$r(u,v)=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(cuv)}{v}$$

for some constant $`c`$ which leads to case 3).

Now let us assume that $`r`$ has pole along $`u=0`$ of order $`k>0`$. Writing $`r`$ in the form $`r(u,v)=_{ik}r_i(v)u^i`$ and substituting in the equation we obtain that

$$r_k(v)r_k(v+v^{})(u^{})^k(u+u^{})^kr_k(v^{})r_k(v)u^k(u+u^{})^k+r_k(v+v^{})r_k(v^{})u^k(u^{})^k=0.$$

It is easy to see that this is possible only if $`k=1`$ and $`r_1(v)`$ is constant. Multiplying $`r`$ be a constant we can assume that

$$r(u,v)=\frac{1}{u}+r_0(v)+r_1(v)u+r_2(v)u^2+\mathrm{}$$

Note that similar arguments work for $`v`$ instead of $`u`$, so we can assume that $`r_0(v)`$ has pole of order $`1`$ are zero.

Now we claim that the terms $`r_i`$ with $`i2`$ are uniquely determined by $`r_0`$ and $`r_1`$. Indeed, let us check that the term $`r_n`$ for $`n2`$ can be recovered from the previous term. Collecting terms of the main equation which have total degree $`n1`$ in $`u`$ and $`u^{}`$ we get

$$r_n(v)[\frac{(u^{})^n}{u+u^{}}\frac{u^n}{u+u^{}}]+r_n(v^{})[\frac{(u+u^{})^n}{u}+\frac{(u^{})^n}{u}]+r_n(v+v^{})[\frac{(u+u^{})^n}{u^{}}+\frac{u^n}{u^{}}]=\mathrm{}$$

where the RHS contains only $`r_i`$ with $`in1`$. It is easy to check that if $`n3`$ then the polynomials in $`u,u^{}`$

$$\frac{(u^{})^nu^n}{u+u^{}};\frac{(u+u^{})^n+(u^{})^n}{u};\frac{(u+u^{})^n+u^n}{u^{}}$$

are linearly independent (e.g. one can check this by looking at coefficients with $`u^{n1}`$, $`u^{n2}u^{}`$ and $`(u^{})^{n1}`$). Therefore, for $`n3`$ the term $`r_n`$ is recovered from the previous terms. For $`n=2`$ the above equation takes form

$$u(r_2(v)+r_2(v^{}))+u^{}(r_2(v)r_2(v+v^{}))=\mathrm{},$$

hence, $`r_2`$ is uniquely recovered from $`r_0`$ and $`r_1`$. For $`n=1`$ we get the following relation

$$r(u^{},v)r(u+u^{},v+v^{})r(u+u^{},v^{})r(u,v)+r(u,v+v^{})r(u^{},v^{})=0,$$

(4.3)
$$r_0(v)r_0(v+v^{})r_0(v^{})r_0(v)+r_0(v+v^{})r_0(v^{})=r_1(v)+r_1(v^{})+r_1(v+v^{})$$

Using the rescaling of the form

$$r(u,v)c\mathrm{exp}(c^{}uv)r(cu,c^{\prime \prime }v)$$

we can achieve rescaling of $`r_0`$ of the form

$$r_0(v)cr_0(c^{\prime \prime }v)+c^{}v.$$

Thus, we can assume that the Laurent expansion of $`r_0`$ at $`0`$ has form

(4.4)
$$r_0(v)=\frac{1}{v}+c_3v^3+c_5v^5+\mathrm{}$$

where $`c_3`$ is equal to $`1`$ or $`0`$ (recall that $`r_0`$ is odd). Note that the LHS in (4.3) doesn’t have pole at $`v=0`$. Hence, $`r_1`$ is regular at $`0`$ and taking the limit of (4.3) as $`v0`$ we get

$$r_0^{}(v^{})+r_0(v^{})^2=r_1(0)+2r_1(v^{}).$$

Using the Laurent expansion of $`r_0`$ at $`0`$ we see that the LHS of this equality tends to zero as $`v^{}0`$. Hence, $`r_1(0)=0`$ and we get

$$r_1(v^{})=\frac{1}{2}(r_0^{}(v^{})+r_0(v^{})^2).$$

In particular, $`r_1`$ is determined by $`r_0`$. Substituting this expression for $`r_1`$ into (4.3) we obtain the following functional equation on $`r_0`$:

$$2r_0(v)r_0(v+v^{})2r_0(v^{})r_0(v)+2r_0(v+v^{})r_0(v^{})=r_0^{}(v)+r_0^{}(v^{})+r_0^{}(v+v^{})+r_0(v)^2+r_0(v^{})^2+r_0(v+v^{})^2,$$

which can be rewritten as

(4.5)
$$(r_0(v)+r_0(v^{})r_0(v+v^{}))^2+r_0^{}(v)+r_0^{}(v^{})+r_0^{}(v+v^{})=0.$$

We are looking for solutions of this equation which are meromorphic in the neighborhood of zero and have form (4.4).<sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4 Meromorphic solutions of (4.5) were described by L. Carlitz in . For completeness we give an independent argument. Substituting the expansion (4.4) in the equation one can easily see that any solution is uniquely determined by the coefficients $`(c_3,c_5)`$. The rescaling $`r_0(v)cr_0(cv)`$ for $`c^{}`$ leads to the rescaling $`(c_3,c_5)(c^4c_3,c^6c_5)`$. Note that there is a (unique) solution with $`c_3=c_5=0`$, namely, $`r_0(v)=\frac{1}{v}`$ (this corresponds to $`r(u,v)=\frac{1}{u}+\frac{1}{v}`$), so from now on we will assume that $`(c_3,c_5)(0,0)`$. Then up to rescaling a solution $`r_0`$ is characterized by the parameter

$$C(r_0)=\frac{c_5^2}{c_3^3}$$

which takes values in $`\mathrm{}`$. Now we claim that from solutions $`r(u,v)=2\pi iF_\tau (u,v)`$ one gets all values of $`C(r_0)`$ except for $`\frac{20}{49}`$ while from the trigonometric solution $`r(u,v)=F_{\mathrm{}}(u,v)`$ one gets the exceptional value $`\frac{20}{49}`$. Indeed, the Laurent expansion $`2\pi iF_\tau (u,v)`$ has form

$$2\pi iF_\tau (u,v)=\frac{1}{u}+[\frac{1}{v}2G_2(\tau )vG_4(\tau )\frac{v^3}{3}G_6(\tau )\frac{v^5}{60}+\mathrm{}]+\mathrm{}$$

where

$$G_k=\frac{B_k}{2k}+\underset{m,n1}{}m^{k1}q^{mn}$$

are the Eisenstein series (here $`q=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i\tau )`$). Thus, for this solution we have

$$C(r_0)=\frac{27G_6(\tau )^2}{60^2G_4(\tau )^3}.$$

Recall that the $`j`$-invariant is defined by the formula

$$j(\tau )=\frac{g_2(\tau )^3}{g^2(\tau )^327g_3(\tau )^2}$$

where

$$g_2(\tau )=60\underset{(m,n)(0,0)}{}\frac{1}{(m\tau +n)^4},$$

$$g_3(\tau )=140\underset{(m,n)(0,0)}{}\frac{1}{(m\tau +n)^6}.$$

We have the following relations:

$$G_4(\tau )=\frac{g_2(\tau )}{20(2\pi )^4},$$

$$G_6(\tau )=\frac{3g_3(\tau )}{7(2\pi )^6}.$$

It follows that

$$C(r_0)=\frac{20}{49}(1j(\tau )^1).$$

Since $`j(\tau )`$ takes all complex values (including $`0`$), we obtain all values of the parameter $`C(r_0)`$ (including $`\mathrm{}`$) except for $`\frac{20}{49}`$. Finally, for the solution $`r(u,v)=F_{\mathrm{}}(u,v)`$ we obtain

$$r_0(v)=\frac{\mathrm{coth}(v/2)}{2}=\underset{n0}{}\frac{B_n}{n!}v^{n1},$$

hence

$$C(r_0)=(\frac{B_6}{6!})^2(\frac{4!}{B_4})^3=\frac{20}{49}.$$

## 5. Reconstructing solutions of AYBE from solutions of CYBE

Recall that according to Lemma 1.2 if $`r(u,v)`$ is a unitary solution of the AYBE then the limit $`\overline{r}(v):=(\mathrm{pr}\mathrm{pr})(r(u,v))|_{u=0}`$ (if exists) is a solution of the CYBE with values in $`\mathrm{sl}_n`$. In this section we study the question to which extent $`r(u,v)`$ is determined by $`\overline{r}(v)`$.

###### Theorem 6.

Consider unitary solutions of the AYBE with values in $`\mathrm{Mat}_n()`$ which have Laurent expansion near $`u=0`$ of the form

$$r(u,v)=\frac{11}{u}+r_0(v)+r_1(v)u+\mathrm{}.$$

Assume that the corresponding solution $`\overline{r}(v):=(\mathrm{pr}\mathrm{pr})(r_0(v))`$ of the CYBE has no infinitesimal symmetries and that the tensor $`\overline{r}(v)`$ has rank $`>2`$ for generic $`v`$. Then $`r(u,v)`$ can be uniquely recovered from $`\overline{r}(v)`$ up to a rescaling $`r(u,v)\mathrm{exp}(cuv)r(u,v)`$, where $`c`$. In other words, two unitary solutions of the AYBE in the above form differ by a factor of the form $`\mathrm{exp}(cuv)`$ if and only if the corresponding solutions of the CYBE are equal.

Proof. First the same argument as in the proof of Theorem 5 shows that $`r(u,v)`$ is uniquely determined by terms $`r_0`$, $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$. Furthermore, we have an equation

$$[r_2^{12}(v)2r_2^{23}(v^{})r_2^{13}(v+v^{})]u^{}[r_2^{12}(v)+r_2^{23}(v^{})+2r_2^{13}(v+v^{})]u=\mathrm{}$$

where the RHS depends only on $`r_0`$ and $`r_1`$. Hence, each term in the LHS can be recovered from $`r_0`$ and $`r_1`$. Therefore, the same is true for the expression $`r_2^{12}(v)r_2^{23}(v^{})`$, hence for $`r_2(v)`$. The terms $`r_0`$ and $`r_1`$ are related by the equation

(5.1)
$$r_0^{12}(v)r_0^{13}(v+v^{})r_0^{23}(v^{})r_0^{12}(v)+r_0^{13}(v+v^{})r_0^{23}(v^{})=r_1^{12}(v)+r_1^{23}(v^{})+r_1^{13}(v+v^{}).$$

We claim that $`r_1`$ is uniquely determined by $`r_0`$. Indeed, let $`vs(v)`$ be a $`\mathrm{Mat}_n()\mathrm{Mat}_n()`$-valued meromorphic function in a neighborhood of zero such that $`s^{21}(v)=s(v)`$ and

$$s^{12}(v)+s^{23}(v^{})+s^{13}(v+v^{})=0.$$

We have to prove that $`s`$ is zero. Applying $`\mathrm{pr}\mathrm{id}\mathrm{id}`$ to the equation we immediately deduce that

$$(\mathrm{pr}\mathrm{id})(s(v))=0.$$

Similarly, $`(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{pr})(s(v))=0`$, hence $`s(v)=f(v)11`$ where $`f(v)`$ is an even meromorphic function satisfying $`f(v)+f(v^{})+f(v+v^{})=0`$. Hence, $`f=0`$.

It remains to show that $`r_0(v)`$ is uniquely determined by $`\overline{r}(v)=(\mathrm{pr}\mathrm{pr})(r_0(v))`$ up to a summand of the form $`cv11`$, where $`c`$, provided that $`\overline{r}(v)`$ has no infinitesimal symmetries. Let $`(\stackrel{~}{r}_0(v),\stackrel{~}{r}_1(v))`$ be another solution of the equation (5.1) such that $`\stackrel{~}{r}_0^{21}(v)=\stackrel{~}{r}(v)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{r}_1^{21}(v)=\stackrel{~}{r}_1(v)`$. We claim that if $`(\mathrm{pr}\mathrm{pr})(\stackrel{~}{r}_0(v))=\overline{r}(v)`$ then $`\stackrel{~}{r}_0(v)=r_0(v)`$. Indeed, we can write

$$\stackrel{~}{r}_0(v)=r_0(v)+\varphi ^1(v)\varphi ^2(v)+\psi (v)11$$

for some unique $`\mathrm{sl}_n()`$-valued function $`\varphi (v)`$ and some scalar function $`\psi (v)`$. Let us denote the LHS of the equation (5.1) by $`LHS(r)`$. Then we have

$`0=(\mathrm{pr}\mathrm{pr}\mathrm{pr})(LHS(\stackrel{~}{r})LHS(r))=`$
$`\overline{r}^{12}(v)(\varphi ^3(v^{})\varphi ^3(vv^{}))+\overline{r}^{23}(v^{})(\varphi ^1(v+v^{})\varphi ^1(v))+\overline{r}^{13}(v+v^{})(\varphi ^2(v^{})\varphi ^2(v)).`$
If the function $`\varphi (v)`$ is not constant then contracting this equation with a generic functional in the third component we derive that $`\overline{r}(v)`$ is a sum of two decomposable tensors which contradicts our assumption. Hence, the function $`\varphi (v)`$ has a constant value $`\varphi \mathrm{sl}_n()`$. Now applying the projection $`\mathrm{pr}\mathrm{pr}\mathrm{id}`$ to the difference of equations (5.1) for $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$ and $`r`$ we get the equation

(5.2)
$$(\mathrm{pr}\mathrm{pr}\mathrm{id})(\stackrel{~}{r}_1^{12}(v)r_1^{12}(v))=(\mathrm{pr}\mathrm{pr}\mathrm{id})(r_0^{12}(v)\varphi ^1\varphi ^2r_0^{12}(v))\varphi ^1\varphi ^2+(\psi (v+v^{})\psi (v^{}))\overline{r}^{12}(v)$$

This is possible only if $`\psi (v+v^{})\psi (v^{})`$ is independent of $`v^{}`$, i.e. when $`\psi `$ is a linear function. Since $`\psi (v)=\psi (v)`$ we obtain $`\psi (v)=cv`$ for some constant $`c`$. Thus, changing $`r(u,v)`$ to $`\mathrm{exp}(cuv)r(u,v)`$ we can assume that $`\psi =0`$. Finally making a substitution $`vv`$ and exchanging the first two components in the equation (5.2) we get (taking into accound the unitarity condition) that

$$(\mathrm{pr}\mathrm{pr})(r_0(v)\varphi ^1\varphi ^2r_0(v))=(\mathrm{pr}\mathrm{pr})(r_0(v)\varphi ^2+\varphi ^1r_0(v)),$$

or equivalently,

$$[\overline{r}(v),\varphi ^1+\varphi ^2]=0$$

which means that $`\varphi `$ is an infinitesimal symmetry of $`\overline{r}`$. Hence, $`\varphi =0`$. ∎

Remarks. 1. We don’t know whether for every unitary non-degenerate solution $`\overline{r}(v)`$ of the CYBE there exists a unitary solution of the AYBE of the form $`\frac{11}{u}+r_0(v)+\mathrm{}`$ such that $`(\mathrm{pr}\mathrm{pr})(r_0(v))=\overline{r}(v)`$.

2. In the case when $`\overline{r}(v)`$ has non-trivial infinitesimal symmetries the proof above shows that there are no more liftings of $`\overline{r}(v)`$ to a unitary solution $`r(u,v)`$ of the AYBE (considered up to rescaling) than infinitesimal symmetries of $`\overline{r}(v)`$. More precisely, such a lifting $`r(u,v)=\frac{11}{u}+r_0(v)+\mathrm{}`$ is uniquely determined by $`r_0(v)`$ and the difference between $`r_0`$’s for two liftings always has form $`\varphi ^1\varphi ^2+c11`$ for some infinitesimal symmetry $`\varphi `$ and some constant $`c`$.

The above theorem can be applied in particular to the case when $`\overline{r}(v)`$ is an elliptic non-degenerate solution of the CYBE. Indeed, this follows from the following lemma (which I learned from Pavel Etingof).

###### Lemma 5.1.

Elliptic non-degenerate solutions of the CYBE have no infinitesimal symmetries.

Proof. The idea is to look at residues of such a solution at poles. Let us denote $`V=^n`$. Using the Killing form on $`\mathrm{sl}(V)`$ we can identify $`\mathrm{sl}(V)\mathrm{sl}(V)`$ with endomorphisms of $`\mathrm{sl}(V)`$. Then the residues are operators corresponding to the action of the group $`G=(/n)^2`$ on $`\mathrm{sl}(V)`$ induced by an irreducible projective representation $`\rho `$ of $`G`$ on $`V`$ (see ,5.1,5.2). Let us denote by $`\mathrm{Ad}\rho `$ the representation of $`G`$ on $`\mathrm{sl}(V)`$. It suffices to prove that if $`A\mathrm{SL}(V)`$ is such that

$$\mathrm{Ad}(A)\mathrm{Ad}\rho (g)\mathrm{Ad}(A)^1=\mathrm{Ad}\rho (g)$$

then $`A^{n^2}=1`$. But this equation means that for every $`gG`$ we have

$$A\rho (g)A^1=c\rho (g)$$

for some constant $`c^{}`$. Considering the determinants we see that $`c^n=1`$, hence,

$$A^n\rho (g)A^n=\rho (g).$$

It follows that $`A^n`$ is scalar. Since it belongs to $`\mathrm{SL}(V)`$ we conclude that $`A^{n^2}=1`$. ∎

The conclusion one can draw from the above lemma and from theorem 6 is that elliptic solutions of the AYBE constructed from triple Massey products on an elliptic curve can be uniquely reconstructed from the limiting elliptic solutions of the CYBE. As we have shown in  the $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-category of elliptic curve (or at least the “transversal” part of it) can be recovered from the usual category of vector bundles and from the triple Massey products of the type considered in section 1. Hence, in some sense the information about all higher products of the $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-structure on elliptic curve (considered up to homotopy) is encoded in elliptic solutions of the CYBE.

## 6. Appendix

In this appendix we prove two formulas for which we could not find references in the literature. Let $`\zeta (x,\tau )`$ be the Weierstrass zeta-function associated with the lattice $`+\tau `$. Let $`\mathrm{}(x,\tau )=\zeta ^{}(x,\tau )`$ be the corresponding $`\mathrm{}`$-function. For a pair of rational numbers $`(r_1,r_2)`$ we denote

(6.1)
$$\zeta _{r_1,r_2}(x,\tau )=\zeta (x+r_1+r_2\tau ,\tau )r_1\eta _1(\tau )r_2\eta _2(\tau ),$$

where $`\eta _1,\eta _2`$ are quasi-periods corresponding to the basis $`(1,\tau )`$ (i.e. $`\eta _1(\tau )=\zeta (x+1,\tau )\zeta (x)`$, $`\eta _2(\tau )=\zeta (x+\tau )\zeta (x)`$). The first formula is

(6.2)
$$\zeta (dx,d\tau )=\frac{1}{d}\underset{i/d}{}\zeta _{\frac{i}{d},0}(x,\tau )+\frac{x}{d}\underset{i(/d)^{}}{}\mathrm{}(\frac{i}{d},\tau ).$$

For the proof let us fix $`\tau `$ and denote by $`f(x)`$ the difference between the LHS and the RHS. Then one immediately checks that $`f(x)`$ is holomorphic on the entire plane, $`f^{}(x)`$ is doubly periodic with respect to the lattice $`+\tau `$, and $`f(x)=f(x)`$. Therefore, $`f(x)=cx`$ for some constant $`c`$. Hence, it suffices to check the identity obtained from (6.2) by differentiation:

$$\mathrm{}(dx,d\tau )=\frac{1}{d^2}\underset{i/d}{}\mathrm{}(x+\frac{i}{d},\tau )\frac{1}{d^2}\underset{i(/d)^{}}{}\mathrm{}(\frac{i}{d},\tau ).$$

But this can be proven directly from the definition of the $`\mathrm{}`$-function as a series.

As a corollary of (6.2) we immediately get that

$$\eta _2(d\tau )=\eta _2(\tau )+\frac{\tau }{d}\underset{i(/d)^{}}{}\mathrm{}(\frac{i}{d},\tau ).$$

Now it is easy to derive the following version of formula (6.2):

(6.3)
$$\zeta _{0,\frac{j}{d}}(dx,d\tau )=\frac{1}{d}\underset{i/d}{}\zeta _{\frac{i}{d},\frac{j}{d}}(x,\tau )+\frac{x}{d}\underset{i(/d)^{}}{}\mathrm{}(\frac{i}{d},\tau ).$$

The second formula makes a connection between the special values of the Kronecker function and Weierstrass zeta-function. Namely using the notation (2.2) we have

(6.4)
$$2\pi iF_{\frac{k}{d},\frac{l}{d}}(0,dx,d\tau )=\underset{j/d}{}\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i\frac{kj}{d})[\zeta _{\frac{j}{d},\frac{l}{d}}(x,\tau )\zeta _{\frac{j}{d},0}(\frac{k\tau }{d},\tau )].$$

where $`d`$, $`k`$ and $`l`$ are integers, $`d>0`$, $`k`$ is not divisible by $`d`$. The proof of this formula is straightforward. Indeed, changing $`x`$ one can reduce to the case $`l=0`$. Then the difference between the LHS and the RHS is a holomorphic function of $`x`$, doubly periodic with respect to the lattice $`+\tau `$, vanishing at $`x=\frac{k\tau }{d}`$, so it vanishes identically.


format: text

text:
# Vector Meson Dominance, Axial Anomaly and the Thermal behavior of 𝑔_{𝜌𝜔𝜋}(𝑇)

## Abstract

By using a thermal Finite Energy QCD Sum Rule, we are able to establish the temperature dependence of the $`g_{\omega \rho \pi }(T)`$ strong coupling. It turns out that this coupling decreases as a function of temperature, vanishing at the critical temperature. This corresponds to a possible deconfining phenomenological signal. This result, together with the Vector Meson Dominance (VMD) expression for the amplitude $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$, allows us to establish that this amplitude also vanishes at the critical temperature, in agreement with previous independent analysis. This results supports, once again, the validity of VMD at finite temperature. Several posssible scenarios are discussed. However, if VMD would not hold at finite temperature, then we will not be able to find a prediction for the thermal behavior of the $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ amplitude.

The discussion of the thermal behavior of hadronic Green functions has called the attention of many authors during the last years, due to their relevance in the diagnosis of the Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) . Several correlators have been discussed in the literature, using different techniques as, for example, QCD (thermal) Sum Rules and different expansions in the frame of effective low energy hadronic lagrangians. Among the interesting results, it is worthwhile to mention here that the imaginary part of all hadronic Green’s functions grows with temperature. For a two point Green function, this means that the hadronic width is an increasing function with temperature. See  and . This important result has been confirmed through many independent analysis. On the other side, it seems that there is no such consensus about the temperature dependence of hadronic masses. Pisarski, for example,  has argued that if Vector Meson Dominance (VMD) is valid at finite temperature, then $`M_\rho (T_c)>M_\rho (0)`$, being $`T_c`$ the critical chiral symmetry restoration temperature. Note that $`T_c`$ should coincide with the critical deconfining temperature $`T_d`$, or if not, both temperatures should be quite similar, $`T_dT_c`$. If VMD breaks down there is no prediction for the behavior of $`M_\rho (T)`$. For $`T<T_c`$ different models can give opposite answers. Compare, for example,  and .

The validity of VMD at finite temperature turns out to have a strong impact on the physics related to the QGP, justifying a careful analysis of this subject from different perspectives. In a previous work, we have shown that there is a good agreement between the prediction for the behavior of the electromagnetic pion form factor $`F_\pi (T)`$, according to a three-poin function QCD Sum Rule analysis , without the necessity of invoking VMD, with the VMD expression related to the effective coupling $`g_{\rho \pi \pi }(T)`$, which is determined in a completely independent way . The decay $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ represents another valuable source of information in order to test the validity of VMD. As it is well known, the amplitude for this decay, $`F_{\pi \gamma \gamma }`$, at zero temperature and in the chiral limit, is determined by the axial $`U(1)`$ anomaly  and can be expressed as

$$F_{\pi \gamma \gamma }f_\pi =\frac{1}{\pi }\alpha _{EM},$$
(1)
where $`f_\pi 93`$ MeV is the pion decay constant. In the previous expression the right side comes from the anomaly. It has been shown that the anomaly does not change due to thermal corrections . We could then naively think that the product $`F_{\pi \gamma \gamma }f_\pi `$ will be temperature independent which, in its turn, would imply that the amplitude $`F_{\pi \gamma \gamma }`$ should diverge at the critical temperature. However, as it was disussed in , this statement is not true since the relation between the decay amplitude and the anomaly does not hold at finite temperature. This is related to the breaking of the Lorentz invariance at finite temperature. In fact, it can be shown that $`F_{\pi \gamma \gamma }`$ vanishes like $`f_\pi (T)`$ at the critical temperature. Note that this naive scenario, if we assume the validity of VMD, would also imply the divergence of the effective strong coupling $`g_{\rho \omega \pi }`$ at $`T=T_c`$, contrary to our expectations about thermal deconfinement.

In this paper, we will find the thermal evolution of $`g_{\rho \omega \pi }(T)`$ using a thermal Finite Energy QCD Sum Rule (FESR). More precisely, this FESR will fix the relation between $`g_{\rho \omega \pi }(T)`$ and the photon-vector meson coupling. Then, assuming the validity of VMD, we will be able to find $`F_{\pi \gamma \gamma }(T)`$. This analysis confirms the result found in , and suggests, once again, the validity of VMD at finite temperature. The specific behavior of $`F_{\pi \gamma \gamma }(T)`$ depends on the behavior of $`f_\pi (T)`$, which is known from the composite formalism of Barducci et al , as well as on $`M_\rho (T)`$ and $`M_\omega (T)`$ which are model dependent. We will explore different possibilities for the thermal evolution of these masses and compare our result for $`F_{\pi \gamma \gamma }(T)`$ with other determinations.

Let us start with the three-point function

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }=i^2{\displaystyle d^4xd^4ye^{i(px+qy)}}`$
$`\times 0\left|T\left(J_\mu ^{(\rho )}(x)J_5^{(\pi )}(y)J_\nu ^{(\omega )}(0)\right)\right|0,`$ (2)
where the currents are given by $`J_\mu ^{(\rho )}=:\overline{u}\gamma _\mu d:`$, $`J_5^{(\pi )}=(m_u+m_d):\overline{d}i\gamma _5u:`$, and $`J_\nu ^{(\omega )}=\frac{1}{6}:(\overline{u}\gamma _\nu u+\overline{d}\gamma _\nu d):`$, $`q=p^{}p`$, and the following Lorentz decomposition will be used

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(p,p^{},q)=ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }p^\alpha p^\beta \mathrm{\Pi }(p^2,p^2,q^2).$$
(3)
It is easy to convince ourselves that the perturbative contribution to our three point function, to leading order in the strong coupling and in the quark masses, vanishes identically since it involves $`\mathrm{𝑇𝑟}(\gamma _5\gamma _\alpha \gamma _\beta \gamma _\rho \gamma _\sigma \gamma _\tau )0`$. The non vanishing perturbative contribution turns out to be of the order $`m_q^2`$ and can be safely neglected. The gluon condensate contribution also vanishes due to the same argument. So, this leaves us with the leading non-perturbative contribution associated with the quark condensate

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(p^2,p^2,q^2)|_{\text{QCD}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(m_u+m_d)\left(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d\right)`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2p^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2q^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2q^2}}\right),`$ (4)
where $`p^2`$ and $`p^2`$ lie in the deep euclidean region, and $`q^2`$ is fixed and arbitrary. The isospin $`SU(2)`$ vacuum symmetry will be assumed in what follows, i.e. $`\overline{u}u\overline{d}d\overline{q}q`$. This expression coincides with the results of  once we convert to their kinematics.

The hadronic representation of our three point correlator can be constructed inserting one rho- and one omega- intermediate states using the following definitions

$$0\left|J_\mu ^\rho \right|\rho ^+=\sqrt{2}\frac{M_\rho ^2}{f_\rho }ϵ_\mu ,$$
(5)
$$0\left|J_\mu ^\omega \right|\omega =\frac{M_\omega ^2}{f_\omega }ϵ_\mu ,$$
(6)
$`\rho (k_1,ϵ_1)\pi (q)|\omega (k_2,ϵ_2)=g_{\omega \rho \pi }ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$
$`\times ϵ_1^\mu ϵ_2^\nu k_1^\alpha k_2^\beta ,`$ (7)
being $`ϵ_1^\mu `$ the polarization four vectors. In this way, and working in the chiral limit, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(p^2,p^2,q^2)|_{\text{HAD}}=2{\displaystyle \frac{M_\rho ^2}{f_\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\omega ^2}{f_\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi \mu _\pi ^2}{q^2}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{g_{\omega \rho \pi }}{(p^2M_\rho ^2)(p^2M_\omega ^2)}},`$ (8)
It is interesting to remark that the chiral limit approximation for the pion propagator is consistent with having used massless quark propagators in our QCD calculation. The term $`f_\pi \mu _\pi ^2`$ in Eq.(8), on account of the Gell-Mann, Oakes and Renner (GMOR) relation, can be written as $`(m_u+m_d)\overline{q}q/f_\pi `$

Assuming global quark-hadron duality, we are able to establish the following lowest dimensional FESR for $`g_{\omega \rho \pi }`$

$`{\displaystyle _0^{s_0}}{\displaystyle _0^{s_0^{}}}𝑑s𝑑s^{}Im\mathrm{\Pi }(s,s^{},q^2)_{\text{HAD}}=`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{s_0}}{\displaystyle _0^{s_0^{}}}𝑑s𝑑s^{}Im\mathrm{\Pi }(s,s^{},q^2)_{\text{QCD}},`$ (9)
where $`s=p^2`$, $`s^{}=p^2`$, and $`s=s_0`$ and $`s^{}=s_0^{}`$, are the usual continuum thresholds. Note that we are dispersing in the $`\omega `$ and $`\rho `$ legs. From this FESR, and in the limit where $`q^20`$ we obtain the relation

$$g_{\omega \rho \pi }=\frac{1}{6}\frac{f_\rho }{M_\rho ^2}\frac{f_\omega }{M_\omega ^2}\frac{\left[(m_u+m_d)\overline{q}q\right]}{f_\pi \mu _\pi ^2}\left(s_0+s_0^{}\right)$$
(10)
It is clear that this results does not represent a prediction for $`g_{\omega \rho \pi }`$, since we do not know the values of the continuum thresholds $`s_0`$ and $`s_0^{}`$. However, since $`M_\rho M_\omega `$, it seems reasonable to set $`s_0=s_0^{}`$. If we use the experimental values : $`f_\rho =5.1\pm 0.3`$ and $`f_\omega =15.7\pm 0.8`$, together with $`s_0`$ in a typical range: $`\sqrt{s_0}1.21.5`$ GeV, Eq. (10) then leads to $`g_{\omega \rho \pi }1116\text{GeV}^1`$, in good agreement with the value extracted from $`\omega 3\pi `$ decay ($`g_{\omega \rho \pi }16\text{GeV}^1)`$), or the one extracted from $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ decay using VMD ($`g_{\omega \rho \pi }11\text{GeV}^1)`$) .

The extension of this analysis to the finite temperature scenario is quite simple. In principle, all the parameters entering Eq.(10) become temperature dependent. We also know, from a recent analysis, that there are no temperature corrections to the GMOR relation at leading order in the quark masses . The temperature corrections are of the order $`m_q^2T^2`$, numerically very small except near the critical temperature for chiral-symmetry restoration. The temperature dependence of the continuum threshold $`s_0(T)`$ was first obtained in  and later improved in the frame of the composite model . For a wide range of temperatures, it turns out from this analysis that the following scaling relation holds to a good approximation.

$$\frac{f_\pi ^2(T)}{f_\pi ^2(0)}\frac{\overline{q}q_T}{\overline{q}q_0}\frac{s_0(T)}{s_0(0)}.$$
(11)
Hence, Eq. (10) can be recast as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{G(T)}{G(0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\omega \rho \pi }(T)/f_\rho (T)f_\omega (T)}{g_{\omega \rho \pi }(0)/f_\rho (0)f_\omega (0)}}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi ^3(T)}{f_\pi ^3(0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_\rho ^2(T)/M_\rho ^2(0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_\omega ^2(T)/M_\omega ^2(0)}}.`$ (12)
Note that the function $`G(T)`$ defined above is the VMD expression for the $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ amplitude $`F_{\pi \gamma \gamma }`$ of Eq.(1), viz.

$$F_{\pi \gamma \gamma }|_{VMD}=8\pi \alpha _{EM}\frac{g_{\omega \rho \pi }}{f_\rho f_\omega },$$
(13)
so that

$$\frac{F_{\pi \gamma \gamma }(T)}{F_{\pi \gamma \gamma }(0)}|_{VMD}=\frac{G(T)}{G(0)}.$$
(14)
While $`f_\pi (T)`$ is known , the thermal behavior of the vector meson masses is still a matter of controversy. Let us consider the behavior of $`G(T)`$ according to different possibilities for the thermal vector meson masses: (a) If $`M_\rho (T)M_\rho (0)`$ and $`M_\omega (T)M_\omega (0)`$ then $`G(T)`$ vanishes as $`f_\pi ^3(T)`$ as $`TT_c`$;

(b) If $`M_\rho (T)>M_\rho (0)`$ and $`M_\omega (T)M_\omega (0)`$ then $`G(T)`$ still vanishes as $`f_\pi ^3(T)`$. This possibility is a consequence of VMD . It is nice to see that in this case $`F_{\pi \gamma \gamma }(T_c)|_{VMD}=0`$. The vanishing of the decay amplitude at the critical temperature has been confirmed in the frame pf some field theory model ;

(c) If both $`M_\rho (T)`$ and $`M_\omega (T)`$ vanish at $`T=T_c`$ as $`f_\pi (T)`$, then $`G(T)`$ diverges as $`1/f_\pi (T)`$; this possibility is just a trivial property of the bag model, where everything scales as $`f_\pi (T)`$. Note that this behavior does not contradict the expectation that $`F_{\pi \gamma \gamma }(T_c)=0`$, since such kind of thermal behavior for the vector masses means that VMD is no longer valid at finite temperature and, therefore, Eq.(14) is not necessarily true.

The dependence of $`f_\rho (T)`$ and $`f_\omega (T)`$ is also needded, in addition to the thermal vector meson masses, if we are interested in the thermal behavior of $`g_{\omega \rho \pi }(T)`$. From our experience with other effective hadronic couplings, as for example the thermal behavior of the current-nucleon coupling , $`g_{\pi NN}(T)`$ , we could expect the vanishing of $`g_{\omega \rho \pi }(T_c)`$. We know that $`f_\rho (T)`$ diminishes with T as $`f_\rho (T)=f_\rho (1T^2/12f_\pi ^2)`$,. Note that in chiral models $`f_\omega `$ is temperature independent at leading order because the omega meson does not couple to two pions. For both possibilities a) and b) mentioned above, then $`g_{\omega \rho \pi }(T)`$ would vanish as $`f_\pi ^3(T)`$ if $`f_\rho (T)f_\rho (0)`$ and $`f_\omega (T)f_\omega (0)`$, or faster than $`f_\pi ^3(T)`$ if $`f_\rho (T_c)=f_\omega (T_c)=0`$. In case (c) $`g_{\omega \rho \pi }(T)`$ would still vanish as $`f_\pi (T)`$ because $`f_\rho (T)`$ and $`f_\omega (T)`$ would scale as the vector meson masses.

In summary, $`g_{\omega \rho \pi }(T)`$ vanishes in all possible cases, regardless the thermal behavior of the vector masses. In this sense, it can be considered as a phenomenological order parameter for the deconfining phase transition. The results we have presented here can be wieved as supporting the evidence for VMD at finite temperature.

Acknowledgements: The work of (CAD) has been supported in part by the FRD (South Africa), and that of (ML) by Fondecyt (Chile) under grant No. 1980577.

Discussion

M. Nielsen, IFUSP, Sao Paulo.

Is your calculation for $`g_{\omega \rho \pi }`$ done at $`q^2=0`$?

M. Loewe

Yes. It is a non trivial result that we can take this limit safely.

S. Narison, Montpellier

What is the thermal behavior of the coupling $`g_{\omega \rho \pi }`$ in the case where $`M_\rho (T)>M_\rho (0)`$ and also $`M_\omega (T)>M_\omega (0)`$?.

M. Loewe

The coupling would vanish since $`F_{\pi \gamma \gamma }(T)`$ vanishes like $`f_\pi ^3(T)`$, $`f_\rho `$ diminishes with T and $`f_\omega (T)`$ remains constant. Note, however, that in the gauged linear sigma model discussed by Pisarski the $`M_\omega `$ does not varied with T.

M. Eidenmüller Heidelberg

You gave the scaling relation $`\frac{\overline{q}q_T}{\overline{q}q_0}\frac{s_0(T)}{s_0(0)}`$. How can this be shown?

M. Loewe

This results emerges from the determination done by Barducci et al, in the frame of the composite model, for the quark condensate at finite temperature. The idea of this approach is to introduce the expected behavior for a second order phase transition near the critical temperature, according to mean field theory, and, simultaneously, to reproduce in the low temperature region the well known results from chiral perturbation theory.

We used their result for the thermal quark condensate as an imput in a sum rule for the correlator of two axial currents, obtaining $`s_0(T)`$. From this analysis we were able to establish the validity of this scaling relation in a broad range of temperatures.