text:
# Products in Hochschild cohomology and Grothendieck rings of group crossed products

## 1. Introduction

Cibils and Solotar first noticed that the cup product in the Hochschild cohomology of a finite group algebra is similar to the tensor product in the category of modules for the Drinfel’d (or quantum) double of the group (or equivalently of Hopf bimodules for the group algebra) . This observation led them to conjecture a particular formula for the product in the Hochschild cohomology ring, which was proven by Siegel and this author . However, a question remained: Why are these product structures so similar? Recent work of Bouc provides an answer to this question; they both give examples of rings constructed in a prescribed way from Green functors (the cohomology ring of the group, and the Grothendieck ring of modules for the group algebra, respectively) .

However there are more examples of cohomology and Grothendieck rings having similar product structures that do not arise from Bouc’s construction. These examples have components that are indexed by conjugacy classes of the group (or more generally by orbits under another group action), but that do not come from an underlying Green functor as the components are not themselves algebras. The product satisfies a particular formula with respect to this additive structure, analogous to product formulas for Hochschild cohomology of the group algebra and for modules of the Drinfel’d double of the group. In this paper we follow the spirit of Bouc’s work, recording (in Section 2) precisely the conditions necessary to recover these examples. We generalize Bouc’s ring construction in Theorem 2.2, where we give two potential product formulas, (i) and (ii): The second (ii) is a direct generalization of Bouc’s formula. The first (i) differs from (ii) by integer scalar factors, and applies in case the conjugacy class-graded ring is a subring of invariants of a larger ring (which may not always be the case). Thus formula (ii) applies to more examples and retains more information in positive characteristic.

In the remainder of Section 2, we describe several examples of rings graded by conjugacy classes in which the product structure is known and coincides with our construction. In Sections 3 and 4, which are largely self-contained, we prove product formulas for two further classes of examples. These examples are all of independent interest, and justify our construction. While most of them do not arise from Bouc’s construction for Green functors, they retain many properties of Green functors leading to their distinctive product structure.

Example 2.10 is orbifold cohomology. Given an orbifold with (almost) complex structure, Chen and Ruan defined an orbifold cohomology ring . In case the orbifold is a global quotient, that is the quotient of a manifold by an action of a finite group, Fantechi and Göttsche  and Uribe  gave an equivalent definition of its orbifold cohomology ring. As a consequence of their results, the cup product in the orbifold cohomology of a global quotient coincides with that given by our Theorem 2.2(i). If orbifold cohomology were defined more generally for a quotient of a topological space by a finite group action, we expect it would also satisfy the properties given in Section 2, and hence our Theorem 2.2 would endow it with a ring structure. The difference between the two possible products defined in Theorem 2.2 would be meaningful, as the coefficients may be a ring of positive characteristic. We offer the classifying space of a finite group as an example to illustrate this difference. Its orbifold cohomology should be the Hochschild cohomology of the group algebra.

In Section 3, we prove a product formula for the Hochschild cohomology ring of the crossed product $`S\mathrm{\#}G`$ of an algebra $`S`$ and a finite group $`G`$, thus generalizing the product formula for Hochschild cohomology of a group algebra \[31, Thm. 5.1\]. As a consequence, such a cohomology ring satisfies the properties given in Section 2, and its product coincides with the product given in our Theorem 2.2(ii). Such crossed products and their (co)homology are featured in many papers: Lorenz and Cornick gave an additive decomposition of the Hochschild homology of group-graded rings (of which crossed products are a special case) into components indexed by conjugacy classes of the group , generalizing the well-known case of a group algebra. Several authors studied the (co)homology of specific types of crossed products. Alev, Farinati, Lambre and Solotar  and Alvarez  studied the cohomology of a crossed product of a Weyl algebra with a finite group, and their calculations were used by Etingof and Ginzburg  to understand deformations of these crossed products. One class of such examples arises from an orbifold that is a global quotient. In this case, $`G`$ acts on a corresponding commutative algebra $`S`$ of functions, and the (noncommutative) crossed product ring $`S\mathrm{\#}G`$ (as well as the commutative ring of invariants $`S^G`$) is of interest in connection with the orbifold. See for example Connes’ book . When such a crossed product has a nontrivial twisting cocycle (see the definitions in Section 3), the orbifold is said to have discrete torsion, and this case has been of particular interest. Caldararu, Giaquinto and this author  used Hochschild cohomology to find deformations of such a crossed product arising from an orbifold with discrete torsion that is related to an example of Vafa and Witten .

A comparison of Example 2.10 (orbifold cohomology) and Theorem 3.14 (Hochschild cohomology of a crossed product) shows that the product structures of these cohomology rings associated to a given orbifold are very similar. Our construction in Section 2 of rings graded by conjugacy classes, of which each of these rings is an example, accounts for this similarity.

In Section 4, we consider representations of a finite abelian extension of a Hopf algebra, that is a Hopf algebra $`H`$ that is a crossed product arising from an action of a finite group $`L`$ on another group $`G`$. Such a Hopf algebra is perhaps the simplest possible extension, and is a fundamental building block for other finite dimensional Hopf algebras. (For example all semisimple Hopf algebras of dimension 16 (over $``$) have this form .) In case $`H`$ is semisimple, all simple $`H`$-modules were determined by Kashina, Mason, and Montgomery ; they are partitioned into classes indexed by the $`L`$-orbits of $`G`$. Here we first use Clifford theory to extend their result to the nonsemisimple case. We then prove a formula for the tensor product of any two such $`H`$-modules, and show that it coincides with the product given by our Theorem 2.2(ii). This generalizes a formula for the tensor product of modules for the Drinfel’d double of $`G`$ (or equivalently of Hopf bimodules of the group algebra ). Our methods work equally well when $`H`$ is only a quasi Hopf algebra, and thus apply to the twisted Drinfel’d double of $`G`$ as well. Our Theorem 2.2 gives one explanation of why this formula for the tensor product of $`H`$-modules is similar to the product formula for the Hochschild cohomology ring $`\mathrm{HH}^{}(\mathrm{𝕜}L,\mathrm{𝕜}G)`$ of Example 2.7.

The author thanks Alejandro Adem, Don Passman, Arun Ram, and Frank Sottile for helpful discussions.

## 2. Hochschild constructions

Let $`G`$ and $`L`$ be finite groups with a left action of $`L`$ on $`G`$ by automorphisms. (Often we will let $`L=G`$ act on $`G`$ by conjugation.) Write the action of $`xL`$ on $`gG`$ as $`{}_{}{}^{x}g`$, and let $`L_g`$ denote the stabilizer of $`g`$ in $`L`$, that is

$$L_g:=\{xL{}_{}{}^{x}g=g\}.$$

Let $`\{A(g)gG\}`$ be a set of free modules over a commutative ring $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$. Assume there are $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$-linear and $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$-bilinear maps

(2.1)
$$c_{g,x}:A(g)A({}_{}{}^{x}g)\text{ and }m_{g,h}:A(g)\times A(h)A(gh)$$

and that $`c_{g,x}`$ is an isomorphism of $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$-modules, for all $`g,hG,xL`$. Let

$$A:=\underset{gG}{}A(g)$$

and let $`c_x:AA`$ be the linear function which is $`c_{g,x}`$ on the component $`A(g)`$. If $`\alpha A`$, write $`\alpha =_{gG}\alpha _g`$ with $`\alpha _gA(g)`$. We will also denote by $`\alpha _g`$ any element of $`A(g)A`$. Assume the following properties hold:

* (group action) $`c_1=\mathrm{id}`$ and $`c_xc_y=c_{xy}`$ for all $`x,yL`$,
* (compatibility) $`c_xm_{g,h}=m_{{}_{}{}^{x}g,{}_{}{}^{x}h}(c_x\times c_x)`$ for all $`g,hG,xL`$, and
* (unity) there is an element $`1A(1)`$ with $`c_x(1)=1`$ for all $`xL`$ and $`m_{1,g}(1,\alpha _g)=\alpha _g=m_{g,1}(\alpha _g,1)`$ for all $`gG,\alpha _gA(g)`$.

Notice that property (H1) implies there is an action of $`L`$ on the $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$-module $`A`$. Further, $`A`$ will be an associative algebra with an action of $`L`$ as automorphisms if the following additional property is satisfied:

* (associativity)

$$m_{de,f}(m_{d,e}(\alpha _d,\beta _e),\gamma _f)=m_{d,ef}(\alpha _d,m_{e,f}(\beta _e,\gamma _f))$$

for all $`d,e,fG,\alpha _dA(d),\beta _eA(e),\gamma _fA(f)`$.

In this case the product on $`A`$ is defined componentwise by the maps $`m_{g,h}`$, and $`A`$ is a group-graded algebra, graded by the group $`G`$. The action of $`L`$ by automorphisms is compatible with the grading. Let

$$A^L:=\{\alpha Ac_x(\alpha )=\alpha \text{ for all }xL\},$$

the $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$-submodule of $`L`$-invariants of $`A`$, also an associative algebra in case properties (H1)–(H4) are satisfied.

We would like to weaken property (H4) and still obtain an associative algebra structure on the invariants $`A^L`$. The example of Hochschild cohomology of the group algebra $`\mathrm{𝕜}L`$, with product formula given in \[31, Thm. 5.1\] and generalized in \[8, Thm. 6.1\], suggests how to do this. Consider the following property instead:

* (associativity)

$$\underset{(d,e,f)T_g}{}m_{de,f}(m_{d,e}(\alpha _d,\beta _e),\gamma _f)=\underset{(d,e,f)T_g}{}m_{d,ef}(\alpha _d,m_{e,f}(\beta _e,\gamma _f)),$$

for all $`gG`$, and $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma A^L`$, where $`T_g`$ is the set described below.

The set $`T_g`$ is any set of representatives of equivalence classes in

$$\{(d,e,f)G\times G\times Gdef=g\}$$

given by orbits under the following group actions. The stabilizer $`L_g`$ of $`g`$ acts on pairs $`(de,f)`$, that is on the product of the first two factors, and the last factor. For each $`f`$, the stabilizer $`L_{gf^1}`$ ($`=L_{de}`$) acts on pairs $`(d,e)`$, that is on the first two factors. We may equally well consider $`T_g`$ to be a set of representatives of equivalence classes given by orbits under the action of $`L_g`$ on pairs $`(d,ef)`$ and for each $`d`$, the action of $`L_{d^1g}`$ ($`=L_{ef}`$) on pairs $`(e,f)`$: The bijection $`T_gT_g`$ given by $`(d,e,f)(gfg^1,d,e)`$ yields a correspondence of orbit representatives. By property (H2), the choice of representatives does not matter as we are working in the ring of invariants $`A^L`$.

Clearly property (H4) implies (H4), but not conversely. We have already observed part (i) of the following theorem, and part (ii) describes a product on $`A^L`$ in case the above weaker property (H4) holds.

###### Theorem 2.2.

Let $`\{A(g)gG\}`$ be a set of free $`k`$-modules, with maps $`c_{g,x}`$ and $`m_{g,h}`$ as in (2.1).

* If $`A`$ satisfies (H1)–(H4), then $`A`$ is an associative ring with multiplication $`m`$ given componentwise by $`m_{g,h}`$ for all $`g,hG`$, and $`A^L`$ is a subring under the inherited multiplication.
* If $`A`$ satisfies (H1)–(H3) and (H4), then $`A^L`$ is an associative ring with product defined componentwise by

$$(\alpha \beta )_g=\underset{\begin{array}{c}(h,k)L_g\backslash G\times G\\ hk=g\end{array}}{}m_{h,k}(\alpha _h,\beta _k)$$

for all $`\alpha ,\beta A^L`$ and $`gG`$.

We remark that if properties (H1)–(H4) are satisfied, then the $`L`$-invariants $`A^L`$ have two distinct products given by Theorem 2.2(i) and (ii). The product on $`A^L`$ inherited from $`A`$ as in (i) is given by

(2.3)
$$(\alpha \beta )_g=\underset{\begin{array}{c}(h,k)G\times G\\ hk=g\end{array}}{}m_{h,k}(\alpha _h,\beta _k)=\underset{\begin{array}{c}(h,k)L_g\backslash G\times G\\ hk=g\end{array}}{}|L_g:L_hL_k|m_{h,k}(\alpha _h,\beta _k),$$

where $`|L_g:L_hL_k|`$ is the index of the subgroup $`L_hL_k`$ in $`L_g`$. This differs from the product (ii) by the integer scalar factors $`|L_g:L_hL_k|`$. Thus the distinction is meaningful in positive characteristic, where the product (ii) potentially contains more information.

###### Proof of Theorem 2.2.

The proof of (i) is straightforward. We will prove (ii). First note that by property (H2), if $`\alpha ,\beta A^L`$, then $`\alpha \beta A^L`$ as well, as the product formula in (ii) yields $`(\alpha \beta )_{{}_{}{}^{x}g}={}_{}{}^{x}((\alpha \beta )_g)`$. By property (H3), $`A^L`$ has a multiplicative identity. We will show that (H4) is equivalent to the associativity of the product defined in (ii). Let $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma A^L`$ and $`gG`$. Then

$$((\alpha \beta )\gamma )_g=\underset{\begin{array}{c}(h,k)L_g\backslash (G\times G),hk=g\\ (d,e)L_h\backslash (G\times G),de=h\end{array}}{}m_{h,k}(m_{d,e}(\alpha _d,\beta _e),\gamma _k),$$

which is the same as the left side of property (H4), whereas

$$(\alpha (\beta \gamma ))_g=\underset{\begin{array}{c}(h,k)L_g\backslash (G\times G),hk=g\\ (e,f)L_k\backslash (G\times G),ef=k\end{array}}{}m_{h,k}(\alpha _h,m_{e,f}(\beta _e,\gamma _f)),$$

the right side of property (H4). ∎

Let $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_t`$ be a set of representatives of orbits of $`L`$ on $`G`$. There is another way to write the product of Theorem 2.2(ii), in terms of the additive decomposition

(2.4)
$$A^L=\left(\underset{gG}{}A(g)\right)^L\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}A(g_i)^{L_{g_i}}.$$

Write $`L_i:=L_{g_i}`$ and $`\alpha _i:=\alpha _{g_i}`$ for $`\alpha A`$.

###### Corollary 2.5.

Let $`\alpha _iA(g_i)^{L_i}`$ and $`\beta _jA(g_j)^{L_j}`$ in the additive isomorphism (2.4). Then under the product of Theorem 2.2(ii),

$$\alpha _i\beta _j=\underset{xD}{}m_{{}_{}{}^{y}g_{i}^{},{}_{}{}^{yx}g_{j}^{}}({}_{}{}^{y}\alpha _{i}^{},{}_{}{}^{yx}\beta _{j}^{}),$$

where $`D`$ is a set of representatives of double cosets $`L_i\backslash L/L_j`$, and $`k=k(x)`$ and $`y=y(x)`$ are chosen so that $`{}_{}{}^{y}g_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{yx}g_{j}^{}=g_k`$.

###### Proof.

The elements $`\alpha _i`$ and $`\beta _j`$ correspond in $`A^L`$ to $`_{yL/L_i}{}_{}{}^{y}\alpha _{i}^{}`$ and $`_{zL/L_j}{}_{}{}^{z}\beta _{j}^{}`$, respectively. By Theorem 2.2(ii),

$$\left(\left(\underset{yL/L_i}{}{}_{}{}^{y}\alpha _{i}^{}\right)\left(\underset{zL/L_j}{}{}_{}{}^{z}\beta _{j}^{}\right)\right)_{g_k}=\underset{\begin{array}{c}({}_{}{}^{y}g_{i}^{},{}_{}{}^{z}g_{j}^{})L_k\backslash (G\times G)\\ {}_{}{}^{y}g_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{z}g_{j}^{}=g_k\end{array}}{}m_{{}_{}{}^{y}g_{i}^{},{}_{}{}^{z}g_{j}^{}}({}_{}{}^{y}\alpha _{i}^{},{}_{}{}^{z}\beta _{j}^{}).$$

Letting $`x=y^1z`$ so that $`z=yx`$, this looks like the sum in the corollary, other than the set over which the sum is taken. Noting that the choice of $`y=y(x)`$ in the corollary is unique only up to multiplication by an element of $`L_k`$, and similarly in the above sum, $`y,z`$ are unique only up to multiplication by elements of $`L_i,L_j`$, respectively, we see that the two sums are the same. ∎

We give several examples in the remainder of this section. The first example is just the group algebra.

###### Example 2.6.

(Group algebra.) Let $`A(g):=\mathrm{𝕜}g`$ for each $`gG`$, that is $`A(g)`$ is the one-dimensional vector space with basis $`g`$. Define linear maps $`m_{g,h}:\mathrm{𝕜}g\times \mathrm{𝕜}h\mathrm{𝕜}gh`$ by $`m_{g,h}(g,h)=gh`$. Then $`A`$ satisfies properties (H1)–(H4), and $`A=\mathrm{𝕜}G`$ under the product of Theorem 2.2(i). The ring of invariants $`A^L`$ is $`(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^L`$. In particular, if $`L=G`$, then $`A^L`$ is the center of $`\mathrm{𝕜}G`$.

The invariant subring $`(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^L`$ of the above example is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{HH}^0(\mathrm{𝕜}L,\mathrm{𝕜}G)`$, the degree 0 component of the Hochschild cohomology ring of $`\mathrm{𝕜}L`$ with coefficients in $`\mathrm{𝕜}G`$. The next example is thus a generalization. The definition of Hochschild cohomology is given in Section 3; see also  for group cohomology.

###### Example 2.7.

(Hochschild cohomology.) For each $`gG`$, let $`A(g):=H^{}(L_g)=\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{𝕜}L_g}^{}(\mathrm{𝕜},\mathrm{𝕜})`$ where $`L_g`$ acts trivially on the coefficient ring $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$. The conjugation maps are given by conjugation of group cohomology rings, and

(2.8)
$$m_{g,h}(\alpha _g,\beta _h):=\mathrm{cor}_{L_gL_h}^{L_{gh}}(\mathrm{res}_{L_gL_h}^{L_g}\alpha _g\mathrm{res}_{L_gL_h}^{L_h}\beta _h),$$

where $`\mathrm{res}`$ and $`\mathrm{cor}`$ denote the standard restriction and corestriction maps of group cohomology. Then (H1)–(H3) are well-known properties of group cohomology. A comparison of \[31, Lem. 4.2 and Thm. 5.1\] with Corollary 2.5 above shows that (H4) holds, and that under the product of Theorem 2.2(ii), $`A^L\mathrm{HH}^{}(\mathrm{𝕜}L,\mathrm{𝕜}G)`$ as rings.

In the above example, the difference between the products (i) and (ii) of Theorem 2.2 is important: If there were a definition of $`m_{g,h}`$ satisfying (H4) instead of (H4), the subring of invariants $`A^L`$ of $`A`$ would in general not be isomorphic to $`\mathrm{HH}^{}(\mathrm{𝕜}L,\mathrm{𝕜}G)`$. For example, if $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$ is a field and $`n>0`$, then $`\mathrm{HH}^n(\mathrm{𝕜}L,\mathrm{𝕜}G)0`$ only if the characteristic of $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$ divides $`|L|`$. In this case, the integer scalar factor $`|L_{gh}:L_gL_h|`$ of (2.3) may often be 0 even when the corresponding product in Hochschild cohomology is nonzero.

The next example, due to Bouc, is a generalization of Example 2.7 arising from any Green functor. This was the motivating example for our present work.

###### Example 2.9.

(Green functor.) Let $`L=G`$ and let $`A()`$ be any Green functor for $`G`$ over $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$. That is, to each subgroup $`H<G`$, there is assigned a $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$-algebra $`A(H)`$, together with conjugation maps $`c_x:A(H)A({}_{}{}^{x}H)`$ (for all $`xG`$ and $`H<G`$), restriction maps $`r_K^H:A(H)A(K)`$ and transfer maps $`t_K^H:A(K)A(H)`$ (for all $`K<H<G`$). These maps are required to satisfy certain properties (see for example ). Let $`A(g):=A(C(g))`$ where $`C(g)=G_g`$ is the centralizer of $`g`$ in $`G`$, and

$$m_{g,h}(\alpha _g,\beta _h):=t_{C(g)C(h)}^{C(gh)}\left(r_{C(g)C(h)}^{C(g)}\alpha _gr_{C(g)C(h)}^{C(h)}\beta _h\right).$$

Then (H1)–(H3) are standard properties of Green functors. Property (H4) is equivalent to the associativity of the product on $`A^G`$ proven by Bouc in \[8, Thm. 6.1\]. The ring $`A^G`$ of our Theorem 2.2(ii) is precisely Bouc’s ring $`A_G(G)`$. Examples include, among others, the crossed Burnside ring (obtained from the Burnside ring functor), the Hochschild cohomology ring of $`\mathrm{𝕜}G`$ (obtained from the group cohomology functor), and the Grothendieck ring of the Drinfel’d double of $`G`$ (obtained from the Grothendieck ring functor for a group algebra). The last two of these examples are generalized in Sections 3 and 4 to rings that do not arise from Bouc’s construction, and their definitions appear there.

The final example in this section is orbifold cohomology of a global quotient.

###### Example 2.10.

(Orbifold cohomology.) Let $`L=G`$ and let $`Y`$ be a complex manifold with a left action of a finite group $`G`$. Let $`A(g):=\mathrm{H}^{}(Y^g)`$, the singular cohomology of the submanifold $`Y^g`$ of elements invariant under $`g`$. The map $`c_{g,x}:H^{}(Y^g)H^{}(Y^{{}_{}{}^{x}g})`$ is induced by the action of $`x`$ on $`Y`$. Let

$$m_{g,h}(\alpha _g,\beta _h)=i_{}\left(\alpha _g|_{Y^{g,h}}\beta _h|_{Y^{g,h}}c(g,h)\right)$$

where $`i:Y^{g,h}Y^{gh}`$ is the natural inclusion, the pushforward $`i_{}`$ is defined via Poincaré duality, and $`c(g,h)H^{}(Y^{g,h})`$ are particular classes (see  or  for the details). By \[22, Theorem 1.18\] (see also ), properties (H1)–(H4) hold, and $`A`$ of our Theorem 2.2(i) is the associative algebra $`\mathrm{H}^{}(Y,G)`$ of  (see also ). The subring $`A^G`$ is the orbifold cohomology $`\mathrm{H}_o^{}([Y/G])`$ of the orbifold $`[Y/G]`$.

The product on orbifold cohomology in the above example differs from the product on $`A^G`$ given in our Theorem 2.2(ii) by scalar factors (see (2.3)). Thus we have two different products on $`A^G=\mathrm{H}_o^{}([Y/G])`$. If orbifold cohomology were defined more generally for a quotient of a topological space by a finite group action, it may be that there would be no obvious ring $`A`$ from which to take the subring $`A^G`$ of invariants as the orbifold cohomology. In addition, if coefficients are taken in a ring $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$ of positive characteristic, the product of Theorem 2.2(i) may often be 0 on the invariants $`A^G`$, due to the (integer) scalar factors that appear in (2.3). Under these conditions, Theorem 2.2(ii) may yield the desired cohomology ring directly.

To illustrate these issues, we consider the classifying space $`BG=EG/G`$ of the finite group $`G`$ (see  for the definition). Given $`a,b,cG`$ with $`ab=c`$, there is an arrow in $`EG`$ from $`b`$ to $`c`$ labeled by $`a`$. A fourth element $`gG`$ acts on the corresponding cell in $`EG`$ by sending it to an arrow from $`gb`$ to $`gc`$ labeled by $`gag^1`$. This action commutes with the action of $`G`$ on $`EG`$ by right multiplication by elements of $`G`$, and so yields an action of $`G`$ on $`BG`$. The invariant subspace $`(BG)^g`$ of $`gG`$ may be identified with $`BC(g)`$, the classifying space of the centralizer of $`g`$ in $`G`$.

Additively, the orbifold cohomology of $`BG`$ should thus be

$$\mathrm{H}_o^{}([BG/G])=\left(\underset{gG}{}\mathrm{H}^{}(BC(g))\right)^G\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}\mathrm{H}^{}(BC(g_i)),$$

as the group $`C(g)`$ acts trivially on $`\mathrm{H}^{}(BC(g))\mathrm{H}^{}(C(g))`$. (Here $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_t`$ is a set of representatives of the conjugacy classes of $`G`$.) If coefficients are taken in a fixed field $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$, we may rewrite this as

$$\mathrm{H}_o^{}([BG/G])\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}\mathrm{H}^{}(C(g_i))\mathrm{HH}^{}(\mathrm{𝕜}G).$$

That is, $`\mathrm{H}_o^{}([BG/G])`$ is additively isomorphic to the Hochschild cohomology of the group algebra $`\mathrm{𝕜}G`$. We may now use the definition of $`m_{g,h}`$ from Example 2.7 (with $`L=G`$), making $`\mathrm{H}_o^{}([BG/G])`$ isomorphic to $`\mathrm{HH}^{}(\mathrm{𝕜}G)`$ as rings.

## 3. Hochschild cohomology of group crossed products

In this section we prove a product formula (Theorem 3.14) for the Hochschild cohomology ring of a group crossed product, generalizing the formula \[31, Thm. 5.1\] for group algebras. As a consequence, such a Hochschild cohomology ring satisfies the properties of Section 2, and its product formula coincides with that of Theorem 2.2(ii).

Let $`G`$ be a finite group acting by automorphisms on an algebra $`S`$ over a field $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$.<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Working over a field simplifies Hochschild cohomology. Let $`\sigma :G\times GZ(S)^\times `$ (the units in the center of $`S`$) be a two-cocycle, that is

(3.1)
$${}_{}{}^{g}\sigma (h,k)\sigma (g,hk)=\sigma (g,h)\sigma (gh,k)$$

for all $`g,h,kG`$.<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2We require the image of $`\sigma `$ to be central in $`S`$ to be consistent with having an action of $`G`$ on $`S`$. More generally, the action of $`G`$ could be twisted by $`\sigma `$ with noncentral image. See for example \[28, Chapter 7\]. Assume that $`\sigma `$ is normalized, that is $`\sigma (g,1)=1=\sigma (1,g)`$ for all $`gG`$.

The crossed product algebra $`R:=S\mathrm{\#}_\sigma G`$ (or $`S\mathrm{\#}_\sigma \mathrm{𝕜}G`$) has underlying vector space $`S\mathrm{𝕜}G`$ (where $`=_\mathrm{𝕜}`$) and multiplication given by

$$(sg)(th)=s({}_{}{}^{g}t)\sigma (g,h)gh$$

for all $`s,tS`$ and $`g,hG`$. We will write $`s\overline{g}:=sg`$ to shorten notation. Note that $`S`$ is a subalgebra of $`R`$, but $`\mathrm{𝕜}G`$ is not. For each $`gG`$, the element $`\overline{g}R`$ is invertible with

$$(\overline{g})^1=\sigma ^1(g,g^1)\overline{g^1}.$$

The action of $`G`$ on $`S`$ becomes an inner action on $`R`$, as

(3.2)
$${}_{}{}^{g}s=\overline{g}s(\overline{g})^1$$

for all $`gG,sS`$.

A number of authors have studied Hochschild (co)homology of such group crossed products or more general algebras. Sanada  and Ştefan  gave spectral sequences relating Hochschild cohomology to that of the components $`S`$ and $`G`$. (Ştefan treated the more general case of a Hopf Galois extension.) Cornick  and Lorenz  gave spectral sequences to describe components of Hochschild homology of group-graded algebras that are indexed by the conjugacy classes of $`G`$. Here we will describe the overall product structure of the Hochschild cohomology ring $`\mathrm{HH}^{}(R)`$ in terms of components indexed by conjugacy classes.

We will first give a decomposition of the Hochschild cohomology ring $`\mathrm{HH}^{}(R)`$ into such components. We recall the definition of Hochschild cohomology: As $`R`$ is an algebra over a field, its Hochschild cohomology may be defined as

$$\mathrm{HH}^{}(R):=\mathrm{Ext}_{R^e}^{}(R,R),$$

where $`R^e:=RR^{op}`$ acts on the left on $`R`$ by left and right multiplication. More generally, the Hochschild cohomology of $`R`$ with coefficients in an $`R`$-bimodule $`M`$ is $`\mathrm{HH}^{}(R,M):=\mathrm{Ext}_{R^e}^{}(R,M)`$. (So $`\mathrm{HH}^{}(R)=\mathrm{HH}^{}(R,R)`$.) This may be expressed in terms of the (acyclic) Hochschild complex:

(3.3)
$$\mathrm{}\stackrel{\delta _3}{}R^4\stackrel{\delta _2}{}R^3\stackrel{\delta _1}{}R^e\stackrel{m}{}R0$$

is an $`R^e`$-free resolution of $`R`$, where $`m`$ is the multiplication map and

$$\delta _n(r_0r_1\mathrm{}r_{n+1})=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^ir_0\mathrm{}r_ir_{i+1}\mathrm{}r_{n+1}.$$

Dropping the term $`R`$ from the complex (3.3) above, and applying $`\mathrm{Hom}_{R^e}(,M)`$, we have the Hochschild (cochain) complex

(3.4)
$$\mathrm{Hom}_{R^e}(R^e,M)\stackrel{\delta _1^{}}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{R^e}(R^3,M)\stackrel{\delta _2^{}}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{R^e}(R^4,M)\stackrel{\delta _3^{}}{}\mathrm{}$$

Thus $`\mathrm{HH}^n(R,M)=\mathrm{Ker}(\delta _{n+1}^{})/\mathrm{Im}(\delta _n^{})`$.

If $`H`$ is a subgroup of $`G`$, let

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(H):=\underset{hH}{}S\overline{h}S(\overline{h})^1,$$

a subalgebra of $`R^e`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Delta }:=\mathrm{\Delta }(G)`$. Let $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_t`$ be a set of representatives of the conjugacy classes of $`G`$.

###### Lemma 3.5.

Let $`R=S\mathrm{\#}_\sigma G`$. There is an isomorphism of vector spaces

$$\mathrm{HH}^{}(R)\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(C(g_i))}^{}(S,S\overline{g_i}).$$

###### Proof.

Note that $`RR^e_\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ as an $`R^e`$-module (see \[7, Lemma 3.3\]), and so by the Eckmann-Shapiro Lemma \[5, Cor. 2.8.4\] we have

$$\mathrm{HH}^{}(R)\mathrm{Ext}_{R^e}^{}(R^e_\mathrm{\Delta }S,R)\mathrm{Ext}_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(S,R).$$

Now, as a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-module, $`R_{i=1}^tR_{𝒞_i}`$, where $`𝒞_i`$ is the conjugacy class of $`g_i`$ and $`R_{𝒞_i}=_{h𝒞_i}S\overline{h}`$. Therefore $`\mathrm{HH}^{}(R)_{i=1}^t\mathrm{Ext}_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(S,R_{𝒞_i})`$.

As a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-module, $`R_{𝒞_i}`$ is isomorphic to the coinduced module $`\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(C(g_i))}(\mathrm{\Delta },S\overline{g_i})`$, where the action of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is given by $`((r_0r_1)f)(s_0s_1)=f(s_0r_0r_1s_1)`$ for $`f\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(C(g_i))}(\mathrm{\Delta },S\overline{g_i})`$: The map $`R_{𝒞_i}\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(C(g_i))}(\mathrm{\Delta },S\overline{g_i})`$ defined by

$$(\overline{h})r(\overline{g})(\overline{h})^1\left(((\overline{h})^1\overline{h})r\overline{g}\right)$$

is an isomorphism of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-modules, where $`h`$ ranges over a set of coset representatives for $`C(g_i)`$ in $`G`$. Another way to view this isomorphism is to notice that $`R_{𝒞_i}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{\Delta }(C(g_i))}S\overline{g_i}`$, and this induced module is isomorphic to the coinduced module $`\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(C(g_i))}(\mathrm{\Delta },S\overline{g_i})`$. Passman has provided us with a proof of the fact that the induced and coinduced modules for finite group crossed products are isomorphic.

Again by the Eckmann-Shapiro Lemma,

$$\mathrm{Ext}_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(S,R_{𝒞_i})\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(C(g_i))}^{}(S,S\overline{g_i}),$$

which proves the lemma. ∎

We will show that $`\mathrm{HH}^{}(R)`$ satisfies the properties of Section 2, and in the process will determine how the Hochschild cup product behaves with respect to the additive decomposition of Lemma 3.5. We will need to develop some general theory regarding such Hochschild cohomology rings first.

Let $`M`$ be a $`\mathrm{\Delta }(H)`$-module for a subgroup $`HG`$, and $`K`$ a subgroup of $`H`$. Let

(3.6)
$$\mathrm{}P_2P_1P_0S0$$

be a $`\mathrm{\Delta }(H)`$-projective resolution of $`S`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }(H)`$ is free as a $`\mathrm{\Delta }(K)`$-module, this restricts to a $`\mathrm{\Delta }(K)`$-projective resolution of $`S`$, and so there is a restriction map

$$\mathrm{res}_K^H:\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(H)}^{}(S,M)\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(K)}^{}(S,M),$$

defined at the chain level by the inclusion $`\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(H)}(P_n,M)\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(K)}(P_n,M)`$. If $`gG`$, conjugation by $`(\overline{g})^1`$ is an algebra isomorphism from $`\mathrm{\Delta }({}_{}{}^{g}H)`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }(H)`$. Denote by $`{}_{}{}^{g}M`$ the $`\mathrm{\Delta }({}_{}{}^{g}H)`$-module corresponding to $`M`$ under this algebra isomorphism. Then we have conjugation maps

$$g^{}:\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(H)}^{}(S,M)\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }({}_{}{}^{g}H)}^{}(S,{}_{}{}^{g}M)$$

induced by the algebra isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Delta }({}_{}{}^{g}H)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Delta }(H)`$. They may be described at the chain level as follows. Let

$$\mathrm{}{}_{}{}^{g}P_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{g}P_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{g}P_{0}^{}S0$$

be the $`\mathrm{\Delta }({}_{}{}^{g}H)`$-projective resolution of $`S`$ corresponding to (3.6). Denote by $`{}_{}{}^{g}p`$ an element of $`{}_{}{}^{g}P_{n}^{}`$ thus corresponding to $`pP_n`$. We let $`g^{}(f)({}_{}{}^{g}p)={}_{}{}^{g}f(p)`$. Note that $`hH`$ acts trivially by conjugation on $`\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(H)}^{}(S,M)`$. The corestriction map

$$\mathrm{cor}_K^H:\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(K)}^{}(S,M)\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(H)}^{}(S,M)$$

is defined at the chain level by $`\mathrm{cor}_K^H(f)(p)=_{gH/K}gf(g^1p)`$. Strictly speaking, this sum is over a set of coset representatives of $`H/K`$, but since $`K`$ acts trivially on $`\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(K)}(P_n,M)`$, the choice of representatives does not matter. This induces a map on cohomology as it commutes with the cochain maps (see for example \[6, Section 3.6\] for the case of group cohomology).

We recall the Hochschild cup product on $`\mathrm{HH}^{}(R)`$, defined at the chain level on the Hochschild complex (3.4) when $`M`$ is itself a ring (see ): If $`f\mathrm{Hom}_{R^e}(R^m,M)`$ and $`f^{}\mathrm{Hom}_{R^e}(R^n,M)`$, then $`ff^{}\mathrm{Hom}_{R^e}(R^{(m+n)},M)`$ is defined by

$$(ff^{})(r_1\mathrm{}r_{m+n})=f(r_1\mathrm{}r_m)f^{}(r_{m+1}\mathrm{}r_{m+n}).$$

In order to translate this into a product on $`\mathrm{Ext}_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(S,R)`$, we will give a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-projective resolution of $`S`$ that induces to the Hochschild complex (3.3) for $`R`$: For each $`n0`$, let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ be the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-submodule of $`R^{(n+2)}`$ consisting of sums of all $`s_0\overline{g_0}\mathrm{}s_{n+1}\overline{g_{n+1}}`$ ($`s_iS`$, $`g_iG`$) such that $`g_0\mathrm{}g_{n+1}=1`$ in $`G`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and each $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ is a projective $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-module. Then

(3.7)
$$\mathrm{}\stackrel{\delta _3}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_2\stackrel{\delta _2}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_1\stackrel{\delta _1}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_0\stackrel{m}{}S0$$

is a projective resolution of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-module $`S`$, where the maps are restrictions of the maps from the Hochschild complex (3.3). The above complex (3.7) is exact, as there is a chain contraction $`s_n:\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1}\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ given by

$$s_n(r_0\mathrm{}r_n)=r_0\mathrm{}r_n1.$$

The Hochschild complex (3.3) is just the complex (3.7) induced from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to $`R^e`$. Thus the isomorphism $`\mathrm{Ext}_{R^e}^n(R,R)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{Ext}_\mathrm{\Delta }^n(S,R)`$ of the Eckmann-Shapiro Lemma is given at the chain level simply by restricting maps from $`\mathrm{Hom}_{R^e}(R^{(n+2)},R)`$ to $`\mathrm{Hom}_\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Delta }_n,R)`$. The Hochschild cup product on $`\mathrm{HH}^{}(R)`$ now yields a cup product on $`\mathrm{Ext}_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(S,R)`$ as follows. If $`f\mathrm{Hom}_\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Delta }_m,R)`$ and $`f^{}\mathrm{Hom}_\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Delta }_n,R)`$ then $`ff^{}\mathrm{Hom}_\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Delta }_{m+n},R)`$ is defined by

$$(ff^{})(r_1\mathrm{}r_{m+n})=\overline{g}f(r_1^{}r_2\mathrm{}r_m)f^{}(r_{m+1}\mathrm{}r_{m+n1}r_{m+n}^{})(\overline{g})^1,$$

where $`r_1=\overline{g}r_1^{}`$ and $`r_{m+n}=r_{m+n}^{}(\overline{g})^1`$ are chosen so that $`r_1^{}r_2\mathrm{}r_m`$ and $`r_{m+1}\mathrm{}r_{m+n1}r_{m+n}^{}`$ are in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$, respectively. Similarly, we have a Hochschild cup product on $`\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(H)}^{}(S,R)`$ for any subgroup $`H`$ of $`G`$.

###### Lemma 3.8.

Let $`K`$ and $`H`$ be subgroups of $`G`$. The following relations hold for all $`\alpha \mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(H)}^{}(S,R)`$ and $`\beta \mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(K)}^{}(S,R)`$:

* (Frobenius property) If $`K<H`$ then

$$\mathrm{cor}_K^H(\mathrm{res}_K^H(\alpha )\beta )=\alpha \mathrm{cor}_K^H(\beta )\text{ and }\mathrm{cor}_K^H(\beta \mathrm{res}_K^H(\alpha ))=\mathrm{cor}_K^H(\beta )\alpha .$$
* (Mackey property)

$$\mathrm{res}_K^G(\mathrm{cor}_H^G(\alpha ))=\underset{xD}{}\mathrm{cor}_{K{}_{}{}^{x}H}^K(\mathrm{res}_{K{}_{}{}^{x}H}^{{}_{}{}^{x}H}(x^{}\alpha )),$$

where $`D`$ is a set of double coset representatives for $`K\backslash G/H`$.

###### Proof.

Property (i) holds at the chain level by the definitions, and (ii) follows from a particular ordering of $`G/H`$ (see \[21, Thm. 4.2.6\]). ∎

In fact the assignment of $`\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(H)}^{}(S,M)`$ to each subgroup $`H`$ of $`G`$ is a Green functor (see  for the definition). The additional properties that we will need are straightforward:

(3.9) $`g^{}\mathrm{res}_K^H=\mathrm{res}_{{}_{}{}^{g}K}^{{}_{}{}^{g}H}g^{}\text{ and }g^{}\mathrm{cor}_K^H=\mathrm{cor}_{{}_{}{}^{g}K}^{{}_{}{}^{g}H}g^{}(gG\text{ and }K<H<G),\text{ and}`$
(3.10) $`\mathrm{res}_L^K\mathrm{res}_K^H=\mathrm{res}_L^H\text{ and }\mathrm{cor}_K^H\mathrm{cor}_L^K=\mathrm{cor}_L^H\text{ whenever }L<K<H<G.`$
We will need explicit maps giving the isomorphism of Lemma 3.5. For each $`gG`$, the inclusion map $`\theta _g:S\overline{g}R`$ and projection map $`\pi _g:RS\overline{g}`$ are both $`\mathrm{\Delta }(C(g))`$-homomorphisms. Thus they induce the following maps on cohomology:

$`\theta _g^{}:`$ $`:`$ $`\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(C(g))}^{}(S,S\overline{g})\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(C(g))}^{}(S,R)`$
$`\text{and }\pi _g^{}`$ $`:`$ $`\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(C(g))}^{}(S,R)\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(C(g))}^{}(S,S\overline{g}).`$
Let $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_t`$ be a set of representatives of conjugacy classes of $`G`$, and write $`\theta _i:=\theta _{g_i}`$ and $`\pi _i:=\pi _{g_i}`$. The isomorphism $`\mathrm{Ext}_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(S,R)\stackrel{}{}_{i=1}^t\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(C(g_i))}^{}(S,S\overline{g_i})`$ is given explicitly by $`\zeta (\pi _i^{}\mathrm{res}_{C(g_i)}^G(\zeta ))_i`$, and its inverse sends $`\alpha \mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(C(g_i))}^{}(S,S\overline{g_i})`$ to $`\mathrm{cor}_{C(g_i)}^G\theta _i^{}(\alpha )`$. (See \[31, Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2\] for more details in the case of a group algebra.)

Let $`g,hG`$. The following further properties are straightforward:

(3.11)
$$\begin{array}{c}\text{If }WC(g),\text{ then }h^{}\theta _g^{}=\theta _{{}_{}{}^{h}g}^{}h^{}\text{ and }h^{}\pi _g^{}=\pi _{{}_{}{}^{h}g}^{}h^{}\hfill \\ \hfill \text{ as maps from }\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(W)}^{}(S,S\overline{g})\text{ to }\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }({}_{}{}^{h}W)}^{}(S,R).\end{array}$$

(3.12)
$$\text{If }W^{}WC(g),\text{ then }\theta _g^{}\text{ and }\pi _g^{}\text{ commute with }\mathrm{res}_W^{}^W\text{ and }\mathrm{cor}_W^{}^W.$$

(3.13)
$$\begin{array}{c}\text{If }WC(g)C(h),\text{ then }\pi _g^{}\theta _h^{}=\delta _{g,h}\mathrm{id}\hfill \\ \hfill \text{ as maps from }\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(W)}^{}(S,S\overline{h})\text{ to }\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(W)}^{}(S,S\overline{g}).\end{array}$$

We now have the following product formula. For $`\alpha \mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(C(g_i))}^{}(S,S\overline{g_i})`$, write $`\gamma _i(\alpha )=\mathrm{cor}_{C(g_i)}^G\theta _i^{}(\alpha )`$, which is the image of $`\alpha `$ in $`\mathrm{Ext}_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(S,R)\mathrm{HH}^{}(R)`$ under the isomorphism of Lemma 3.5.

###### Theorem 3.14.

Let $`\alpha \mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(C(g_i))}^{}(S,S\overline{g_i}),\beta \mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(C(g_j))}^{}(S,S\overline{g_j})`$, and $`\gamma _i(\alpha )`$ and $`\gamma _j(\beta )`$ their images in $`\mathrm{Ext}_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(S,R)\mathrm{HH}^{}(R)`$ under the isomorphism of Lemma 3.5. Then the cup product of $`\gamma _i(\alpha )`$ and $`\gamma _j(\beta )`$ in $`\mathrm{HH}^{}(R)`$ is given by

$$\underset{xD}{}\gamma _k\left(\mathrm{cor}_{{}_{}{}^{y}C(g_i){}_{}{}^{yx}C(g_j)}^{C(g_k)}\pi _k^{}(\theta _{{}_{}{}^{y}g_{i}^{}}^{}\mathrm{res}_{{}_{}{}^{y}C(g_i){}_{}{}^{yx}C(g_j)}^{{}_{}{}^{y}C(g_i)}y^{}\alpha \theta _{{}_{}{}^{yx}g_{j}^{}}^{}\mathrm{res}_{{}_{}{}^{y}C(g_i){}_{}{}^{yx}C(g_j)}^{{}_{}{}^{yx}C(g_j)}(yx)^{}\beta )\right),$$

where $`D`$ is a set of representatives of double cosets $`C(g_i)\backslash G/C(g_j)`$, and $`k=k(x)`$ and $`y=y(x)`$ are chosen so that $`g_k={}_{}{}^{y}g_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{yx}g_{j}^{}`$.

###### Proof.

By the Frobenius and Mackey properties (Lemma 3.8), $`\gamma _i(\alpha )\gamma _j(\beta )`$ is equal to

$`\mathrm{cor}_{C(g_i)}^G\left(\theta _i^{}\alpha \right)\mathrm{cor}_{C(g_j)}^G\left(\theta _j^{}\beta \right)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{cor}_{C(g_i)}^G\left(\theta _i^{}\alpha \mathrm{res}_{C(g_i)}^G\mathrm{cor}_{C(g_j)}^G\theta _j^{}\beta \right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{xD}{}}\mathrm{cor}_{C(g_i)}^G\left(\theta _i^{}\alpha \mathrm{cor}_{C(g_i){}_{}{}^{x}C(g_j)}^{C(g_i)}\mathrm{res}_{C(g_i){}_{}{}^{x}C(g_j)}^{{}_{}{}^{x}C(g_j)}x^{}\theta _j^{}\beta \right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{xD}{}}\mathrm{cor}_{C(g_i){}_{}{}^{x}C(g_j)}^G\left(\mathrm{res}_{C(g_i){}_{}{}^{x}C(g_j)}^{C(g_i)}\theta _i^{}\alpha \mathrm{res}_{C(g_i){}_{}{}^{x}C(g_j)}^{{}_{}{}^{x}C(g_j)}x^{}\theta _j^{}\beta \right)`$
Inserting the identity map $`\mathrm{id}=_{k=1}^t\gamma _k\pi _k^{}\mathrm{res}_{C(g_k)}^G`$, and applying the Mackey property and properties (3.9)–(3.13), $`\gamma _i(\alpha )\gamma _j(\beta )`$ equals

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{t}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{xD}{}}\gamma _k\pi _k^{}\mathrm{res}_{C(g_k)}^G\mathrm{cor}_{C(g_i){}_{}{}^{x}C(g_j)}^G\left(\mathrm{res}_{C(g_i){}_{}{}^{x}C(g_j)}^{C(g_i)}\theta _i^{}\alpha \mathrm{res}_{C(g_i){}_{}{}^{x}C(g_j)}^{{}_{}{}^{x}C(g_j)}x^{}\theta _j^{}\beta \right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{t}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{x,y}{}}\gamma _k\left(\pi _k^{}\mathrm{cor}_W^{C(g_k)}\mathrm{res}_W^{{}_{}{}^{y}C(g_i){}_{}{}^{yx}C(g_j)}y^{}\left(\mathrm{res}_{C(g_i){}_{}{}^{x}C(g_j)}^{C(g_i)}\theta _i^{}\alpha \mathrm{res}_{C(g_i){}_{}{}^{x}C(g_j)}^{{}_{}{}^{x}C(g_j)}x^{}\theta _j^{}\beta \right)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{t}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{x,y}{}}\gamma _k\left(\mathrm{cor}_W^{C(g_k)}\pi _k^{}(\theta _{{}_{}{}^{y}g_{i}^{}}^{}\mathrm{res}_W^{{}_{}{}^{y}C(g_i)}y^{}\alpha \theta _{{}_{}{}^{yx}g_{j}^{}}^{}\mathrm{res}_W^{{}_{}{}^{yx}C(g_j)}(yx)^{}\beta )\right),`$
where $`y`$ runs over a set of double coset representatives for $`C(g_k)\backslash G/C(g_i){}_{}{}^{x}C(g_j)`$, and $`W=C(g_k){}_{}{}^{y}C(g_i){}_{}{}^{yx}C(g_j)`$. Now $`\theta _{{}_{}{}^{y}g_{i}^{}}^{}\mathrm{res}_W^{{}_{}{}^{y}C(g_i)}y^{}\alpha \theta _{{}_{}{}^{yx}g_{j}^{}}^{}\mathrm{res}_W^{{}_{}{}^{yx}C(g_j)}(yx)^{}\beta `$ is in the image of the map $`\theta _{{}_{}{}^{y}g_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{yx}g_{j}^{}}^{}`$ from $`\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(W)}^{}(S,S\overline{{}_{}{}^{y}g_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{yx}g_{j}^{}})`$ to $`\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(W)}^{}(S,R)`$, and so if we apply $`\pi _{g_k}^{}`$, this can only be nonzero when $`g_k={}_{}{}^{y}g_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{yx}g_{j}^{}`$. But each $`x`$ determines a unique $`k`$ and double coset $`C(g_k)y(C(g_i){}_{}{}^{x}C(g_j))`$ for which this holds. So we may take $`k=k(x)`$, $`y=y(x)`$, and then $`{}_{}{}^{y}C(g_i){}_{}{}^{yx}C(g_j)C(g_k)`$, so $`W={}_{}{}^{y}C(g_i){}_{}{}^{yx}C(g_j)`$. ∎

Finally we show how $`\mathrm{HH}^{}(R)`$ fits into the construction of Section 2. For each $`gG`$, let $`A(g):=\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(C(g))}^{}(S,S\overline{g})`$. The conjugation maps $`c_h=h^{}`$ yield isomorphisms of $`k`$-modules $`A(g)\stackrel{}{}A({}_{}{}^{h}g)`$. Define $`m_{g,h}:A(g)\times A(h)A(gh)`$ by

$$m_{g,h}(\alpha _g,\beta _h)=\mathrm{cor}_{C(g)C(h)}^{C(gh)}\left(\pi _{gh}^{}\left(\theta _g^{}\mathrm{res}_{C(g)C(h)}^{C(g)}\alpha _g\theta _h^{}\mathrm{res}_{C(g)C(h)}^{C(h)}\beta _h\right)\right).$$

Then properties (H1)–(H3) of Section 2 are straightforward. A comparison of Corollary 2.5 and Theorem 3.14 shows that property (H4) holds, so that Theorem 2.2(ii) yields a product on $`A^G`$. By (2.4), Corollary 2.5, Lemma 3.5 and Theorem 3.14, there is an algebra isomorphism

$$A^G\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(C(g_i))}(S,S\overline{g_i})\mathrm{HH}^{}(R).$$

## 4. Representations of abelian extensions of Hopf algebras

In this section we prove a product formula (Theorem 4.8) for the Grothendieck ring of modules for an abelian extension of Hopf algebras. As a consequence, this Grothendieck ring satisfies the properties of Section 2, and its product formula coincides with that of Theorem 2.2(ii). This generalizes a known formula for modules of the Drinfel’d double of a finite group (or equivalently of Hopf bimodules of the group algebra ). Related results are in .

We assume in this section that $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$ is an algebraically closed field as we will use Schur’s Lemma, but we do not place any restrictions on the characteristic of $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$. All our modules will be finite dimensional.

Let $`L`$ be a finite group acting on another finite group $`G`$. This induces an action of $`L`$ on the linear dual $`(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}`$ of the group algebra $`\mathrm{𝕜}G`$. For each $`gG`$, let $`p_g(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}`$ denote the function dual to $`g`$ in the basis $`G`$ of $`\mathrm{𝕜}G`$, that is

$$p_g(h):=\delta _{g,h}(hG).$$

We have $`{}_{}{}^{x}p_{g}^{}=p_{{}_{}{}^{x}g}`$ for all $`xL,gG`$. Let $`\sigma :L\times L((\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{})^\times `$ and $`\tau :L((\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{})^\times \times ((\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{})^\times `$ be maps giving rise to a (quasi) Hopf algebra $`H:=(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}\mathrm{\#}_\sigma ^\tau L`$ (or $`(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}\mathrm{\#}_\sigma ^\tau \mathrm{𝕜}L`$) as follows. As an algebra, $`H`$ is the crossed product $`(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}\mathrm{\#}_\sigma L`$ defined in Section 3. Again we write $`p_g\overline{x}:=p_gx`$ to shorten the notation; $`(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}`$ will be a Hopf subalgebra of $`H`$, whereas $`\mathrm{𝕜}L`$ will not. For each $`x,yL`$, let

(4.1)
$$\sigma (x,y)=\underset{gG}{}\sigma _g(x,y)p_g,\text{ and }\tau (x)=\underset{g,hG}{}\tau _{g,h}(x)p_gp_h,$$

for scalars $`\sigma _g(x,y)`$ and $`\tau _{g,h}(x)`$. Then the product in $`H`$ may be written

$$(p_g\overline{x})(p_h\overline{y})=\delta _{g,{}_{}{}^{x}h}\sigma _g(x,y)p_g\overline{xy}.$$

Define the coproduct by<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3This is the case that $`H`$ is a cocentral abelian extension. In general, the coproduct is more complicated.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(p_g\overline{x}):=\underset{\begin{array}{c}h,kG\\ hk=g\end{array}}{}\tau _{h,k}(x)p_h\overline{x}p_k\overline{x}.$$

In order that $`H=(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}\mathrm{\#}_\sigma ^\tau L`$ be a (quasi) Hopf algebra, $`\tau `$ (as well as $`\sigma `$) must satisfy certain properties. See  for the general case of a Hopf algebra,  for (cocentral) abelian extensions in particular,  for general facts about quasi Hopf algebras, and the references given at the end of the following example for a special case.

###### Example 4.2.

Let $`G`$ act on itself by conjugation. Let $`\omega :G\times G\times G\mathrm{𝕜}^\times `$ be any three-cocycle, that is

$$\omega (a,b,c)\omega (a,bc,d)\omega (b,c,d)=\omega (ab,c,d)\omega (a,b,cd)$$

for all $`a,b,c,dG`$. Assume that $`\omega `$ is normalized so that $`\omega (a,b,c)`$ is equal to 1 whenever one of $`a`$, $`b`$, or $`c`$ is 1. There is an associated two-cocycle $`\sigma :G\times G(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}`$ given by (4.1) where

$$\sigma _g(x,y)=\frac{\omega (g,x,y)\omega (x,y,(xy)^1gxy)}{\omega (x,x^1gx,y)},$$

and an associated two-cycle $`\tau :G(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}\times (\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}`$ given by (4.1) where

$$\tau _{g,h}(x)=\frac{\omega (g,h,x)\omega (x,x^1gx,x^1hx)}{\omega (g,x,x^1hx)}.$$

The twisted Drinfel’d (or quantum) double $`D^\omega (G):=(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}\mathrm{\#}_\sigma ^\tau G`$ is a quasi Hopf algebra. In case $`\omega `$ is a coboundary, this is isomorphic to the Drinfel’d double $`D(G):=(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}\mathrm{\#}G`$, a Hopf algebra. These (quasi) Hopf algebras and their representations appear in .

We will first apply Clifford theory to the crossed products $`H=(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}\mathrm{\#}_\sigma ^\tau L`$ to obtain a description of all simple $`H`$-modules. Such a description was first found in  by more direct methods in case $`H`$ is semisimple. Note that we do not need the coalgebra structure of $`H`$ to describe $`H`$-modules. Clifford theory for group-graded rings generally is developed in , and more specifically for crossed products the theory is in \[16, §11C\]. However we will use the terminology and notation of , recalling the needed results as we go.

Up to isomorphism, the simple $`(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}`$-modules are the ideals $`\mathrm{𝕜}p_g`$ $`(gG)`$. The stabilizer of the $`(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}`$-module $`\mathrm{𝕜}p_g`$ in $`L`$ is the subgroup of all $`xL`$ such that $`{}_{}{}^{x}(\mathrm{𝕜}p_g)\mathrm{𝕜}p_g`$. This is then the subgroup

$$L_g=\{xL{}_{}{}^{x}g=g\}.$$

By (3.1), the function $`\sigma _g:G\times G\mathrm{𝕜}^\times `$ defined by (4.1) restricts to a two-cocycle $`L_g\times L_g\mathrm{𝕜}^\times `$. Therefore we may form the twisted group algebra

$$\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _g}L_g:=\mathrm{𝕜}\mathrm{\#}_{\sigma _g}L_g,$$

that is the algebra with basis $`\{\overline{x}xL_g\}`$ and multiplication $`\overline{x}\overline{y}=\sigma _g(x,y)\overline{xy}`$. This is in fact isomorphic to the subalgebra $`p_g\overline{L_g}`$ of $`H`$ generated by all $`p_g\overline{x}`$ ($`xL_g`$), so no confusion should arise from the choice of notation.

For each $`gG`$, we define the subalgebra of $`H`$,

$$H_g:=(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}\mathrm{\#}_\sigma L_g.$$

Let $`H_g_{(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}}\mathrm{𝕜}p_g`$ be the $`H_g`$-module induced from the $`(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}`$-module $`\mathrm{𝕜}p_g`$. Let

$$E:=\mathrm{End}_{H_g}(H_g_{(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}}\mathrm{𝕜}p_g)^{op},$$

the endomorphism algebra of the module $`H_g_{(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}}\mathrm{𝕜}p_g`$, taken with multiplication opposite that of composition of functions.<sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4We must take the opposite multiplication as we write our functions on the left.

###### Lemma 4.3.

There is an algebra isomorphism $`E\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _g}L_g`$.

###### Proof.

There are isomorphisms of vector spaces

$$\mathrm{End}_{H_g}(H_g_{(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}}\mathrm{𝕜}p_g)\mathrm{Hom}_{(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}}(\mathrm{𝕜}p_g,H_g_{(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}}\mathrm{𝕜}p_g)\underset{xL_g}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}}(\mathrm{𝕜}p_g,\overline{x}\mathrm{𝕜}p_g).$$

Each such endomorphism is thus determined by the image of the element $`p_g=1p_g`$, and this must be a linear combination of the $`\overline{x}p_g`$ $`(xL_g)`$. The product of the functions $`\varphi _x,\varphi _y`$, where $`\varphi _x(p_g)=\overline{x}p_g`$ and $`\varphi _y(p_g)=\overline{y}p_g`$, is given by the opposite of composition:

$$(\varphi _y\varphi _x)(p_g)=\varphi _y(\overline{x}p_g)=\overline{x}\varphi _y(1p_g)=\overline{x}(\overline{y}p_g)=\sigma (x,y)\overline{xy}p_g.$$

As $`\sigma (x,y)=_{hG}\sigma _h(x,y)p_h`$, and the tensor product is over $`(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}`$, this is in fact equal to $`\sigma _g(x,y)\overline{xy}p_g`$. Therefore $`(\varphi _y\varphi _x)(p_g)=\sigma _g(x,y)\varphi _{xy}(p_g)`$. ∎

The endomorphism algebra $`E\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _g}L_g`$ plays a crucial role in the Clifford correspondence. (See for example .) In order to use the results of , where the algebra $`E`$ is not explicitly mentioned, we point out that

$$\sigma _g(x,y)=\sigma _g^1(y^1,x^1)\sigma _g^1(x^1,x)\sigma _g^1(y^1,y)\sigma _g(y^1x^1,xy),$$

as follows from (3.1). Letting $`\alpha (x,y)=\sigma _g(y^1,x^1)`$, this shows that $`\sigma _g`$ is cohomologous to $`\alpha ^1`$. It may be checked that $`\alpha `$ is the cocycle of \[29, Prop. 1.2\] that was used for the Clifford correspondence there. As $`\sigma _g`$ and $`\alpha ^1`$ are cohomologous, there is an algebra isomorphism $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _g}L_g\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{𝕜}_{\alpha ^1}L_g`$, given in this case by $`\overline{x}\sigma _g^1(x^1,x)\overline{x}`$.

Notice that any $`H`$-module must contain at least one of the simple $`(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}`$-modules $`\mathrm{𝕜}p_g`$, on restriction to $`(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}`$. Given such an $`H`$-module, its $`H`$-submodule generated by $`p_g`$ is a direct sum of copies of $`\mathrm{𝕜}p_{{}_{}{}^{x}g}`$ ($`xL`$) on restriction to $`(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}`$, as $`p_h(\overline{x}p_g)=\delta _{h,{}_{}{}^{x}g}p_h\overline{x}`$. Therefore any simple $`H`$-module is a direct sum of copies of conjugates of some $`\mathrm{𝕜}p_g`$, on restriction to $`(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}`$. For the Clifford correspondence, we will also consider $`H_g`$-modules: Note that any simple $`H_g`$-module containing $`\mathrm{𝕜}p_g`$ on restriction to $`(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}`$ is in fact a direct sum of copies of $`\mathrm{𝕜}p_g`$, as $`L_g`$ is the stabilizer of $`\mathrm{𝕜}p_g`$.

The Clifford correspondence comes in two steps. In the first step, there is a bijection between the set of (isomorphism classes of) simple $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _g}L_g`$-modules (that is $`E`$-modules), and the simple $`H_g`$-modules whose restriction to $`(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}`$ contains $`\mathrm{𝕜}p_g`$ \[29, Prop. 1.2\]. The second step of the Clifford correspondence is a bijection between the set of simple $`H_g`$-modules whose restriction to $`(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}`$ contains $`\mathrm{𝕜}p_g`$, and the simple $`H`$-modules whose restriction to $`(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}`$ contains $`\mathrm{𝕜}p_g`$ \[29, Prop. 1.1\]. This second step is simply given by tensor induction of modules. An explicit description of such $`H`$-modules is given in \[29, Thm. 1.3\]. In our situation, it provides a new proof of the following proposition which appears as \[25, Theorem 3.3\] in case $`H`$ is semisimple. The action described in the proposition below looks simpler than that of \[29, Theorem 1.3\] due to application of the algebra isomorphism $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _g}L_g\mathrm{𝕜}_{\alpha ^1}L_g`$ described above.

Let $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_t`$ be a set of representatives of orbits of $`L`$ on $`G`$. Write $`p_i:=p_{g_i}`$, $`\sigma _i:=\sigma _{g_i}`$, $`L_i:=L_{g_i}`$, and $`H_i:=H_{g_i}`$. By the above analysis, each simple $`H`$-module contains one of $`\mathrm{𝕜}p_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝕜}p_t`$ on restriction to $`(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}`$. Thus each arises from a simple $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _i}L_i`$-module as stated.

###### Proposition 4.4 (Kashina-Mason-Montgomery).

The simple $`H`$-modules are precisely the modules $`\widehat{V}:=H_{H_i}(p_iV)`$ induced from $`H_i`$, where $`V`$ is a simple $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _i}L_i`$-module, and $`i`$ ranges over $`\{1,\mathrm{},t\}`$. The action of $`H_i`$ on $`V^{}:=p_iV`$ is given by

$$(p_h\overline{x})(p_iv)=\delta _{g_i,h}p_i\overline{x}v.$$

More generally, for any $`gG`$ and $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _g}L_g`$-module $`U`$, we let $`\widehat{U}:=H_{H_g}(p_gU)`$, where $`U^{}:=p_gU`$ is the $`H_g`$-module given by $`(p_h\overline{x})(p_gu)=\delta _{g,h}p_g\overline{x}u`$. As the idempotent $`_{yL/L_g}p_{{}_{}{}^{y}g}`$ acts as the identity on such a module, and as 0 on $`H`$-modules corresponding to other orbits of $`L`$ on $`G`$, each $`H`$-module is a sum of indecomposable modules $`\widehat{U}`$ corresponding to $`L`$-orbits on $`G`$. Each $`\widehat{U}`$ is then induced from an $`H_g`$-module of the form $`U^{}=p_gU`$ where $`U`$ is a $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _g}L_g`$-module. Thus we obtain a decomposition of the category of $`H`$-modules into a product of the categories of $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _i}L_i`$-modules ($`i=1,\mathrm{},t`$). This yields an additive decomposition of Grothendieck groups \[25, Cor. 3.4\]:

(4.5)
$$K_0(H)\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}K_0(\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _i}L_i).$$

As $`H`$ is a Hopf algebra, the tensor product of modules induces a ring structure on $`K_0(H)`$, but the Grothendieck groups $`K_0(\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _i}L_i)`$ are not necessarily rings themselves. We will see next how the product on $`K_0(H)`$ behaves with respect to the additive decomposition (4.5), that is we will give a formula for the tensor product of two $`H`$-modules corresponding to $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _i}L_i`$\- and $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _j}L_j`$-modules.

If $`H`$ is not semisimple, we may alternatively replace $`K_0(H)`$ by the representation ring of $`H`$, that is the ring generated by isomorphism classes of $`H`$-modules with direct sum for addition and tensor product for multiplication. The image of each module in this ring is the sum of images of indecomposable modules, each corresponding to an $`L`$-orbit on $`G`$. Theorem 4.8 below governs the tensor product of two such indecomposable modules.

First suppose that $`g,hG`$ and $`x,yL_gL_h`$. As $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is an algebra map, the following relation holds:

(4.6)
$$\sigma _g(x,y)\sigma _h(x,y)=\sigma _{gh}(x,y)\tau _{g,h}^1(x)\tau _{g,h}^1(y)\tau _{g,h}(xy)$$

(see \[25, (4.8)\]). That is, $`\sigma _{gh}`$ is cohomologous to $`\sigma _g\sigma _h`$ on $`L_gL_h`$. Therefore there is an isomorphism

(4.7)
$$\psi :\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _{gh}}(L_gL_h)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _g\sigma _h}(L_gL_h)$$

given by $`\psi (\overline{x})=\tau _{g,h}(x)\overline{x}`$. This will be important in taking tensor products of modules, as the tensor product of a $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _g}(L_gL_h)`$-module with a $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _h}(L_gL_h)`$-module is naturally a $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _g\sigma _h}(L_gL_h)`$-module. We will want to induce such a module to a $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _{gh}}L_{gh}`$-module. This involves first applying the isomorphism (4.7), and then applying induction from the subalgebra $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _{gh}}(L_gL_h)`$ to the algebra $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _{gh}}L_{gh}`$.

Note that $`{}_{}{}^{x}L_{j}^{}=L_{{}_{}{}^{x}g_{j}^{}}`$. We will use an arrow down ($``$) to denote restriction of modules to the indicated subalgebra of $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _g}L_g`$, and an arrow up ($``$) to denote tensor induction of modules from a subalgebra to $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _g}L_g`$. The following theorem does not give a formula for decomposing the tensor product of two simple (respectively, indecomposable) modules fully into a direct sum of simple (respectively, indecomposable) components, although it is a first step towards such a decomposition.

###### Theorem 4.8.

Let $`V`$ be a $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _i}L_i`$-module, $`W`$ a $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _j}L_j`$-module, and $`\widehat{V},\widehat{W}`$ the corresponding $`H`$-modules as described in Proposition 4.4. Then as $`H`$-modules,

$$\widehat{V}\widehat{W}\underset{xD}{}\widehat{U(x)},$$

where $`D`$ is a set of representatives of double cosets $`L_i\backslash L/L_j`$, and $`U(x)`$ is the $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _{g_i({}_{}{}^{x}g_{j}^{})}}L_{g_i({}_{}{}^{x}g_{j}^{})}`$-module

$$U(x)=(V_{L_i{}_{}{}^{x}L_{j}^{}}^{L_i}{}_{}{}^{x}W_{L_i{}_{}{}^{x}L_{j}^{}}^{{}_{}{}^{x}L_{j}^{}})_{L_i{}_{}{}^{x}L_{j}^{}}^{L_{g_i({}_{}{}^{x}g_{j}^{})}}.$$

We obtain a formula for the product in $`K_0(H)`$ in terms of the additive decomposition (4.5) by identifying $`\widehat{U(x)}`$ with the isomorphic $`H`$-module $`\widehat{{}_{}{}^{y}U(x)}`$ where $`k=k(x)`$ and $`y=y(x)`$ are chosen so that $`g_k={}_{}{}^{y}g_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{yx}g_{j}^{}`$. Then the formula in the theorem closely resembles the formulas in Corollary 2.5 and Theorem 3.14.

###### Proof of Theorem 4.8.

First we will check that the underlying $`(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}`$-modules are isomorphic. The Grothendieck ring of $`(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}`$-modules is just the group algebra $`G`$. The underlying $`(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}`$-module of $`\widehat{V}`$ (respectively, of $`\widehat{W}`$) is $`dimV`$ (respectively, $`dimW`$) copies of the sum $`𝒪(g_i)`$ of the elements in the orbit of $`g_i`$ (respectively, $`𝒪(g_j)`$ of $`g_j`$). The underlying $`(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}`$-module of $`\widehat{U(x)}`$ is $`|L_{g_i({}_{}{}^{x}g_{j}^{})}:L_i{}_{}{}^{x}L_{j}^{}|(dimV)(dimW)`$ copies of the sum $`𝒪(g_i({}_{}{}^{x}g_{j}^{}))`$ of elements in the orbit of $`g_i({}_{}{}^{x}g_{j}^{})`$. In $`G`$, the product of sums of orbit elements is

$$𝒪(g_i)𝒪(g_j)=\underset{xD}{}|L_{g_i({}_{}{}^{x}g_{j}^{})}:L_i{}_{}{}^{x}L_{j}^{}|𝒪(g_i({}_{}{}^{x}g_{j}^{})).$$

(This follows from standard properties of the trace map for the $`L`$-algebra $`G`$. See for example .) Multiplying both sides by $`(dimV)(dimW)`$, we see that the underlying $`(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}`$-modules in the statement of the theorem are indeed isomorphic.

We will next identify the appropriate $`H`$-submodules of $`\widehat{V}\widehat{W}`$, keeping in mind its underlying $`(\mathrm{𝕜}G)^{}`$-module structure. For each $`xD`$, we will describe the $`H_{g_i({}_{}{}^{x}g_{j}^{})}`$-module generated by $`p_{g_i}\widehat{V}p_{{}_{}{}^{x}g_{j}^{}}\widehat{W}`$. Consider the map

(4.9)
$$(V_{L_i{}_{}{}^{x}L_{j}^{}}^{L_i}{}_{}{}^{x}W_{L_i{}_{}{}^{x}L_{j}^{}}^{{}_{}{}^{x}L_{j}^{}})_{L_i{}_{}{}^{x}L_{j}^{}}^{L_{g_i({}_{}{}^{x}g_{j}^{})}}H_{g_i({}_{}{}^{x}g_{j}^{})}(p_{g_i}\widehat{V}p_{{}_{}{}^{x}g_{j}^{}}\widehat{W})$$

given by $`\overline{y}(vw)\overline{y}((p_{g_i}v)(p_{{}_{}{}^{x}g_{j}^{}}w))`$ for $`y`$ ranging over a set of coset representatives of $`L_i{}_{}{}^{x}L_{j}^{}`$ in $`L_{g_i({}_{}{}^{x}g_{j}^{})}`$. Note that distinct coset representatives $`y`$ will generate disjoint subspaces $`\overline{y}(p_{g_i}\widehat{V}p_{{}_{}{}^{x}g_{j}^{}}\widehat{W})`$, and each has dimension $`(dimV)(dimW)`$, so the above map is bijective. It may be checked that the action of $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _{g_i({}_{}{}^{x}g_{j}^{})}}L_{g_i({}_{}{}^{x}g_{j}^{})}`$ on the left side of (4.9) corresponds to the action of $`H_{g_i({}_{}{}^{x}g_{j}^{})}`$ on the right side of (4.9), using the isomorphism (4.7). The induced $`H`$-module then has dimension $`|L:L_i{}_{}{}^{x}L_{j}^{}|(dimV)(dimW)`$, as desired. ∎

For each $`gG`$, let $`A(g):=K_0(\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _g}L_g)`$, the Grothendieck group of $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _g}L_g`$-modules. If $`H`$ is not semisimple, we may alternatively take $`A(g)`$ to be the additive group generated by $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _g}L_g`$-modules, with direct sum for addition. Additively, the representation ring of $`H`$ decomposes into a direct sum of such groups, analogous to (4.5). The following statements apply equally well to this ring.

We obtain an isomorphism $`p_g\overline{L_g}\stackrel{}{}p_{{}_{}{}^{x}g}\overline{L_{{}_{}{}^{x}g}}`$ of subalgebras of $`H`$ for each $`xL`$, via the action of $`L`$ (see (3.2)). This induces an isomorphism $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _g}L_g\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _{{}_{}{}^{x}g}}L_{{}_{}{}^{x}g}`$. Thus we have conjugation maps $`c_{g,x}:A(g)\stackrel{}{}A({}_{}{}^{x}g)`$. Define $`m_{g,h}:A(g)\times A(h)A(gh)`$ by the following for a $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _g}L_g`$-module $`V_g`$ and a $`\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _h}L_h`$-module $`W_h`$:

$$m_{g,h}(V_g,W_h)=(V_g_{L_gL_h}^{L_g}W_h_{L_gL_h}^{L_h})_{L_gL_h}^{L_{gh}}.$$

Then properties (H1)–(H3) are straightforward, and (H4) is equivalent to the product formula of Theorem 4.8 (compare with Corollary 2.5). As $`c_{g,x}=\mathrm{id}`$ when $`xC(g)`$, by (2.4) we have additive isomorphisms

$$A^L\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}K_0(\mathrm{𝕜}_{\sigma _i}L_i)K_0(H),$$

and in fact the product on $`A^L`$ given by Theorem 2.2(ii) coincides with that on $`K_0(H)`$.


format: text

text:
# An interacting spin flip model for one-dimensional proton conduction

## 1 Introduction

One-dimensional nonequilibrium processes have been used as models for many systems including interface growth , traffic flow , pore transport , and quantum spin chains . The simple asymmetric exclusion process (ASEP) has also been used to model mRNA translation  and recent modifications have been applied in order to describe molecular motors and parallel pathways .

Building upon the exact and asymptotic results of Derrida, Evans, Rittenberg, Sandow, and others , the quantitative behavior of other more complex one-dimensional systems can be investigated. Asymmetric exclusion processes of multiple species have also been modelled, particularly for periodic boundary conditions , or in the context of spontaneous symmetry breaking for open systems . In the proton conduction problem, only one species (protons) are transported while the other classes of particles correspond to different orientation states of the relatively fixed water molecules.

In this paper, we present a restricted three-species exclusion process that models proton conduction through a “water wire.” Our model is motivated by experiments on proton conduction through stable or transient water filaments suggesting conduction occurs via proton exchange between properly aligned water molecules . This “Grotthuss ” mechanism of proton conduction along a relatively static water chain has been proposed to give rise to the fast proton transfer rates relative to the permeation of distinguishable ions across structurally similar ion channels.

## 2 Lattice Model

Figure 1a is a schematic of model in which each “site” along the pore is occupied by an oxygen atom. This oxygen is either part of neutral water, H2O, or hydronium H3O+. We assume hydronium ions are spherically symmetric, in the sense that their three protons are either in a planar, left-right symmetric hybridization, or are rapidly smeared over the molecule. These singly protonated species are denoted “$`0`$” type particles. In contrast, the neutral waters have “permanent” dipole moments or electron lone-pair orientations that can nonetheless fluctuate. For simplicity, all water dipoles (hydrogens) that point to right are classified as “$`+`$” particles, while those pointing left are “$``$” particles. Thus, each site can exist in only one of three states: $`0,+`$, or $``$, corresponding to protonated, right, or left states, respectively. This simple choice of for labeling the occupancy configurations, $`\sigma _i=\{1,0,+1\}`$, allows for fast integer computation in simulations.

The transition rules are constrained by the orientation of the waters at each site and are defined in Fig. 1b. A proton will enter the first site ($`i=1`$) from the left reservoir and protonate the first water molecule with rate $`\alpha `$ only if the hydrogens of the first water is pointing to the right (such that its lone-pair electrons are left-pointing, ready to accept proton from the left reservoir). Similarly, if a proton exits from the first site into the left reservoir (with rate $`\gamma `$), it leaves the remaining hydrogens right-pointing. The analogous rules hold for the last site $`i=N`$ with exit and entrance rates $`\beta `$ and $`\delta `$ respectively. The entrance rates $`\alpha `$ and $`\delta `$ are functions to the proton concentration in the respective reservoirs as well as local electric potential gradients near the pore mouths. In the pore interiors, a proton at site $`i`$ can hop to the right(left) with rate $`p_+(p_{})`$ only if the adjacent particle is a right(left)-pointing, unprotonated water molecule. If such a transition is made, the remaining water molecule at site $`i`$ will be left(right) pointing. Physically, as a proton moves to the right, it leaves a decaying trail of $``$ particles to its left. A left moving proton leaves a trail of $`+`$ particles to its right. These trails of $``$ or $`+`$ particles are unable to accept another proton from the same direction. Clearly, protons can successively follow each other only if the waters can reorient without being protonated. The water reorientation rates are denoted $`k_\pm `$ (cf. Fig. 1b). The rate-limiting steps in steady-state proton transfer across biological water channels is thought to be associated with water flipping.

This water wire conduction model resembles the two species ASEPs treated by Evans et al.  if one identifies protons with vacancies, and allows the $`+`$ and $``$ clkass particles to interconvert with rates $`k_\pm `$. Moreover, $`+`$ particles here can only move left, and once they do, get converted to $``$ type particles. Similarly, a $``$ particle that moves to the right becomes a $`+`$ particle. The allowed moves are $`00+`$. Although the master equation can be formally defined in terms of the probability $`P_N(\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\mathrm{}\sigma _{N1},\sigma _N)`$ for a given configuration $`\{\sigma _i\}`$, I have failed to discover an analytical result for the steady state current proton ($`\sigma =0`$) current using matrix product methods . Since it is not always possible to find a finite dimensional matrix product representation, particularly for open boundaries, many practical applications, such as multipecies pore transport , must be treated using mean field approximations or numerical simulations. For the single species ASEP, the mean field result for the steady-state current is exact in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit, although the site occupancies do not agree with those from the exact solution. Therefore, a mean field theory in the present problem may shed light on the steady-states. We will obtain mean field analytic expressions that can be compared with numerical simulations.

## 3 Mean field approximation

For one-dimensional nearest lattice site hopping models, the mean-field assumption states that the probability that the system is in a configuration with occupancy $`\sigma _i`$ and $`\sigma _{i+1}`$ factors into a product of single particle probabilities:

$$\underset{\tau _i=0,\pm 1}{}P_N(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _i,\sigma _{i+1},\mathrm{},\tau _N)P_2(\sigma _i,\sigma _{i+1})P(\sigma _i)P(\sigma _{i+1}),$$
(1)
where $`P(\sigma _i)_{\sigma _{i+1}=0,\pm 1}_{\{\tau _i\}=0,\pm 1}P_N(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _i,\sigma _{i+1},\mathrm{},\tau _N)`$. The master equations thus become

$`\dot{P}(\sigma _i=0)=p_+P(\sigma _i=0)P(\sigma _{i+1}=+1)p_{}P(\sigma _i=0)P(\sigma _{i1}=1)`$
$`\text{ }+p_+P(\sigma _{i1}=0)P(\sigma _i=+1)+p_{}P(\sigma _{i+1}=0)P(\sigma _i=1)`$ (2)
$`\dot{P}(\sigma _i=+1)=k_+P(\sigma _i=+1)+k_{}P(\sigma _i=1)`$
$`\text{ }p_+P(\sigma _i=+1)P(\sigma _{i1}=0)+p_{}P(\sigma _i=0)P(\sigma _{i1}=1)`$ (3)
$`\dot{P}(\sigma _i=1)=k_+P(\sigma _i=+1)k_{}P(\sigma _i=1)`$
$`\text{ }p_{}P(\sigma _{i+1}=0)P(\sigma _i=1)+p_+P(\sigma _i=0)P(\sigma _{i+1}=+1),`$ (4)
where $`P(\sigma _j=\sigma )`$ are the individual probabilities that site $`j`$ is occupied by a particle in state $`\sigma `$. Conservation at each site requires $`P(\sigma _i=1)+P(\sigma _i=0)+P(\sigma _i=+1)=1`$. In the present treatment, we will assume that $`p_\pm ,k_\pm `$ are independent of neighboring configurations $`\sigma `$, i.e. that the transition rates are local and do not depend interaction with the states of neighboring sites. Within the mean field approximation, the instantaneous current of protons between sites $`i`$ and $`i+1`$ is

$$J(i,i+1)=p_+P(\sigma _i=0)P(\sigma _{i+1}=+1)p_{}P(\sigma _{i+1}=0)P(\sigma _i=1)$$
(5)
while the currents at the left and right boundaries are

$$\begin{array}{c}J(L,1)=\alpha P(\sigma _1=+1)\gamma P(\sigma _1=0)\hfill \\ J(N,R)=\beta P(\sigma _N=0)\delta P(\sigma _N=1).\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
Upon defining steady-state particle occupancies over their probabilities, $`P(\sigma _i=0)r_i`$, $`P(\sigma _i=+1)=s_i`$, and $`P(\sigma _i=1)t_i`$. The steady-state currents are thus

$$J(i,i+1)=p_+r_is_{i+1}p_{}r_{i+1}t_i$$
(7)
and

$$\begin{array}{c}J(L,1)=\alpha s_1\gamma r_1=(\alpha +\gamma )s_1+\gamma t_1\gamma \hfill \\ J(N,R)=\beta r_N\delta t_N=\beta \beta s_N(\beta +\delta )t_N.\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
In steady-state, all currents have to be identical, $`J=J(i,i+1)=J(L,1)=J(N,R)`$. Thus, the constant, internal steady-state current (7) reads

$$JJ(i,i+1)=p_+r_is_{i+1}p_{}r_{i+1}t_i,$$
(9)
while the equation for $`\dot{P}(\sigma _i=+1)=0`$ reads

$$0=k_+s_ik_{}t_ip_{}r_{i+1}t_i+p_+r_is_{i+1}=k_+s_ik_{}t_i+J.$$
(10)
From (10), we see that $`k_+s_ik_{}t_i=J`$ is constant along the chain. Upon imposing particle conservation, $`r_i+s_i+t_i=1`$,

$$t_i=Ks_i+\frac{J}{k_{}}=\frac{K(1r_i)}{K+1}+\frac{J}{k_++k_{}},K\frac{k_+}{k_{}}.$$
(11)
The mean end-site occupations can be found by substituting (11) into (8), yielding

$$r_1=\frac{\alpha }{\alpha +\gamma (K+1)}\frac{K+1+\alpha /k_{}}{\alpha +\gamma (K+1)}J,$$
(12)
$$r_N=\frac{K\delta }{\beta (K+1)+K\delta }+\frac{K+1+\delta /k_{}}{\beta (K+1)+K\delta }J.$$
(13)
For the internal sites, substitution of (11) into (9) yields

$$0=A_4r_ir_{i+1}+A_3r_{i+1}A_2r_iA_1,$$
(14)
where

$$A_1=J,A_2=p_+[\frac{k_{}J}{k_++k_{}}],A_3=p_{}[\frac{k_++J}{k_++k_{}}],\text{and}A_4=\frac{k_{}p_+k_+p_{}}{k_++k_{}}.$$
(15)
We can now write (14) as a recursion relation of the form

$$r_{i+1}=\frac{A_2r_iA_1}{A_4r_i+A_3}.$$
(16)
Upon redefining

$$r_i\frac{A_2+A_3}{A_4}\xi _i\frac{A_3}{A_4},$$
(17)
we find the recursion relation for $`\xi `$:

$$\xi _{i+1}=1\frac{c(J)}{\xi _i},c(J)\frac{A_2A_3+A_1A_4}{(A_2+A_3)^2}.$$
(18)
Except for the more complicated dependence of $`c(J)`$ on $`J`$, the recursion relation (18) is identical to that used in analyzing the mean-field properties of the totally and partially asymmetric exclusion process for a single species . The solution to the difference equation (18) is

$$\xi _k=\frac{(\xi _+^k\xi _{}^k)\xi _1\xi _+\xi _{}(\xi _+^{k1}\xi _{}^{k1})}{(\xi _+^{k1}\xi _{}^{k1})\xi _1\xi _+\xi _{}(\xi _+^{k2}\xi _{}^{k2})},$$
(19)
where

$$\xi _\pm =\frac{1}{2}\left[1\pm \sqrt{14c(J)}\right].$$
(20)
Similarly, the boundary occupations $`\xi _1,\xi _N`$ can be readily found by substituting (12) and (13) into (17) and solving for $`\xi `$.

### 3.1 Symmetric limit

First consider the totally symmetric case where $`|k_{}p_+k_+p_{}|<o(1/N)`$ and the “unbiased” current vanishes as $`1/N`$. One important realisation of this condition is $`k_+/k_{}=K=1`$ and $`p_+=p_{}`$, corresponding to waters without left-right preference along the wire, and to the absence of pondermotive forces on the wire protons. We name this limit the symmetric limit because the net bias on internal protons vanish 111In the proton conduction literature, the term “symmetric” is often used to denote symmetric solutions, or equal proton concentrations in the two reservoirs. The current in this case is driven by an externally imposed transmembrane potential. The proton current is driven entirely by a proton number density difference between the two reservoirs, i.e. an asymmetry in injection and extraction rates at the boundaries. Upon iterating Eqn (16) with $`A_4k_{}p_+k_+p_{}=0`$,

$$r_N=\left(\frac{A_2}{A_3}\right)^{N1}r_1\left(\frac{A_1}{A_2}\right)\frac{1(A_2/A_3)^{N1}}{1(A_2/A_3)}.$$
(21)
From the boundary conditions at $`i=1,N`$, we obtain an implicit equation for $`J`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(\frac{A_2}{A_3}\right)^{N1}\left[\frac{\alpha }{\alpha +\gamma (K+1)}\frac{K+1+\alpha /k_{}}{\alpha +\gamma (K+1)}J\right]\frac{A_1}{A_3}\frac{1(A_2/A_3)^{N1}}{1(A_2/A_3)}=\hfill \\ \frac{K\delta }{\beta (K+1)+K\delta }+\frac{K+1+\delta /k_{}}{\beta (K+1)+K\delta }J.\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
where the $`A_i`$ are functions of $`J`$ given by Eqns. (15). A closed analytic expression can be found as an asymptotic expansion about large $`N`$ using the ansatz

$$J=\frac{a_1}{N}+\frac{a_2}{N^2}+O\left(\frac{1}{N^3}\right),$$
(23)
where the $`a_i`$ are $`N`$-independent coefficients that are functions of the kinetic rates. To lowest order,

$$\left(\frac{A_2}{A_3}\right)^{N1}\left(1a_1\frac{K+1}{Nk_+}\right)^{N1}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{a_1(K+1)}{k_+}\right).$$
(24)
At $`O(1/N^0)`$, (22) determines $`a_1`$ and the steady-state current

$$J=\frac{k_+k_{}}{N(k_++k_{})}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\beta (K+1)+K\delta }{\gamma (K+1)+\alpha }\frac{\gamma (k_++k_{})+\alpha (p_{}+k_{})}{\beta (k_++k_{})+K\delta (p_{}+k_{})}\right]+O(N^2).$$
(25)
When $`\beta =\gamma `$, the current (25) in the limit of small proton concentration differences can be expanded in powers of $`k_{}\alpha k_+\delta `$,

$$J\frac{\beta p_+(k_{}\alpha k_+\delta )}{N\left[\beta (K+1)+K\delta \right](\beta +\delta )(k_++k_{})}+O\left((k_{}\alpha k_+\delta )^2\right)+O(1/N^2),$$
(26)
reflecting a current driven by the effective difference in boundary injection rates. Finally, in the large $`\alpha `$ and $`\delta =0`$ limit,

$$J\frac{k_+k_{}}{(k_++k_{})N}\mathrm{log}\left(1+\frac{p_{}}{k_+}\right)\frac{\gamma k_+k_{}p_{}}{\alpha N(k_++k_{})(k_++p_{})}+O(\alpha ^2N^1).$$
(27)
### 3.2 Asymmetric limits

For driven systems, where $`|k_{}p_+k_+p_{}|>O(1/N)`$, a finite current persists in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit. Mean field currents are found from the fixed points of the recursion relation (18). The average particle occupations at each site $`i`$ can be then be reconstructed from the solution to $`\xi _i`$. In analogy to the single-species partially asymmetric process, the condition $`c(J_M)=1/4`$ leads to a single fixed point that determines $`J_M`$, via a quadratic equation which is solved by

$$\begin{array}{c}J_M^\pm =\frac{2(p_+k_{}p_{}k_+)}{(p_++p_{})^2}\left[\frac{(p_{}+p_+)}{2}+k_{}+k_+\pm \sqrt{k_++k_{}}\sqrt{k_{}+k_++p_++p_{}}\right]\hfill \\ \text{when}\xi _1(J_M^\pm )\frac{1}{2},\xi _N(J_M^\pm )\frac{1}{2}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
For the sake of simplicity, we assume $`k_{}p_+k_+p_{}>0`$ and furthermore $`\{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta ,k_\pm \}`$ are such that $`J>0`$. Clearly $`J<k_{}`$ (since $`J`$ must be less than the smallest rate in the entire process) and $`A_4>0`$. In the limit $`p_+/(k_++k_{}),p_{}/(k_++k_{})0`$, only $`J_M^{}`$ provides a physical solution,

$$J_M^{}\frac{p_+k_{}p_{}k_+}{k_++k_{}}\left[\frac{1}{4}\frac{p_++p_{}}{8(k_++k_{})}+O\left(\left(\frac{p_++p_{}}{k_++k_{}}\right)^2\right)\right].$$
(29)
For a purely asymmetric process $`p_{}=0`$ and the maximal current $`J_M^{}`$ in this model approaches the analogous maximal current expression of the single species ASEP,

$$J_M^{}(p_{}=0)\frac{p_+}{4(K+1)}+O\left(\frac{p_+}{k_{}}\right),$$
(30)
except for modification by the factor $`(K+1)^1`$ representing the fraction of time the site to the immediate right of a proton is in the $`+`$ state.

Another possibility is $`c(J<J_M^\pm )<1/4`$ which leads to two fixed points, one stable at $`\xi _{}`$ and one unstable at $`\xi _+`$. Following  and , we set in one case the left occupation $`\xi _1=\xi _{}`$ to the stable value which self-consistently determines the current via $`c(J)=\xi _1(1\xi _1)`$, while equation (12) determines $`\xi _1(J)`$. Thus $`c(J_L)\xi _1(J_L)(1\xi _1(J_L))`$ is solved by

$$J_L^\pm =\frac{G(\alpha ,\gamma ,k_\pm ,p_\pm )}{2F(\alpha ,\gamma ,k_\pm ,p_\pm )}\pm \frac{\sqrt{G^2(\alpha ,\gamma ,k_\pm ,p_\pm )4H(\alpha ,\gamma ,k_\pm ,p_\pm )F(\alpha ,\gamma ,k_\pm ,p_\pm )}}{2F(\alpha ,\gamma ,k_\pm ,p_\pm )},$$
(31)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}F(x,y,k_\pm ,p_\pm )(k_++k_{})(x+k_++k_{})\left[y(p_++p_{})+xp_{}U\right]U\hfill \\ G(x,y,k_\pm ,p_\pm )(k_++k_{})U[x^2k_{}(k_{}+p_{})(xk_{}y(k_++k_{}))U+\hfill \\ xy(2k_+k_{}+2k_+p_++k_{}p_{}k_+p_{}+2k_{}^2)+y^2(k_++k_{})^2]\hfill \\ H(x,y,k_\pm ,p_\pm )xyk_{}(k_{}+p_+)U^2(k_\pm ,p_\pm )\hfill \\ U(k_\pm ,p_\pm )k_{}p_+k_+p_{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(32)
The injection rate-limited current (31) depends only upon $`\alpha ,\gamma ,k,p_\pm `$. Upon iterating, we find the regime of validity for $`JJ_L`$ is determined by $`\xi _N<\xi _+`$. Thus, the currents $`J_L^\pm `$ can arise only when $`\xi _1(J_L^\pm )<1/2`$ and $`\xi _N(J_L^\pm )<1\xi _1(J_L^\pm )`$ and correspond to a low proton density ($`r_i`$) phase.

Another limit of steady-state currents corresponds to the high density phase where $`\xi _N=\xi _+`$, which is found from $`\xi _N(J_R)(1\xi _N(J_R))c(J_R<J_M)`$ with

$$J_R^\pm =\frac{G(\delta ,\beta ,k_{},p_{})}{2F(\delta ,\beta ,k_{},p_{})}\pm \frac{\sqrt{G^2(\delta ,\beta ,k_{},p_{})4H(\delta ,\beta ,k_{},p_{})F(\delta ,\beta ,k_{},p_{})}}{2F(\delta ,\beta ,k_{},p_{})}.$$
(33)
Equation (33) is also easily deduced from the solutions $`J_L^\pm `$ and the symmetry properties of $`c(J),r_1`$, and $`r_N`$ under the transformation $`\{\alpha ,\gamma ,k_\pm ,p_\pm ,J\}\{\delta ,\beta ,k_{},p_{},J\}`$. The solutions $`J_R^\pm `$ hold only if $`\xi _N(J_R^\pm )>1/2,\xi _N(J_R^\pm )>1\xi _1(J_R^\pm )`$ and correspond to a high proton density phase. Although the currents represented by equations (28), (31), (33), and their associated regimes of validity define a potentially rich mean field current phase diagram, significant simplification, where simpler expressions can be obtained, is achieved by restricting ourselves to the totally asymmetric regime where $`\gamma =\delta =p_{}=0`$. In this case, $`A_3=0,A_4=p_+/(K+1)`$, and $`\xi =k_{}r/(k_{}J)`$. Upon using $`r_1`$ and $`r_N`$ given by (12) and (13), the currents (28), (31), and (33), and their regimes of validity become

$$\begin{array}{cc}J_M^{}=k_{}\left[1+\frac{2(k_++k_{})}{p_+}\left(1\sqrt{1+\frac{p_+}{k_++k_{}}}\right)\right]& \alpha \alpha ^{},\beta \beta ^{}\hfill \\ J_L^{}=\frac{\alpha k_{}(1\alpha /p_+)}{\alpha +k_++k_{}}& \alpha \alpha ^{},\beta \frac{\alpha }{(K+1)}\hfill \\ J_R^{}=\beta \frac{k_{}(1\beta /p_+)\beta k_+/p_+}{\beta +k_{}}& \beta \beta ^{},\alpha \beta (K+1),\hfill \end{array}$$
(34)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}\alpha ^{}(K+1)\beta ^{}(k_++k_{})\left(\sqrt{1+\frac{p_+}{k_++k_{}}}1\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(35)
The phase diagram defined by (34) and (35) is shown in Fig. 2a for $`xp_+/(k_++k_{})=1,10`$. In the $`k_\pm \mathrm{}`$ limit, the currents (34) reduce to modified forms of the standard currents in the single particle ASEP .

## 4 Monte-Carlo simulations

We now compare mean field results from both the symmetric and asymmetric limits with their corresponding steady-state currents obtained from lattice Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. The simulation was implemented by defining $`N+2`$ sites corresponding to the interior pore sites, plus the two reservoirs. At each time step, one of the $`N+2`$ sites was randomly chosen and a transition attempted. Transitions were accepted according to the Metropolis algorithm. At the next time step, another site was randomly chosen. The occupation at each reservoir end site was set to $`\sigma _0=\sigma _{N+1}=0`$ so that protons were always ready to be injected with probability corresponding to the rates $`\alpha ,\delta `$. To obtain low noise steady-state values for the occupations and currents, instantaneous currents across all boundaries were averaged over $`O(10^810^9)`$ time steps.

Figures 3a,b show slices (for $`N=50`$, $`k_\pm =0.1,1`$, and fixed $`\alpha `$) through the phase diagram of the totally asymmetric case (Fig. 2). The mean field currents are represented by the thin solid and thick dashed curves for different values of $`\alpha `$ in each plot. Mean field theory seems to predict a first order transdition between the $`J_L^{}`$ and $`J_R^{}`$ phases and a higher order transition to the $`J_M^{}`$ phase. The curves labelled with $``$ symbols represent steady-state currents computed from the MC simulations for the same fixed values of $`\alpha `$. The mean field solutions always overestimate the currents with the error especially bad for small $`k_\pm `$ (compare Fig. 3a with Fig. 3b). This suggests correlations are suppressed when water flipping is fast, rendering the mean field approximation more accurate. A similar qualitative trend arises in the symmetric case.

Figure 4 shows the steady-state currents for $`N=100`$ in the special symmetric case ($`p_+=p_{}=1`$) as a function of the equal flip rates $`k=k_+=k_{}`$. The asymptotic mean-field currents for ($`\alpha =0.2,\delta =0.0`$) and ($`\alpha =1.0,\delta =0.0`$) are plotted with thin and thick dashed curves, respectively. The mean-field results again overestimate the steady-state current $`J`$, and become increasingly accurate for large flip rates. The $`k\mathrm{}`$ limit in which mean field theory is asymptotically exact gives

$$J\frac{p_{}}{N}\left[\frac{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }{(2\beta +\delta )(2\gamma +\alpha )}\frac{p_{}}{k}\frac{\alpha ^2\beta (\beta +\delta )\delta ^2\gamma (\gamma +\alpha )}{(2\beta +\delta )^2(2\gamma +\alpha )^2}+O\left(\frac{p_{}^2}{k^2}\right)\right].$$
(36)
Site occupations depicted in Fig. 5a clearly indicate the absence of boundary layers in the symmetric limit. The proton concentration is nearly linear along the chain and is fairly insensitive to the flipping rate $`k`$. Only for small $`k=0.1`$ (thin lines, small symbols) does the profile deviate slightly from being linear. Not surprisingly, the mean field result for the steady-state current is substantially more accurate when $`k`$ is large. Figure 5b shows the correlations

$$S(\sigma _i,\sigma _{i+1})(1\sigma _i^2)(1\sigma _{i+1}^2)1\sigma _i^21\sigma _{i+1}^2$$
(37)
as functions of the lattice site $`i`$. We plot $`S(+,+)`$ and $`S(0,+)`$ (circles) for both $`k=0.1`$ (thin dashed lines) and $`k=10`$(thick solid lines). Correlations $`S`$ containing $`\sigma _i=`$ do not vary appreciably when $`k`$ is changed. Note that $`S(+,+)`$ for $`k=0.1`$ is larger than $`S(+,+)`$ for $`k=10`$. The larger flipping rates wash out the correlations and suppresses $`S(+,+)`$. Conversely, $`S(0,+)`$ for small $`k=0.1`$ is negative since $`0+0`$ is a relatively fast step that destroys the $`0+`$ configuration. When $`k`$ is large, this negative correlation is also supressed.

Figures 6 contrasts concentration difference driven currents and potential difference driven currents. In figure 6a, $`100\times J`$ is plotted as a function of $`\alpha `$ for $`N=20`$ and $`\delta =0`$. The current is always sublinear with respect to $`\alpha `$ and increases for small, increasing $`k`$. For larger $`k`$, the current saturates as the rate limiting step becomes the forward hopping rate $`p`$.

The site occupancies, averaged over the entire chain, are plotted in Fig. 6b. The curves plot $`\overline{\sigma }_0=N^1_{i=1}^N(1\sigma _i^2)`$, $`\overline{\sigma }_{}=(2N)^1_{i=1}^N\sigma _i(\sigma _i1)`$, and $`\overline{\sigma }_+=(2N)^1_{i=1}^N\sigma _i(\sigma _i+1)`$, representing the chain-averaged proton, $``$ type, and $`+`$ type particle densities, respectively. As the proton entrance rate $`\alpha `$ is increased, the proton concentration in the pore increases at the expense of both $``$ and $`+`$ particles. However, since the current to the right increases, the average population of $`+`$ particles decreases faster than that of the $``$ particles. For larger $`k`$, the difference between $``$ and $`+`$ occupations vanishes as the high flip rate equalizes their probabilities; the only small remaining difference arises from the occasional passing of a proton converting $`+`$ to $``$.

For potential driven flow, the forward and backward hopping rates were modified according to

$$\begin{array}{c}(\alpha ,\beta ,p)(\alpha ,\beta ,p)e^{V/2}\hfill \\ (\gamma ,\delta ,q)(\gamma ,\delta ,q)e^{V/2}\hfill \end{array}$$
(38)
As a function of $`V`$, the current $`J`$ can appear to be sublinear or superlinear depending on the voltage regime (Fig. 6c). For small $`k`$ and sufficiently large $`V`$, the rate limiting steps are the $`+`$ flips and the current $`J`$ is sublinear. The voltage-driven average particle densities for $`k=0.1`$ (Fig. 6d) also show increasing proton concentrations and decreasing $`+`$ particle densities.

## 5 Conclusions

We have formulated an interacting, three-species transport model (epitomized in Fig. 1) which is motivated by the Grotthuss mechanism  of proton transfer along water wires. The dynamics resemble those of two-species ASEPs but with important differences that give rise to very different behavior. Our main results are summarized by analytic expressions for the steady-state currents derived within a mean-field approximation. Currents in both symmetric (equations 25 and 26) and asymmetric regimes (equations 28, 31, and 33) were found, with phases in the totally asymmetric limit (equation 34) analogous to those of the standard ASEP. Monte-Carlo simulation agree with mean field analyses only in the limit of large flipping rates $`k_\pm `$. Although qualitatively correct, the totally asymmetric mean field currents described by the phase diagram in Fig. 2, always overestimates the actual currents, as shown in Fig. 3. As apparent from Figs. 3,4, steady-state currents in both symmetric and asymmetric limits are very sensitive to subtle variations in average occupation and minute differences in nearest neighbor correlations plotted in Fig. 5.

Our model does not include many important interactions that may be important in real physical systems. Examples include dipole-dipole interactions between adjacent waters, hydronium-hydronium repulsion between two adjacent protons, and potential induced ordering fields that preferentially orient the water dipoles. These effects can be readily incorporated by considering next-nearest neighbor interactions. The more complicated interaction energy can be used in weighting Monte-Carlo acceptance steps.

A salient experimental finding in membrane potential-driven water wire proton conduction is the crossover from sublinear $`JV`$ curves to superlinear curves as the pH in the two equal reservoirs is decreased . Multiple protons on the water wire have been implicated in the crossover to superlinear behavior. Unlike previous theories , our model allows for multiple proton entry into the water wire. In addition to finding a wider regime of superlinearity for large $`k_\pm `$, we also found (not shown) stronger superlinearity when the injection rates ($`\alpha ,\delta `$) were large relative to extraction rates ($`\beta ,\gamma `$). These results of the simple lattice model display a number of different regimes, provide relative estimates for fundamental tranition rates, and will serve as a starting point for more complicated models of measured $`JV`$ characteristics .

Acknowledgments The author thanks G. Lakatos and J. Rudnick for helpful comments and suggestions.

## References