text:
# KINETICS OF VACUUM PAIR CREATION IN STRONG ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS 11footnote 1Based on a poster presented at the conference “Progress in Nonequilibrium Greens Functions, Dresden, Germany, 19.-22. August 2002”

## 1 Introduction

It is expected that the influence of a magnetic field on vacuum particle production at the presence of a non-stationary electric field can be essential in many physical situations. It should be mentioned, first of all, that the joint consideration of chromoelectric and chromomagnetic fields is necessary while constructing the Flux Tube Model(FTM) of superconductive type when describing the pre-equilibrium evolution of Quark - Gluon Plasma(QGP), generated under extreme conditions of ultra-relativistic heavy ion collisions . It is expected that extra-strong electromagnetic fields can exist in a series of astrophysical (e.g., magnetars) and cosmological (e.g., cosmic strings) objects. Finally, when achieving impact near-critical magnetic fields in a laboratory environment in comparatively short distances it would be very perspective to study combined action of electric and magnetic fields on vacuum $`e^+e^{}`$ pair creation, e.g., under conditions of the planned experiment on the X-Free Electron Laser(X-FEL) .

Electron-positron pair production in constant electromagnetic(EM) fields was considered in the work  (see also ). Here we will assume the electric field is time dependent (but the magnetic field remains constant). For derivation of the kinetic equation (KE) we will use non-perturbative approach developed in works.

## 2 Solution of the one-particle problem

We consider $`e^+e^{}`$ vacuum pair creation under action of the external EM field with the configuration of vector potential of the kind

$$A^\mu (\stackrel{}{x},t)=\left(0,0,Hx^1,A^3(t)=A(t)\right),$$
(1)
where $`H`$ is the strength of the magnetic field, so that we have space homogeneous EM field, polarized in one direction. The electric field is time dependent, whereas the magnetic field is constant,

$$\stackrel{}{E}(t)=\left(0,0,E^3(t)=\dot{A}^3(t)\right),\stackrel{}{H}=(0,0,H),$$
(2)
where dot denotes time derivative.

The squared Dirac Equation is $`\left(D^2+m^2+\frac{ie}{2}F_{\mu \nu }\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu \right)\mathrm{\Psi }=0,`$ where $`F_{\mu \nu }=A_{\nu ,\mu }A_{\mu ,\nu }`$, $`D_\mu =_\mu ieA_\mu `$ and $`e`$ is the electron charge. This equation in the chosen configuration of fields (1) has the form

$`(_0^2\mathrm{}+m^2+2ie[Hx^1_2A_3]+e^2[H^2(x^1)^2+A^2]+`$
$`+ie[_0A\gamma ^0\gamma ^3H\gamma ^1\gamma ^2])\mathrm{\Psi }=0.`$ (3)
Let us choose solution in the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_r(\stackrel{}{x},t)=CT(t)\mathrm{\Psi }(x_1)e^{i(p^2x^2+p^3x^3)}R_r,$$
(4)
where $`C`$ is a normalizing constant and $`R_r(r=1,2)`$ are Nikishov spinors :

$$R_1^+=(0,1,0,1),R_2^+=(1,0,1,0).$$
(5)
The result of separation of variables gives the time-dependent part

$$\left\{_0^2+\omega _{r\lambda }^2(\stackrel{}{p},t)+ie_0A\right\}T_{\lambda r}(t)=0,$$
(6)
and space-dependent part

$$\left\{_1^2+2ex^1p^2He^2(x^1)^2H^2+\lambda \right\}\mathrm{\Psi }(x^1)=0,$$
(7)
where $`\lambda `$ is a separation constant and

$$\omega _{r\lambda }^2(\stackrel{}{p},t)=(p^2)^2+(p^3+eA)^2+m^2e(1)^rH+\lambda .$$

Eq. (7) can be reduced to

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{\prime \prime }(\eta )+(2n+1\eta ^2)\mathrm{\Psi }_n(\eta )=0,\text{with}\eta =\sqrt{eH}\left(x^1\frac{p^2}{eH}\right),$$
(8)
where prime means derivative with respect to $`\eta `$.

The solution of Eq. (8) is known

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_n(\eta )=exp(\eta ^2/2)H_n(\eta ),\text{with}\lambda _n=(2n+1)eH,$$
(9)
where $`H_n`$ are Chebyshev-Hermite polynomials and we have solutions

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{np^2p^3,r}^{(\pm )}(\stackrel{}{x},t)=C_nT_{nr}^{(\pm )}(t)exp(\eta ^2/2)H_n(\eta )e^{i(p^2x^2+p^3x^3)}R_r,$$
(10)
where $`(\pm )`$ signs correspond to positive and negative frequency solutions of the equation (6) and we have introduced the kinetic momentum $`P=p^3+eA(t)`$ and one particle energy $`\omega _{rn}^2(P)=P^2+m^2+eH[2n+1+(1)^r]`$.

Finally, the normalization conditions are

$$d^3x\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{np^2Pr}^{(\pm )}(\stackrel{}{x},t)\mathrm{\Psi }_{n^{}p^2P^{}r^{}}^{(\pm )}(\stackrel{}{x},t)=\delta _{nn^{}}\delta _{rr^{}}\delta (p^2p^2)\delta (PP^{}),$$
(11)
with normalization constant $`C_n=\left(\frac{eH}{\pi }\right)^{1/4}\frac{1}{2\pi }(2^{n+1}n!)^{1/2}`$.

Functions (10) form the complete system of orthonormalized functions. That is enough for the construction of the secondary quantized representation with the field operator

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=\underset{r,n}{}𝑑P\left\{\mathrm{\Psi }_{np^2Pr}^{()}(\stackrel{}{x},t)a_{np^2Pr}^{()}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{np^2Pr}^{(+)}(\stackrel{}{x},t)a_{np^2Pr}^{(+)}\right\},$$
(12)
where $`a^{()},a^{(+)}`$ are annihilation and creation operators with the standard set of anti-commutation relations.

## 3  The kinetic equation in the quasi-particle representation

The Kinetic Equation(KE) derivation requires the transition to the quasi-particle representation, which is archived by the diagonalization procedure of the Hamiltonian. In the considered case the procedure is distinguished from the usual one  only in some details, concerned with the specific character of basis functions (10). Let the new operators $`b^{()}(t)`$ and $`b^{(+)}(t)`$ are annihilation and creation operators in the quasi-particle representation, connected with $`a^{()}`$ and $`a^{(+)}`$ operators by the time dependent Bogoliubov transformation . Then it is possible to introduce the distribution function of electrons in the new representation with the momentum $`p^2,P`$ and spin $`r`$ on the Landau $`n`$\- level

$$f_{nr}(p^2,P,t)=0_{in}|b_{np^2Pr}^{(+)}(t)b_{np^2Pr}^{()}(t)|0_{in}$$
(13)
and the corresponding distribution function of positrons $`\overline{f}_{nr}(p^2,P,t)`$ with an electric neutrality condition $`f=\overline{f}`$.

The KE derivation for function (13) differs from the case of $`H=0`$  only in some details concerned with the source term describing the processes of vacuum tunneling. Now we have

$$\dot{f}_{nr}(P,t)=S_{nr}(P,t),$$
(14)
where source of pair production is

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& & S_{nr}(p^2,P,t)=S_{nr}(P,t)=\frac{1}{2}w_{nr}(P,t)\times \hfill \\ & & \\ & \times & _{\mathrm{}}^t𝑑t^{}w_{nr}(P(t,t^{}),t^{})[12f_{nr}(P,t^{})]\mathrm{cos}\left\{2_t^{}^t𝑑\tau \omega _{nr}(P,\tau )\right\},\hfill \end{array}`$ (18)
where $`P(t,t^{})=Pe_t^{}^t𝑑\tau E(t)`$ and

$$w_{nr}(P,t)=\frac{eE(t)\epsilon _{nr}}{\omega _{nr}^2(P)},$$
(19)
where $`\epsilon _{nr}^2=m^2+eH[1+2n+(1)^r]`$.

As one can see from Eqs. (18)-(19) the distribution function does not depend on $`p^2`$, $`f_{nr}(p^2,P,t)=f_{nr}(P,t)`$ (the cylindrical symmetry of the considered problem). This circumstance was taken into account in the KE Eq. (14).

The comparison of the source term (18)-(19) with the ”old” case $`H=0`$  shows that the ”new” quasi-particle frequency $`\omega _{rn}`$, transition amplitude (19) and transversal energy $`\epsilon _{nr}`$ can be obtained from the corresponding ”old” formulas by means of formal substitution

$$(p^1)^2+(p^2)^2=p_{}^2eH[1+2n+(1)^r],$$
(20)
which provides discrete transversal energy as in the case with boundary conditions

For numerical analysis it is convenient to reduce the KE (14)-(19) to the following system of ordinary differential equations:

$`\dot{f}_{nr}(P,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}w_{nr}(P,t)v_{nr}(P,t),`$
$`\dot{v}_{nr}(P,t)`$ $`=`$ $`w_{nr}(P,t)(12f_{nr}(P,t))2\omega _{nr}(P,t)z_{nr}(P,t),`$ (21)
$`\dot{z}_{nr}(P,t)`$ $`=`$ $`2\omega _{nr}(P,t)v_{nr}(P,t),`$
where $`v`$ and $`z`$ are auxiliary functions.

## 4 Scalar particle production

The Klein- Gordon equation in the field (1) permits the separation of variables as well

$$\phi ^\pm (x)=T^\pm (t)\mathrm{\Phi }(x_1)e^{ip^2x^2+ip^3x^3},$$
(22)
where functions $`T(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x_1)`$ satisfy following equations

$`\ddot{T}^\pm +\omega _\lambda ^2(t)T^\pm =0,\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }(\eta )\eta ^2\mathrm{\Phi }(\eta )+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda +(p^2)^2}{|e|H}}\mathrm{\Phi }(\eta )=0,`$ (23)
where now $`\eta =\sqrt{|e|H}\left(x^1+p^2/|e|H\right)`$. Normalized solutions of the last equation are again Chebyshev-Hermite polynomials with $`\lambda _n+(p^2)^2=(2n+1)|e|H`$ , $`n=0,1,\mathrm{}`$. Functions $`T^\pm (t)`$ are positive and negative solutions of (23) and we can write a formal solution

$$\phi _{n,p^2,p^3}^\pm (x)=C_nT_n^\pm (t)exp(\eta ^2/2)H_n(\eta )e^{i(p^2x^2+p^3x^3)},$$
(24)
where a normalization constant is $`C_n=\frac{1}{2\pi }\left(\frac{|e|H}{\pi }\right)^{1/4}\left(2^nn!\right)^{1/2}`$, which can be obtained from the condition

$$id^3x\phi _{n,p^2,p^3}^{(\pm )}(x)\stackrel{}{}(t)\phi _{n^{},p^2^{},p^3^{}}^\pm (x)=\delta _{nn^{}}\delta (p^2p^2^{})\delta (p^3p^3^{}).$$

One can obtain the KE (14) by analogy with the above considered case, assuming $`r=0`$,

$`S_n(,P,t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}w_n(P,t)\times `$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{t}{}}}dt^{}w_n((P,t^{}),t^{})[1+2f_n(P,t^{})]\mathrm{cos}\left\{2{\displaystyle _t^{}^t}d\tau \omega _n(P,\tau )\right\},`$ (25)
where $`\omega _n^2(P,t,t^{})=m^2+P^2(t,t^{})+|e|H(2n+1)`$ and

$$w_n(P,t)=\frac{|e|E(t)P(t)}{\omega _n(P,t)}.$$
(26)
## 5 Back reaction problem

For the description of the back reaction problem it is necessary to add the regularized Maxwell equation. It follows from Eq. (19) that $`wP^2`$ at $`P\mathrm{}`$. It leads to the absence of ultraviolet divergences in the densities of observed quantities, which are expressed by means of integrals containing the function $`f_{nr}(P,t)`$. However, there is divergence of the sum over levels $`n`$ and corresponding counter terms should subtracted while calculating densities of physical values.

In order to construct counter-terms according to the procedure of n-wave regularization , it is necessary to expand functions $`f`$,$`v`$ and $`z`$ in asymptotic series under inverse powers of one particle energy $`\omega _\alpha `$. After application of this procedure to the set of Eqs. (3) we obtain leading contributions

$$v_3^\alpha (t)=\frac{e\dot{E}(t)P}{4\omega _\alpha (P,t)}\left(\frac{ϵ_\alpha }{P}\right)^{g_\alpha 1},f_4^\alpha (t)=\left(\frac{eE(t)P}{4\omega _\alpha (P,t)}\left(\frac{ϵ_\alpha }{P}\right)^{g_\alpha 1}\right)^2,$$

where $`g_\alpha `$ is the degeneracy factor for corresponding set $`\alpha `$ of quantum numbers $`\{n,r\}`$ or $`\{n\}`$.

The counter term is similar to the case $`H=0`$  and sum diverges logarithmically at $`n\mathrm{}`$ for fermions and at $`|P|\mathrm{}`$ for scalar particles. Thus, we find that the mean number density of $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs

$$n(t)=\underset{nr}{}(P)f_{nr}(P,t)$$

is finite, whereas the mean energy density and the total current density as the sum of the conduction and the vacuum polarization currents contain divergences, which can be eliminated with the help of counter terms:

$$\epsilon (t)=2\underset{nr}{}(P)\left\{\omega _{nr}(P)(f_{nr}(P,t)f_c(P,t))\right\},$$
(27)
$$j^{}(t)=2e\underset{nr}{}(P)\frac{1}{\omega _{nr}(P)}\left\{Pf_{nr}(P,t)+\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{nr}\left(v_{nr}(P,t)v_c(P,t)\right)\right\},$$
(28)
Expressions (27) and (28) are renormalized according to charge renormalization procedure . Here we have the short notation

$$\underset{nr}{}(P)=\frac{eH}{(2\pi )^2}\underset{r=1}{\overset{g_\alpha }{}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑P.$$
(29)
The factor $`eH`$ describes the degeneracy of the distribution function (13) relatively of $`p_{}`$ .

The Eqs. system (3) with the Maxwell Eq. $`\dot{E}=j^\alpha (t)`$ compose the complete equation system of back reaction problem.

## 6 Conclusion and numerical results

The creation of scalar particle in the time dependent electric field with the presence of the strong collinear magnetic field is accompanied by the increase of effective mass $`mm_n^{}=\left(m^2+|e|H(2n+1)\right)^{1/2}`$, so that we have even in the basic state $`m_{n=0}^{}>m`$. This circumstance decreases the vacuum production of scalar bosons in the magnetic field .

Another situation is in the fermionic case: as it follows from (19), the effective mass coincides with the particle mass for the spin states of electrons oriented opposite to the magnetic field. That leads to paramagnetism of $`e^+e^{}`$ plasma, created from vacuum by the EM field (1). When spin oriented along the magnetic field direction then the effective mass $`m_2^{}=(m^2+2|e|Hn)^{1/2}`$ and vacuum creation of such electrons and positrons are suppressed. However, the creation of the electrons in the state with $`r=1`$ with effective mass $`m_1^{}=m`$ turns out more intensive in comparison with the case of an absence of magnetic field (this fact is well known for constant EM fields ). In Fig. 1 we show the number density of $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs after action of external electric field impulse as a function of magnetic field strength. In Fig. 2 we show the time evolution of number density in alternating external electric field at various magnetic field strength.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under project number SCHM 1342/3-1 and RUS/17/102/00; and partly by the Education Ministry of Russian Federation under grant N E00-33-20. We thank Prof. A. V.Prozorkevich for the helpful discussion.

## Index

* back reaction §5, §5
* Electron-positron pair production §1, §1, §2, §5
* Electron-positron plasma §6
* Kinetic equation KINETICS OF VACUUM PAIR CREATION IN STRONG ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS 111Based on a poster presented at the conference “Progress in Nonequilibrium Greens Functions, Dresden, Germany, 19.-22. August 2002”, §1, §3, §3, §3, §3, §4
* magnetars §1
* Particle - antiparticle pair production KINETICS OF VACUUM PAIR CREATION IN STRONG ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS 111Based on a poster presented at the conference “Progress in Nonequilibrium Greens Functions, Dresden, Germany, 19.-22. August 2002”
* Schwinger mechanism KINETICS OF VACUUM PAIR CREATION IN STRONG ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS 111Based on a poster presented at the conference “Progress in Nonequilibrium Greens Functions, Dresden, Germany, 19.-22. August 2002”
* Strong electromagnetic fields KINETICS OF VACUUM PAIR CREATION IN STRONG ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS 111Based on a poster presented at the conference “Progress in Nonequilibrium Greens Functions, Dresden, Germany, 19.-22. August 2002”, §1, §6


format: text

text:
# Graphical representation of the partition function for a 1-D 𝛿-function Bose gas

## 1 Introduction

We study statistical mechanics of a one-dimensional gas of Bose particles interacting through a repulsive delta function potential. The Hamiltonian for the system with $`n`$ particles reads

$`H_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_i^2}}+2c{\displaystyle \underset{i>j}{}}\delta \left(x_ix_j\right).`$ (1.1)
Throughout the paper, we set $`\mathrm{}=1`$, $`2m=1`$ and assume the potential is repulsive, $`c>0`$.

The eigenvalues and the eigenstates are obtained by the Bethe ansatz (BA) method , and the quantum inverse scattering method (QISM) . As a periodic boundary condition, the Bethe ansatz (BA) equation is derived. Using the BA equation, thermodynamic quantities are calculated by the thermal Bethe ansatz (TBA) . In TBA, an “interpretation” of the particle density and the state density enables us to define the entropy of $`n`$-particle system in the thermodynamic limit.

With the quantum Gelfand-Levitan equation , the field operator is expressed as a series of the terms each of which is a product of creation and annihilation operators in the scattering data space. The grand partition function is written as a field operator . Creamer, Thacker and Wilkinson  calculated the grand partition function using creation and annihilation operators of this system, but the analysis involves a delicate regularization that $`2\pi \delta (0)`$ is replaced by the volume $`L`$.

To be rigorous, it is desirable to examine these results by a different approach. In this paper, we present a method to calculate the thermodynamical quantities only by use of the BA equation which is derived exactly as a periodic boundary condition from both QISM and BA method. We calculate the $`n`$-particle partition function and evaluate the $`n`$-particle cluster integral.

The paper is organized as follows. The $`n`$-particle partition function and the $`n`$-particle cluster integral are derived with a method, which we call a direct method, in section 2. This method is shown explicitly for $`n=3`$. In section 3, we consider the $`n`$-particle case, and reformulate the results in graphical expressions. The last section is devoted to concluding remarks and discussions. To avoid complexities, the details of a mathematical proof are summarized in Appendices A.

## 2 Direct method

We assume a finite system size $`L`$ and the periodic boundary condition. It is known that the total energy $`E`$ and the wave numbers $`k_j`$ of the system (1.1) are determined by the following relations,

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}k_j^2,`$ (2.1)
$`k_jL`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi m_j+{\displaystyle \underset{j^{}j}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }\left(k_j^{}k_j\right),`$ (2.2)
where $`m_j`$ are integers or half-integers, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)`$ is the phase shift of two-particle scattering,

$`m_j`$ $``$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & \text{if }N=\mathrm{odd}\hfill \\ +\frac{1}{2}\hfill & \text{if }N=\mathrm{even},\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.6)
$`m_j<m_{j+1},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(k\right)`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{c}}\right),`$
$`\pi <\mathrm{\Delta }\left(k\right)<\pi .`$
Eq.(2.2) is called the Bethe ansatz (BA) equation . Main objects to be calculated are the $`n`$-particle partition function $`Z_n`$;

$`Z_n`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}e^{\beta H_n},\beta =1/k_BT,`$ (2.8)
and the $`n`$-particle cluster integral $`b_n`$;

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n1}{}}b_nz^n`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}Z_nz^n\right),`$ (2.9)
where $`z=e^{\beta \mu }`$ with the chemical potential $`\mu `$. By definition, $`Z_0=1`$ and we simply have

$`b_1=L^1Z_1={\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }e^{\beta k^2}}.`$ (2.10)
We explain a direct method to evaluate the partition function for 3-particle case. To be explicit, the total energy is

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`k_1^2+k_2^2+k_3^2,`$ (2.11)
and the BA equation is

$`k_1L`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi m_1+\mathrm{\Delta }\left(k_2k_1\right)+\mathrm{\Delta }\left(k_3k_1\right)`$
$`k_2L`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi m_2+\mathrm{\Delta }\left(k_1k_2\right)+\mathrm{\Delta }\left(k_3k_2\right)`$
$`k_3L`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi m_3+\mathrm{\Delta }\left(k_1k_3\right)+\mathrm{\Delta }\left(k_2k_3\right),`$ (2.13)
$`m_1<m_2<m_3.`$
By use of these relations (2.11)$``$(2.13), we can calculate the partition function $`Z_3`$ as follows,

$`Z_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m_1<m_2<m_3}{}}e^{\beta \left(k_1^2+k_2^2+k_3^2\right)}`$ (2.14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1,m_2,m_3}{}}e^{\beta \left(k_1^2+k_2^2+k_3^2\right)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1,m_2=m_3}{}}e^{\beta \left(k_1^2+k_2^2+k_3^2\right)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1=m_2=m_3}{}}e^{\beta \left(k_1^2+k_2^2+k_3^2\right)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{m}_1,\stackrel{~}{m}_2,\stackrel{~}{m}_3}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑m_1𝑑m_2𝑑m_3e^{\beta \left(k_1^2+k_2^2+k_3^2\right)+2\pi i\left(m_1\stackrel{~}{m}_1+m_2\stackrel{~}{m}_2+m_3\stackrel{~}{m}_3\right)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{m}_1^{},\stackrel{~}{m}_2^{}}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑m_1^{}},dm_2^{}e^{\beta \left(2k_1^2+k_2^2\right)+2\pi i\left(m_1^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_1^{}+m_2^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_2^{}\right)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{m}^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑m^{\prime \prime }e^{\beta \left(3k^2\right)+2\pi im^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{m}^{\prime \prime }}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{m}_1,\stackrel{~}{m}_2,\stackrel{~}{m}_3}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑k_1𝑑k_2𝑑k_3\left|\frac{m}{k}\right|e^{\beta \left(k_1^2+k_2^2+k_3^2\right)+iL\left(k_1\stackrel{~}{m}_1+k_2\stackrel{~}{m}_2+k_3\stackrel{~}{m}_3\right)}}`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{k_1k_2+ic}{k_1k_2ic}}\right)^{\stackrel{~}{m}_2\stackrel{~}{m}_1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_2k_3+ic}{k_2k_3ic}}\right)^{\stackrel{~}{m}_3\stackrel{~}{m}_2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_3k_1+ic}{k_3k_1ic}}\right)^{\stackrel{~}{m}_1\stackrel{~}{m}_3}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{m}_1^{},\stackrel{~}{m}_2^{}}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑k_1^{}},dk_2^{}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}}{k^{}}}\right|e^{\beta \left(2k_1^2+k_2^2\right)+iL\left(k_1^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_1^{}+k_2^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_2^{}\right)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_1^{}k_2^{}+ic}{k_1^{}k_2^{}ic}}\right)^{\stackrel{~}{m}_22\stackrel{~}{m}_1}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{m}^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑k^{\prime \prime }\frac{m^{\prime \prime }}{k^{\prime \prime }}e^{\beta \left(3k^2\right)+iLk^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{m}^{\prime \prime }}},`$
where $`|m/k|`$, $`|m^{}/k^{}|`$ and $`m^{\prime \prime }/k^{\prime \prime }`$ are the Jacobians to be explained shortly. We have written explicitly all the steps of calculations which are common to those for general $`n`$ . In the second equality, we use a symmetry of the BA equation with respect to the exchange $`m_i,k_im_i^{},k_i^{}`$, in the third equality, we apply the Poisson’s summation formula, and in the last equality, we change variables of integration from $`m`$ to $`k`$.

The relation between $`k`$ and $`m`$ is defined by the BA equation. In (2.14), $`k^{}`$, $`m^{}`$, $`k^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`m^{\prime \prime }`$ are related as follows,

$`k_1^{}L`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi m_1^{}+2\mathrm{\Delta }\left(k_2^{}k_1^{}\right)`$
$`k_2^{}L`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi m_2^{}+\mathrm{\Delta }\left(k_1^{}k_2^{}\right)`$ (2.15)
$`k^{\prime \prime }L`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi m^{\prime \prime }.`$ (2.16)
Thus, the Jacobians, $`|m/k|`$, $`|m^{}/k^{}|`$ and $`m^{\prime \prime }/k^{\prime \prime }`$, are given by

$`\left(2\pi \right)^3\left|{\displaystyle \frac{m}{k}}\right|`$ $`=`$ $`L^3+2L^2K\left(k_1k_2\right)+2L^2K\left(k_2k_3\right)+2L^2K\left(k_3k_1\right)`$ (2.17)
$`+3LK\left(k_2k_1\right)K\left(k_3k_1\right)+3LK\left(k_1k_2\right)K\left(k_3k_2\right)`$
$`+3LK\left(k_1k_3\right)K\left(k_2k_3\right),`$
$`\left(2\pi \right)^2\left|{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}}{k^{}}}\right|`$ $`=`$ $`L^2+3LK\left(k_1k_2\right),`$ (2.18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m^{\prime \prime }}{k^{\prime \prime }}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}L,`$ (2.19)
where

$`K\left(k\right)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }\left(k\right)}{dk}}={\displaystyle \frac{2c}{k^2+c^2}}.`$ (2.20)
It is readily shown that all terms except $`\stackrel{~}{m}_i=0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_i^{}=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}^{\prime \prime }=0`$ in (2.14) exponentially decay as $`L`$ gets large. Although the discussion may include these decaying terms, we hereafter consider the expressions in the thermodynamic limit. Then, $`Z_3`$ becomes

$`Z_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_1}{2\pi }\frac{dk_2}{2\pi }\frac{dk_3}{2\pi }\left(L^3+6L^2K\left(k_1k_2\right)+9LK\left(k_2k_1\right)K\left(k_3k_1\right)\right)e^{\beta \left(k_1^2+k_2^2+k_3^2\right)}}`$ (2.21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_1^{}}{2\pi }\frac{dk_2^{}}{2\pi }\left(L^2+3LK\left(k_1k_2\right)\right)e^{\beta \left(2k_1^2+k_3^2\right)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^{\prime \prime }}{2\pi }Le^{\beta \left(3k^2\right)}}.`$
It is much easier to show

$`Z_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_1^{}}{2\pi }\frac{dk_2^{}}{2\pi }\left(L^2+2LK\left(k_1k_2\right)\right)e^{\beta \left(k_1^2+k_3^2\right)}}`$ (2.22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^{\prime \prime }}{2\pi }Le^{\beta \left(2k^{\prime \prime 2}\right)}}.`$
From (2.10), (2.21) and (2.22), the cluster integral $`b_3`$ is given by

$`b_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\left(Z_3Z_2Z_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}Z_1^3\right)`$ (2.23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_1}{2\pi }\frac{dk_2}{2\pi }\frac{dk_3}{2\pi }K\left(k_2k_1\right)K\left(k_3k_1\right)e^{\beta \left(k_1^2+k_2^2+k_3^2\right)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_1^{}}{2\pi }\frac{dk_2^{}}{2\pi }K\left(k_1k_2\right)e^{\beta \left(2k_1^2+k_3^2\right)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^{\prime \prime }}{2\pi }e^{\beta \left(3k^2\right)}}.`$
Thanks to the effective interaction $`K(k)`$, $`b_3`$ consists of only $`3`$ terms. In the next section, we show that $`Z_n`$ and $`b_n`$ can be calculated in the same way.

## 3 Partition function and graphs

### 3.1 Partition function

In order to present a general structure of the partition function, we need to explain some terminology in the theory of partition ; the partially ordered set (poset, for short).

Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }(S)`$ denote a set of all partitions of a finite set $`S`$. In what follows, $`[n]`$ means a set $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$, and write $`\mathrm{\Pi }_n`$ for $`\mathrm{\Pi }([n])`$. We define partially order in $`\mathrm{\Pi }(S)`$ by refinement, that is, define $`xy\mathrm{\Pi }(S)`$ if every block of $`x`$ is contained in a block of $`y`$. For example, if $`x\mathrm{\Pi }_9`$ has blocks 137-2-46-58-9 and $`y\mathrm{\Pi }_9`$ has blocks 13467-2589, then $`xy`$. Special elements in $`\mathrm{\Pi }\left(S\right)`$ are $`\widehat{0}_S`$ and $`\widehat{1}_S`$ such that $`x\widehat{0}_S`$ and $`x\widehat{1}_S`$ for all $`x\mathrm{\Pi }(S)`$. We write $`\widehat{0}_n`$ and $`\widehat{1}_n`$ for $`\widehat{0}_{[n]}`$ and $`\widehat{1}_{[n]}`$. Fig.3.1 shows the partially ordered elements in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3`$, that is , $`1`$-$`2`$-$`3<1`$-$`23`$, $`2`$-$`13`$, $`3`$-$`12<123`$.

In addition, we define Möbius function of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(S)`$ inductively as follows,

$`\mu (x,x)`$ $`=`$ $`1\text{for all }x\mathrm{\Pi }(S),`$
$`\mu (x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{xz<y}{}}\mu (x,z)\text{for all }x<y\text{ in }\mathrm{\Pi }(S).`$ (3.1)
By use of those definitions, we can show some useful relations. For brevity, $``$ and $``$ stand respectively nonnegative integers and complex numbers. $`(1)`$. Let $`\widehat{f},\widehat{g}:\mathrm{\Pi }(S)`$, then,

$`\widehat{g}\left(x\right)={\displaystyle \underset{yx}{}}\widehat{f}\left(y\right),\text{for all }x\mathrm{\Pi }\left(S\right),`$
if and only if

$`\widehat{f}\left(x\right)={\displaystyle \underset{yx}{}}\mu (x,y)\widehat{g}\left(y\right),\text{for all }x\mathrm{\Pi }\left(S\right).`$ (3.2)
This is called Möbius inversion formula. $`(2)`$. Let $`\widehat{g},\widehat{J}:\mathrm{\Pi }(S)`$ and $`f,h:`$. If

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}h\left(n\right){\displaystyle \frac{u^n}{n!}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{n1}{}}f\left(n\right){\displaystyle \frac{u^n}{n!}}\right),`$ (3.3)
$`h\left(N_S\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x\mathrm{\Pi }\left(S\right)}{}}\mu (\widehat{0}_S,x)\widehat{g}\left(x\right),`$ (3.4)
$`\widehat{g}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\xi \mathrm{\Pi }\left(x\right)}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{y\xi }{}}\widehat{J}\left(y\right),`$ (3.5)
then

$`f\left(n\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x\mathrm{\Pi }_n}{}}\mu (\widehat{0}_n,x)\widehat{J}\left(x\right).`$ (3.6)
We prove this relation in Appendix A.

With these two relations, we can derive the partition function $`Z_n`$ and the cluster integral $`b_n`$ in a compact way. First we define $`f,h:`$ and $`\widehat{h},\widehat{g}:\mathrm{\Pi }(S)`$,

$`f\left(n\right)`$ $``$ $`n!Lb_n,`$ (3.7)
$`h\left(n\right)`$ $``$ $`n!Z_n,`$ (3.8)
$`\widehat{h}\left(x\right)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m_1^{}\mathrm{}m_l^{}}{}}e^{\beta \left(k_1^2+\mathrm{}+k_n^2\right)},`$ (3.9)
$`\widehat{g}\left(x\right)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m_1^{},\mathrm{},m_l^{}}{}}e^{\beta \left(k_1^2+\mathrm{}+k_n^2\right)},`$ (3.10)
where

$`x\mathrm{\Pi }\left(S\right),\sigma _is_jm_i^{}=m_j,x=\{\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _l\},S=\{s_1,\mathrm{},s_n\}.`$ (3.11)
Recall that $`m`$ and $`k`$ are related by the BA equation. We see that Eq.(3.3) holds from the definition of cluster integral $`b_n`$, Eq.(2.9). From the definition (3.8)$``$(3.10), it is easy to show that

$`\widehat{g}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{yx}{}}\widehat{h}\left(y\right),`$ (3.12)
$`\widehat{h}\left(\widehat{0}_n\right)`$ $`=`$ $`h\left(n\right).`$ (3.13)
Due to the Möbius inversion formula (3.2), (3.12) is equivalent to

$`\widehat{h}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{yx}{}}\mu (x,y)\widehat{g}\left(y\right).`$ (3.14)
Substituting $`\widehat{0}_n`$ for $`x`$ in this equation, we obtain

$`h\left(n\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{y\mathrm{\Pi }_n}{}}\mu (\widehat{0}_n,y)\widehat{g}\left(y\right).`$ (3.15)
This is nothing but the condition (3.4).

As we have mentioned in the previous section, we do not include exponentially decaying terms. Then, (3.10) is written as

$`\widehat{g}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma x}{}dm_\sigma ^{}e^{\beta \left(k_1^2+k_2^2+\mathrm{}+k_n^2\right)}}`$ (3.16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma x}{}dk_\sigma ^{}\left|\frac{m^{}}{k^{}}\right|e^{\beta \left(_{\sigma x}N_\sigma k_\sigma ^2\right)}}.`$ (3.17)
The transformation matrix and the Jacobian are given as follows;

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\sigma ^{}}{k_\sigma ^{}^{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\times \{\begin{array}{cc}L+_{\sigma ^{\prime \prime }\sigma }N_{\sigma ^{\prime \prime }}K\left(k_{\sigma ^{\prime \prime }}^{}k_\sigma ^{}\right)\hfill & \text{if }\sigma =\sigma ^{}\hfill \\ N_\sigma ^{}K\left(k_\sigma ^{}^{}k_\sigma ^{}\right)\hfill & \text{if }\sigma \sigma ^{}\hfill \end{array}`$
$`\sigma ,\sigma ^{},\sigma ^{\prime \prime }x`$
$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}}{k^{}}}\right|`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\xi \mathrm{\Pi }\left(x\right)}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{y\xi }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\left(2\pi \right)^{N_y}}}({\displaystyle \underset{\sigma y}{}}N_\sigma ){\displaystyle \underset{t𝒱\left(y\right)}{}}({\displaystyle \underset{\sigma y}{}}N_\sigma ^{n(\sigma ,t)1})({\displaystyle \underset{b\mathrm{\Xi }\left(t\right)}{}}K\left(k_{\sigma _1\left(b\right)}^{}k_{\sigma _2\left(b\right)}^{}\right)).`$ (3.21)
We explain notations in (3.1) and (3.21). The number of elements in a set $`\sigma `$ is denoted by $`N_\sigma `$. $`𝒱\left(S\right)`$ denotes a set of all undirected trees with a vertex set $`S`$. For instance, all the elements in $`𝒱(\{\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3\})`$ are depicted in Fig.3.2. We call a connection of two vertices a branch. $`\mathrm{\Xi }\left(t\right)`$ denotes a set of all branches contained in a tree $`t`$. $`n(\sigma ,t)`$ is the number of branches with which the vertex $`\sigma `$ are connected in the tree $`t`$. $`\sigma _1(b)`$ and $`\sigma _2(b)`$ denote two end-vertices connected by a branch $`b`$.

A remaining task is a consistency with (3.5). We define a function $`\widehat{J}:\mathrm{\Pi }(S)`$ by

$`\widehat{J}\left(x\right)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma x}{}dk_\sigma ^{}\left|\frac{m^{}}{k^{}}\right|_ce^{\beta \left(_{\sigma x}N_\sigma k_\sigma ^2\right)}},`$ (3.22)
where

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}}{k^{}}}\right|_c`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\left(2\pi \right)^{N_x}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\sigma x}{}}N_\sigma \right){\displaystyle \underset{t𝒱\left(x\right)}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\sigma x}{}}N_\sigma ^{n(\sigma ,t)1}\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{b\mathrm{\Xi }\left(t\right)}{}}K\left(k_{\sigma _1\left(b\right)}^{}k_{\sigma _2\left(b\right)}^{}\right)\right).`$ (3.23)
We can change the expression of the Jacobian $`|m^{}/k^{}|`$ from (3.21) into a sum of forests, that is, sets of trees. On the other hand, the right hand side of (3.23) is a sum of connected forests, that is, trees. Therefore, we put a subscript $`c`$ as $`|m^{}/k^{}|_c`$. With this definition, we see that the condition (3.5) follows from (3.17).

In this way, three conditions (3.3)$``$(3.5) are shown to be satisfied, which indicates that Eq.(3.6) holds. We write Eq.(3.6) explicitly,

$`b_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!L}}{\displaystyle \underset{x\mathrm{\Pi }_n}{}}\mu (\widehat{0}_n,x){\displaystyle \underset{\sigma x}{}dk_\sigma ^{}\left|\frac{m^{}}{k^{}}\right|_ce^{\beta \left(_{\sigma x}N_\sigma k_\sigma ^2\right)}}.`$ (3.24)
In fact, (3.15) is equivalent to

$`Z_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}{\displaystyle \underset{x\mathrm{\Pi }_n}{}}\mu (\widehat{0}_n,x){\displaystyle \underset{\sigma x}{}dk_\sigma ^{}\left|\frac{m^{}}{k^{}}\right|e^{\beta \left(_{\sigma x}N_\sigma k_\sigma ^2\right)}}.`$ (3.25)
The Jacobians in (3.24) and (3.25) are respectively (3.23) and (3.21). Explicit form of $`\mu (\widehat{0}_n,x)`$ can be derived from (3.1),

$`\mu (\widehat{0}_n,x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma x}{}}\left(1\right)^{N_\sigma 1}\left(N_\sigma 1\right)!.`$ (3.26)
It is easily shown  that the cluster integrals $`b_n`$ agree with those derived from the thermal Bethe ansatz (TBA). It is also possible to derive the integral equation in TBA from (3.24) .

We give two remarks here. First, the Jacobian $`|m^{}/k^{}|`$ is essentially the inner product of the Bethe wave functions . Second, the cluster integrals consist of only a finite number of terms.

### 3.2 Graph representation

We further develop a graphical representation of the cluster integral and the partition function. We draw an $`l`$ times rolled coil for a Boltzmann weight $`e^{\beta lk^2}`$ (Fig.3.3). We call it $`l`$-toron following Montroll and Ward .

The tree consists of a toron or torons connected by branches. The forest consists of the trees. We denote by $`𝒱_n`$ a set of all the trees which satisfy the following two conditions: $`(1)`$ all the vertices of the tree are made of torons, and $`(2)`$ the sum of rolled number of torons composing the tree is $`n`$. Fig.3.4 shows all the elements in $`𝒱_3`$.

$`𝒲_n`$ is a set of all the forests which satisfy the following two conditions: $`(1)`$ all the vertices of the forest are made of torons, and $`(2)`$ the sum of rolled number of torons composing the forest is $`n`$. Simply, $`𝒱_n`$ is a subset of $`𝒲_n`$. Fig.3.5 exhibits all the elements in $`𝒲_3`$.

In terms of these terminologies, we may rewrite (3.25) and (3.24) as

$`Z_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{f𝒲_n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{Sym\left(f\right)}{n!}}{\displaystyle \underset{t\text{ in the forest }f}{}}𝒮\left(t\right),`$ (3.27)
$`b_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{t𝒱_n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{Sym\left(t\right)}{n!L}}𝒮\left(t\right).`$ (3.28)
Here, $`Sym\left(t\right)`$ and $`Sym\left(f\right)`$ indicate symmetrical factors of graphs. In the case $`t𝒱_n`$ or $`f𝒲_n`$, $`Sym\left(t\right)`$ or $`Sym\left(f\right)`$ means the number of different ways in which a set $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ can be distributed to all the vertices of $`t`$ or $`f`$ at a time, on the condition that $`l`$ elements are placed in a vertex made of $`l`$-toron. For example

$`Sym\left(\text{}\text{}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`12,`$ (3.29)
$`Sym\left(\text{}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`3,`$ (3.30)
$`Sym\left(\text{}\text{}\text{}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`1.`$ (3.31)
From (3.24) and (3.25), we can show that $`𝒮(t)`$ in (3.27) and (3.28) is given as follows,

$`𝒮\left(t\right)`$ $``$ $`L{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}N_\omega \left({\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}\left(1\right)^{N_\omega 1}\left(N_\omega 1\right)!N_\omega ^{n(\omega ,t)1}\right)`$ (3.32)
$`\times {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_\omega }{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \underset{b\mathrm{\Xi }\left(t\right)}{}}K(k_{\sigma _1\left(b\right)}k_{\sigma _2\left(b\right)})\right)e^{\beta \left(_\omega N_\omega k_\omega \right)},`$
where $`N_\omega `$ denotes the rolled number of toron $`\omega `$, and $`_\omega `$ (or $`_\omega `$) denotes a sum (or a product) with respect to all the toron $`\omega `$ in the tree $`t`$. For example,

$`𝒮\left(\text{}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`L\times \left(2+1\right)\times \left(\left(1\right)^11!2^0\times \left(1\right)^00!1^0\right)`$ (3.33)
$`\times {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dk_{\omega _1}}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_{\omega _2}}{2\pi }}\left(K(k_{\omega _1}k_{\omega _2})\right)e^{\beta \left(2k_{\omega _1}+k_{\omega _2}\right)}.`$
Substitution of (3.30) and (3.33) gives the second term in (2.23).

As examples, we list a graphical representation of the cluster integrals $`b_1b_4`$,

$`b_1`$ $`=`$ (3.34)
$`b_2`$ $`=`$ $`\text{}+\text{}`$ (3.35)
$`b_3`$ $`=`$ $`\text{}+\text{}+\text{}`$ (3.36)
$`b_4`$ $`=`$ $`\text{}+\text{}+\text{}+\text{}`$ (3.37)
$`+\text{}+\text{}+\text{}.`$
## 4 Concluding remarks and discussions

In this paper, we have studied a one-dimensional $`\delta `$-function bose gas, (1.1), and have derived directly the partition function and the cluster integral, (3.25) and (3.24), from the Bethe ansatz equation, (2.2). This should be regarded as a proof of the thermal Bethe ansatz (TBA). The derivation is simplified by use of the partially ordered set in the theory of partition.

This direct method has some advantages. First, the method is rigorous. In the quantum field theoretic method, calculation is done at the infinite volume, therefore an interpretation of $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi \delta (0)`$ as the volume is unavoidable. In the TBA, it is necessary to define the $`n`$-particle entropy. This procedure is based on an interpretation of the particle and state densities. In this sense, both field theoretic method and TBA remained to be proved. On the other hand, the direct method is free from such interpretations, and all calculations are traceable step by step.

Second, the method has a wide applicability. It should be remarked that in the direct method all the dependencies on the systems come only from the BA equation. In other words, the direct method may have the generality at least as well as TBA.

We conclude that the direct method will be useful and important in calculating the thermodynamic quantities in various integrable systems.

## Appendix A  A proof of (3.6)

We use the same notation as in subsection 3.1. It can be shown that, on condition that $`h,f:`$, we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}h\left(n\right){\displaystyle \frac{u^n}{n!}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{n1}{}}f\left(n\right){\displaystyle \frac{u^n}{n!}}\right)`$ (A.1)
if and only if

$`h\left(n\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x\mathrm{\Pi }_n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma x}{}}f\left(N_\sigma \right)`$ (A.2)
$`h\left(0\right)`$ $`=`$ $`1.`$ (A.3)
This is known as the cumulant expansion formula. Eq.(A.2) is equivalent to

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma x}{}}h\left(N_\sigma \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{yx}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma y}{}}f\left(N_\sigma \right).`$ (A.4)
For $`\widehat{H},\widehat{F}:\mathrm{\Pi }(S)`$, the following relation holds,

$`\widehat{H}\left(x\right)={\displaystyle \underset{yx}{}}\widehat{F}\left(y\right)`$ $``$ $`\widehat{F}\left(x\right)={\displaystyle \underset{yx}{}}\mu (x,y)\widehat{H}\left(y\right).`$ (A.5)
This is the Möbius inversion formula, which is a dual form of (3.2). With this formula, Eq.(A.4) becomes

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma x}{}}f\left(N_\sigma \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{yx}{}}\mu (y,x){\displaystyle \underset{\sigma y}{}}h\left(N_\sigma \right).`$ (A.6)
Substitution of $`\widehat{1}_n`$ for $`x`$ in (A.6) yields

$`f\left(n\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x\widehat{1}_n}{}}\mu (y,\widehat{1}_n){\displaystyle \underset{\sigma y}{}}h\left(N_\sigma \right).`$ (A.7)
We suppose the existence of $`\widehat{g}:\mathrm{\Pi }(S)`$ which satisfies

$`h\left(N_S\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x\mathrm{\Pi }\left(S\right)}{}}\mu (\widehat{0}_S,x)\widehat{g}\left(x\right).`$ (A.8)
Using this relation, Eq.(A.6) is written as

$`f\left(n\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x\mathrm{\Pi }_n}{}}\mu (x,\widehat{1}_n){\displaystyle \underset{\sigma x}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{y\mathrm{\Pi }\left(\sigma \right)}{}}\mu (\widehat{0}_\sigma ,y)\widehat{g}\left(y\right)`$ (A.9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x\mathrm{\Pi }_n}{}}\mu (\widehat{0}_n,x){\displaystyle \underset{\xi \mathrm{\Pi }\left(x\right)}{}}\mu (\xi ,\widehat{1}_x){\displaystyle \underset{y\xi }{}}\widehat{g}\left(y\right).`$
In the second equality, we have used the following two relations,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{x\mathrm{\Pi }_n}{}}F\left(N_x\right){\displaystyle \underset{\sigma x}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{y\mathrm{\Pi }\left(\sigma \right)}{}}\widehat{G}\left(y\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x\mathrm{\Pi }_n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\xi \mathrm{\Pi }\left(x\right)}{}}F\left(N_\xi \right){\displaystyle \underset{y\xi }{}}\widehat{G}\left(y\right),`$ (A.10)
for $`F:`$, $`\widehat{G}:\mathrm{\Pi }(S)`$, and

$`\mu (\widehat{0}_n,x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma x}{}}\mu (\widehat{0}_{N_\sigma },\widehat{1}_{N_\sigma }),`$ (A.11)
for $`x\mathrm{\Pi }_n`$. And, we suppose the existence of a map $`\widehat{J}:\mathrm{\Pi }(S)`$ which satisfies

$`\widehat{g}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\xi \mathrm{\Pi }\left(x\right)}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{y\xi }{}}\widehat{J}\left(y\right).`$ (A.12)
Then, a main part of the right hand side of Eq.(A.9) becomes

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\xi \mathrm{\Pi }\left(x\right)}{}}\mu (\xi ,\widehat{1}_x){\displaystyle \underset{y\xi }{}}\widehat{g}\left(y\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\xi \mathrm{\Pi }\left(x\right)}{}}\mu (\xi ,\widehat{1}_x){\displaystyle \underset{y\xi }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\zeta \mathrm{\Pi }\left(y\right)}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{z\zeta }{}}\widehat{J}\left(z\right)`$ (A.13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\zeta \mathrm{\Pi }\left(x\right)}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\lambda \mathrm{\Pi }\left(\zeta \right)}{}}\mu (\lambda ,\widehat{1}_\zeta )\right){\displaystyle \underset{z\zeta }{}}\widehat{J}\left(z\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\widehat{J}\left(x\right).`$
The third equality is due to the following relation,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{x\mathrm{\Pi }\left(S\right)}{}}\mu (x,\widehat{1}_S)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (1,N_S).`$ (A.14)
By use of the relation (A.13), (A.9) becomes

$`f\left(n\right)={\displaystyle \underset{x\mathrm{\Pi }_n}{}}\mu (\widehat{0}_n,x)\widehat{J}\left(x\right),`$ (A.15)
which is (3.6). To summarize, using (A.1), (A.8) and (A.12), we have proved (3.6).


text:
# Notes on Operator Categories

## Introduction

Related to subfactor theory two kinds of tensor categories are used in describing quantum symmetry (): Given a von Neumann algebra $`M`$, we have the tensor category $`{}_{M}{}^{}\text{}imod_M`$ of $`M`$-$`M`$ bimodules on the one hand and the tensor category $`nd(M)`$ of endomorphisms on the other hand. In spite of different appearances, they have a close similarity: For an endomorphism $`\rho `$ of $`M`$, assign the bimodule $`L^2(M)\rho `$, where $`L^2(M)\rho `$ is the standard Hilbert space of $`M`$ with the right action modified by $`\rho `$. Then we have canonical isomorphisms $`L^2(M)\rho _ML^2(M)\sigma L^2(M)(\rho \sigma )`$ for endomorphisms $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$, which turn out to satisfy the condition of multiplicativity for monoidal functors and defines a fully faithful imbedding of the opposite of $`\text{}nd(M)`$ into the tensor category $`{}_{M}{}^{}\text{}imod_M`$.

If $`M`$ is of an infinite type, this monoidal imbedding gives an equivalence of categories, i.e., they contain the same information as categorical data. For a finite von Neumann algebra, however, the imbedding is not surjective because of the independant sizes of left and right modules in that case.

Furthermore, the catgory $`\text{}imod`$ of bimodules is more flexible than $`\text{}nd(M)`$ in the sense that we can choose different algebras for left and right actions. The bimodules, together with the associative tensor products, then constitute a so-called bicategory (see §2 for explanations of the notion).

With these observations in mind, the author has suspected the possibility to extend the tensor category $`\text{}nd(M)`$ in such a way that the above imbedding can be extended to an equivalence of bicategories. The major purpose of this article is to give an affirmative answer to the above question in the framework of W\*-categories: the bicategory of normal functors between W\*-categories is monoidally equivalent to the bicategory $`\text{}imod`$ of W\*-bimodules.

On the way of describing this result, we shall also review some of basic facts on operator categories (, , ), where we have fully used tensor products of W\*-modules (the relative tensor product) to obtain concise expressions.

Technically we have to use the modular theory in operator algebras on occasions, which is, however, algebraic (and formal) in nature rather than analytic if properly formulated (see ).

As backgrounds of the subject, we refer, for example, to  on operator algebras and to  for generalities on category theory.

## 1. W\*-categories

By a linear category, we shall mean an essentially small category for which hom-sets are vector spaces over the complex number field  and the operation of taking compositions is complex-linear in variables involved.

The restriction of essential smallness reflects our standing position that we shall not study operator algebras with the help of categorical languages but work with categories themselves of operator algebraic natures.

A functor between linear categories is said to be linear if the operation on morphisms is linear. Recall that a functor is said to be faithful if it is injective on hom-sets (no commitment to objects).

A linear category is called a \*-category if it is furnished with conjugate-linear involutions on hom-sets satisfying (i) $`f^{}:YX`$ for $`f:XY`$ and (ii) $`(gf)^{}=f^{}g^{}`$ for $`f:XY`$ and $`g:YZ`$.

A \*-category is called a C\*-category if hom-sets are Banach spaces such that (i) $`gfgf`$ for morphisms of the form $`f:XY`$ and $`g:YZ`$, (ii) $`f^{}f=f^2`$ and (iii) $`f^{}f0`$ for any morphism $`f`$.

Note here that, by the conditions (i) and (ii), each $`\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{X})`$ is a C\*-algebra and the meaning of positivity in (iii) is that for C\*-algebras.

A C\*-category 𝒞 is called a W\*-category if each Banach space $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{Y})`$ is the dual of a Banach space. ‘Preduals’ are uniquely determined by the C\*-category 𝒞 as soon be checked (an analogue of Sakai’s characterization, ).

A typical example of W\*-categories is the category $`\text{}ep(A)`$ of \*-representations of a C\*-algebra $`A`$ in Hilbert spaces of a specified class with hom-sets given by intertwiners of representations.

When $`A`$ is separable (i.e., having a countable norm-dense subset), we can define the much smaller W\*-category $`\text{𝒮}\text{}ep(A)`$ of \*-representations of $`A`$ in separable Hilbert spaces of a specified class with hom-sets given by intertwiners of representations. If $`A=\text{}`$, $`\text{}ep(A)`$ (resp. $`\text{𝒮}\text{}ep(A)`$) is the category of Hilbert spaces (resp. separable Hilbert spaces) of a specified class $`\text{}ilb`$ (resp. $`\text{𝒮}\text{}ilb`$) whose morphisms are bounded linear operators.

Another typical example of W\*-category is the category $`\text{𝒫}(M)`$ of projections in a W\*-algebra $`M`$: objects of $`\text{𝒫}(M)`$ are projections in $`M`$ with hom-sets given by $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{e},\mathrm{f})=\mathrm{fMe}`$ for projections $`e`$ and $`f`$ in $`M`$.

A typical example of C\*-category is the category $`A`$-$`\text{}od`$ of Hilbert $`A`$-modules (again in a specified class) with $`A`$ a C\*-algebra.

Given \*-categories 𝒞 and 𝒟, a functor $`F:\text{𝒞}\text{𝒟}`$ is called a \*-functor if $`F`$ is linear in morphisms and preserves the \*-operation. If both of 𝒞 and 𝒟 are C\*-categories, then a \*-functor $`F:\text{𝒞}\text{𝒟}`$ is norm-decreasing:

$$F(f)^2=F(f^{}f)f^{}f=f^2$$

for a morphism $`f:XY`$ in 𝒞. The kernel of $`F`$ (which is a C\*-subcategory of 𝒞) is then an analogue of closed \*-ideals in C\*-algebras and we have the exact sequence

$$0\text{Ker}(X,Y)\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{Y})\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{Y}))0$$

of C\*-categories.

Given \*-categories 𝒞 and 𝒟, we define the category $`\text{}om(\text{𝒞},\text{𝒟})`$ with objects given by \*-functors and morphisms consisting of natural transformations. Recall here that we have stuck to essentially small categories, which enables us to keep $`\text{}om(\text{𝒞},\text{𝒟})`$ essentially small. When 𝒟 is a C\*-category, morphisms are restricted to be bounded so that the category $`\text{}om(\text{𝒞},\text{𝒟})`$ of functors is again a C\*-category.

Given an object $`X`$ in a C\*-category 𝒞 and a positive linear functional $`\phi `$ on the C\*-algebra $`\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{X})`$, we introduce the \*-functor $`F_\phi :\text{𝒞}\text{}ilb`$ by the GNS-construction: For an object $`Y`$ in 𝒞, the Hilbert space $`F_\phi (Y)`$ is the completion of the vector space $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{Y})`$ with respect to the positive-semidefinite inner product

$$(y|y^{})=\phi (y^{}y^{})\text{for }y,y^{}:XY\text{.}$$

We shall often use the notation $`y\phi ^{1/2}`$ to distinguish the morphism $`y`$ in 𝒞 with the associated element in the Hilbert space $`F_\phi (Y)`$.

For a morphism $`f:YZ`$ in 𝒞, $`F_\phi (f):F_\phi (Y)F_\phi (Z)`$ is the bounded linear map defined by

$$F_\phi (f)(y\phi ^{1/2})=(fy)\phi ^{1/2}.$$

These are well-defined by the positivity and the C\*-norm assumption in the definition of C\*-categories.

Note that, if $`XY`$ and positive linear functionals $`\phi :\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{X})\text{}`$, $`\psi :\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{Y})\text{}`$ are related by a \*-isomorphism between $`\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{X})`$ and $`\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{Y})`$, then the functors $`F_\phi `$ and $`F_\psi `$ are unitarily equivalent.

Since (infinite) direct sums are permitted in the C\*-category $`\text{}ilb`$, we can define the \*-functor $`F:\text{𝒞}\text{}ilb`$ as the direct sum of $`\{F_\phi \}`$, where $`\phi \mathrm{End}(\mathrm{X})_+^{}`$ with the family $`\{X\}`$ representing the isomorphism classes of objects in 𝒞. Then $`F`$ is faithful on each C\*-algebra $`\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{X})`$ and we have

$$F(f)^2=F(f^{}f)=f^{}f=f$$

for a morphism $`f:XY`$, which implies that $`F`$ is isometric on hom-sets. Thus, given a finite family $`\{X_i\}_{1in}`$ of objects in the C\*-category 𝒞, the algebra of matrix form

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}F(\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X}_1,\mathrm{X}_1))& \mathrm{}& F(\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X}_\mathrm{n},\mathrm{X}_1))\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ F(\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X}_1,\mathrm{X}_\mathrm{n}))& \mathrm{}& F(\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X}_\mathrm{n},\mathrm{X}_\mathrm{n}))\end{array}\right)$$

is a C\*-algebra on the Hilbert space

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}F(X_i),$$

which is \*-isomorphic to the \*-algebra

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X}_1,\mathrm{X}_1)& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X}_\mathrm{n},\mathrm{X}_1)\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X}_1,\mathrm{X}_\mathrm{n})& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X}_\mathrm{n},\mathrm{X}_\mathrm{n})\end{array}\right).$$

###### Proposition 1.1.

Given a C\*-category 𝒞 and a finite family $`\{X_i\}_{1in}`$ of objects in 𝒞, the vector space

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X}_1,\mathrm{X}_1)& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X}_\mathrm{n},\mathrm{X}_1)\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X}_1,\mathrm{X}_\mathrm{n})& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X}_\mathrm{n}\mathrm{X}_\mathrm{n})\end{array}\right)$$

is a C\*-algebra with each matrix component isometrically identified with the Banach spaces $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X}_\mathrm{i},\mathrm{X}_\mathrm{j})`$.

The above proposition is used to enlarge a C\*-category 𝒞 so that it allows finite direct sums; consider the category $`\widehat{\text{𝒞}}`$ for which objects are finite families of objects in 𝒞 and hom-sets are given by

$$\mathrm{Hom}(\{\mathrm{X}_\mathrm{i}\},\{\mathrm{Y}_\mathrm{j}\})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X}_1,\mathrm{Y}_1)& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X}_\mathrm{m},\mathrm{Y}_1)\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X}_1,\mathrm{Y}_\mathrm{n})& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X}_\mathrm{m},\mathrm{Y}_\mathrm{n})\end{array}\right)$$

with the norm induced from a bigger C\*-algebra of matrix form.

###### Corollary 1.2.

A C\*-category is a W\*-category if and only if

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{X})& \mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{Y},\mathrm{X})\\ \mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{Y})& \mathrm{End}(\mathrm{Y})\end{array}\right)$$

is a W\*-algebra for any pair $`(X,Y)`$ of objects in 𝒞.

Let 𝒞 be a W\*-category. Since $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{Y})`$ is realized as a corner of a W\*-algebra, we can define their $`L^p`$-extensions (see  for $`L^p`$-theory on von Neumann algebras, cf. also ): the Banach space $`L^p(X,Y)`$ is defined to be the upper-right corner of the $`L^p`$-space associated to the W\*-algebra in the above corollary. We then have the bounded bilinear map $`L^q(X,Y)\times L^p(Y,Z)L^r(X,Z)`$ if $`1/r=1/p+1/q`$ and $`L^{\mathrm{}}(X,Y)`$ is identified with $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{Y},\mathrm{X})`$. We also have the duality $`L^p(X,Y)^{}=L^q(Y,X)`$ with $`1/p+1/q=1`$ and the predual of $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{Y})`$ is identified with the Banach space $`L^1(X,Y)`$.

###### Proposition 1.3.

Given a finite family $`\{X_i\}`$ of objects in a W\*-category, the matrix algebra

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X}_1,\mathrm{X}_1)& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X}_\mathrm{n},\mathrm{X}_1)\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X}_1,\mathrm{X}_\mathrm{n})& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X}_\mathrm{n},\mathrm{X}_\mathrm{n})\end{array}\right)$$

is a W\*-algebra. Moreover, any W\*-category is (in a unique way) extended so that it admits finite direct sums.

Let 𝒞 be a \*-category and 𝒟 be a W\*-category. Then $`\text{}om(\text{𝒞},\text{𝒟})`$ is again a W\*-category (𝒞 being assumed to be essentially small and natural transformations being restricted to be bounded). For the identity functor $`\text{id}_\text{𝒞}`$, $`\mathrm{End}(\text{id}_\text{𝒞})`$ is then a commutative W\*-algebra $`Z(\text{𝒞})`$ given by

$$\{t=\{t_X\};t_X\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{X}),\mathrm{ft}_\mathrm{X}=\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{Y}\mathrm{f}\text{for any }f\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{Y})\text{ in }\text{𝒞}\}.$$

We call $`Z(\text{𝒞})`$ the center of 𝒞. If 𝒞 is a full subcategory of $`M`$-$`\text{}od`$ including a faithful representation, then $`Z(\text{𝒞})`$ is naturally isomorphic to the center of $`M`$.

For a morphism $`f:XY`$ in 𝒞, the central support of $`f`$ is defined to be the projection $`c(f)`$ in $`Z(\text{𝒞})`$ which is minimal among the projections $`c`$ in $`Z(\text{𝒞})`$ satisfying $`c_Yf=f=fc_X`$. For a family $`\{f_i\}`$ of morphisms, we define its central support as the smallest projection in $`Z(\text{𝒞})`$ majorizing all $`c(f_i)`$’s: $`c=_ic(f_i)`$. For a family $`\{X_i\}`$ of objects, its central support is defined to be the central support of the family $`\{1_{X_i}\}`$.

The central support $`c`$ of $`f`$ is calculated by

$$c_Z=\underset{g:ZX}{}s(fg),$$

where $`s(fg)`$ denotes the support projection of the element $`g^{}f^{}fg`$ in $`\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{Z})`$. In particular, if $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{Y})=\{0\}`$, i.e., $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are disjoint, then $`c(1_X)c(1_Y)=0`$.

A family $`\{U_i\}`$ of objects in a \*-category 𝒞 is said to be generating if the associated family of hom-functors $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{i},):\text{𝒞}\text{𝒱}\mathrm{ec}`$ is faithful, i.e., the algebraic direct sum

$$\underset{i}{}\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{i},):\text{𝒞}\text{𝒱}\mathrm{ec}$$

is faithful. A single object $`U`$ in 𝒞 is called a generator if the one-object family $`\{U\}`$ is generating, i.e., the hom-functor $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{U},):\text{𝒞}\text{𝒱}\mathrm{ec}`$ is faithful.

###### Example 1.4.

Any representative family of isomorphism classes of objects is generating.

###### Lemma 1.5.

Let $`\{U_i\}`$ be a family of objects in a W\*-category 𝒞. Then the following conditions are equivalent.

1. The family $`\{U_i\}`$ is generating.
2. For any object $`X`$ and any projection $`0p\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{X})`$, we can find a $`U_i`$ such that $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{i},\mathrm{pX})=\mathrm{pHom}(\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{i},\mathrm{X})\{0\}`$.
3. The central support of $`\{U_i\}`$ is equall to the family $`\{1_X\}`$ of identity morphisms.
4. For any object $`X`$ in 𝒞, we can find a family of partial isometries $`\{u_{i,j}:U_iX\}`$ such that

$$\underset{i,j}{}u_{i,j}u_{i,j}^{}=1_X.$$

###### Proof.

(i) $``$ (ii). If there exist an object $`X`$ and a projection $`0p\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{X})`$ such that $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{i},\mathrm{pX})=\{0\}`$ for any $`i`$, then $`p`$ can not be distinguished with $`0`$ under the hom-functor $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{i},)`$, which contradicts with the condition (i).

(ii) $``$ (iii). If the central support $`\{c_X\}`$ of $`\{U_i\}`$ is different from $`\{1_X\}`$, we can find an object $`X`$ such that $`c_X1_X`$, which satisfies $`(1_Xc_X)f=0`$ for any $`i`$ and any $`f:U_iX`$.

(iii) $``$ (iv). The formula for the central support together with polar decompositions shows that for any object $`X`$, we can find $`i`$ and a non-zero partial isometry $`u:UX`$. Now the maximality argument gives the result.

(iv) $``$ (i) is obvious.

###### Lemma 1.6 (\[12, Lemma 2.1\]).

Let $`X`$, $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ be objects in 𝒞. Let $`T:L^2(Y,X)L^2(Z,X)`$ be a bounded linear map satisfying $`T(\xi x)=T(\xi )x`$ for $`\xi L^2(Y,X)`$ and $`x\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{X})`$. Then we can find an element $`y\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{Y},\mathrm{Z})`$ such that $`T(\xi )=y\xi `$ for $`\xi L^2(Y,X)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`M`$ be the W\*-algebra associated to the family $`\{X,Y,Z\}`$ in Proposition 1.3 with $`e`$, $`f`$ and $`g`$ projections of $`M`$ to the component $`X`$, $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ respectively. Consider a bounded operator $`T`$ on $`L^2(M)`$ satisfying $`T(\xi )=gT(f\xi e)e`$ for $`\xi L^2(M)`$ and $`T(\xi exe)=T(\xi )exe`$ for $`xM`$.

Since the commutant of a reduction is the induction of the commutant, the second condition on $`T`$ implies we can find $`yM`$ satisfying $`T(\xi )=y\xi `$. Now the restrictions on $`T`$ for the domain and range reveals that we can replace $`y`$ by the element $`gyf`$ and we are done. ∎

###### Proposition 1.7.

Given a generating family $`\{U_i\}`$ in a W\*-category 𝒞, let $`M`$ be the opposite of the von Neumann algebra $`_{i,j}\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{i},\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{j})`$. Then the functor $`F:\text{𝒞}\text{}ilb`$ defined by

$$F(X)=\underset{i}{}L^2(X,U_i)$$

with the obvious right action of $`M^{}`$ on $`F(X)`$ gives a fully faithful imbedding of 𝒞 into the W\*-category $`M`$-$`\text{}od`$.

###### Proof.

The surjectivity of the functor maps on morphisms is a consequence of the previous lemma because local solutions admit a convergent net by the compactness argument.

On the other hand, if $`f:XY`$ vanishes on the Hilbert space $`F(X)`$, then $`f\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{i},\mathrm{X})\phi _\mathrm{i}^{1/2}=\{0\}`$ for any $`i`$ and any $`\phi _i\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{i})_{}^+`$, whence $`f\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{i},\mathrm{X})=\{0\}`$ for $`i`$. Since $`\{U_i\}`$ is generating, this implies $`f=0`$. ∎

###### Lemma 1.8.

For a von Neumann algebra $`M`$, the following are equivalent.

1. $`M`$ has the separable predual.
2. $`M`$ has a faithful normal representation on a separable Hilbert space.
3. The standard space $`L^2(M)`$ is separable.

###### Proof.

Non-trivial is (i) $``$ (iii).

Let $`\{f_i\}_{i1}`$ be a countable dense set of $`M_{}`$. Then we can find a family $`\{x_iM\}_{i1}`$ such that $`x_i1`$ and $`|f_i(x_i)|f_i/2`$, which turns out to be total in $`M`$ with respect to the weak\*-topology. In fact, if not, we can find an element $`xM`$ and a functional $`fM_{}`$ satisfying $`f(x)=1`$ and $`f(x_i)=0`$ for $`i1`$. For each integer $`n1`$, choose $`i_n\text{}`$ so that $`f_{i_n}f1/n`$. Then the inequality

$$\frac{1}{2}f_{i_n}|f_{i_n}(x_{i_n})|=|f_{i_n}(x_{i_n})f(x_{i_n})|f_{i_n}f\frac{1}{n}$$

implies $`f_{i_n}0`$ and hence $`f=lim_nf_{i_n}=0`$, which contradicts the choice $`f(x)=1`$.

The separability of the predual $`M_{}`$ also ensures that we can find a faithful positive functional $`\phi `$ in $`M_{}`$. Now the set $`\{x_i\phi ^{1/2}\}_{i1}`$ is total in $`L^2(M)`$ by the Kaplansky’s density theorem and we are done. ∎

###### Remark .

1. A similar argument shows that, if a Banach space $`X`$ has the separable dual Banach space, then $`X`$ itself is separable. Thus, the separabilty of $`L^p(M)`$ for some $`1<p<+\mathrm{}`$ implies the separabilty of $`L^q(M)`$ with $`1/p+1/q=1`$ and then the predual is separable as a continuous image of $`L^p(M)\times L^q(M)`$.
2. The argument in the above proof reveals that a von Neumann algebra is countably generated if it has the separable predual. The converse implication is, however, not true; the dual Banach space of the separable C\*-algebra $`C[0,1]`$ is identified with the space $`M[0,1]`$ of complex measures in the interval $`[0,1]`$, which is not separable because $`\delta _s\delta _t=2`$ if $`st`$ in $`[0,1]`$. Then the double dual von Neumann algebra $`M[0,1]^{}`$ is countably generated with the non-separable predual $`M[0,1]`$.

###### Definition 1.9.

A W\*-category is said to be locally separable if each $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{Y})`$ has the separable predual. A locally separable W\*-category is said to be separable if it admits a generating family indexed by a countable set.

Given a W\*-algebra $`M`$, we denote by $`\text{}ep(M)`$ the W\*-category of normal \*-representations of $`M`$ on Hilbert spaces in a specified class. When $`M`$ has the separable predual, we denote by $`\text{𝒮}\text{}ep(M)`$ the W\*-category of normal \*-representations of $`M`$ on separable Hilbert spaces in a specified class.

###### Proposition 1.10.

1. A W\*-category 𝒞 is equivalent to $`\text{}ep(M)`$ for some W\*-algebra $`M`$ if and only if 𝒞 admits subobjects (projections are associated to subobjects) and direct sums indexed by sets in a specified class.
2. A W\*-category 𝒞 is equivalent to $`\text{𝒮}\text{}ep(M)`$ for some W\*-algebra $`M`$ of separable predual if and only if 𝒞 is separable and admits countably many direct sums as well as subobjects.

###### Proof.

Clearly the condition is necessary. On the other hand, we have the fully faithful imbedding $`F:\text{𝒞}M\text{-}\text{}od`$ by Proposition 1.7 and any $`M`$-module is isomorphic to $`F(X)`$ for some object $`X`$ in 𝒞 by the condition (cf. the structure theorem of normal representations ). ∎

For functors between W\*-categories, it is reasonable to restrict to normal ones: a \*-functor $`F:\text{𝒞}\text{𝒟}`$ of W\*-categories is said to be normal if $`F`$ is weak\*-continuous on each $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{Y})`$.

###### Lemma 1.11 (\[11, Prop. 4.7\]).

Let $`\{U_i\}`$ be a generating family of objects in 𝒞. A \*-functor $`F:\text{𝒞}\text{𝒟}`$ between W\*-categories is normal if and only if it is normal on each W\*-algebra $`\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{i})`$.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`F`$ is normal on $`\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{i})`$’s.

We will first show that $`F`$ is normal on each $`\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{X})`$: for any $`\phi \mathrm{End}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{X}))_{}^+`$, the functional $`\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{X})\mathrm{x}\phi (\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{x}))`$ is weak\*-continuous. To see this, it suffices to check the $`\sigma `$-strong continuity on the unit ball of $`\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{X})`$ by a well-known result (\[1, Theorem I.3.1\]). Let $`x_\alpha x`$ in the $`\sigma `$-strong topology with $`x_\alpha `$ and $`x`$ in the unit ball. Here choose a family of partial isometries $`\{u_{i,j}:U_iX\}`$ satisfying $`u_{i,j}u_{i,j}^{}=1_X`$.

Then $`u_{i,j}(x_\alpha x)^{}(x_\alpha x)u_{i,j}^{}\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{i})`$ converges to $`0`$ in the weak\*-topology and hence by the normality of $`F`$ on $`\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{i})`$, we have

$$F(u_{i,j})^{}F(x_\alpha x)^{}F(x_\alpha x)F(u_{i,j})=F(u_{i,j}^{}(x_\alpha x)(x_\alpha x)u_{i,j})0$$

in the weak\*-topology, i.e., $`F(x_\alpha x)F(u_{i,j})`$ converges to $`0`$ in the $`\sigma `$-strong topology for each index $`(i,j)`$. Thus

$$(\phi ^{1/2}|F(x_\alpha x)F(u_{i,j}u_{i,j}^{})\phi ^{1/2})0\text{as }\alpha \mathrm{}$$

for each $`(i,j)`$.

Since $`F(x_\alpha x)2`$ and

$$(\phi ^{1/2}|(F(u_{i,j}u_{i,j}^{})\phi ^{1/2})=(\phi ^{1/2}|\phi ^{1/2})$$

is finite, the usual argument shows that $`\phi (F(x_\alpha x))=(\phi ^{1/2}|F(x_\alpha x)\phi ^{1/2})`$ converges to $`0`$, proving the normality of $`F`$ on $`\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{X})`$.

Now let $`f_\alpha `$ be a net in $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{Y})`$ which converges to $`0`$ in $`\sigma `$\*-strong topology. Then $`f_\alpha ^{}f_\alpha 0`$ in weak\*-topology and hence $`F(f_\alpha )^{}F(f_\alpha )=F(f_\alpha ^{}f_\alpha )0`$, i.e., $`F(f_\alpha )0`$ in $`\sigma `$-strong topology. Thus the \*-homomorphism

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{X})& \mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{Y},\mathrm{X})\\ \mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{Y})& \mathrm{End}(\mathrm{Y})\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{X}))& \mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Y}),\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{X}))\\ \mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{X}),\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Y}))& \mathrm{End}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Y}))\end{array}\right)$$

between W\*-algebras induced from $`F`$ is $`\sigma `$-strongly continuous. Then it is weak\*-continuous by the well-known result on topologies of W\*-algebras (\[1, Theorem I.3.1\]) and we are done. ∎

###### Corollary 1.12.

An equivalence of W\*-categories is automatically normal.

###### Proof.

This follows from the automatical normality of \*-isomorphisms between W\*-algebras (the nomality being the condition on the order structure of hermitian elements). ∎

Let $`M`$ and $`N`$ be W\*-algebras and $`H`$ be an $`N`$-$`M`$ bimodule. Then we can define a normal \*-functor $`\text{}ep(M)\text{}ep(N)`$ by

$$F({}_{M}{}^{}X)={}_{N}{}^{}H_MX$$

(see  further information on relative tensor products, cf. also ).

Conversely we have the following reformulation of Rieffel’s theorem on Morita equivalences.

###### Proposition 1.13.

Any normal \*-functor $`F:\text{}ep(M)\text{}ep(N)`$ (resp. $`F:\text{𝒮}\text{}ep(M)\text{𝒮}\text{}ep(N)`$ with $`M`$ and $`N`$ having separable preduals) is unitarily equivalent to the one associated to an $`N`$-$`M`$ bimodule $`H`$ (resp. a separable $`N`$-$`M`$ bimodule).

The bimodule $`H`$ is uniquely determined up to unitary isomorphisms by the functor $`F`$: $`H={}_{N}{}^{}F({}_{M}{}^{}L_{}^{2}(M))_M`$ with the right action of $`M=\mathrm{End}({}_{\mathrm{M}}{}^{}\mathrm{L}_{}^{2}(\mathrm{M}))^{}`$ on $`H`$ given by the normal \*-homomorphism $`\mathrm{End}({}_{\mathrm{M}}{}^{}\mathrm{L}_{}^{2}(\mathrm{M}))\mathrm{End}({}_{\mathrm{N}}{}^{}\mathrm{F}({}_{\mathrm{M}}{}^{}\mathrm{L}_{}^{2}(\mathrm{M})))`$ induced by the functor.

###### Proof.

Let $`{}_{M}{}^{}X`$ be an $`M`$-module. By the structure theorem of normal \*-homomorphism (\[1, Theorem I.4.3\]), we can find an index set $`I`$ and a projection in $`\mathrm{Mat}_\mathrm{I}(\mathrm{M})`$ so that $`{}_{M}{}^{}X{}_{M}{}^{}L_{}^{2}(M)^Ip`$. We shall then construct a unitary intertwiner

$${}_{N}{}^{}F({}_{M}{}^{}L_{}^{2}(M))_MX{}_{N}{}^{}F({}_{M}{}^{}X)$$

by the commutativity of

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_MX& & F(X)\\ & & & & \\ H_ML^2(M)^Ip& & F({}_{M}{}^{}L_{}^{2}(M)^Ip).\end{array}$$

Here the bottom line is a unitary map given by the composition of

$${}_{N}{}^{}F({}_{M}{}^{}L_{}^{2}(M))_ML^2(M)^Ip={}_{N}{}^{}F({}_{M}{}^{}L_{}^{2}(M))^Ip$$

$$={}_{N}{}^{}F({}_{M}{}^{}L_{}^{2}(M)^I)F(p)={}_{N}{}^{}F({}_{M}{}^{}L_{}^{2}(M)^Ip).$$

By the multiplicativity of $`F`$ on morphisms, the unitary map $`H_MXF(X)`$ is independent of the choice of an isomorphism $`{}_{M}{}^{}X{}_{M}{}^{}L_{}^{2}(M)^Ip`$ and behaves naturally for intertwiners. ∎

A W\*-category is said to be of type I if the matrix W\*-algebra

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{X})& \mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{Y},\mathrm{X})\\ \mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{Y})& \mathrm{End}(\mathrm{Y})\end{array}\right)$$

is of type I (in the sense of Murray-von Neumann) for any pair $`(X,Y)`$ of objects.

The following is an easy reformulation of the structure theorem on W\*-algebras of type I.

###### Proposition 1.14 (cf. \[11, Theorem 8.10\]).

Assume that a W\*-category 𝒞 is saturated for taking subobjects. Then 𝒞 is of type I if and only if we can find a generating family $`\{U_i\}`$ satisfying (i) $`\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{i})`$ is commutative and (ii) $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{i},\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{j})=\{0\}`$ for $`ij`$.

## 2. W\*-Tensor Categories

Recall that a tensor category is a linear category 𝒯 together with a functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }:\text{𝒯}\times \text{𝒯}\text{𝒯}`$ and a natural isomorphism (the associativity constraint) $`a:\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Phi }\times \text{id}_\text{𝒯})\mathrm{\Phi }(\text{id}_\text{𝒯}\times \mathrm{\Phi })`$ satisfying the so-called pentagonal condition. The tensor product notation is often used to denote the functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$: $`\mathrm{\Phi }(X,Y)=XY`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(f,g)=fg`$ for objects $`X`$, $`Y`$ and morphisms $`f`$, $`g`$ in 𝒯.

When 𝒯 is a \*-category and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ preserves the \*-operation, i.e., $`(fg)^{}=f^{}g^{}`$ for morphisms $`f`$, $`g`$ in 𝒯, 𝒯 is called a \*-tensor category. A \*-tensor category is called a C\*-tensor category if it is based on a C\*-category and the associativity constraint is unitary.

A W\*-tensor category is, by definition, a C\*-tensor category 𝒯 with the tensor product functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }:\text{𝒯}\times \text{𝒯}\text{𝒯}`$ is binormal in the sense that it is separately normal on each variables.

Similar adjective definitions work for bicategories; we can talk about \*-bicategories, C\*-bicategories and W\*-bicategories.

Recall that a bicategory consists of labels, $`A,B,C,\mathrm{}`$, categories $`\text{}om(A,B)`$ indexed by pairs of labels, functors

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{A,B,C}:\text{}om(B,A)\times \text{}om(C,B)\text{}om(C,A)$$

indexed by triplets of labels together with natural isomorphisms

$$a_{A,B,C,D}:\mathrm{\Phi }_{A,C,D}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{A,B,C}\times \text{id}_{\text{}om(D,C)})\mathrm{\Phi }_{A,B,D}(\text{id}_{\text{}om(B,A)}\times \mathrm{\Phi }_{B,C,D})$$

indexed by quadruplets of labels and satisfying the pentagonal relation.

The functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{A,B,C}`$ is often denoted by the notation of composition, which reflects the view-point that a bicategory is a ‘categorization’ of hom-sets as hom-categories.

Here is another view-point from which we regard the hom-category $`\text{}om(A,B)`$ as a resemblance of the category of $`B`$-$`A`$ bimodules (if labels represent algebras) with the notation $`\text{}om(A,B)={}_{B}{}^{}\text{}_{A}^{}`$. Then the functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{A,B,C}`$ is consequently denoted by the tensor product notation: For objects $`X`$ in $`{}_{A}{}^{}\text{}_{B}^{}`$ and $`Y`$ in $`{}_{B}{}^{}\text{}_{C}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{A,B,C}(X,Y)`$ is denoted by $`X_BY`$. Similarly for morphisms.

A typical example of W\*-bicategory is provided by bimodules with normal actions of W\*-algebras.

A bicategory is said to be strict if the natural isomorphisms $`a_{A,B,C,D}`$ are identities, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{A,C,D}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{A,B,C}\times \text{id}_{\text{}om(D,C)})=\mathrm{\Phi }_{A,B,D}(\text{id}_{\text{}om(B,A)}\times \mathrm{\Phi }_{B,C,D})$$

and $`a_{A,B,C,D}`$ is the identity for each quadruplet.

A typical example of strict bicategory is provided by categories of functors: Let $`F,F^{}:\text{𝒞}\text{𝒟}`$ and $`G,G^{}:\text{𝒟}\text{}`$ be functors. Then, given natural transformations $`s:FF^{}`$ and $`t:GG^{}`$, we can associate the natural transformation $`GFG^{}F^{}`$ by the commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}G(F(X))& \stackrel{G(s_X)}{}& G(F^{}(X))\\ t_{F\left(X\right)}& & t_{F^{}\left(X\right)}& & \\ G^{}(F(X))& \underset{G^{}(s_X)}{}& G^{}(F^{}(X)).\end{array}$$

Thus $`F={}_{\text{𝒟}}{}^{}F_{\text{𝒞}}^{}`$, $`G={}_{\text{}}{}^{}G_{\text{𝒟}}^{}`$ and $`{}_{\text{}}{}^{}G_\text{𝒟}F_\text{𝒞}={}_{\text{}}{}^{}(GF)_{\text{𝒞}}^{}`$ with the unit objects given by identity functors. Note that the commutativity of the above diagram expresses the identity $`(t_\text{𝒟}1_F^{})(1_G_\text{𝒟}s)=(1_G^{}_\text{𝒟}s)(t_\text{𝒟}1_F)`$. The (strict) associativity for tensor products of morphisms is also immediate.

In particular, the category $`\text{}nd(\text{𝒞})`$ of functors from 𝒞 into itself is a strict monoidal category.

###### Example 2.1.

If 𝒞 is a one-object category, objects of $`\text{}nd(\text{𝒞})`$ are endomorphisms of the algebra $`A=\mathrm{End}(\text{pt})`$ with hom-sets given by

$$\mathrm{Hom}(\rho ,\sigma )=\{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{A};\mathrm{a}\rho (\mathrm{x})=\sigma (\mathrm{x})\mathrm{a},\mathrm{x}\mathrm{A}\}.$$

The monoidal structure takes the form $`\rho \sigma =\rho \sigma `$ for $`\rho `$, $`\sigma \mathrm{End}(\mathrm{A})`$ and $`ab=a\rho (b)=\rho ^{}(b)a`$ for $`a\mathrm{Hom}(\rho ,\rho ^{})`$, $`b\mathrm{Hom}(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})`$.

When 𝒞 is a W\*-category, $`A`$ is a W\*-algebra and objects in $`\text{}nd(\text{𝒞})`$ are normal \*-endomorphisms of $`A`$.

The tensor category $`\text{}nd(\text{𝒞})`$ is also denoted by $`\text{}nd(A)`$ (see  for more information on $`\text{}nd(A)`$).

###### Lemma 2.2 (\[3, Theorem 7.13\], \[2, Lemma 2.1\]).

Let 𝒞, 𝒟 be W\*-categories and $`\{U_i\}`$ be a generating family in 𝒞. Let 𝒰 be the full subcategory of 𝒞 consisting of objects in $`\{U_i\}`$.

Then the restriction (of functors and natural transformations)

$$\text{}om(\text{𝒞},\text{𝒟})FF|_\text{𝒰}\text{}om(\text{𝒰},\text{𝒟})$$

gives a fully faithful imbedding of W\*-categories. Here $`\text{}om(\text{𝒞},\text{𝒟})`$ and $`\text{}om(\text{𝒰},\text{𝒟})`$ are W\*-categories of normal \*-functors and natural transformations.

More concretely, given a natural transformation $`\{t_i:F(U_i)G(U_i)\}`$ between normal \*-functors $`F|_\text{𝒰}`$ and $`G|_\text{𝒰}`$, the natural transformation $`t_X:F(X)G(X)`$ is recovered by the formula

$$t_X=\underset{i,j}{}F(u_{i,j})t_iG(u_{i,j})^{},$$

where $`\{u_{i,j}:U_iX\}`$ is a family of partial isometries satisfying $`_{i,j}u_{i,j}u_{i,j}^{}=1_X`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`X`$ be an object in 𝒞. Since $`\{U_i\}`$ is a generating family, we can find a family $`\{u_{i,j}:U_iX\}`$ of partial isometries such that $`_{i,j}u_{i,j}u_{i,j}^{}=1_X`$.

Given a natural transformation $`t:FG`$, we have $`t_XF(u_{i,j})=G(u_{i,j})t_i`$ for any $`(i,j)`$ and then

$$t_X=\underset{i,j}{}t_XF(u_{ij}u_{i,j}^{})=\underset{i,j}{}G(u_{i,j})t_iF(u_{i,j})^{}$$

by the normality of $`F`$. Thus the restriction is injective on natural transformations.

Conversely, given a natural transformation $`\{t_i:F(U_i)G(U_i)\}`$ between $`F|_\text{𝒰}`$ and $`G|_\text{𝒰}`$ and an object $`X`$ in 𝒞, write

$$t_X=\underset{i,j}{}G(u_{i,j})t_iF(u_{i,j})^{},$$

which is a morphism in $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{X}),\mathrm{G}(\mathrm{X}))`$.

If $`Y`$ is another object in 𝒞 with a family $`\{v_{k,l}:U_kY\}`$ of partial isometries satisfying $`_{k,l}v_{k,l}v_{k,l}^{}=1_Y`$, we associate another morphism $`t_Y:F(Y)G(Y)`$. Then, for any morphism $`f:XY`$ in 𝒞, we have

$`G(f)t_X`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}G(fu_{i,j})t_iF(u_{i,j})^{}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}G(v_{k,l}v_{k,l}^{}fu_{i,j})t_iF(u_{i,j})^{}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}G(v_{k,l})t_kF(v_{k,l}^{}fu_{i,j})F(u_{i,j})^{}`$
$`=t_YF(f)`$
by the naturality of $`\{t_i\}`$ and the normality of $`F`$, $`G`$.

If we take $`f=1_X`$ ($`X=Y`$ particularly), then the above formula means that the morphism $`t_X`$ is well-defined. Thus, the natural rtansformation $`\{t_X\}`$ is recovered from $`\{t_i\}`$. ∎

If we restrict ourselves to W\*-categories, normal \*-functors and bounded natural transformations, then we obtain the strict W\*-bicategory $`\text{}unct`$. Recall that the tensor category $`\text{}nd(M)`$ in Example 2.1 is a part of $`\text{}unct`$. In accordance with our separability notation, we denote by $`\text{𝒮}\text{}unct`$ the W\*-bicategory of normal functors between separable W\*-categories. Moreover we have the W\*-bicategory $`\text{}unct_I`$ of normal functors between W\*-categories of type I.

We shall now give a fully faithful imbedding of $`\text{}unct`$ into the bicategory $`\text{}imod`$ of W\*-bimodules.

To this end, we first enlarge relevant W\*-categories so that they admit generators; we shall take a generator $`U_\text{𝒜}`$ for each W\*-category 𝒜 and define the W\*-algebra $`A`$ by $`A=\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{U}_\text{𝒜})`$ ($`B=\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{U}_{\text{}})`$ and son on). Then, by the imbedding theorem of W\*-categories, we have fully faithful imbedding $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{𝒜}`$ of 𝒜 into the category of right $`A`$-modules:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{𝒜}:XL^2(X,U_\text{𝒜})_A.$$

To each functor $`F:\text{𝒜}\text{}`$, we associate the right $`B`$-module by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(F)=L^2(F(U_\text{𝒜}),U_{\text{}}).$$

Note here that the functor $`F`$ has the unique extension to the enlargements of 𝒜 and  (cf. Lemma 2.2). The Hilbert space $`\mathrm{\Phi }(F)`$ admits the left action of $`A`$ by

$$a\xi =F(a)\xi ,aA,\xi L^2(F(U_\text{𝒜}),U_{\text{}}),$$

which clearly commutes with the right action of $`B`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Phi }(F)`$ is an $`A`$-$`B`$ module.

Moreover, given a natural transformation $`t:FF^{}`$ in $`\text{}om(\text{𝒜},\text{})`$, the left multiplication of $`t_{U_\text{𝒜}}A`$ defines an $`A`$-$`B`$ intertwiner between $`\mathrm{\Phi }(F)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(F^{})`$. In this way, we obtain a \*-functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }:\text{}unct\text{}imod`$. By the previous lemma, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is fully faithful.

Given a functor $`F:\text{𝒜}\text{}`$ and an object $`X`$ in 𝒜, we define a linear map $`m_{X,F}:L^2(X,U_\text{𝒜})_A\mathrm{\Phi }(F)L^2(F(X),U_{\text{}})`$ by

$$L^2(X,U_\text{𝒜})_AL^2(F(U_\text{𝒜}),U_{\text{}})x\phi ^{1/2}_{\phi ^{1/2}}f\psi ^{1/2}F(x)f\psi ^{1/2}L^2(F(U_\text{𝒜}),U_{\text{}}),$$

which is clearly $`B`$-linear and isometric because of

$$(x\phi ^{1/2}_{\phi ^{1/2}}f\psi ^{1/2}|x\phi ^{1/2}_{\phi ^{1/2}}f\psi ^{1/2})=(f\psi ^{1/2}|F(x^{}x)f\psi ^{1/2})=F(x)f\psi ^{1/2}^2,$$

where $`\phi A_{}^+`$ and $`\psi B_{}^+`$.

To see the surjectivity of $`m_{X,F}`$, choose a family $`\{x_i:U_\text{𝒜}X\}`$ of partial isometries satisfying $`_ix_ix_i^{}=1_X`$. Then, for $`y:U_{\text{}}F(X)`$, the normality of $`F`$ shows that

$$y=F\left(\underset{i}{}x_ix_i^{}\right)y=\underset{i}{}F(x_i)F(x_i^{})y=\underset{i}{}F(x_i)f_i,$$

where $`f_i=F(x_i^{})y`$ is in $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{U}_{\text{}},\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{U}_\text{𝒜}))`$. Thus the image of $`m_{X,F}`$ is dense in $`L^2(F(X),U_{\text{}})`$ and $`m_{X,F}`$ gives a unitary map.

Let $`G:\text{}\text{𝒞}`$ be another normal \*-functor. We can then define a unitary map $`m_{F,G}:\mathrm{\Phi }(F)_B\mathrm{\Phi }(G)\mathrm{\Phi }(GF)`$ by

$$m_{F(U_\text{𝒜}),G}:L^2(F(U_\text{𝒜}),U_{\text{}})_BL^2(G(U_{\text{}}),U_\text{𝒞})L^2(GF(U_\text{𝒜}),U_\text{𝒞}),$$

which is $`A`$-$`C`$ linear by the definition of $`m_{X,F}`$ and the left action of $`A`$. The explicit form of these multiplication maps also shows the identity

$$m_{F(X),G}(m_{X,F}1_{\mathrm{\Phi }(G)})=m_{X,GF}(1_{\mathrm{\Phi }(X)}m_{F,G}).$$

In other words, the following diagram commutes.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Phi }(X)_A\mathrm{\Phi }(F)_B\mathrm{\Phi }(G)& & \mathrm{\Phi }(X)_A\mathrm{\Phi }(GF)\\ & & & & \\ \mathrm{\Phi }(F(X))_B\mathrm{\Phi }(G)& & \mathrm{\Phi }(GF(X)).\end{array}$$

Summarizing the argument so far, we obtain the following.

###### Theorem 2.3.

The opposite of the bicategory $`\text{}unct`$ ($`\text{𝒮}\text{}unct`$ or $`\text{}unct_I`$ respectively) is monoidally equivalent to the bicategory $`\text{}imod`$ of W\*-bimodules ($`\text{𝒮}\text{}imod`$ of separable W\*-bimodules or $`\text{𝒞}\text{}imod`$ of W\*-bimodules with actions of commutative W\*-algebras respectively).

###### Proof.

We have a fully faithful monoidal imbedding $`\text{}unct\text{}imod`$ by the above argument, whose image covers every bimodule up to unitary isomorphisms by Proposition 1.13. ∎


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The experimental investigation of lepton deep-inelastic scattering ($`DIS`$) off proton and deuteron targets has provided a wealth of information on parton distributions in the nucleon. In the past few years some selected issues in the kinematical regions corresponding to large values of the Bjorken variable $`x`$ have attracted a lot of theoretical and phenomenological interest; among them one should mention the occurrence of power corrections associated to dynamical higher-twist operators measuring the correlations among partons. The extraction of the latter is of particular relevance since the comparison with theoretical predictions either based on lattice $`QCD`$ simulations or obtained from models of the nucleon structure represents an important test of $`QCD`$ in its non-perturbative regime.

In Refs.  and  phenomenological fits of the world data on the unpolarized nucleon structure functions $`F_2^N`$ and $`F_L^N`$ were used to evaluate Nachtmann moments and power correction analyses were carried out. In Ref.  the same twist analysis was extended to the polarized proton case by developing a parameterization of $`g_1^p`$, which describes the $`DIS`$ proton data up to $`Q^250(GeV/c)^2`$ and includes a phenomenological Breit-Wigner ansätz able to reproduce the existing electroproduction data in the proton-resonance regions. The interpolation formula for $`g_1^p`$ was successfully extended down to the photon point, showing that it nicely reproduces the Mainz data  on the energy dependence of the asymmetry of the transverse photoproduction cross section.

The plan of this contribution is as follows. In Section 2 we extend our phenomenological parameterization of Ref.  to the neutron polarized structure function $`g_1^n`$. In Section 3 the generalized Drell-Hearn-Gerasimov ($`DHG`$) sum rules are predicted from low to high values of $`Q^2`$ and compared with proton and neutron data. Finally, in Section 4 the main results of the power correction analysis carried out in Ref.  on the $`Q^2`$-behavior of the polarized proton Nachtmann moments will be briefly summarized.

## 2 Phenomenological parameterizations of $`g_1^p`$ and $`g_1^n`$ from low to high $`Q^2`$

Following Ref.  we write the polarized nucleon structure functions as the sum of three contributions

$`g_i(x,Q^2)=g_i^{(el.)}(x,Q^2)+g_i^{(res.)}(x,Q^2)+g_i^{(nonres.)}(x,Q^2)`$ (1)
where the suffix $`p`$ or $`n`$ is omitted for simplicity, $`g_i^{(el.)}`$, $`g_i^{(res.)}`$ and $`g_i^{(nonres.)}`$ are the elastic, resonant and non-resonant contributions to $`g_i`$, respectively, and $`i=1,2`$. In Eq. (1) possible interference terms between the resonant and non-resonant contributions are neglected, since they are well beyond the scope of our phenomenological fit.

The elastic contribution is the simplest one, because it can be expressed in terms of the nucleon Sachs form factors (see Eqs. (17-18) of Ref. ). As for the non-resonant terms $`g_i^{(nonres.)}`$ we adopt the following decomposition

$`g_1^{(nonres.)}(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`g^{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma }(x,Q^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{4M^2x^2}{Q^2}}g^{LT}(x,Q^2)`$
$`g_2^{(nonres.)}(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`g^{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma }(x,Q^2)+g^{LT}(x,Q^2)`$ (2)
where $`g^{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma }`$ is the contribution arising from the transverse asymmetry $`A_1`$, while $`g^{LT}`$ is the $`LT`$ interference governing the asymmetry $`A_2`$. In Ref.  we have developed an interpolation formula for $`g^{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma }`$ of the form

$`g^{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma }={\displaystyle \frac{W^2M^2}{2W^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}a_j\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{W^2}{Q^2+Q_R^2}}\right]^{\alpha _j}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{W^2W_\pi ^2}{W^2W_\pi ^2+Q^2+W_T^2}}\right]^{\beta _j}`$ (3)
where $`W_\pi `$ is the pion production threshold and $`t`$ is a parameter aimed at describing the logarithmic scaling violations in the $`DIS`$ regime, namely: $`t=\text{ln}\left\{\text{ln}\left[(Q^2+Q_0^2)/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right]/\text{ln}\left(Q_0^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)\right\}`$. In Eq. (3) the parameter $`Q_R^2`$ describes the transition from the expected dominance of the Regge behavior at $`Q^2\text{ }<Q_R^2`$ to the partonic regime at $`Q^2>>Q_R^2`$, while the quantities $`a_j`$, $`\alpha _j`$ and $`\beta _j`$ are parameters assumed to depend linearly on $`t`$. Finally, the term $`g^{LT}`$, contributing to Eq. (2), is parameterized as in Eq. (26) of Ref. .

All the parameters appearing in Eq. (3) but $`W_T`$ can be determined by fitting existing measurements of the asymmetry $`A_1`$ in the $`DIS`$ kinematics ($`W\text{ }>2GeV`$). As explained in Ref.  the value of $`W_T`$ can be fixed by requiring the reproduction of the $`DHG`$ sum rule. We point out that in Eq. (3) $`g^{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma }`$ is assumed to behave in the Bjorken limit as a power of $`x`$ at low $`x`$. There is no strong argument in favor of such an assumption and therefore Eq. (3) has to be considered as a simple approximation valid in a limited $`x`$-range. In this respect, since existing data for both proton and neutron targets are scarce below $`x0.02`$, we consider $`x\text{ }>0.02`$ as the $`x`$-range of applicability of our parameterization (3). This implies that we cannot check the Bjorken sum rule, because the latter is extremely sensitive to the behavior of $`g_1^n`$ at very low $`x`$ (below $`10^2`$). Therefore, in this contribution the parameterization of $`g_1^p`$ is directly taken from Ref. , and the theoretical value of the Bjorken sum rule is inserted in the fitting data set for $`g_1^n`$.

In case of proton we used  $`14`$ parameters against $`209`$ experimental points, obtaining for the $`\chi ^2`$ variable (divided by the number of d.o.f.) the minimum value of $`0.66`$. Repeating the same procedure in case of the neutron (with the addition of the Bjorken sum rule as a constraint) we have got $`\chi ^2=0.90`$ against the $`245`$ experimental points from Refs. . We anticipate that the value of the parameter $`W_T`$, fixed through the $`DHG`$ sum rule, turns out to be $`W_T=0.475(0.451)GeV`$ in case of proton (neutron).

In the resonance regions ($`W\text{ }<2GeV`$) we adopt a simple Breit-Wigner shape to describe the $`W`$-dependence of the contribution of an isolated resonance $`R`$, while its $`Q^2`$-dependence can be conveniently expressed in terms of the helicity amplitudes $`A_{1/2}^R`$, $`A_{3/2}^R`$ and $`S_{1/2}^R`$. The explicit expression for $`g_1^{(res.)}`$ and $`g_2^{(res.)}`$ are given by Eqs. (29-35) of Ref. . We have considered all the ”four-star” resonances of the $`PDG`$  having a mass $`M_R<2GeV`$ and a total transverse photoamplitude $`\sqrt{|A_{1/2}^R|^2+|A_{3/2}^R|^2}`$ larger than $`0.050(0.040)GeV^{1/2}`$ in case of proton (neutron). Our final results at $`Q^2=0`$ are reported in Fig. 1. It can be seen that they positively compare with all the Mainz data  in case of the proton and with the results of the $`VPI`$ multipole analysis  for photon energies $`E_\gamma `$ above $`0.5GeV`$ in case of the isovector-isoscalar ($`VS`$) channel. There is however a clear discrepancy when $`E_\gamma \text{ }<0.5GeV`$. It should be reminded that the results of multipole analyses are consistent with the $`VV`$ part of the $`DHG`$ sum rule, while they differ remarkably in case of the $`VS`$ part.

## 3 Generalized $`DHG`$ sum rules from low to high $`Q^2`$

In this Section we present our predictions for the generalized $`DHG`$ sum rules based on the parameterizations of $`g_1^p`$ and $`g_1^n`$ described previously.

We have calculated the inelastic part of the first moment of $`g_1`$, defined as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(Q^2)_0^{x_\pi }𝑑xg_1(x,Q^2)`$, where $`x_\pi `$ is the pion threshold. Our results are shown in Fig. 2 and compared with both $`DIS`$ data and the new $`JLab`$ data  which cover the intermediate $`Q^2`$-region ranging from $`0.2`$ to $`1(GeV/c)^2`$. It can be seen that our results nicely fit the data in the $`DIS`$ kinematics and agree at very low values of $`Q^2`$ with the results of Heavy Baryon Chiral Perturbation Theory ($`HB\chi pT`$) obtained in Ref. . However, while the proton $`JLab`$ data change sign at $`Q^20.25(GeV/c)^2`$, our parameterization of $`g_1^p`$ predicts the occurrence of the zero-crossing point at $`Q^2=0.16\pm 0.04(GeV/c)^2`$. Moreover the applicability of the $`HB\chi pT`$ to the nucleon has been criticized in Ref. , where important finite-mass effects have been found.

The resonance contribution to the transverse cross section asymmetry of the neutron, defined as $`I_t^{(n)}(Q^2)_{\nu _\pi }^{\nu _{max}}𝑑\nu (\sigma _{1/2}\sigma _{3/2})/\nu `$ with $`\nu _{max}`$ corresponding to $`W_{max}2GeV`$, has been recently determined by the $`JLab`$ experiment $`E94010`$ . Our results are reported in Fig. 3 as full dots and compared with the $`JLab`$ data. It can be seen that a striking discrepancy occurs below $`Q^20.4(GeV/c)^2`$. A similar discrepancy is shared also by the result of the unitary isobar model of Ref. .

Since the $`N\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ transition dominates at low $`Q^2`$, the agreement with the neutron $`JLab`$ data can be recovered by modifying the low-$`Q^2`$ behavior of the asymmetry $`A_1^\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In Fig. 3 the open dots, which nicely fits all the $`JLab`$ data, correspond to the results of a modified parameterization of $`g_1^n`$ in which we assume $`A_1^\mathrm{\Delta }=0.560.85(Q^2/0.14)e^{Q^2/0.14}`$ instead of the constant value $`A_1^\mathrm{\Delta }=0.56`$ considered in Ref.  and suggested by all multipole analyses (cf. Ref.  and references therein). The modification of $`A_1^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has a direct impact also on our parameterization of $`g_1^p`$ which should be correspondingly modified. Thus we have recalculated the first moment $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(Q^2)`$ and our results are reported in Fig. 4. It can be seen that our modified parameterization of $`g_1^p`$ predicts the same zero-crossing point of the proton $`JLab`$ data. Moreover, the low-$`Q^2`$ behaviors of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{(p)}(Q^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{(pn)}(Q^2)`$ agree very well with the $`\chi pT`$ prediction of Ref. .

To sum up, the results we have obtained for the generalized $`DHG`$ sum rules suggest that more work is needed in order to properly parameterize the low-$`Q^2`$ behavior of the $`N\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ transition.

## 4 Twist analysis of the proton Nachtmann moments

In this Section we briefly summarize the main results of Ref.  concerning the power correction analysis of the polarized proton Nachtmann moments, $`M_n^{(1)}(Q^2)`$, evaluated in the $`Q^2`$-range between $`0.5÷1`$ and $`50(GeV/c)^2`$ using our parameterization of $`g_1^p`$ and $`g_2^p`$. In Ref.  the leading twist, $`\mu _n^{(1)}(Q^2)`$, is treated both at next-to-leading ($`NLO`$) order and beyond any fixed order by adopting available soft gluon resummation ($`SGR`$) techniques. As for the power corrections, a phenomenological ansätz is considered, viz.

$`M_n^{(1)}(Q^2)=\mu _n^{(1)}(Q^2)+a_n^{(4)}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{Q^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{\alpha _s(\mu ^2)}}\right]^{\gamma _n^{(4)}}+a_n^{(6)}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^4}{Q^4}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{\alpha _s(\mu ^2)}}\right]^{\gamma _n^{(6)}}`$ (4)
where the logarithmic $`pQCD`$ evolution of the twist-4 (twist-6) contribution is accounted for by an effective anomalous dimension $`\gamma _n^{(4)}`$ ($`\gamma _n^{(6)}`$) and the parameter $`a_n^{(4)}`$ ($`a_n^{(6)}`$) represents the overall strength of the twist-4 (twist-6) term at the renormalization scale $`\mu ^2`$, chosen to be equal to $`\mu ^2=1(GeV/c)^2`$. In order to fix the running of the coupling constant $`\alpha _s(Q^2)`$, the updated $`PDG`$ value $`\alpha _s(M_Z^2)=0.118`$ is adopted.

As for the first moment ($`n=1`$), the leading twist term, $`\delta \mu _1^{(1)}(Q^2)`$, does not receive any correction from $`SGR`$ and at $`NLO`$ it reads as

$`\mu _1^{(1)}(Q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{<e^2>}{2}}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }q^{NS}+a_0(Q^2)\right]\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{\pi }}\right]`$ (5)
The non-singlet moment $`\mathrm{\Delta }q^{NS}`$ is taken fixed at the value $`\mathrm{\Delta }q^{NS}=1.095`$, deduced from the experimental values of the triplet and octet axial coupling constants, with the latter obtained under the assumption of $`SU(3)`$-flavor symmetry. The values of the singlet axial charge $`a_0(\mu ^2)`$ and of the four higher-twist quantities $`a_1^{(4)}`$, $`\gamma _1^{(4)}`$, $`a_1^{(6)}`$ and $`\gamma _1^{(6)}`$ are determined by fitting our pseudo-data, adopting the least-$`\chi ^2`$ procedure in the $`Q^2`$-range between $`0.5`$ and $`50(GeV/c)^2`$. It turns out that the total contribution of the higher twists is tiny for $`Q^2\text{ }>1(GeV/c)^2`$, but it is comparable with the leading twist already at $`Q^20.5(GeV/c)^2`$. This means that for $`g_1^p`$ the onset of global duality is expected to occur at $`Q^21(GeV/c)^2`$ (cf. Ref.  for the case of unpolarized structure functions). In our analysis, where the leading and the higher twists are simultaneously extracted, the singlet axial charge (in the $`AB`$ scheme) is determined to be $`a_0(10GeV^2)=0.16\pm 0.09`$, which nicely agrees with many recent estimates appeared in the literature. Our value of $`a_0`$ is therefore significantly below the naive quark-model expectation (i.e. compatible with the well known ”proton spin crisis”), but it does not exclude completely a singlet axial charge as large as $`0.25`$.

In case of higher-order moments ($`n3`$) both the $`NLO`$ approximation and the $`SGR`$ approach have been considered for the leading twist. The comparison of the corresponding twist analyses shows  that, except for the third moment, the contribution of the twist-2 is enhanced by soft gluon effects, while the total higher-twist term decreases significantly after the resummation of soft gluons. Thus, as already observed  in the unpolarized case, also in the polarized one it is mandatory to go beyond the $`NLO`$ approximation and to include soft gluon effects in order to achieve a safer extraction of higher twists at large $`x`$, particularly for $`Q^2`$ few $`(GeV/c)^2`$.

Finally, the twist decomposition of the polarized Nachtmann moments has been compared with the corresponding one of the unpolarized (transverse) Nachtmann moments obtained in Ref.  adopting the same $`SGR`$ technique. It turns out  that the extracted higher-twist contribution appears to be a larger fraction of the leading twist in case of the polarized moments. This findings suggests that spin-dependent multiparton correlations may have more impact than spin-independent ones.