text:
# Quantization of non-unitary geometric classical 𝑟-matrices

## 1. Introduction

Let $`X`$ be a smooth affine algebraic variety over $``$. A formal diffeomorphism of $`X`$ is an automorphism of the ring $`𝒪[X][[\mathrm{}]]`$ which is the identity modulo $`\mathrm{}`$. That is, it looks like $`1+\mathrm{}r+O(\mathrm{}^2)`$. Note that for such a map to be a ring homomorphism, $`r`$ must be a derivation, i.e., $`r\mathrm{Vect}(X)`$.

A geometric solution of the Quantum Yang–Baxter Equation (QYBE) is a formal diffeomorphism $`R`$ of $`X\times X`$ such that $`R^{12}R^{13}R^{23}=R^{23}R^{13}R^{12}`$ as formal diffeomorphisms of $`X\times X\times X`$. It is straightforward to check that if $`R=1+\mathrm{}r+O(\mathrm{}^2)`$ is a geometric solution of the QYBE, then $`r`$ is a geometric solution of the Classical Yang–Baxter Equation (CYBE), i.e. $`[r^{12},r^{13}]+[r^{12},r^{23}]+[r^{13},r^{23}]=0`$. The well known *quantization problem* is: given a geometric solution $`r`$ of the CYBE, construct a geometric solution $`R`$ of the QYBE which restricts to $`r`$ in degree $`1`$, i.e., $`R=1+\mathrm{}r+O(\mathrm{}^2)`$. Such an $`R`$ is called a *geometric quantization* of $`r`$.

In \[EK\] it is proved that any solution of CYBE can be quantized. However, the proof does not give a simple explicit formula for $`R`$, and furthermore it is not clear if the map $`R`$ is geometric when $`r`$ is. On the other hand, in \[ES\], the problem of geometric quantization is solved for unitary r-matrices (i.e., satisfying the unitarity condition $`r^{21}=r`$): it is shown that in this case the geometric quantization $`R`$ exists and satisfies the quantum unitarity condition $`R^{21}R=1`$. For this, using the approach of \[ESS\], it is shown that both classical and quantum geometric r-matrices are parametrized by some group-theoretical data, at the level of which quantization basically reduces to the usual exponential map.

In this paper we generalize the result of \[ES\] to the non-unitary case. Namely, we prove the following result.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Any geometric solution to the CYBE admits a geometric quantization.

As in the unitary case, this is accomplished using the group-theoretical approach, developed in \[S\]. In this sense, this paper completes the square

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\text{[ESS]}& \stackrel{\text{forget unitarity}}{}& \text{[S]}\\ \text{geometricversion}& & \text{geometricversion}& & \\ \text{[ES]}& \stackrel{\text{forget unitarity}}{}& \text{thispaper}\end{array}$$

## 2. Cocycle $`7`$-tuples

Recall the following definition from \[S\].

###### Definition 2.1.

A *bijective cocycle $`7`$-tuple* (BCST) is a $`7`$-tuple

$$(G,A,X,\rho _{GA},\rho _{GAX},\pi ,\mathrm{\Psi }),$$

where $`G`$ and $`A`$ are groups, $`X`$ a set, $`\rho _{GA}`$ is an action of $`G`$ on $`A`$, $`\rho _{GAX}`$ is an action of $`AG`$ on $`X`$, $`\pi :GA`$ is a bijective $`1`$-cocycle (i.e., $`\pi (gh)=\pi (g)(g\pi (h))`$) and $`\mathrm{\Psi }:XA`$ is an $`AG`$-equivariant map (with $`A`$ acting on itself by conjugation) whose image generates $`A`$.

A BCST gives two actions of $`G`$ on $`X`$, given by composing $`\rho _{GAX}`$ with the inclusion $`GAG`$ and with the map $`g(\pi (g),g)`$. Thus, it defines a map $`G𝕊_X\times 𝕊_X`$ (where $`𝕊_X`$ is the group of bijections $`XX`$). The BCST is said to be *faithful* if this map is injective.

We state a result from \[S\], slightly modified to fit our definition of $`1`$-cocycles:

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`(G,A,X,\rho _{GA},\rho _{GAX},\pi ,\mathrm{\Psi })`$, be a BCST. Let $`R:X\times XX\times X`$ be defined by

(2.3)
$$R(x,y)=(x\stackrel{ˇ}{}y,x\stackrel{ˇ}{}y),$$

where $`x\stackrel{ˇ}{}y=\rho _{GAX}(\pi ^1(y^1))(x)`$ and $`x\stackrel{ˇ}{}y=\rho _{GAX}(\pi ^1((x\stackrel{ˇ}{}y)^1))^1(\rho _{GAX}(x\stackrel{ˇ}{}y)(y))`$ (we denote here for $`zX`$, $`z`$ instead of $`\mathrm{\Psi }(z)A`$ for not overcharging the notation). Then $`R`$ is a set theoretical solution of the braid equation, i.e., $`R^{12}R^{13}R^{23}=R^{23}R^{13}R^{12}`$.

In fact, the solution (2.3) is also *non-degenerate* in the sense of \[S\]. The main result of \[S\] is that formula (2.3) defines a bijection (or, more precisely, a categorical equivalence) between faithful bijective cocycle 7-tuples and nondegenerate set-theoretical solutions of QYBE.

Let us now generalize this theory to the quasiclassical situation. Our ground field will always be $``$.

###### Definition 2.4.

A *classical bijective cocycle $`7`$-tuple* (CBCST) is a $`7`$-tuple

$$(𝔤,𝔞,X,\rho _{𝔤𝔞},\rho _{𝔤𝔞X},\pi ,\mathrm{\Psi }),$$

where $`𝔤`$ and $`𝔞`$ are Lie algebras, $`X`$ a smooth affine algebraic variety, $`\rho _{𝔤𝔞}`$ is an action of $`𝔤`$ on $`𝔞`$, $`\rho _{𝔤𝔞X}`$ is an action of $`𝔞𝔤`$ on $`X`$, $`\pi :𝔤𝔞`$ is a bijective (non-commutative) $`1`$-cocycle and $`\mathrm{\Psi }:X𝔞`$ is an $`𝔞𝔤`$-equivariant map (with $`𝔞`$ acting on itself by commutator) whose image generates $`𝔞`$.

A CBCST gives two actions of $`𝔤`$ on $`X`$, given by composing $`\rho _{𝔤𝔞X}`$ with the inclusion $`𝔤𝔞𝔤`$ and with the map $`g(\pi (g),g)`$. Thus, it defines a map $`𝔤\mathrm{Vect}(X)\times \mathrm{Vect}(X)`$. The CBCST is said to be *faithful* if this map is injective.

The first part of the proof of Theorem 1.1 is to relate classical bijective cocycle $`7`$-tuples and geometric solutions of the CYBE. One can consider the categories of CBCST’s and of geometric solutions of the CYBE, with the obvious notion of morphisms in both.

###### Theorem 2.5.

There is a an equivalence of categories between faithful CBCST’s and geometric solutions of the CYBE.

###### Proof.

We will construct mutually (quasi)inverse functors in both directions. More precisely, we will do this only for objects, as the extension to morphisms is straightforward (and not used). In the proof, we will refer to a sequence of lemmas, which are stated and proved in §3.

Let $`r`$ be a geometric solution of the CYBE. Then we have

$`r\mathrm{Vect}(X)𝒪(X)𝒪(X)\mathrm{Vect}(X),`$
(2.6) $`r={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}a_i^1a_i^0+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}b_j^0b_j^1,`$
$`[r^{12},r^{13}]+[r^{12},r^{23}]+[r^{13},r^{23}]=0.`$
We will omit the summation sign in expressions of the type $`_ia_i^1a_i^0`$ or $`_jb_j^0b_j^1`$. By looking at the degree of components, we can split the CYBE into three equations as follows:

(2.7) $`0=`$ $`[a_i^1,a_k^1]a_i^0a_k^0a_i^1a_k^1a_i^0a_k^0a_i^1b_l^0b_l^1a_i^0,`$
(2.8) $`0=`$ $`a_k^1b_j^0b_j^1a_k^0+b_j^0[b_j^1,a_k^1]a_k^0+b_j^0a_k^1b_j^1a_k^0,`$
(2.9) $`0=`$ $`a_i^1b_l^0a_i^0b_l^1+b_j^0b_j^1b_l^0b_l^1+b_j^0b_l^0[b_j^1,b_l^1].`$
We define $`𝔤_1=\mathrm{span}\{a_i^1\}_i`$, $`𝔤_2=\mathrm{span}\{b_j^1\}_j`$ (we assume that the expression (2.6) has the minimal possible number of summands). It is easy to see from (2.7) and (2.9) that both $`𝔤_i`$’s are Lie subalgebras of $`\mathrm{Vect}(X)`$. Also, $`[𝔤_1,𝔤_2]𝔤_1+𝔤_2`$ by (2.8). For $`x𝒪(X)^{}`$, let

$$p(x)=(x(a_i^0)a_i^1,x(b_j^0)b_j^1)𝔤_1𝔤_2,$$

and call $`𝔤=\mathrm{Im}(p)`$. It is proved in (3.2) below that $`𝔤`$ is a Lie subalgebra of $`𝔤_1𝔤_2`$.

We define $`V_1,V_2𝒪(X)`$ as $`V_1=\mathrm{span}\{a_i^0\}_i`$, $`V_2=\mathrm{span}\{b_j^0\}_j`$, and we put $`𝔞=(V_1+V_2)^{}`$. We can restrict $`p`$ to $`𝔞`$ and we get an isomorphism $`p|_𝔞:𝔞𝔤`$. Call $`\pi =p|_𝔞^1`$.

Consider the action of $`\mathrm{Vect}(X)`$ on $`𝒪(X)`$. From (2.7), (2.8), (2.9) one can see that

$`𝔤_1V_1V_1+V_2,𝔤_1V_2V_2,`$
$`𝔤_2V_1V_1,𝔤_2V_2V_1+V_2.`$
We denote by $``$$``$ and $``$$``$ the left and right actions of $`𝔤`$ on $`𝔞`$ via projections to the first and second coordinates. We also use this notation for the maps $`𝔞\times 𝔞𝔞`$ obtained by composing these actions with $`p`$ (we warn that these maps are not actions since $`p`$ is not a Lie algebra homomorphism). Specifically,

(2.10) $`(xy)(f)`$ $`=(p(x)y)(f)=x(a_i^0)(a_i^1y)(f)=x(a_i^0)y(a_i^1f),`$
(2.11) $`(xy)(f)`$ $`=(xp(y))(f)=y(b_j^0)(xb_j^1)(f)=y(b_j^0)x(b_j^1f).`$
Using these actions and the bijection $`\pi `$ we equip $`𝔞`$ with a Lie algebra structure:

(2.12)
$$[x,y]=xy+yx+\pi ([p(x),p(y)]).$$

We have to prove that this is indeed a Lie algebra structure, which we do in Lemma 3.1 below. Then $`\pi `$ is automatically a $`1`$-cocycle.

We prove in Lemma 3.5 that the action $``$$``$ of $`𝔤`$ on $`𝔞`$ is by derivations (i.e., $`:𝔤\mathrm{Der}(𝔞)`$). This allows us to take the semidirect product $`𝔞𝔤`$, whose structure, we recall, is

$$[(a,g),(b,h)]=(gbha+[a,b],[g,h]).$$

Notice from (3.3) below that the Lie algebra structure in $`𝔞`$ is

(2.13)
$$[x,y]=y(a_i^0)(a_i^1x)y(b_j^0)(b_j^1x)=x(a_i^0)(a_i^1y)+x(b_j^0)(b_j^1y).$$

Consider the action of $`𝔤`$ on $`X`$ given by the projection to the first coordinate, i.e.

(2.14)
$$\rho (p(x))=x(a_i^0)a_i^1.$$

Let $`d:𝔤𝔤_1+𝔤_2`$, $`d(g_1,g_2)=g_1g_2`$. Define $`\rho _{𝔞X}:𝔞\mathrm{Vect}(X)`$ as follows:

(2.15)
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\rho =(𝔞& \stackrel{p}{}& 𝔤& \stackrel{d}{}& 𝔤_1+𝔤_2\mathrm{Vect}(X)),\text{i.e. }\rho (x)=x(a_i^0)a^1_i+x(b_j^0)b^1_j.\end{array}$$

We prove in Lemma 3.6 that this is a map of Lie algebras. We can lift this action to $`𝔞𝔤`$: define

$$\rho _{𝔤𝔞X}:𝔞𝔤\mathrm{Vect}X,\rho (y,p(x))=y(a_i^0)a_i^1+y(b_j^0)b_j^1x(a_k^0)a_k^1.$$

From the structure of $`𝔞𝔤`$ we have $`[(0,p(x)),(y,0)]=(xy,0)`$. Let us check that this is indeed an action. We have

$`\rho (xy)`$ $`=(xy)(a_i^0)a_i^1+(xy)(b_j^0)b_j^1=x(a_k^0)y(a_k^1a_i^0)a_i^1+x(a_k^0)y(a_k^1b_j^0)b_j^1,`$
$`[\rho (p(x)),\rho _{𝔞X}(y)]`$ $`=[x(a_k^0)a_k^1,y(a_i^0)a_i^1+y(b_j^0)b_j^1]=x(a_k^0)y(a_i^0)[a_i^1,a_k^1]x(a_k^0)y(b_j^0)[a_k^1,b_j^1]`$
$`=y(a_k^1a_i^0)x(a_k^0)a_i^1+y(b_l^0)x(b_l^1a_i^0)a_i^1+y(a_k^1b_j^0)x(a_k^0)b_j^1y(b_j^0)x(b_j^1a_k^0)a_k^1`$
$`=\rho (xy),`$
as desired.

Define $`\mathrm{\Psi }_𝔞:X𝔞`$ by restriction: $`\mathrm{\Psi }_𝔞(x)(f)=f(x)`$ for $`fV`$. Comparing (2.13) with (2.15) and (2.10) with (2.14), it is clear that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_𝔞`$ is $`𝔞𝔤`$-invariant, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_𝔞|_x\rho _{𝔤𝔞X}(a,g)=(a,g)\mathrm{\Psi }_𝔞(x)=[a,\mathrm{\Psi }_𝔞(x)]g\mathrm{\Psi }_𝔞(x).$$

We have thus constructed a CBCST $`(𝔤,𝔞,X,\rho _{𝔤𝔞},\rho _{𝔤𝔞X},\pi ,\mathrm{\Psi }_𝔞)`$.

Now we begin with a $`7`$-tuple $`(𝔤,𝔞,X,\rho _{𝔤𝔞},\rho _{𝔤𝔞X},\pi ,\mathrm{\Psi }_𝔞)`$ and aim to construct $`r`$. First, consider the maps

$`\begin{array}{ccccccccc}\alpha =X& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Psi }_𝔞}{}& 𝔞& \stackrel{\pi ^1}{}& 𝔤& \stackrel{i}{}& 𝔞𝔤& \stackrel{\rho }{}& \mathrm{Vect}X,\end{array}`$
$`\begin{array}{ccccccc}\beta =X& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Psi }_𝔞}{}& 𝔞& \stackrel{\pi ^1\times \mathrm{id}}{}& 𝔞𝔤& \stackrel{\rho }{}& \mathrm{Vect}X.\end{array}`$
We call $`𝔤_1=\mathrm{Im}(\alpha )`$, $`𝔤_2=\mathrm{Im}(\beta )`$. Now, $`\alpha `$ gives by composition a map $`𝔤_1^{}𝒪(X)`$, which in turn is an element of $`𝔤_1𝒪(X)`$. Analogously, $`\beta `$ gives a map $`𝔤_2^{}𝒪(X)`$, and in turn an element of $`𝒪(X)𝔤_2`$. Call these elements $`r^1,r^2`$ respectively. We view them as elements of $`\mathrm{Vect}(X)𝒪(X)`$ and $`𝒪(X)\mathrm{Vect}(X)`$. Call

(2.16)
$$r=r^1+r^2.$$

We prove in Lemma 3.7 that $`r`$ is a geometric solution of the CYBE. It is easy to see that both constructions

$$\text{Geometric solutions of CYBE}\text{Classical bijective cocycle }7\text{-tuples}$$

are inverse to each other. The condition on $`\mathrm{\Psi }(X)`$ to generate $`𝔞`$ guarantees that after applying CBCST $``$ Geom. sol. of CYBE $``$ CBCST one gets an algebra $`𝔞`$ isomorphic to the original one. Analogously, the faithfulness condition guarantees that one recovers an algebra $`𝔤`$ isomorphic to the original one. ∎

## 3. Auxiliary lemmas

###### Lemma 3.1.

The definition in (2.12) equips $`𝔞`$ with the structure of a Lie algebra.

###### Proof.

The bilinearity and antisymmetry of the bracket are clear. Let us prove that it satisfies the Jacobi identity. We have

$`p(xy)`$ $`=((xy)(a_i^0)a_i^1,(xy)(b_j^0)b_j^1)`$
$`=(x(a_k^0)y(a_k^1a_i^0)a_i^1,x(a_k^0)y(a_k^1b_j^0)b_j^1),`$
$`p(xy)`$ $`=((xy)(a_i^0)a_i^1,(xy)(b_j^0)b_j^1)`$
$`=(y(b_l^0)x(b_l^1a_i^0)a_i^1,y(b_l^0)x(b_l^1b_j^0)b_j^1),`$
$`[p(x),p(y)]`$ $`=[(x(a_i^0)a_i^1,x(b_j^0)b_j^1),(y(a_k^0)a_k^1,y(b_l^0)b_l^1)]`$
$`=([x(a_i^0)a_i^1,y(a_k^0)a_k^1],[x(b_j^0)b_j^1,y(b_l^0)b_l^1])`$
$`=(x(a_i^0)y(a_k^0)[a_i^1,a_k^1],x(b_j^0)y(b_l^0)[b_j^1,b_l^1])`$
$`=(x(a_k^0)y(a_i^0)[a_i^1,a_k^1],x(b_l^0)y(b_j^0)[b_j^1,b_l^1]),`$
whence, using (2.7) and (2.9),

(3.2) $`[p(x),p(y)]`$ $`=p(xy)+p(xy),\text{i.e.}`$
(3.3) $`[x,y]`$ $`=xy+yx.`$
Notice that (3.2) proves that $`𝔤`$ is a subalgebra of $`𝔤_1𝔤_2`$. Similarly we compute for $`f𝒪(X)`$,

$`((zy)x)(f)`$ $`=x(b_j^0)(zy)(b_j^1f)=x(b_j^0)y(a_k^1b_j^1f)z(a_k^0),`$
$`(z(yx))(f)`$ $`=z(a_i^0)(yx)(a_i^1f)=x(b_l^0)y(b_l^1a_i^1f)z(a_i^0),`$
$`((zx)y)(f)`$ $`=(zx)(a_i^0)y(a_i^1f)=x(b_l^0)y(a_i^1f)z(b_l^1a_i^0),`$
$`(y(zx))(f)`$ $`=(zx)(b_j^0)y(b_j^1f)=x(a_k^1b_j^0)y(b_j^1f)z(a_k^0).`$
Using (2.8) we get

$`((zy)x)(z(yx))((zx)y)+(y(zx))=0,`$
and using now (3.2), we have
(3.4) $`\pi [p(zy),p(x)]((zy)x)(z\pi [p(y),p(x)])+(z(yx))`$
$`(\pi [p(z),p(x)]y)+((zx)y)+\pi [p(y),p(zx)](y(zx))=0.`$
Now, we compute

$`[x,[y,z]]=`$ $`x[y,z]+[y,z]x+\pi [p(x),p([y,z])]`$
$`=`$ $`x(yz)x(zy)x(\pi [p(y),p(z)])(yz)x`$
$`+(zy)x+\pi [p(y),p(z)]x\pi [p(x),p(yz)]`$
$`+\pi [p(x),p(zy)]+\pi [p(x),[p(y),p(z)]],`$
$`[y,[z,x]]=`$ $`y(zx)y(xz)y(\pi [p(z),p(x)])`$
$`(zx)y+(xz)y+\pi [p(z),p(x)]y`$
$`\pi [p(y),p(zx)]+\pi [p(y),p(xz)]+\pi [p(y),[p(z),p(x)]],`$
$`[z,[x,y]]=`$ $`z(xy)z(yx)z(\pi [p(x),p(y)])`$
$`(xy)z+(yx)z+\pi [p(x),p(y)]z`$
$`\pi [p(z),p(xy)]+\pi [p(z),p(yx)]+\pi [p(z),[p(x),p(y)]].`$
Applying (3.4) three times and Jacobi identity in $`𝔤`$ we get the Jacobi identity in $`𝔞`$. ∎

###### Lemma 3.5.

The algebra $`𝔤`$ acts on $`𝔞`$ by derivations with the action $``$$``$ defined in (2.10).

###### Proof.

This is straightforward: we compute

$`p(x[y,z])`$ $`=p(x(zy)+x(yz))`$
$`=(x(a_i^0)(zy+yz)(a_i^1a_k^0)a_k^1,x(a_i^0)(zy+yz)(a_i^1b_l^0)b_l^1)`$
$`=(x(a_i^0)z(a_m^0)y(a_m^1a_i^1a_k^0)a_k^1x(a_i^0)z(b_n^0)y(b_n^1a_i^1a_k^0)a_k^1,`$
$`x(a_i^0)z(a_m^0)y(a_m^1a_i^1b_l^0)b_l^1+x(a_i^0)z(b_n^0)y(b_n^1a_i^1b_l^0)b_l^1),`$
$`p([xy,z])`$ $`=(((xy)z)(a_k^0)a_k^1+(z(xy))(a_k^0)a_k^1,`$
$`((xy)z)(b_l^0)b_l^1(z(xy))(b_l^0)b_l^1)`$
$`=(z(b_j^0)(xy)(b_j^1a_k^0)a_k^1+z(a_i^0)(xy)(a_i^1a_k^0)a_k^1,`$
$`z(b_j^0)(xy)(b_j^1b_l^0)b_l^1z(a_i^0)(xy)(a_i^1b_l^0)b_l^1)`$
$`=(z(b_j^0)x(a_m^0)y(a_m^1b_j^1a_k^0)a_k^1+z(a_i^0)x(a_m^0)y(a_m^1a_i^1a_k^0)a_k^1,`$
$`z(b_j^0)x(a_m^0)y(a_m^1b_j^1b_l^0)b_l^1z(a_i^0)x(a_m^0)y(a_m^1a_i^1b_l^0)b_l^1),`$
$`p([y,xz])`$ $`=((y(xz))(a_k^0)a_k^1+((xz)y)(a_k^0)a_k^1,`$
$`(y(xz))(b_l^0)b_l^1((xz)y)(b_l^0)b_l^1)`$
$`=((xz)(b_j^0)y(b_j^1a_k^0)a_k^1+(xz)(a_i^0)y(a_i^1a_k^0)a_k^1,`$
$`(xz)(b_j^0)y(b_j^1b_l^0)b_l^1(xz)(a_i^0)y(a_i^1b_l^0)b_l^1)`$
$`=(x(a_m^0)z(a_m^1b_j^0)y(b_j^1a_k^0)a_k^1+x(a_m^0)z(a_m^1a_i^0)y(a_i^1a_k^0)a_k^1,`$
$`x(a_m^0)z(a_m^1b_j^0)y(b_j^1b_l^0)b_l^1x(a_m^0)z(a_m^1a_i^0)y(a_i^1b_l^0)b_l^1),`$
and now (2.7) and (2.8) apply to see that $`p(x[y,z][xy,z][y,xz])=0`$. ∎

###### Lemma 3.6.

The map $`\rho _{𝔞X}`$ in (2.15) is a Lie algebra homomorphism.

###### Proof.

We compute

$`\rho ([x,y])`$ $`=\rho (xy+yx)\text{(by (}\text{3.3}\text{))}`$
$`=(xy+yx)(a_i^0)a_i^1+(xy+yx)(b_j^0)b_j^1`$
$`=y(b_l^0)x(b_l^1a_i^0)a_i^1+y(a_k^0)x(a_k^1a_i^0)a_i^1+y(b_l^0)x(b_l^1b_j^0)b_j^1+y(a_k^0)x(a_k^1b_j^0)b_j^1,`$
$`[\rho (x),\rho (y)]`$ $`=x(a_i^0)y(a_k^0)[a_i^1,a_k^1]+x(a_i^0)y(b_l^0)[a_i^1,b_l^1]+x(b_j^0)y(a_k^0)[b_j^1,a_k^1]+x(b_j^0)y(b_l^0)[b_j^1,b_l^1]`$
$`=x(a_k^1a_i^0)y(a_k^0)a_i^1+x(b_l^0)y(b_l^1a_i^0)a_i^1y(a_k^1b_j^0)x(a_k^0)b_j^1+y(b_j^0)x(b_j^1a_k^0)a_k^1`$
$`+x(a_k^1b_j^0)y(a_k^0)b_j^1x(b_j^0)y(b_j^1a_k^0)a_k^1x(a_i^1b_l^0)y(a_i^0)b_l^1x(b_j^0)y(b_j^1b_l^0)b_l^1`$
$`=x(a_k^1a_i^0)y(a_k^0)a_i^1y(a_k^1b_j^0)x(a_k^0)b_j^1+y(b_j^0)x(b_j^1a_k^0)a_k^1x(b_j^0)y(b_j^1b_l^0)b_l^1,`$
and, clearly,

$$\begin{array}{c}y(b_l^0)x(b_l^1b_j^0)b_j^1+y(a_k^0)x(a_k^1b_j^0)b_j^1+y(a_k^1b_j^0)x(a_k^0)b_j^1+x(b_j^0)y(b_j^1b_l^0)b_l^1\hfill \\ \hfill =([x,y]+[y,x])(b_j^0)b_j^1=0.\end{array}$$

###### Lemma 3.7.

The map $`r`$ defined in (2.16) is a geometric solution of the CYBE.

###### Proof.

We must prove that $`r`$ satisfies (2.7), (2.8) and (2.9). To prove (2.7) we evaluate the second and third tensorand in each term at points $`b,cX`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{𝔤}=𝔤_1+𝔤_2`$ and let $`\{x_i\}`$, $`\{x^i\}`$ be dual bases of $`\stackrel{~}{𝔤}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝔤}^{}`$. In order to make formulas more readable, we call $`\{y_j\}`$, $`\{y^j\}`$ another copy of the dual bases.

We identify vector spaces with their tangent spaces. We have:

$`[a_i^1,a_k^1]a_i^0a_k^0`$ $`[x_i,y_j]x^i(\alpha (b))y^j(\alpha (c))=[\alpha (b),\alpha (c)],`$
$`a_i^1a_k^1a_i^0a_k^0`$ $`x_i(y_j(x^i\alpha ))(b)(y^j\alpha )(c)=x_i(\alpha (c)(x^i\alpha ))(b)`$
$`=x_i\alpha _b(\alpha (c))(x^i)=\alpha _b(\alpha (c)),`$
$`a_i^1b_l^0b_l^1a_i^0`$ $`x_i(y^j\beta )(b)(y_j(x^i\alpha ))(c)=\mathrm{}=\alpha _c(\beta (b)).`$
Now, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_𝔞`$ is $`𝔞𝔤`$-invariant, which means that

$`\alpha _b(\alpha (c))`$ $`=(\rho i\pi ^1)_{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_𝔞)_{}|_b(\rho (i\pi ^1\mathrm{\Psi }_𝔞(c)))=(\rho i\pi ^1)_{}((i\pi ^1\mathrm{\Psi }_𝔞(c))(\mathrm{\Psi }_𝔞)(b))`$
$`=\rho (\pi ^1((\pi ^1\mathrm{\Psi }_𝔞(c))(\mathrm{\Psi }_𝔞(b))),0).`$
Analogously, setting for brevity $`\stackrel{~}{b}=\mathrm{\Psi }_𝔞b`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}=\mathrm{\Psi }_𝔞c`$, we have

$`\alpha _c(\beta (b))`$ $`=\rho (\pi ^1((\pi ^1\stackrel{~}{b})\stackrel{~}{c}+[\stackrel{~}{b},\stackrel{~}{c}]),0),`$
$`[\alpha (b),\alpha (c)]`$ $`=\rho ([\pi ^1\stackrel{~}{b},\pi ^1\stackrel{~}{c}],0),`$
and thus

(2.7) $`=\rho (\pi ^1((\pi ^1\stackrel{~}{c})\stackrel{~}{b})\pi ^1((\pi ^1\stackrel{~}{b})(\stackrel{~}{c})[\stackrel{~}{b},\stackrel{~}{c}])+[\pi ^1\stackrel{~}{b},\pi ^1\stackrel{~}{c}],0)`$
$`=\rho (\pi ^1\left((\pi ^1\stackrel{~}{c})\stackrel{~}{b}+(\pi ^1\stackrel{~}{b})(\stackrel{~}{c})+[\stackrel{~}{b},\stackrel{~}{c}]\right)+[\pi ^1\stackrel{~}{b},\pi ^1\stackrel{~}{c}],0)`$
$`=0\text{by (}\text{2.12}\text{)}.`$
Analogously, evaluating (2.8) at $`a,c`$ and (2.9) at $`a,b`$, we get

$`a_k^1b_j^0b_j^1a_k^0`$ $`(y_j(x^i\beta ))(a)y^j(\alpha (c))x_i=\beta _a(\alpha (c))`$
$`=\rho (\pi ^1(\pi ^1(\stackrel{~}{c})\stackrel{~}{a}),\pi ^1(\stackrel{~}{c})\stackrel{~}{a})),`$
$`b_j^0[b_j^1,a_k^1]a_k^0`$ $`x^i(\beta (a))y^j(\alpha (c))[x_i,y_j]=[\beta (a),\alpha (c)]`$
$`=\rho ([\pi ^1\stackrel{~}{a},\pi ^1\stackrel{~}{c}],\pi ^1(\stackrel{~}{c})\stackrel{~}{a}),`$
$`b_j^0a_k^1b_j^1a_k^0`$ $`x^i(\beta (a))(x_iy^j\alpha )(c)y_j=\alpha _c(\beta (a))`$
$`=\rho (\pi ^1(\pi ^1(\stackrel{~}{a})\stackrel{~}{c})+\pi ^1[\stackrel{~}{a},\stackrel{~}{c}]),0),`$
$`a_i^1b_l^0a_i^0b_l^1`$ $`(x_iy^j\beta )(a)x^i(\alpha (b))y_j=\beta _a(\alpha (b))`$
$`=\rho (\pi ^1(\pi ^1(\stackrel{~}{b})\stackrel{~}{a}),\pi ^1(\stackrel{~}{b})\stackrel{~}{a})),`$
$`b_j^0b_j^1b_l^0b_l^1`$ $`x^i(\beta (a))(x_iy^j\beta )(b)y_j=\beta _b(\beta (a))`$
$`=\rho (\pi ^1(\pi ^1(\stackrel{~}{a})\stackrel{~}{b})\pi ^1[\stackrel{~}{a},\stackrel{~}{b}],(\pi ^1(\stackrel{~}{a})\stackrel{~}{b})[\stackrel{~}{a},\stackrel{~}{b}]),`$
$`b_j^0b_l^0[b_j^1,b_l^1]`$ $`x^i(\beta (a))y^j(\beta (b))[x_i,y_j]=[\beta (a),\beta (b)]`$
$`=\rho ([\pi ^1(\stackrel{~}{a}),\pi ^1(\stackrel{~}{b})],(\pi ^1(\stackrel{~}{a})\stackrel{~}{b})(\pi ^1(\stackrel{~}{b})\stackrel{~}{a})+[\stackrel{~}{a},\stackrel{~}{b}]),`$
and we get (2.8) and (2.9) as a result of (2.12). ∎

## 4. Proof of Theorem 1.1

###### Proof.

Let $`r`$ be a geometric solution of the CYBE. Theorem 2.5 attaches to $`r`$ a classical bijective cocycle $`7`$-tuple $`(𝔤,𝔞,X,\rho _{𝔤𝔞},\rho _{𝔤𝔞X},\pi ,\mathrm{\Psi }_𝔞)`$. We will now “exponentiate” this classical 7-tuple to produce a (formal) quantum bijective cocycle 7-tuple.

Recall that the category of (complex) Lie algebras is equivalent to the category of (complex) formal groups, via the exponentiation functor $`𝔥e^𝔥`$. The formal group $`e^𝔥`$ is a scheme which can be evaluated on pro-Artinian local complex algebras; we will use, however, only $`e^𝔥([[\mathrm{}]])=\{e^{_{n>0}a_n\mathrm{}^n}|a_n𝔥n\}`$, and we drop $`([[\mathrm{}]])`$ from the notation. Thus we may consider the formal groups $`G=e^𝔤`$, $`A=e^𝔞`$.

To exponentiate $`\rho _{𝔤𝔞}`$, we notice that $`\rho _{𝔤𝔞}:𝔤\mathrm{Der}(𝔞)`$ is a homomorphism. Hence we have a homomorphism $`e^{\rho _{𝔤𝔞}}:e^𝔤e^{\mathrm{Der}(𝔞)}\mathrm{Aut}(e^𝔞)`$. For $`\rho _{𝔤𝔞X}`$, we have a homomorphism $`\rho _{𝔤𝔞X}:𝔞𝔤\mathrm{Vect}(X)`$, hence we have a homomorphism $`e^{\rho _{𝔤𝔞X}}:e^{𝔞𝔤}e^{\mathrm{Vect}(X)}=\mathrm{Aut}(X)`$, where $`\mathrm{Aut}(X)`$ stands for the group of formal diffeomorphisms $`XX`$.

We have the following short exact sequence of Lie algebras: $`0𝔞𝔞𝔤𝔤0`$. By exponentiation, it maps to $`1e^𝔞e^{𝔞𝔤}e^𝔤1`$. Since the former sequence splits, the latter also does. This gives an isomorphism $`e^{𝔞𝔤}e^𝔞e^𝔤`$. Using this isomorphism we can consider $`e^{\rho _{𝔤𝔞X}}`$ to be a map $`AG\mathrm{Aut}(X)`$.

Consider now the map $`\pi :𝔤𝔞`$. This is a $`1`$-cocycle and hence yields a Lie algebra map $`\overline{\pi }:𝔤𝔞𝔤`$, $`x(\pi (x),x)`$. We now exponentiate it and we get $`e^{\overline{\pi }}:e^𝔤e^{𝔞𝔤}`$ and via the previous isomorphism we get a map $`e^𝔤e^𝔞e^𝔤`$. This is a morphism of groups, and it must be of the form $`e^g(\stackrel{~}{\pi }(e^g),e^g)`$, for some $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }:e^𝔤e^𝔞`$, which, a fortiori, is a $`1`$-cocycle. Last, take $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_𝔞=e^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }_𝔞}`$, i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_𝔞(x)=e^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }_𝔞(x)}`$.

We have to prove that this is a bijective cocycle $`7`$-tuple. It is easy to see that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_𝔞`$ is $`AG`$-equivariant; the rest of the conditions are clear.

Now define $`R`$ by formula (2.3). From Lemma 2.2 we know that $`R`$ is a solution of the quantum Yang-Baxter equation, and it is evident from the construction that it is geometric. To see that $`r`$ is the classical limit of $`R`$, we compute the first order approximation of (2.3). We can see that $`x\stackrel{ˇ}{}yx\mathrm{}(yx)`$ and $`x\stackrel{ˇ}{}yy\mathrm{}(yx)`$ modulo $`\mathrm{}^2`$. Therefore,

$`(R(fg))(x,y)`$ $`=(fg)R^1(x,y)(fg)(x+\mathrm{}(yx),y+\mathrm{}(yx))(\text{mod}\mathrm{}^2)`$
$`=f(x)g(y)+\mathrm{}\left(f(x)b_i^0(x)(b_i^1g)(y)+(a_j^1f)(x)a_j^0(y)g(y)\right),`$
whence $`R=1+\mathrm{}r+𝒪(\mathrm{}^2)`$. ∎

###### Remark 4.1 (Special cases).

Let us point out two special cases of this construction. The first one is when $`r`$ is unitary ($`r^{21}+r=0`$). In this case our construction coincides with the one in \[ES\]; in particular, we get $`R`$ unitary ($`R^{21}R=1`$). On the CBCST side, the property of being unitary is equivalent to $`𝔞`$ being abelian, and it can be shown that when this happens $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }(e^g)=e^{\frac{e^g1}{g}\pi (g)}`$ (this formula appears in \[ES\]). The other special case is $`r`$ being a *classical rack* ($`r=b_j^0b_j^1`$). In this case we obtain a geometric rack, $`R(x,y)=(x,xy)`$ for a suitable $``$$``$ (see for instance \[FR\] for the definition of *rack*).

## 5. Example

In this section we apply the previous procedure to a $`3`$-dimensional example. Let $`X=^3=\{(x_1,x_2,x_3)\}`$, $`r=r^1+r^2`$, where $`r_1=x_iA_i`$, $`r_2=B_ix_i`$. Here $`x_i`$ stands for the canonical coordinate function and $`A_i`$, $`B_i`$ are the vector fields defined by:

$`A_1(x,y,z)=({\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}+y)_x{\displaystyle \frac{z}{2}}_z,`$ $`B_1(x,y,z)=({\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}+y)_x+(y{\displaystyle \frac{z}{2}})_z,`$
$`A_2(x,y,z)=x_x+y_y,`$ $`B_2(x,y,z)=x_x+y_yx_z,`$
$`A_3(x,y,z)=x_x+z_z,`$ $`B_3(x,y,z)=x_x+z_z.`$
Following the definitions in §2, we see that $`𝔞`$ can be identified with the Heisenberg algebra

$$𝔞=\mathrm{span}\{X,Y,C\},C\text{ is in the center and }[X,Y]=C,$$

and $`𝔤`$ can be identified with the upper-triangular matrices in $`𝔤𝔩_2()`$,

$$𝔤=\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}p& q\\ 0& r\end{array}\right)\}.$$

The map $`\mathrm{\Psi }:X𝔞`$ is just the “identity” $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x_1,x_2,x_3)=x_1X+x_2Y+x_3C`$ and thus we will just identify $`X`$ with $`𝔞`$. The action $`\rho _{𝔤𝔞}`$ is given by left multiplication by the matrix $`\rho _{𝔤𝔞}(\left(\begin{array}{cc}p& q\\ 0& r\end{array}\right))=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}p& q& 0\\ 0& r& 0\\ 0& 0& p+r\end{array}\right)`$ in the basis $`\{X,Y,C\}`$. The $`1`$-cocycle is given by $`\pi (\left(\begin{array}{cc}p& q\\ 0& r\end{array}\right))=qX+rY+(p+\frac{q}{2}+r)C`$.

In particular, the adjoint action of $`𝔞𝔤`$ on itself is given by

$$\mathrm{adj}(aX+bY+cC,\left(\begin{array}{cc}p& q\\ 0& r\end{array}\right))=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}p& q& 0& a& b& 0\\ 0& r& 0& 0& 0& b\\ b& a& p+r& c& 0& c\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& q& pr& q\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$

Considering the adjoint representation, which is faithful, we can compute $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ as

$$\stackrel{~}{\pi }(e^{\mathrm{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}p& q\\ 0& r\end{array}\right)})=(e^{\mathrm{adj}})^1\left(e^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{adj}(\pi \left(\begin{array}{cc}p& q\\ 0& r\end{array}\right))+\mathrm{}\mathrm{adj}\left(\begin{array}{cc}p& q\\ 0& r\end{array}\right)}e^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{adj}\left(\begin{array}{cc}p& q\\ 0& r\end{array}\right)}\right).$$

From this we get that $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^1(e^{\mathrm{}(aX+bY+cC)})=e^{\left(\begin{array}{cc}p& q\\ 0& r\end{array}\right)}`$, where

$`p`$ $`=\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{}c\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}a}{1+\mathrm{}b}}),`$
$`q`$ $`=\mathrm{}a\left(1+\mathrm{}b\right)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{}c\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}a}{\left(1+\mathrm{}b\right)^2}}\right)\left(1+\mathrm{}c{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}a\left(1+\mathrm{}b\right)^2\right)^1,`$
$`r`$ $`=\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{}b).`$
This computation, as well as most of the remaining ones, were carried with the help of MAPLE. Finally, we can compute in a straightforward way $`R(x,y)=(x\stackrel{ˇ}{}y,x\stackrel{ˇ}{}y)`$ as defined in (2.3), and we get

$`(x_1,x_2,x_3)\stackrel{ˇ}{}(y_1,y_2,y_3)=(`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{}y_3+\mathrm{}\frac{y_1}{2}}{1\mathrm{}y_2}}x_1\mathrm{}y_1x_2,(1\mathrm{}y_2)x_2,(1\mathrm{}y_3+\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{2}})x_3);`$
$`(x_1,x_2,x_3)\stackrel{ˇ}{}(y_1,y_2,y_3)=(`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{y_1(1\mathrm{}x_2)+\mathrm{}y_2(x_1y_1+\mathrm{}y_1x_2\mathrm{}x_1y_3+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}x_1y_1)}{\text{den}}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{y_2}{(1\mathrm{}x_2+\mathrm{}^2x_2y_2)}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(1\mathrm{}y_2)(y_3\mathrm{}y_1x_2)+\mathrm{}y_2x_1(1\mathrm{}y_3+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}y_1)}{\text{den}}})`$
where

$$\text{den}=(1\mathrm{}y_2)(1\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}^2y_1x_2)+\mathrm{}(1\mathrm{}y_3+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}y_1)(x_3+\frac{1}{2}x_1+\mathrm{}x_3y_2).$$

It is possible to “unitarize” this example by replacing in $`𝔞`$ the bracket $`[X,Y]=C`$ by $`[X,Y]=\epsilon C`$. The r-matrix $`r^\epsilon `$ has a similar expresion to that of $`r`$, but changing $`A_i`$, $`B_i`$ by

$`A_1^\epsilon (x,y,z)=(\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}+y)_x\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{z}{2}}_z,`$ $`B_1^\epsilon (x,y,z)=(\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}+y)_x+\epsilon (y{\displaystyle \frac{z}{2}})_z,`$
$`A_2^\epsilon (x,y,z)=x_x+y_y,`$ $`B_2^\epsilon (x,y,z)=x_x+y_y\epsilon x_z,`$
$`A_3^\epsilon (x,y,z)=x_x+z_z,`$ $`B_3^\epsilon (x,y,z)=x_x+z_z.`$
The $`1`$-cocycle will become $`\pi ^\epsilon (\left(\begin{array}{cc}p& q\\ 0& r\end{array}\right))=qX+rY+(p+\frac{\epsilon q}{2}+r)C`$. There are similar expresions for the R-matrix $`R^\epsilon `$. Now, if we let $`\epsilon 0`$, we will get a unitary r-matrix (since $`𝔞`$ will become abelian) and hence a unitary R-matrix. In the limit, we get $`lim_{\epsilon 0}R^\epsilon (x,y)=(x\stackrel{ˇ}{}^0y,x\stackrel{ˇ}{}^0y)`$, given by

$`(x_1,x_2,x_3)\stackrel{ˇ}{}^0(y_1,y_2,y_3)=(`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{}y_3}{1\mathrm{}y_2}}x_1\mathrm{}y_1x_2,(1\mathrm{}y_2)x_2,(1\mathrm{}y_3)x_3)`$
$`(x_1,x_2,x_3)\stackrel{ˇ}{}^0(y_1,y_2,y_3)=(`$ $`y_1{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{}x_2}{1\mathrm{}x_3+\mathrm{}^2x_3y_3}}+\mathrm{}y_2{\displaystyle \frac{x_1(1\mathrm{}y_3)}{(1\mathrm{}x_3+\mathrm{}^2x_3y_3)(1\mathrm{}y_2)}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{y_2}{1\mathrm{}x_2+\mathrm{}^2x_2y_2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{y_3}{(1\mathrm{}x_3+\mathrm{}^2x_3y_3)}})`$


format: text

text:
# The Waring loci of ternary quartics

## 1. Preliminaries

In this section, we establish notation and recall the representation-theoretic notions that we will need. The reader may wish to read it along with , where a similar set-up is used but more detailed explanations are given. Although we work throughout with ternary quartics, on occasion I state whether a result goes through for arbitrary $`q`$ and $`r`$.

Let $`V`$ be a three-dimensional $`𝐂`$-vector space. Let $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ have dual bases $`\{y_0,y_1,y_2\}`$ and $`\{x_0,x_1,x_2\}`$ respectively. We will identify $`(S_4V^{})=^{14}`$ with the space of quartic forms in the $`x_i`$ (up to scalars). Let $`R=S_{}(S_4V)`$ denote the symmetric algebra on $`S_4V`$, then $`^{14}=\text{Proj}R`$.

For an integer $`s`$, let $`W_s^{}^{14}`$ denote the set

(2)
$$\{F^{14}:F=L_1^4+\mathrm{}+L_s^4,\text{for some }L_iV^{}\},$$

and $`W_s`$ its Zariski closure. The $`W_s`$ are irreducible projective varieties, whereas the $`W_s^{}`$ are generally not quasiprojective, but only constructible. The imbedding $`W_s^{14}`$ is $`SL(V)`$-equivariant.

We would like to give necessary and sufficient $`SL_3`$-invariant algebraic conditions for a form $`F`$ to lie in $`W_s`$. This is roughly the same as determining the structure of the ideal $`I_{W_s}R`$ as an $`SL(V)`$-representation. The parallel problem of characterizing $`W_s^{}`$ is harder, and later in §3.6 we only consider the case of $`W_2^{}`$.

###### Remark 1.1.

The dimensions of the $`W_s`$ are known by a theorem due to Alexander and Hirschowitz - see  for references. In fact $`W_s=^{14}`$ for $`s6`$, $`dimW_s=3s1`$ for $`1s4`$ and $`W_5`$ is a hypersurface. The degrees of $`W_1,\mathrm{},W_5`$ are $`16,75,112,35`$ and $`6`$ respectively (see ). Elements of $`W_4`$ (resp. $`W_5`$) are conventionally called Capolary (resp. Clebsch) quartics.

### 1.1. Schur functors

If $`\lambda `$ is a partition, then $`S_\lambda ()`$ denotes the corresponding Schur functor. (We maintain the indexing conventions of \[6, Ch. 6\].)

Let $`JR`$ be a homogeneous $`SL(V)`$-stable ideal, and $`J_d`$ its degree $`d`$ part. We have an additive decomposition

(3)
$$J_d=\underset{\lambda }{}(S_\lambda V)^{N_\lambda }S_d(S_4V).$$

Since $`V`$ is three-dimensional, $`\lambda =(m+n,n)`$ for some integers $`m,n`$. If we can locate the degrees $`d`$ which generate $`J`$, and then specify the inclusions in (3), then $`J`$ is completely specified. These inclusions are encoded by the concomitants of ternary quartics.

### 1.2. Concomitants

Write $`a_I`$ for the monomial $`y_0^{i_0}y_1^{i_1}y_2^{i_2}`$, where $`I=(i_0,i_1,i_2)`$ is of total degree $`4`$. Then the $`\{a_I\}`$ form a basis of $`S_4V`$, and $`R`$ is the polynomial algebra $`𝐂[\{a_I\}]`$. Now $`S_4VS_4V^{}`$ contains the trace element, which, when written out in full, appears as

$$𝔽=\underset{|I|=4}{}a_Ix_0^{i_0}x_1^{i_1}x_2^{i_2}.$$

This is the precise formulation of the concept of a ‘generic’ ternary quartic. Write

$$u_0=x_1x_2,u_1=x_2x_0,u_2=x_0x_1;$$

which form a basis of $`^2V^{}`$. Consider an inclusion

$$S_{(m+n,n)}V\stackrel{\phi }{}S_d(S_4V)$$

of $`SL(V)`$-representations, which will correspond to an inclusion

$$𝐂S_d(S_4V)S_{m+n,n}V^{}.$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ denote the image of $`1`$ under this map. Written out in full, it appears as a form of degree $`d,m,n`$ respectively, in the three sets of variables $`a_I,x_i,u_i`$. (This follows because $`S_{m+n,n}V^{}`$ has a basis coming from standard tableaux, see \[6, Ch, 6\].) We will write this image as $`\mathrm{\Phi }(d,m,n)`$. Classically, it is called a concomitant of degree $`d`$, order $`m`$ and class $`n`$ (of ternary quartics). For instance, $`𝔽`$ itself is a $`\mathrm{\Phi }(1,4,0)`$ and the Hessian of $`F`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Phi }(3,6,0)`$. For fixed $`d,m,n`$, the number of linearly independent concomitants equals the multiplicity of $`S_{m+n,n}V`$ in $`S_d(S_4V)`$.

We may regard $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as a form in $`u_i,x_i`$ with coefficients in $`R_d`$. Then the subspace of $`R_d`$ generated by these coefficients coincides with the image of the inclusion $`\phi `$ above. We can evaluate $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ at a specific form $`F`$ by substituting its actual coefficients for the letters $`a_I`$. Then we say that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ vanishes at $`F`$ if this evaluated form is identically zero.

## 2. Apolarity

We briefly explain the connection between the expression of $`F`$ as a sum of powers, and the existence of schemes ‘apolar’ to $`F`$ (also see ).

Let $`A=S_{}V`$ denote the symmetric algebra on $`V`$. A linear form $`LV^{}`$ can be considered as a point in $`V^{}=\text{Proj}A`$. If $`Z=\{L_1,\mathrm{},L_s\}`$ is a collection of points in $`V^{}`$, then $`I_ZA`$ denotes their ideal.

For every $`k0`$, there is a coproduct map

$$S_4V^{}S_kV^{}S_{4k}V^{}.$$

(It is zero unless $`0k4`$.) This gives rise to a map

(4)
$$S_4V^{}\text{Hom}(S_kV,S_{4k}V^{}),F\alpha _{k,F}.$$

Taking a direct sum over all $`k`$, we have a map

$$S_4V^{}\text{Hom}(A,\underset{i=0}{\overset{4}{}}S_iV^{}),F\alpha _F.$$

For a fixed $`F`$, $`\mathrm{ker}\alpha _F`$ is a homogeneous ideal in $`A`$. Classically, a form in $`\mathrm{ker}\alpha _F`$ is said to be apolar to $`F`$. The passage between apolarity and Waring’s problem is forged by the following beautiful theorem of Reye. (See \[10, Theorem 5.3 B\].)

###### Theorem 2.1 (Reye).

With notation as above,

$$F\text{span}\{L_1^4,\mathrm{},L_s^4\}I_Z\mathrm{ker}\alpha _F(I_Z)_4\mathrm{ker}\alpha _{4,F}.$$

The result holds for any $`q,r`$. In the situation above, we will say that $`Z`$ is an apolar scheme of $`F`$. To restate the theorem, $`F`$ lies in $`W_s^{}`$ iff $`F`$ has a reduced zero-dimensional apolar scheme $`Z`$ of length $`s`$. It is natural to relax the requirement that $`Z`$ be reduced, which motivates the following definition. Let

$$X_s=\{F^{14}:\mathrm{ker}\alpha _FI_Z\text{for some }Z\text{Hilb}^s(V^{})\}.$$

This is a projective subvariety of $`^{14}`$, which a priori only contains $`W_s`$. Now \[10, Prop. 6.7\] implies the following:

###### Lemma 2.2.

We have $`W_s=X_s`$ for all $`s`$.

The result is true for $`r=2,3`$ and all $`q`$. (The crux is that the schemes $`\text{Hilb}^s(^{r1})`$ are irreducible for $`r=2,3`$.) I do not know if $`X_s`$ can properly contain $`W_s`$ for $`r>3`$.

One can use Reye’s theorem to relate the varieties $`X_s`$ to degeneracy loci of certain morphisms of vector bundles on $`^{14}`$. Globally, the map (4) gives a morphism of vector bundles

$$\alpha _k:S_kV𝒪_{^{14}}(1)S_{4k}V^{}.$$

Upto a twist, $`\alpha _k`$ is dual to $`\alpha _{4k}`$.

###### Lemma 2.3.

If $`F`$ belongs to $`X_s`$, then rank $`\alpha _{k,F}s`$ for any $`k`$.

Proof. Since $`(I_Z)_k\mathrm{ker}\alpha _{k,F}`$, we have

$$\text{rank}\alpha _{k,F}=\text{codim}(\mathrm{ker}\alpha _{k,F},A_k)\text{codim}((I_Z)_k,A_k)s.$$

If $`\psi :`$ is a morphism of vector bundles, let $`Y(s,\psi )`$ denote the scheme $`\{\text{rank}\psi s\}`$, whose ideal sheaf is locally generated by the $`(s+1)\times (s+1)`$-minors of a matrix representing $`\psi `$. Let $`Y_{\text{red}}(s,\psi )`$ denote the underlying variety. We will shorten this to $`Y`$ or $`Y_{\text{red}}`$ if no confusion is likely.

###### Remark 2.4.

By the lemma above, $`X_sY_{\text{red}}(s,\alpha _k)`$ for any $`k`$. For binary forms, the containment

$$X_s\underset{k}{}Y_{\text{red}}(s,\alpha _k)$$

is an equality, but it is not known in general when this holds.

### 2.1. Symmetric bundle maps

In the sequel, we will exploit the fact that $`\alpha _{2,F}`$ is a twisted symmetric morphism.

Generally, let $`T`$ be a smooth complex projective variety. Let $``$ be a rank $`e`$ vector bundle and $``$ a line bundle on $`T`$. Assume that $`\psi :^{}`$ is a twisted symmetric bundle map (i.e., $`\psi ^{}=\psi `$). Define $`Y=Y(s,\psi )`$ as above. Then assuming $`Y`$ is nonempty,

(5)
$$\text{codim}(Y^{},T)\frac{(es)(es+1)}{2},$$

for every component $`Y^{}`$ of $`Y`$. Moreover, if equality holds for every component, then $`Y`$ is Cohen-Macaulay. In that case, the class of $`Y`$ in the Chow ring of $`T`$ is given by a determinantal formula (see ). Let $`z_k=c_k(^{}\sqrt{})`$, then $`[Y]`$ equals $`2^{es}`$ times the $`(es)\times (es)`$ determinant whose $`(i,j)`$-th entry is $`z_{(es2i+j+1)}`$.

The minimal resolution of $`Y`$ (assuming equality in (5)) is deduced in . All that we need is the beginning portion

(6)
$$S_{\lambda _s}^{(s1)}𝒪_T𝒪_Y0,$$

where $`\lambda _s`$ denotes the partition $`(\underset{s+1}{\underset{}{2,\mathrm{},2}})`$.

We will apply the set-up to $`\alpha _2`$, with $`=S_2V𝒪_{^{14}}(1)`$ and $`=𝒪_{^{14}}(1)`$.

## 3. Computations

We proceed to state the main theorem, and then explain the calculations entering into it. The concomitants will be written in the symbolic notation - see  for an explanation of this formalism. Define the following concomitants

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(2,4,2)`$ $`=\alpha _x^2\beta _x^2(\alpha \beta u)^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(2,0,4)`$ $`=(\alpha \beta u)^4`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(3,6,0)`$ $`=\alpha _x^2\beta _x^2\gamma _x^2(\alpha \beta \gamma )^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(3,3,3)`$ $`=\alpha _x\beta _x\gamma _x(\alpha \beta \gamma )(\alpha \beta u)(\alpha \gamma u)(\beta \gamma u)`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(3,2,2)`$ $`=\gamma _x^2(\alpha \beta \gamma )^2(\alpha \beta u)^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(3,0,0)`$ $`=(\alpha \beta \gamma )^4`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(3,0,6)`$ $`=(\alpha \beta u)^2(\alpha \gamma u)^2(\beta \gamma u)^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(4,0,2)`$ $`=(\alpha \gamma \delta )^2(\beta \gamma \delta )^2(\alpha \beta u)^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(4,1,3)`$ $`=\alpha _x(\alpha \gamma \delta )^2(\beta \gamma u)^2(\alpha \beta \delta )(\beta \delta u)`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(4,4,0)`$ $`=\alpha _x\beta _x\gamma _x\delta _x(\alpha \beta \gamma )(\alpha \beta \delta )(\beta \gamma \delta )(\alpha \gamma \delta )`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(4,2,4)`$ $`=\alpha _x\beta _x(\alpha \gamma \delta )(\beta \gamma \delta )(\alpha \beta u)^2(\gamma \delta u)^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_I(5,0,4)`$ $`=(\alpha \beta \gamma )^4(\delta ϵu)^4`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{II}(5,0,4)`$ $`=(\alpha \beta \gamma )^2(\delta ϵu)^2(\alpha \delta ϵ)^2(\beta \gamma u)^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(5,2,0)`$ $`=\alpha _x\beta _x(\alpha \beta \gamma )^2(\alpha \delta ϵ)(\beta \delta ϵ)(\gamma \delta ϵ)^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(6,0,0)`$ $`=(\alpha \beta \gamma )^2(\delta ϵ\zeta )^2(\alpha ϵ\zeta )^2(\beta \gamma \delta )^2.`$
Now form the lists

$`𝒰_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}`$ $`=\{\mathrm{\Phi }(2,4,2),\mathrm{\Phi }(2,0,4)\}`$
$`𝒰_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ $`=\{\mathrm{\Phi }(3,6,0),\mathrm{\Phi }(3,0,6),\mathrm{\Phi }(3,3,3),\mathrm{\Phi }(3,2,2),\mathrm{\Phi }(3,0,0)\}`$
$`𝒰_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}`$ $`=\{\mathrm{\Phi }(4,4,0),\mathrm{\Phi }(4,2,4),\mathrm{\Phi }(4,1,3),\mathrm{\Phi }(4,0,2)\}`$
$`𝒰_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}`$ $`=\{\mathrm{\Phi }_I(5,0,4)3\mathrm{\Phi }_{II}(5,0,4),\mathrm{\Phi }(5,2,0)\}`$
$`𝒰_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}}`$ $`=\{3\mathrm{\Phi }(6,0,0)\mathrm{\Phi }(3,0,0)^2\}.`$
If $`𝒰_{}`$ is such a list, then $`𝒰_{}|_F=0`$ (resp. $`𝒰_{}|_F0`$) means that all elements of $`𝒰_{}`$ vanish at $`F`$ (resp. at least one element is nonzero at $`F`$).

With notation as above, our main theorem is the following:

###### Theorem 3.1.

For a ternary quartic $`F`$,

$$FW_s𝒰_s|_F=0.$$

In the sequel, it is frequently necessary to calculate plethysms and tensor products of $`SL(V)`$-representations, this was done using John Stembridge’s SF package for Maple. All commutative algebra computations were done in Macaulay-2.

### 3.1. Case $`s=1`$

The locus $`W_1`$ is the quartic Veronese imbedding of $`V^{}`$. It is well-known that its ideal is generated in degree $`2`$, and we have an exact sequence

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 0& H^0(^{14},_{W_1}(2))& H^0(^{14},𝒪_{^{14}}(2))& H^0(W_1,𝒪_{W_1}(2))\\ & & ||& ||\\ & & S_2(S_4V)& S_8V\end{array}$$

Decomposing $`S_2(S_4V)`$, we see that $`H^0(^{14},_{W_1}(2))`$ must be isomorphic to $`S_{(6,2)}VS_{(4,4)}V`$. Henceforth we write the latter as $`\{62,44\}`$.

To specify the inclusion $`\{62\}S_2(S_4V)`$ is to specify a concomitant $`\mathrm{\Phi }(2,4,2)`$. There is only one copy of $`\{62\}`$ inside $`S_2(S_4)`$, hence there is a unique such $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ upto a constant. Now observe that $`\alpha _x^2\beta _x^2(\alpha \beta u)^2`$ is a (legal) symbolic expression of the right degree, moreover it is not identically zero. (This is tantamount to checking that it is a nonzero element in the ‘bracket algebra’ (see ). This was done in Macaulay-2.) Thus we have found $`\mathrm{\Phi }(2,4,2)`$. The other concomitant $`\mathrm{\Phi }(2,0,4)`$ is found in the same way, and this finishes the calculation for $`s=1`$.

###### Remark 3.2.

In general, given $`d,m,n`$, it is possible to get all symbolic expressions of that degree by solving a system of Diophantine equations. However, in practice it is much easier to concoct such expressions by hand, especially if the multiplicity of $`S_{m+n,n}`$ in $`S_d(S_4)`$ is small.

### 3.2. Case $`s=2`$.

Firstly we calculate the ideal $`I_{W_2}`$ by explicit elimination. Let

$$F=\underset{|I|=4}{}a_Ix^I,L_i=p_{i0}x_0+p_{i1}x_1+p_{i2}x_2\text{for }i=1,2\text{;}$$

where $`a_I,p_{ij}`$ are indeterminates. Write $`F=L_1^4+L_2^4`$, and equate coefficients. We obtain polynomial expressions $`a_I=f_I(p_{10},\mathrm{},p_{22})`$, defining a morphism

$$f:𝐂[\{a_I\}]𝐂[\{p_{ij}\}]$$

Then $`I_{W_2}`$ equals $`\mathrm{ker}f`$. The actual Macaulay-2 computation shows that all the ideal generators are in degree $`3`$, and $`dim(I_{W_2})_3=148`$.

The inclusion $`W_2Y(2,\alpha _3)=Y`$ implies $`I_YI_{W_2}`$. Now $`Y`$ is a rank variety in the sense of Porras , in particular it is reduced. (It is the locus of those $`F`$ which can be written as forms in only two variables by a change of coordinates.) The dimension of $`Y`$ is $`6`$ and its ideal sheaf is the image of the morphism (see \[loc.cit.\])

$$^3\alpha _3:^3(S_3V)𝒪_{^{14}}(3)𝒪_{^{14}}.$$

Decomposing $`^3(S_3)`$, we deduce that $`(I_Y)_3`$ is the $`120`$-dimensional representation $`\{63,60,42,00\}`$ inside

$$S_3(S_4V)=\{(12,0),(10,2),93,84,66,63,60,42,00\}.$$

The quotient of the inclusion $`(I_Y)_3(I_{W_2})_3`$ is a $`28`$-dimensional representation, and can only be $`\{66\}`$. Hence $`(I_{W_2})_3=\{66,63,60,42,00\}`$. The concomitants are obtained as in the previous case.

###### Remark 3.3.

The Gordan-Nöther theorem (see \[13, p. 234\]) implies that $`FY(2,\alpha _3)`$ iff the Hessian of $`F`$ (which is $`\mathrm{\Phi }(3,6,0)`$) identically vanishes. I do not know if the coefficients of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(3,6,0)`$ define $`Y`$ scheme-theoretically.

### 3.3. Case $`s=3`$.

Matters are greatly simplified because of the following lemma.

###### Lemma 3.4.

As schemes, $`X_3=Y(3,\alpha _2)`$.

Proof. As a first step, we show that $`X_3=Y_{\text{red}}(3,\alpha _2)`$. Let $`FY_{\text{red}}`$. If $`\text{rank}\alpha _{1,F}2`$, then $`F`$ is a binary quartic in disguise, and then it has infinitely many apolar schemes of length $`3`$ (see \[10, §1.3\]). If $`\text{rank}\alpha _{1,F}=3`$, then the existence of a length $`3`$ apolar scheme follows from \[10, Theorem 5.31\]. (To summarise the situation, the Buchsbaum-Eisenbud structure theorem implies that $`\mathrm{ker}\alpha _F`$ is generated as an ideal by $`3`$ conics and $`2`$ quartics. The subideal generated by the $`3`$ conics defines the apolar scheme.) In either case, $`FX_3`$. This shows that $`X_3=Y_{\text{red}}(3,\alpha _2)`$.

Now $`Y=Y(3,\alpha _2)`$ is irreducible of dimension $`8`$, so equality holds in (5). Hence $`Y`$ is Cohen-Macaulay, and has no embedded components. By the determintal formula, $`\mathrm{deg}Y=112`$ which is the same as $`\mathrm{deg}W_3`$. Hence $`Y`$ must be reduced. ∎

It follows from (6) that $`I_{W_3}=I_Y`$ is generated in degree $`4`$, and

$$(I_{W_3})_4=S_{2222}(S_2V)=\{64,43,40,22\}.$$

The concomitants are calculated as before.

### 3.4. Case $`s=4`$

This is similar to the previous case.

###### Lemma 3.5.

As schemes, $`X_4=Y(4,\alpha _2)`$.

Proof. Assume $`FY_{\text{red}}(4,\alpha _2)`$. If either $`\text{rank}\alpha _{1,F}2`$ or $`\text{rank}\alpha _{2,F}3`$, then $`FX_3`$ by the previous argument. Hence we may assume $`\text{rank}\alpha _{1,F}=3,\text{rank}\alpha _{2,F}=4`$. Then the two independent conics in $`\mathrm{ker}\alpha _{2,F}`$ define a complete intersection length $`4`$ scheme apolar to $`F`$. This shows that $`X_4=Y_{\text{red}}(4,\alpha _2)`$. The rest of the proof is similar to the previous lemma. ∎

It follows that $`I_{W_4}`$ is generated in degree $`5`$ by $`S_{22222}(S_2V)=\{44,20\}`$. Now there are two copies of $`\{44\}`$ inside $`S_5(S_4)`$, hence a $`2`$-dimensional space of concomitants of degree $`(5,0,4)`$. A basis for this space is given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_I(5,0,4),\mathrm{\Phi }_{II}(5,0,4)`$. Choose a typical form in $`X_4`$, say $`F=x_0^4+x_1^4+x_2^4+(x_0+x_1+x_2)^4`$ and evaluate both concomitants at $`F`$. It is found that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_I3\mathrm{\Phi }_{II}`$ vanishes identically on $`F`$.

Similarly there are two copies of $`\{20\}`$ in $`S_5(S_4)`$. However it turns out that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(5,2,0)`$ itself vanishes on $`F`$, so no linear combination is needed.

### 3.5. Case $`s=5`$.

The sextic invariant defining $`W_5`$ is called the catalecticant of ternary quartics. Decomposing $`S_6(S_4V)`$, we see that it contains two copies of $`\{00\}`$. Now $`\mathrm{\Phi }(3,0,0)^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(6,0,0)`$ generate this subspace, hence the catalecticant must be their linear combination. Specializing them at

$$F=x_0^4+x_1^4+x_2^4+(x_0+x_1+x_2)^4+(x_0x_1+x_2)^4,$$

it is seen that $`3\mathrm{\Phi }(6,0,0)\mathrm{\Phi }(3,0,0)^2`$ identically vanishes at $`F`$. This completes the discussion of Theorem 3.1. ∎

### 3.6. A description of $`W_2^{}`$

In general $`W_s^{}`$ is only expressible as a complicated boolean expression in closed sets, and it is not easy to characterize it algebraically. Here we attempt such a characterization for $`s=2`$.

Let $`FW_2W_2^{}`$, then $`F`$ is apolar to a nonreduced length two subscheme $`Z`$ of $`V^{}`$. Upto a change of coordinates, $`I_Z=(y_0,y_1^2)`$. This forces $`F=c_1x_2^4+c_2x_1x_2^3`$, for some constants $`c_i`$. Since $`F`$ has no apolar scheme of length one, $`c_20`$; so $`F=x_2^3(\frac{c_1}{c_2}x_2+x_1)`$. Hence

$$W_2W_2^{}=\{L_1^3L_2:L_i\text{are linearly independent}\}.$$

Now let

$$B=(W_2W_2^{})W_1=\{L_1^3L_2:L_iV^{}\},$$

which is an irreducible projective variety of dimension $`4`$. Geometrically, $`B`$ is the union of tangent planes to $`W_1`$. The inclusions $`W_1BW_2`$ imply $`I_{W_2}I_BI_{W_1}`$.

As in §3.2, we calculate the generators of $`I_B`$ by explicit elimination. Its minimal resolution begins as

$`R(3)M_8R(4)`$ $`M_{570}R(5)M_{66}`$
$`R(2)`$ $`M_{15}R(3)M_{56}RR/I_B0;`$
where $`M_i`$ is an $`i`$-dimensional $`SL(V)`$-representation. We need to identify $`M_{15}`$ and $`M_{56}`$. Since $`(I_B)_2(I_{W_1})_2`$, on dimensional grounds $`M_{15}=\{44\}`$. We have inclusions $`(I_{W_2})_3(I_B)_3(I_{W_1})_3`$, and the end terms are known. This forces

$$(I_B)_3=\{84,66,63,60,42,00\}.$$

Now

$$M_8M_{15}R_1=\{84,63,42,21,00\},$$

hence $`M_8=\{21\}`$. This implies that the submodule $`\{84,63,42,00\}`$ of $`(I_B)_3`$ is generated by $`M_{15}`$, so $`M_{56}`$ (the new generators in degree $`3`$) must be $`\{66,60\}`$. Define

$$𝒱=\{\mathrm{\Phi }(2,0,4),\mathrm{\Phi }(3,0,6),\mathrm{\Phi }(3,6,0)\},$$

following the generators of $`I_B`$. Since $`W_2^{}=(W_2B)W_1`$, we deduce that

###### Proposition 3.6.

For a ternary quartic $`F`$,

$$FW_2^{}(𝒰_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}|_F=0𝒱|_F0)(𝒰_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}|_F=0).$$

The general case does not seem so accessible, partly because there are a great many possibilities for the structure of a nonreduced scheme of length $`s`$.

Acknowledgements: I am grateful to D. Grayson and M. Stillman (authors of Macaulay-2), as well as J. Stembridge (author of the Symmetric Functions package for Maple). For information about obtaining these programs, see the respective websites:
‘www.math.uiuc.edu/Macaulay2’ and ‘www.math.umich.lsa.edu/$``$jrs’.

Jaydeep V. Chipalkatti
Department of Mathematics
University of British Columbia
Vancouver B.C. V6T 1Z2, Canada.
email: jaydeep@math.ubc.ca


text:
# Precision measurement and compensation of optical Stark shifts for an ion-trap quantum processor

## Abstract

Using optical Ramsey interferometry, we precisely measure the laser-induced AC-stark shift on the $`\text{S}_{1/2}`$$`\text{D}_{5/2}`$ “quantum bit” transition near 729 nm in a single trapped 40Ca+ ion. We cancel this shift using an additional laser field. This technique is of particular importance for the implementation of quantum information processing with cold trapped ions. As a simple application we measure the atomic phase evolution during a $`n\times 2\pi `$ rotation of the quantum bit.

Atomic two-level systems are currently discussed extensively for quantum information processing CHUANG00 ; PhysQI00 ; SASURA02 . Typically, a qubit is encoded in an atomic transition between levels with extremely slow radiative decay: Hyperfine ground states are used as qubits which are connected via a far-off-resonant Raman transition WINE98 . Alternatively, the qubit is encoded in a superposition of a ground state and a long-lived metastable state ROOS99 , manipulated on a direct optical quadrupole transition. In both cases the transition matrix element between the qubit levels is small, such that relatively high laser intensities are required to drive the transition. These strong electromagnetic fields will unavoidably lead to level shifts known as the dynamical or AC-Stark shift DRAKEAMO .

Even though a pure two-level system does not show AC-Stark shift if driven by resonant laser radiation, in real physical situations additional energy levels exist which lead to significant AC-Stark shifts of the qubit energy levels. Since quantum algorithms manifest themselves in many-particle quantum interference, any uncontrolled phase shift induced by manipulation of the qubits complicates the implementation of these algorithms considerably and must be avoided. The interest in fast one- and two-qubit manipulations aggravates the problem STEANE00 , since strong laser fields are required. Therefore complications due to AC-Stark shifts arise in most realizations of quantum information processing with trapped ions CIRAC95 ; SOERENSEN99 . Similar problems exist in precision spectroscopy WEISS94  and with optical clocks SENGSTOCK94 ; NIERING00 .

In this paper we present a measurement which identifies different contributions to phase shifts of a qubit caused by AC-Stark level shifts. We determine the relative oscillator strengths of various contributing transitions. Finally, we show how to compensate for the AC-Stark shift experimentally. This compensation greatly simplifies the implementation of quantum algorithms. As an application of the compensation method we demonstrate the controlled sign change of a qubit wavefunction under rotation by 2$`\pi `$.

In the following we focus on the qubit transition between the S1/2 ground state and the metastable D5/2 state (lifetime $``$ 1 s) in 40Ca+, see Fig. 1a. We drive coherently the transition between the Zeeman components $`|\text{S}_{1/2},m=\frac{1}{2}|\text{S}`$ and $`|\text{D}_{5/2},m^{}=\frac{1}{2}|\text{D}`$. AC-Stark shifts of these levels are induced by off-resonant quadrupole coupling to other transitions within the $`\text{S}_{1/2}\text{D}_{5/2}`$ Zeeman manifold, as well as by off-resonant dipole coupling to other levels ($`\text{S}_{1/2}\text{P}_{1/2},\text{S}_{1/2}\text{P}_{3/2},\text{D}_{5/2}\text{P}_{3/2}`$).

We measure the AC-Stark shift induced by a laser pulse detuned from the $`|\text{S}|\text{D}`$ transition (“Stark pulse”) with a Ramsey interference experiment RAMSEY85 . For this, we enclose the Stark pulse within a pair of Ramsey $`\pi /2`$ pulses resonant with the $`|\text{S}|\text{D}`$ transition (see Fig. 1b). Starting from the ground state $`|\text{S}`$, the first resonant Ramsey pulse transfers the ion to the superposition $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\{|\text{S}+i|\text{D}\}/\sqrt{2}`$ (rotating frame). The Stark pulse shifts the levels $`|\text{S}`$ and $`|\text{D}`$ for the time $`\tau `$ it is applied. Since the coupling of this pulse to both levels is different, we denote the phases which are acquired as $`\varphi _S=\tau \delta _S`$ and $`\varphi _D=\tau \delta _D`$, respectively, and define $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\varphi _D\varphi _S`$. Immediately before the second Ramsey pulse, the wave function is $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2=\{e^{i\tau \delta _S}|\text{S}+ie^{i\tau \delta _D}|\text{D}\}/\sqrt{2}`$. Now the second Ramsey pulse is applied, transferring phase information into population and yielding the state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_3=\frac{1}{2}e^{i\varphi _S}\{(1e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi })|\text{S}+i(1+e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi })|\text{D}\}`$. Finally, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$ is projected by a measurement of the probability to find the ion in the state $`|\text{D}`$, $`P_D=\frac{1}{2}(1+\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ))`$. With this method we obtain the phase shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ induced by a Stark pulse applied for duration $`\tau `$. For a systematic measurement we vary the Stark pulse duration $`\tau `$ while keeping the separation of the Ramsey pulses constant. The frequency of the population variation $`P_D(\tau )`$ directly yields the Stark shift $`\delta _D\delta _S\delta _{\mathrm{AC}}`$.

For the experiments, a single 40Ca+ ion is stored in a linear Paul trap made of four blades separated by 2 mm for radial confinement and two tips separated by 5 mm for axial confinement. Under typical operating conditions we observe axial and radial motional frequencies $`(\omega _{ax},\omega _r)/2\pi =`$ (1.7, 5.0) MHz. The trapped 40Ca+ ion has a single valence electron and no hyperfine structure.

We perform Doppler cooling of the ion on the $`\text{S}_{1/2}\text{P}_{1/2}`$ transition at 397 nm. Diode lasers at 866 nm and 854 nm prevent pumping into the D states. For sideband cooling and for quantum processing ROOS99 , we excite the S1/2 to D5/2 transition with a Ti:Sapphire laser near 729 nm ($`100`$ Hz linewidth). With $``$ 30 $`\mu `$m beam waist diameter and $``$ 50 mW laser power we achieve Rabi frequencies around 1 MHz, measured by driving $`|\text{S}`$ to $`|\text{D}`$ Rabi oscillations resonantly WINE98 ; ROOS99 . A constant magnetic field of 2.4 G splits the 10 Zeeman components of the S1/2 to D5/2 multiplet. The chosen geometry and polarization allow excitation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=0`$ and $`\pm 2`$ transitions only. We detect whether a transition to D5/2 has occurred by applying the laser beams at 397 nm and 866 nm and monitoring the fluorescence of the ion on a photomultiplier (electron shelving technique). The internal state of the ion is discriminated with an efficiency close to 100$`\%`$ within 3 ms ROOS99 .

The measurement cycle (total duration 20 ms) consists of four consecutive steps: (i) Doppler cooling leads to low thermal vibrational states of axial and radial modes, $`n_r3`$. (ii) Sideband cooling of the axial motion is performed on the $`|\text{S}_{1/2},m=\frac{1}{2}|\text{D}_{5/2},m^{}=\frac{5}{2}`$ transition, leading to more than 99 $`\%`$ ground state population. Pumping into $`|\text{S}_{1/2},m=+\frac{1}{2}`$ is counteracted by several short pulses of $`\sigma ^{}`$ radiation at 397 nm. (iii) Ramsey spectroscopy on the $`|\text{S}`$ to $`|\text{D}`$ transition, see Fig. 1b. The $`\pi /2`$ pulses have 8 $`\mu `$s duration and 200 $`\mu `$s separation. An intermediate off-resonant laser pulse (Stark pulse) with duration $`\tau `$, Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{AC}}`$ and detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AC}}`$ induces a phase shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\delta _{\mathrm{AC}}\tau `$. (iv) The final state after the second Ramsey pulse is determined by electron shelving. After this, laser light at 854 nm pumps the ion back to the S1/2 ground state.

The sequence (i)-(v) is repeated 100 times to measure $`P_D`$ for each value of $`\tau `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AC}}`$. Varying $`\tau `$ yields data as shown in Fig. 2a. From the fit of $`P_D`$ to the data we find the AC-Stark shift $`\delta _{\mathrm{AC}}`$. For a given $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AC}}`$ each experiment was conducted twice to cancel a slow phase drift of the Ramsey pulses due to a laser frequency drift on the order of 1 Hz/s: First the Stark pulse duration was increased with each step from $`\tau =0`$ to $`\tau =200\mu `$s, then it was decreased again. The frequency detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AC}}`$ of the Stark pulse is varied over several Zeeman resonances of the $`\text{S}_{1/2}\text{D}_{5/2}`$ manifold. Note that we extract only the modulus but not the sign of $`\delta _{\mathrm{AC}}`$ from the fit of $`P_D`$. The signs are attributed to the measured results according to the theoretical expectation discussed below. We determine the variation of the light intensity $`I(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ with the laser frequency detuning using a calibrated powermeter. From this we normalize the ac-Stark shift as $`\delta _{\mathrm{AC}}I(\mathrm{\Delta })/I(0)`$ to obtain the data plotted in Fig. 3.

There are three contributions to the AC-Stark shift: In our parameter regime the largest contribution is due to the different Zeeman transitions permitted by our particular geometry ($`m=\frac{1}{2}`$ to $`m^{}=\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},`$ and $`\frac{5}{2}`$). The second largest contribution arises from off-resonant dipole coupling of S1/2 to P1/2, P3/2, and from D5/2 to P3/2. A third contribution is caused by motional sidebands: For a trapped ion, the Rabi frequencies on the red and blue motional sideband are given by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{SB}}=\mathrm{\Omega }\eta \sqrt{n}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }\eta \sqrt{n+1}`$, respectively, where $`\eta `$ denotes the Lamb-Dicke factor and $`n`$ the phonon quantum number in the vibrational mode. With an ion cooled to the ground state of motion ($`n_{ax}0`$) and with $`\eta _{ax}=0.07`$, we expect $`0.5\%`$ relative contribution of the blue axial sideband to the overall AC-Stark shift. The contribution of the red axial sideband vanishes. Similar reasoning holds for the radial motion with $`n_{rad}3`$ and $`\eta _{rad}=0.016`$. We therefore neglect these contributions in the following.

The other relevant contributions to the AC-Stark shift can be summarized as:

$$\delta _{\mathrm{AC}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{AC}}^2}{4}\left(2b\frac{a_{5/2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AC}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{5/2}}2\frac{a_{1/2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AC}}}\frac{a_{3/2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AC}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{3/2}}\right).$$
(1)
Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{AC}}`$ denotes the Rabi frequency of the Stark laser field. The transitions $`m=\frac{1}{2}m^{}=\frac{5}{2},+\frac{3}{2}`$ are at $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{5/2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{+3/2}`$, which are $`\pm (2\pi )8.4`$ MHz in the experiment. An explicit calculation of the matrix elements of quadrupole transitions is given in Refs. JAMES98 ; ROOS\_PHD . The coefficients $`a_{1/2}`$, $`a_{5/2}`$ and $`a_{3/2}`$ are the squares of the relative coupling strengths. We define $`a_{1/2}`$ to be one, since the Ramsey spectroscopy is carried out on this transition. From the laser polarization and laser axis with respect to the magnetic field axis we calculate ROOS\_PHD  $`a_{5/2}=0.278`$ and $`a_{3/2}=0.0556`$. The factor of 2 in the contribution of the $`m=\frac{1}{2}`$ to $`m^{}=\frac{1}{2}`$ transition appears because the Ramsey method is applied on this transition such that the shift of both the upper and lower state is detected. From the other Zeeman components, however, only the shift of the lower state $`|\text{S}`$ becomes apparent. The constant $`b`$ in Eq. (1) contains the squared relative coupling strengths to all other dipole transitions. No dependence on the laser detuning appears since the transitions are far off-resonant.

The optimum fit of Eq. (1) to the data in Fig. 3 is obtained with $`a_{5/2}=0.32(2)`$, $`a_{+3/2}=0.05(2)`$, $`b=0.112(5)/2\pi (`$MHz$`)^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{AC}}/2\pi =357(3)`$ kHz. We independently measured $`a_{5/2}=0.36(2)`$ and $`a_{+3/2}=0.05(1)`$ with resonant Rabi oscillations. These values agree within their error margins with those obtained from the fit to the Stark shift data.

Most of the current proposals for quantum computation require that the ion is driven on the motinal sidebands. Applying a laser on the blue axial sideband of the $`|\text{S}|\text{D}`$ transition (“gate laser”) at a detuning of $`\mathrm{\Delta }/2\pi `$= +1.7 MHz results in a negative AC-Stark shift. However, shining in a second light field at a frequency whose AC-Stark shift is positive can compensate for this unwanted phase shift. As discussed in the introduction, such an AC-Stark shift cancellation is a prerequisite for any quantum algorithm. Our method to determine the optimum setting of the compensation laser consists of the following steps: First we detune the gate laser by $``$ 80 kHz from the sideband resonance to avoid excitation into the D state (its AC-Stark effect however is still practically identical to that of a laser field resonant with the sideband). Then we minimize the total AC-Stark effect by adjusting the intensity and detuning of the compensation laser field such that the oscillations in $`P_D`$ disappear. Both light fields are generated from the output of a single Ti:Sapphire laser by driving a broad-band AOM (in double pass configuration) with the two rf-frequencies simultaneously. Since both light fields are derived from the same laser, intensity fluctuations do not affect the compensation.

The accuracy to which the AC-Stark effect can be nulled is proportional to $`(2T_R)^1S/N`$, where $`T_R`$ denotes the Ramsey interrogation time (here $`200\mu `$s) and $`S/N`$ the signal to noise ratio of the state measurement. Integrating this measurement for long times, to improve $`S/N`$, is limited by the frequency drift of the laser source near 729 nm (typically $``$ 1 Hz/s), since a drift of the relative phase of the Ramsey pulses mimics a residual AC-Stark effect. To overcome this problem, we optimize the Rabi frequency and detuning of the compensation laser by alternating Ramsey experimental sequences with $`\tau =0`$ and $`\tau 200\mu `$s. Thus, a slow drift is discriminated against a residual phase shift due to imperfect compensation. Limited by the shot noise of $`P_D(\tau )`$, any AC-Stark effect can be cancelled to within $`2\pi `$30 Hz in 60 s. See Fig. 2b for the compensation data over the course of time, each data point corresponding to 100 repetitions of the experimental sequence and a time duration of 2 s.

As an application of the compensation method we demonstrate the sign change of a wavefunction, a simple building block frequently required in quantum algorithms. A driven spin-1/2-system transforms into its initial state only by a $`4\pi `$ rotation, whereas a $`2\pi `$ rotation leads to a sign change of the wavefunction. This phase shift is the central part of the Cirac–Zoller proposal CIRAC95  for quantum gates with trapped ions MONROE95 . Similarly, Ramsey experiments on Rydberg atoms have been performed in the microwave regime, to investigate the AC-Stark shift of the electromagnetic vacuum field BRUNE94  and to perform a tunable phase gate RAUSCH99 .

In our experiment, the ion is first prepared in the vibrational and electronic ground state and then driven resonantly between the $`|\text{S},n=0`$ and $`|\text{D},n=1`$ state (blue axial sideband near $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$=+1.7 MHz), with the AC-Stark compensation laser field switched on. Fig. 4a shows the corresponding Rabi oscillations.

To measure the phase acquired during the sideband interaction we enclosed the Rabi oscillations between two carrier ($`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ MHz) Ramsey $`\pi /2`$-pulses with phases 0 and $`\pi `$. Under the first Ramsey pulse the initial state $`|\text{S}`$ transforms into $`\left(|\text{S}+i|\text{D}\right)/\sqrt{2}`$, and is rotated back into $`|\text{S}`$, in case of zero sideband interaction time. If, however, the time for the sideband interaction corresponds to a $`2\pi `$ rotation on the blue sideband, the acquired phase of $`1`$ of the population in the $`|\text{S}`$-state results in the state $`\left(|\text{S}+i|\text{D}\right)/\sqrt{2}`$, which is transformed to $`i|\text{D}`$ by the second Ramsey pulse. Only the 4$`\pi `$ rotation of the qubit leads back to the initial state. The experimental finding is presented in Fig. 4: The $`2\pi `$ rotation, near 131 $`\mu `$s interaction time, shows up as a -1 phase shift, while after about 260 $`\mu `$s a full $`4\pi `$ rotation is completed. In this example, the compensation laser corrected for an AC-Stark shift of $`\delta _{\mathrm{AC}}2\pi 3.1`$ kHz. Without compensation, this shift alone would have resulted in an additional phase of $``$0.82$`\pi `$ in 131 $`\mu `$s.

In conclusion we have precisely measured optical AC-Stark shifts on a single ion using an optical Ramsey interferometer. The method highlights the phase evolution an atom undergoes while it is irradiated off-resonantly with light. Measuring on a single ion removes the influence of the beam intensity profile on the measurement result, typically occuring with atom samples. We have also demonstrated how to compensate for the AC-Stark shift with a simultaneous laser pulse at another frequency. The compensation enables quantum computing on optical transitions and to detect phases of multi-particle quantum interference in a straightforward way. The quality to which the AC-Stark effect can be cancelled is proportional to the chosen Ramsey interrogation time. Therefore, it is likely that the quality of this novel phase compensation method will improve when in future longer coherence times can be realized, as necessary for a large number of quantum gate operations.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported by the Austrian ’Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung’ SFB15, by the European Commission (QSTRUCT and QI networks, ERB-FMRX-CT96-0077 and -0087, QUEST network, HPRN-CT-2000-00121, QUBITS network, IST-1999-13021), and by the ”Institut für Quanteninformation GmbH”.


text:
# The CMB power spectrum out to ℓ=1400 measured by the VSA

## 1 Introduction

Acoustic peaks in the power spectrum of cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies were predicted by Sakharov (1965), Sunyaev & Zel’dovich (1970) and Peebles & Yu (1970). Recently several experiments have accurately measured the first of these peaks and have detected the second peak (Lee et al., 2001; Netterfield et al., 2002; Halverson et al., 2002; Scott et al., 2002). Importantly, despite the differing types of potential systematic errors suffered by these experiments, they are in very good agreement with each other. The CBI experiment (Padin et al., 2002) has measured the power spectrum out to $`\mathrm{}3500`$ (Mason et al., 2002; Pearson et al., 2002), and has detected the predicted fall in power level due to incoherent addition of temperature fluctuations along the line of sight and Silk damping (Silk, 1968), but does not have the $`\mathrm{}`$-resolution to define the peak structure. Resolving the third and subsequent CMB peaks is essential to constrain further cosmological models. The Very Small Array (VSA) (Watson et al., 2002) (hereafter Paper I) is an interferometric array which has measured the CMB power spectrum between $`\mathrm{}=`$ 150–800 as described in Taylor et al. (2002) and Scott et al. (2002) (hereafter Paper II and Paper III respectively). These measurements were made with the VSA’s 14 antennas arranged in a compact configuration. The VSA has since been upgraded with larger apertures to allow observations in an extended configuration giving high temperature-sensitivity measurements on smaller angular scales. This paper describes the first VSA measurements with the extended array and the power spectrum from the combined compact and extended arrays.

## 2 The VSA extended array

As described in Paper I, each VSA antenna comprises a conical corrugated horn feeding a section of a paraboloidal mirror. In its extended configuration, the 143 mm diameter illuminated apertures of the compact array are replaced with 322 mm diameter apertures, giving a primary beam of $`2.0^{}`$ FWHM at 34 GHz and an improvement in flux sensitivity of a factor of just over 5. The filling factor of this configuration is greater than that of the compact array, giving a significant increase in the overall temperature sensitivity.

The extended array has several features which increase observational efficiency. The narrower primary beam response allows observations closer to the Sun and the Moon than for the compact array. Repeating the tests outlined in Paper I we conclude observations must be at least $`18^{}`$ from the Sun and the Moon. Also the higher gain and directivity of the new antennas results in a reduced level of cross-coupling, now measured to be less than $`120`$ dB. The ‘spurious signal’ discussed in Paper I has now largely vanished, even on the shortest baselines, but conservatively we still apply a high-pass fringe-rate filter to our data to remove any low-level contamination.

Early commissioning runs with the extended array showed that, at the extremes of the VSA’s pointing range, the data were contaminated when sidelobes of the telescope’s primary beam were directed towards the top edge of the VSA ground screen; this edge appears as a temperature discontinuity and so results in a correlated signal. Tests show that the contamination is negligible for hour angles of less than $`\pm 3`$ hrs; adopting a conservative approach we limit observations with the VSA extended array to hour angles of $`\pm 2.5`$ hrs.

## 3 Observations

### 3.1 Field centres

The observations presented in this paper were made at 34 GHz during the period 2001 October – 2002 April. In each of three regions of sky, three overlapping fields were observed, separated by 75 arcminutes. All the fields lie within the FWHM of the mosaiced fields already observed at lower resolution by the VSA in its compact configuration (Taylor et al., 2002). The positions and effective integration times of the nine fields are given in Table 1. The fields were selected for low synchrotron and free-free emission, low dust and a lack of large-scale structure and are known from previous observations to contain no radio sources brighter than 100 mJy at 34 GHz. In Paper II we used external foreground templates for synchrotron, free-free and the dust, to estimate the level of contamination in the VSA fields. We showed that the amplitude of the combined foreground signal at $`1^{}`$ angular scales is $`<6\mu `$K. It is known that the power spectra of all the Galactic foregrounds decreases with increasing $`\mathrm{}`$ with power-law index $`\alpha =`$ 2–3 ($`C_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}^\alpha `$(Giardino et al., 2001; Tegmark et al., 2000). Assuming a power-law index of 2.5, at $`\mathrm{}=1200`$ the Galactic foregrounds will contribute no more than $`16\mu \mathrm{K}^2`$ to the power spectrum. We therefore conclude that contamination from Galactic emission will be negligible compared to our random errors. Foreground contamination is discussed further by Dickinson et al. (in prep).

### 3.2 Data reduction

The data were reduced and analysed as described in detail in Papers I and II but with three differences.

Calibration. Our primary calibrator was Jupiter, whose effective temperature at 34 GHz is $`T_{34}=155\pm 5`$ K (Mason et al., 1999). We also use Cas A and Tau A as phase calibrators, transferring the flux scale from Jupiter. These sources are partially resolved on the longer baselines of the VSA extended array and it is necessary to model them. We used VLA 1.4 GHz images (Anderson et al., 1991; Bietenholz et al., 1991) with aperture plane coverage encompassing that of the VSA to model the change in observed flux density over the range of VSA baselines. Both Cas A and Tau A are sufficiently similar in structure at 1.4 and 34 GHz for this process to work well; we have confirmed this using a 32-GHz image from Effelsberg for Cas A (W. Reich priv comm) and an 850-$`\mu `$m SCUBA map for Tau A (Green, 2002). We find that the amplitude of the correction is about 15 percent on the longest VSA baselines.

Effects of bad weather. Some of the extended array data were taken in weather conditions considerably worse than those for the compact array. Days when the sky temperature increased significantly were identified from the VSA system temperature monitor and the data were discarded. However, isolated clouds unresolved by the telescope beam can give correlated signals in the visibilities without any detectable increase in the system temperature. This emission is visible in the data as periods of very rapidly varying fringes. These fluctuations are generally short-lived and strongest on projected baselines which are perpendicular to the wind direction. To detect this correlated emission we calculate the variance of the 1-second sampled data over all 91 baselines during a 16-second integration; this is then used to reweight the data for each sample. This is in addition to weighting for system temperature variations and antenna effective sensitivities.

Correction for fringe smearing. To remove DC correlator offsets we apply a phase-switching sequence in the hardware with a cycle time of 16 s, which is then demodulated in software. For the higher fringe rates of the extended array, this process results in a reduction in the signal amplitude by a factor of up to $`6\%`$ and we apply an appropriate correction and downweighting of the data for each visibility.

The data were analysed independently by each of the three collaborating institutions, and the results were found to be consistent to within a small fraction of the intrinsic uncertainties in the data. In contrast to the compact array analysis, only 28 percent of the data were discarded due to weather, fringe rate filtering and telescope downtime; this difference is due in part to the higher fringe rates of the extended array.

### 3.3 Source subtraction

The point source contribution to the observed power spectrum increases with $`\mathrm{}`$ as $`T_0^2C_0\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)/2\pi `$, and contamination from extragalactic radio sources is expected to be significant for observations made using the VSA extended array. Our source removal strategy is to survey the fields at 15 GHz with the Ryle Telescope (RT) and then follow up the sources detected using a single-baseline source-subtraction interferometer operating at 34 GHz. The source-subtractor baseline is just longer than $`1000\lambda `$ and so the contamination from primordial fluctuations is negligible.

To ensure that extended-array observations of the CMB are not compromised by point-source contamination, it is necessary to subtract fainter sources than was required for the compact array. Taking the 34 GHz source count derived in Paper II, if we subtracted sources to the same level as before (i.e. S$`{}_{34}{}^{}>80`$ mJy), then the residual source power at $`\mathrm{}=1500`$ would be $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{\mathrm{sources}}^21800\mu \mathrm{K}^2`$. This is significantly higher than the predicted CMB power spectrum. For the current observations we subtract sources down to S$`{}_{34}{}^{}>20`$ mJy, which limits the contribution of unsubtracted sources to less than $`470\mu \mathrm{K}^2`$ at $`\mathrm{}=1500`$, and provides better statistics for the removal of this residual contribution to the power spectrum.

To achieve this levl of source removal, several changes were made to the source subtraction strategy. The flux limit of the RT survey at 15 GHz was improved to 10 mJy, which ensures that sources with a spectral index as steep as $`1`$ between 15 and 30 GHz can be found (Waldram et al., 2002). The sensitivity of the source subtractor was also improved by replacing the dishes with ones of increased surface accuracy and hence higher aperture efficiency, and by upgrading to a double sideband system, doubling the effective bandwidth.

In total 24 sources were detected above 20 mJy at 34 GHz and removed. We found reasonable upper and lower limits to the source count in the range 20 – 100 mJy to be $`N(S)dS=7.6\times 10^3(S/100\mathrm{m}\mathrm{J}\mathrm{y})^{2.15}\mathrm{Jy}^1\mathrm{sr}^1`$ and $`N(S)dS=8.5\times 10^3(S/100\mathrm{m}\mathrm{J}\mathrm{y})^{1.8}\mathrm{Jy}^1\mathrm{sr}^1`$ (Taylor et al. in prep. will present a full discussion of the 34 GHz counts). Integrating these counts from zero to 20 mJy gives a range of residual source powers of $`T_0^2C_0=1.3\pm 0.5\times 10^3\mu \mathrm{K}^2`$. We therefore subtract this statistical correction from the power spectrum band powers, in addition to the subtraction of discrete sources from the visibilities.

## 4 Results

In Figure 1 we present maps of the three regions observed. These maps provide important data checks and allow comparison with the earlier maps of the same sky areas made using the compact array but are not used in the calculation of the power spectrum, which is computed directly from the visibility data. Individual maps were made of each of the nine pointings, using a radial weighting function in the aperture plane proportional to $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{1/2}`$ of a fitted $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM power spectrum – this is equivalent to a Wiener filter. The maps were CLEANed to reduce the long-distance correlations arising from the restricted sampling in the aperture plane and then combined into mosaics, weighted by their respective primary beams, using the AIPS task Ltess. Figure 2 shows a comparison between the compact and extended array maps of the VSA1 field; the two maps have different but overlapping aperture plane coverages and show many features in common.

We find that the noise levels in our maps well outside the primary beam are consistent with the thermal noise level derived from subtracting alternate visibilities ($`\sigma _{\mathrm{auto}}`$), showing that there is no component in the maps other than the signal within the primary beam and the thermal noise. The thermal noises for each field are given in Table 2 together with the rms CMB contributions in the central region of each of the maps.

### 4.1 Data checks

As a check on the consistency of the data, we computed the $`\chi ^2`$ statistic and significance for splits on the visibility data following the method described in Paper III. The significance is given as the probability to exceed the observed value in the $`\chi ^2`$ cumulative distribution function. The data for each VSA field were split in two according to observing epoch and the $`\chi ^2`$ values and associated significances are given in Table 3. A split between day and night observations is also included.

The consistency of the power spectra derived from each of the 3 VSA mosaiced regions was compared by forming the $`\chi ^2`$ statistic on pairs of power spectra. The $`\chi ^2`$ values (and significances) for the VSA1/VSA2, VSA1/VSA3 and VSA2/VSA3 power spectra comparisons are 12.2 (0.73), 9.5 (0.89) and 15.4 (0.50) respectively. In each case there are 16 degrees of freedom in the power spectrum analysis. The data sets are clearly self-consistent.

## 5 Power spectrum

The fully reduced and source subtracted visibility data for the combined compact and extended VSA data sets have been analysed using the Madcow software package (Hobson & Maisinger, 2002). The typical anti-correlation between adjacent bins is $`20`$ percent, with one as high as $`40`$ percent. We use variable sized bins to reflect the differences in density of coverage of the aperture plane, but also repeat the calculation with bin centres shifted by half a bin width in order to sample effectively the features of the power spectrum. We follow the procedure outlined in Paper III to determine the window function $`W(\mathrm{})`$ which determines how each bin samples the underlying power spectrum. The window functions for our analysis are shown in Figure 3. The resulting power spectrum is shown in Figure 5, numerical values for both binnings are given in Table 4 and the correlation matrix for the main binning in Table 5. The bin centres given in each case are the medians of the respective window functions rather than the nominal bin centres.

There is a systematic uncertainty of 7 percent in the scaling of the power spectrum due to the uncertainty in the effective temperature of the primary calibration source, Jupiter. The error in flux density to temperature conversion (equivalent to the beam uncertainty in scanned-beam experiments) is negligible.

## 6 Discussion & conclusions

We have measured the power spectrum of the CMB over the multipole range $`\mathrm{}=160`$$`1400`$ using two configurations of the VSA. The combined power spectrum clearly shows three peaks, a sharp fall-off in power above $`\mathrm{}800`$, and marginal evidence for a fourth peak. Figure 5 shows the VSA data plotted alongside that from other recent CMB experiments: there is excellent agreement between all the experiments.

To quantify the significance of these peaks in the power spectrum, we used a model of five Gaussians parametrised by their amplitude, position and width, as described in Ödman et al. (2002). We analysed the VSA data alone, plus two data sets consisting of a compilation of recent data, and used an MCMC routine to constrain the parameters simultaneously. In Table 6, we list the constraints on the amplitudes and positions of the first four peaks after marginalising over their widths (there are no interesting constraints on the fifth peak). Including the new VSA measurement improves the constraints on the amplitude of the fourth peak, as well as confirming the detection of the first three peaks.

Fits of adiabatic inflationary model power spectrum, with associated estimates of cosmological parameters, are presented in a companion paper (Slosar et al., 2002).

In our current observing configuration we are increasing the size of the mosaiced regions and also observing new regions; this will increase both the sensitivity and $`\mathrm{}`$-resolution of the power spectrum. We also plan to increase the $`\mathrm{}`$-range of the VSA using larger antennas and longer baselines to study further peaks in the primordial spectrum and give information on the region where CBI observes excess power (Mason et al., 2002).

Band powers, correlation matrices and window functions can be downloaded from
`http://mrao.cam.ac.uk/telescopes/vsa/results.html`

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the staff of MRAO, JBO and the Teide Observatory for invaluable assistance in the commissioning and operation of the VSA. The VSA is supported by PPARC and the IAC. Partial financial support was provided by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology. CD, RS and KL acknowledge support by PPARC studentships. KC acknowledges a Marie Curie Fellowship. YH is supported by the Space Research Institute of KACST. AS acknowledges the support of St. Johns College, Cambridge. We thank Professor Jasper Wall for assistance and advice throughout the project.