text:
# Direct resummation of the leading renormalons in inclusive semileptonic B decay

## Abstract

We present a Borel resummation method for the QCD corrections in inclusive, charmless, semileptonic B meson decay. The renormalon contributions are resummed to all orders by employing a bilocal expansion of the Borel transform that accurately accounts for the first infrared renormalons in the Borel plane. The renormalons in the pole mass and the QCD expansion are resummed separately, and a precise relation is obtained between a properly defined pole mass and the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass. The inclusive decay rate is calculated to three loop order using an estimate of the yet unknown NNLO coefficient.

The Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix element $`|V_{\mathrm{ub}}|`$, which is an important parameter in the study of CP violation in weak interactions, can be determined through the inclusive, charmless, semileptonic B decay. Presently, the largest theoretical uncertainty in the decay rate comes from the $`b`$ quark mass and the QCD correction. It is well known that these two are not independent but intimately related. In the large $`b`$ quark mass limit, the B meson decay rate is given by that of a free $`b`$ quark with a correction quadratically suppressed in the $`b`$ mass Chay et al. (1990); Bigi et al. (1992). The decay rate in the on-shell scheme is given in the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(BX_{ue\overline{\nu }_e})=\frac{G_\mathrm{F}^2|V_{\mathrm{ub}}|^2}{192\pi ^3}m_b^5f(\alpha _s)[1+O(1/m_b^2)]$$
(1)
with $`m_b`$ and $`f(\alpha _s)`$ denoting the $`b`$ quark pole mass and the QCD correction to the free $`b`$ quark decay, respectively. In perturbation theory $`f(\alpha _s)`$ can be expanded as

$$f=1+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f_n(\xi )\alpha _s(\mu )^{n+1},$$
(2)
where $`\alpha _s(\mu )`$ is the strong coupling constant and $`\xi =\mu /m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$, with $`m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}[m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})]`$ denoting the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass.

Because of the infrared (IR) renormalon the perturbative coefficients $`f_n`$ are expected to grow rapidly, and this would give rise to an $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b)`$ intrinsic uncertainty to the asymptotic series. On the other hand, this renormalon uncertainty in $`f(\alpha _s)`$ is known to arise from the use of the pole mass in the decay rate. When the pole mass is expanded in the strong coupling it also has a renormalon caused uncertainty of $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}})`$, and this uncertainty cancels that of $`f(\alpha _s)`$ Bigi et al. (1994); Beneke et al. (1994). Once the pole mass is replaced by a renormalon free mass like the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass or one of the threshold masses Bigi et al. (1995); Beneke (1998); Hoang and Teubner (1999); Hoang et al. (1999) the resulting $`f(\alpha _s)`$ is in principle expected to give a well-behaved series. In practice, however, the use of the renormalon free masses are not completely satisfactory. For instance, with the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass the renormalon cancellation is not so obvious at low orders and the convergence for $`f(\alpha _s)`$ is quite slow, possibly due to the large power of $`m_b`$ in the decay rate, and with the $`1S`$ mass Hoang and Teubner (1999); Hoang et al. (1999) one must assume that the $`1S`$ state of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is a perturbative system.

In this paper we describe a more direct approach to the renormalon problem, in which the leading renormalons in the pole mass and $`f(\alpha _s)`$ are Borel resummed separately. An essential ingredient of this program is the accurate calculation of the renormalon residue for the pole mass. The residue, which determines the normalization constant of the large order behavior, can be computed in perturbation theory Lee (1997, 1999), and it turns out that the residue for the pole mass can be determined to good accuracy within a few percent error Lee (2002a); Pineda (2001, 2002). The renormalon cancellation then allows the residue for $`f(\alpha _s)`$ to be determined to the same accuracy from the pole mass residue. The Borel transforms of the pole mass and $`f`$ can be systematically expanded around the origin and the first renormalon location in the Borel plane. With the computed residues these two expansions can be interpolated to a bilocal expansion to obtain an accurate description of the Borel transforms in the region in-between the two expansion points. Since at the typical strong coupling in B decay the bulk of the Borel integral comes from this region of integration, the bilocal expansion can much improve the accuracy of the Bore resummation. By taking into account the renormalon singularity correctly this program essentially resums the renormalon caused large order behavior to all orders.

With the renormalon singularity on the integration contour one has to worry about the ambiguities of $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})`$ for the pole mass and $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}/m_b)`$ for $`f`$ arising from the ambiguities in choosing the integration contour that may either be on the upper or the lower half plane beginning at the renormalon singularities. It was shown in Refs. Luke et al. (1995); Neubert and Sachrajda (1995) that these ambiguities cancel as long as one takes the same contour for the pole mass and $`f(\alpha _s)`$. Furthermore the authors argued that in general the pole mass, when consistently used, does not cause any ambiguity to physical observables in the heavy quark effective theory. Until recently, however, there was no procedural program implementing this observation. The main reason for this, perhaps, was that one did not know how to describe the Borel transforms beyond the immediate neighborhood of the origin in the Borel plane. Within the large $`\beta _0`$ approximation Beneke and Braun (1995) one can obtain the Borel transforms in the whole Borel plane, but the accuracy of the approximation is limited. What is necessary for practical applications is an accurate description of the Borel transforms in the region in-between the origin and the first renormalon singularity, since the contribution from the region far from the origin is exponentially suppressed. The bilocal expansion fills this gap.

The program described above was successfully applied to the heavy quark static potential Lee (2002a) which is known to suffer from a severe convergence problem with the ordinary perturbative expansion. The Borel resummed potential obtained from employing a bilocal expansion turns out to have an excellent convergence and is in remarkable agreement with the lattice calculations.

Throughout the paper, unless stated otherwise, the perturbative expansions are assumed to be in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme with four active quark flavors ($`N_f=4`$), and only the leading IR renormalon closest to the origin in the Borel plane is considered.

The pole mass in terms of the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass $`m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ has the perturbative expansion

$$m_b=m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}\left[1+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_n(\xi )\alpha _s(\mu )^{n+1}\right].$$
(3)
The first three coefficients $`p_n`$ are known at $`\mu =m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ Gray et al. (1990); Melnikov and Ritbergen (2000); Chetyrkin and Steinhauser (2000) and their $`\mu `$ dependence can be obtained by the renormalization group invariance of the pole mass. The Borel resummation of this expansion can be written formally as

$`m_b[\alpha _s(\mu )]=m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _{0\pm iϵ}^{\mathrm{}\pm iϵ}}e^{b/\beta _0\alpha _s(\mu )}\stackrel{~}{m}(b,\xi )𝑑b\right],`$ (4)
where the Borel transform $`\stackrel{~}{m}(b,\xi )`$ has the perturbative expansion

$$\stackrel{~}{m}(b,\xi )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{p_n(\xi )}{n!}\left(\frac{b}{\beta _0}\right)^n,$$
(5)
with $`\beta _0`$ denoting the one loop coefficient of the QCD $`\beta `$ function \[$`\beta =d\alpha _s/d\mathrm{ln}(\mu ^2)=\alpha _s^2(\beta _0+\beta _1\alpha _s+\beta _2\alpha _s^2+\mathrm{})]`$. The integration contour, which can be derived from the general argument of Borel resummation of a series with a same sign large order behavior Lee (2002b), can be either on the upper or the lower half plane along the positive real axis. The pole mass is known to have an ambiguity from renormalon singularity proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ Beneke (1995) that has the weak coupling expansion

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}\mu \alpha _s(\mu )^\nu e^{\frac{1}{2\beta _0\alpha _s(\mu )}}\left[1+r_1\alpha _s(\mu )+r_2\alpha _s(\mu )^2+\mathrm{}\right],`$ (6)
where

$`\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{2\beta _0^2}},r_1={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1^2\beta _0\beta _2}{2\beta _0^3}},`$
$`r_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1^4+4\beta _0^3\beta _1\beta _22\beta _0\beta _1^2\beta _2+\beta _0^2(\beta _2^22\beta _1^3)2\beta _3\beta _0^4}{8\beta _0^6}}.`$ (7)
For the Borel integral (4) to generate this ambiguity one can easily see that the Borel transform $`\stackrel{~}{m}(b,\xi )`$ must have the singularity

$`\stackrel{~}{m}(b,\xi )={\displaystyle \frac{C_m\xi }{(12b)^{1+\nu }}}\left[1+c_1(12b)+c_2(12b)^2+\mathrm{}\right]+\text{ analytic part},`$ (8)
where

$$c_1=\frac{r_1}{2\nu \beta _0},c_2=\frac{r_2}{4\nu (\nu 1)\beta _0^2}.$$
(9)
The ‘analytic part’ denotes any terms analytic around $`b=1/2`$ with radius of convergence bounded by the next renormalon at $`b=3/2`$ and $`C_m`$ is a real constant.

With this singularity in $`\stackrel{~}{m}(b,\xi )`$ the resummed pole mass can be written formally as

$$m_b=m_{\mathrm{BR}}[\alpha _s(\mu )]\pm i\mathrm{\Gamma }_m[\alpha _s(\mu )],$$
(10)
where the ‘Borel resummed (BR)’ mass $`m_{\mathrm{BR}}`$ denotes the real part of the Borel integral in Eq. (4) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$ denotes the imaginary part obtained with the integration contour on the upper half plane. Note that by definition the BR mass has the same perturbative expansion as the pole mass and is not a short distance mass.

The residue $`C_m`$, which is not known exactly, can be calculated systematically in perturbation theory Lee (1997, 1999). The details of the calculation adopted here can be found in Lee (2002a). To compute the residue we first expand using the known $`p_n`$ up to NNLO and the unknown $`p_3`$ the function $`R(b,\xi )(12b)^{(1+\nu )}\stackrel{~}{m}(b,\xi )`$ about the origin in the $`w`$ plane defined by the following conformal mapping

$$w=\frac{\sqrt{1+b}\sqrt{12b/3}}{\sqrt{1+b}+\sqrt{12b/3}},$$
(11)
which gives to $`O(w^3)`$

$$R[b(w),1]=0.42441+0.61198w+0.25351w^2+[108.99217+7.90052p_3(1)]w^3.$$
(12)
This allows us to estimate $`p_3`$ Jeong and Lee (2002). From the pattern of the known lower order terms we may safely assume $`|108.992177.90052p_3(1)|<1,`$ which leads to

$$p_3(1)=13.796\pm 0.127.$$
(13)
Now evaluating Eq. (12) at the renormalon location $`w=1/5`$ we obtain the residue

$$C_m=R[b(w=1/5),1]0.42441+0.12240+0.01014\pm 0.00800=0.55695\pm 0.00800,$$
(14)
where the error comes from the uncertainty in the estimate (13).

The BR mass $`m_{\mathrm{BR}}`$ can be obtained accurately by an interpolation of the two expansions (5) and (8) of the Borel transform $`\stackrel{~}{m}(b,\xi )`$ (bilocal expansion Lee (2002a)). Since at the typical values of the strong coupling considered here the bulk of the contribution to the Borel integral comes from the region between the origin and the first IR renormalon, it is important to have the Borel transform in this region as accurately as possible from the known first perturbative terms. As demonstrated in the heavy quark potential the accuracy of the Borel transform can be improved greatly through the bilocal expansion Lee (2002a).

The bilocal expansion of the Borel transform for the pole mass is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{m}(b,\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{N,M\mathrm{}}{lim}\stackrel{~}{m}_{\mathrm{N},\mathrm{M}}(b,\xi )`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`\underset{N,M\mathrm{}}{lim}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{q_n(\xi )}{n!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b}{\beta _0}}\right)^n+{\displaystyle \frac{C_m\xi }{(12b)^{1+\nu }}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}}c_i(12b)^i\right]\right\},`$
where $`q_n`$ are to be determined by demanding Eq. (15) reproduce Eq. (5) when expanded about $`b=0`$. With the known first two coefficients $`c_{1,2}`$, and taking $`M=2`$, we have the first three $`q_n`$ as

$`q_0(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`p_0C_m\xi (1+c_1+c_2),`$
$`q_1(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`p_1(\xi )2C_m\xi \beta _0[1c_2+\nu (1+c_1+c_2)],`$
$`q_2(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`p_2(\xi )4C_m\xi \beta _0^2[2+\nu (3+c_1c_2)+\nu ^2(1+c_1+c_2)].`$ (16)
Since the two expansions about the origin and about the renormalon singularity are expected to be convergent on the disks, $`|b|<1/2`$ and $`|b1/2|<1`$, respectively, the interpolation (15) is expected to give a good description of the Borel transform in the region that includes the two expansion points.

Taking the canonical value for the strong coupling $`\alpha _s(m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})=0.22`$ and $`\xi =1`$, and substituting the known $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\mathrm{N},2}(b,1),(N=0,1,2)`$, into the Borel integral (4), and performing the integration in the $`w`$-plane for the convenience of numerical integration, we obtain

$$m_{\mathrm{BR}}=m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(1+0.15769+0.004090.000280.00014),$$
(17)
where the error was obtained by varying $`C_m`$ within the uncertainty in the computed residue in Eq. (14). Notice the remarkable convergence of the BR mass compared to the power series (3) which at $`\xi =1`$ gives $`m_b=m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(1+0.09337+0.04550+0.03235).`$ This shows that the bilocal expansion improves the convergence by two orders of magnitude.

We now turn to the resummation of $`f(\alpha _s)`$. For this we first note that because of the large power ($`m_b^5`$) in the pole mass in the decay rate the expansion (2) may not be an optimal expansion for $`f(\alpha _s)`$. We can reorganize the expansion (2) by writing

$$f[\alpha _s(\mu )]=F\mathbf{\left(}1+H[\alpha _s(\mu )]\mathbf{\right)}$$
(18)
where $`F(x)`$ is an arbitrary function analytic at $`x=1`$. Since $`H`$ itself can be regarded as a coupling constant, with its relation to the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ coupling constant defined implicitly by Eq. (18), we see that a particular choice of $`F`$ is nothing but a renormalization scheme choice.

Given an $`F`$ the perturbative expansion for $`H`$

$$H=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}h_n(\xi )\alpha _s(\mu )^{n+1}$$
(19)
can be easily obtained using the definition (18) and the series (2) for $`f(\alpha _s)`$. Instead of resumming the series (2) directly we shall resum the expansion (19) for $`H`$.

The Borel resummation for $`H`$ can be done in a similar fashion as in the pole mass resummation, assuming that the first IR renormalon for $`H`$ is known. Then with the resummed pole mass and $`H`$ we have

$$m_b^5f=(m_{\mathrm{BR}}\pm i\mathrm{\Gamma }_m)^5F\mathbf{(}1+H_{\mathrm{BR}}\pm i\mathrm{\Gamma }_H),$$
(20)
where $`H_{\mathrm{BR}}`$ denotes the real part of the Borel integral

$$H[\alpha _s(\mu )]=\frac{1}{\beta _0}_{0\pm iϵ}^{\mathrm{}\pm iϵ}e^{b/\beta _0\alpha _s(\mu )}\stackrel{~}{H}(b,\xi )𝑑b$$
(21)
and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$ denotes the imaginary part obtained with the contour on the upper half plane. The Borel transform $`\stackrel{~}{H}(b,\xi )`$ has the perturbative expansion

$$\stackrel{~}{H}(b,\xi )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{h_n(\xi )}{n!}\left(\frac{b}{\beta _0}\right)^n.$$
(22)
The structure of the IR renormalon for $`H`$ can be easily obtained by the cancellation of the renormalons in $`m_b^5`$ and $`f(\alpha _s)`$. Expanding Eq. (20) in powers of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{m,H}`$ we obtain

$$m_b^5f=m_{\mathrm{BR}}^5F(1+H_{\mathrm{BR}})\pm im_{\mathrm{BR}}^4\left[5F(1+H_{\mathrm{BR}})\mathrm{\Gamma }_m+F^{}(1+H_{\mathrm{BR}})m_{\mathrm{BR}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_H\right]+O(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{m,H}^2)$$
(23)
The cancellation of the renormalons means vanishing of the ambiguous imaginary part, which gives

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_H(\alpha _s)=\frac{5F[1+H_{\mathrm{BR}}(\alpha _s)]}{F^{}[1+H_{\mathrm{BR}}(\alpha _s)]m_{\mathrm{BR}}(\alpha _s)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_m(\alpha _s).$$
(24)
The renormalon singularity for $`\stackrel{~}{H}(b,\xi )`$ can now be easily obtained by expanding the right-hand-side of this equation in small $`\alpha _s`$.

At this point we choose a specific form for $`F(x)`$. Considering the large power of the pole mass in the decay rate a plausible choice for $`F`$ is

$$F(x)=\left[1+\frac{1}{q}(x1)\right]^q,$$
(25)
with q a number not necessarily an integer. $`F(1+H)`$ is then essentially a power function with a rescaling of the normalization for $`H`$ that is for the purpose of convenience only and does not have any physical effect.

Using the perturbative expansions in Eqs. (3) and (19) of $`m_{\mathrm{BR}}`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{BR}}`$ (which have the identical expansions with $`m_b`$ and $`H`$, respectively) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$ obtained from the renormalon singularity (8), we have

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H(\alpha _s)={\displaystyle \frac{5C_m\xi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )\mathrm{sin}(\nu \pi )}{(2\beta _0)^{1+\nu }}}\alpha _s^\nu e^{\frac{1}{2\beta _0\alpha _s}}\left[1+\stackrel{~}{r}_1\alpha _s+\stackrel{~}{r}_2(\xi )\alpha _s^2+\mathrm{}\right],`$ (26)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{r}_1`$ $`=`$ $`r_1p_0+h_0/q`$
$`\stackrel{~}{r}_2(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`r_2p_1(\xi )+p_0(p_0r_1)+[h_1(\xi )+h_0r_1p_0h_0]/q,`$ (27)
with $`r_{1,2}`$ given in Eq. (7). For the Borel integral (21) to have this imaginary part the Borel transform $`\stackrel{~}{H}(b,\xi )`$ must have the singularity

$`\stackrel{~}{H}(b,\xi )={\displaystyle \frac{C_H(\xi )}{(12b)^{1+\nu }}}\left[1+\stackrel{~}{c}_1(12b)+\stackrel{~}{c}_2(\xi )(12b)^2+\mathrm{}\right]+\text{ analytic part},`$ (28)
with

$$C_H(\xi )=5C_m\xi ,\stackrel{~}{c}_1=\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}_1}{2\nu \beta _0},\stackrel{~}{c}_2(\xi )=\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}_2(\xi )}{4\nu (\nu 1)\beta _0^2}.$$
(29)
Now the decay rate in the BR scheme is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(bX_{ue\overline{\nu }_e})=\frac{G_\mathrm{F}^2|V_{\mathrm{ub}}|^2}{192\pi ^3}m_{\mathrm{BR}}^5f_{\mathrm{BR}}(\alpha _s)[1+O(1/m_{\mathrm{BR}}^2)],$$
(30)
where $`f_{\mathrm{BR}}=F(1+H_{\mathrm{BR}})`$. Note that this is nothing but the decay rate in the on-shell scheme with Borel resummation, but now there is no theoretical ambiguity inherent in the formula in Eq. (1). Unlike $`f_{\mathrm{BR}}`$, for instance, $`f(\alpha _s)`$ in Eq. (1) is not well defined due to the divergence of the expansion (2).

We now take the $`q\mathrm{}`$ limit in Eqs. (25) and (27), which is equivalent to putting $`f=\mathrm{exp}(H)`$. What is nice with this limit is that the renormalon cancellation now occurs within the sum of the series for $`H`$ and that of $`5\mathrm{ln}(m_b)`$. We think this is an attractive feature, considering the good cancellation of renormalons within the sum of the pole mass and the static potential in heavy quarkonium system Pineda (2001, 2002). Also, we shall see that the $`q`$ dependence of $`f(\alpha _s)`$ becomes minimal in this limit.

Before starting computation of $`H_{\mathrm{BR}}`$ we first check how well the renormalon residue $`C_H(\xi )`$ computed using the known NLO calculation for $`H`$ compares to the one in Eq. (29) expected from the renormalon cancellation. This exercise will allow us to estimate the unknown NNLO coefficient for $`f`$. The calculation for the residue $`C_H(\xi )`$ is completely similar to that of the pole mass residue $`C_m`$. The ratio of the calculated NLO residue to the expected residue is plotted in Fig. 1. The best matching between the calculated and the expected occurs at $`\xi 0.34`$ with about $`80\%`$ agreement. This scale is smaller than $`b`$ quark mass, and this is in line with the expectation that the optimal expansion for $`f(\alpha _s)`$ would occur at a scale somewhat below the $`b`$ mass. This also shows that the NNLO contribution to the residue should be significant. Now the unknown NNLO coefficient $`f_2`$ can be estimated in the following way. We demand the NNLO residue at $`\xi =0.34`$ fall within a conservative $`20\%`$ of the expected value ($`|\mathrm{ratio}1|0.2)`$, which gives

$$0.81.5520.277f_2(1)1.2.$$
(31)
This provides us an estimate of the NNLO coefficient:

$$f_2(1)=9.22\pm 0.72.$$
(32)
This corresponds to $`f=[12.41\overline{a}_s21.30\overline{a}_s^2(286\pm 22)\overline{a}_s^3]`$ and $`m_b^5f=m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^5[1+4.25\overline{a}_s+26.78\overline{a}_s^2+(160\pm 22)\overline{a}_s^3]`$ where $`\overline{a}_s=\alpha _s(m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})/\pi `$. The latter shows that our estimate of the NNLO coefficient sits in the middle of the estimate $`5^3=125`$ based on a naive power growing behavior Bigi et al. (1997) and the Padé estimate 188 Ahmady et al. (2000).

The computation of $`H_{\mathrm{BR}}`$ is completely parallel to that of $`m_{\mathrm{BR}}`$. We first combine the two expansions in Eqs. (22) and (28) for $`H`$ into the bilocal expansion $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{N,M}(b,\xi )`$ defined similarly to that of the pole mass in Eq. (15). The first two $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{N,2}(b,\xi )`$ ($`N=0,1`$) can be obtained from the known NLO expansions van Ritbergen (1999) of $`f(\alpha _s)`$, and the NNLO $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{2,2}(b,\xi )`$ from the estimated coefficient in Eq. (32). Substituting these into the Borel integral (21) and performing the integration the Borel resummed $`H_{\mathrm{BR}}`$ up to NNLO is obtained. The result for $`f_{\mathrm{BR}}=\mathrm{exp}(H_{\mathrm{BR}})`$ is in Fig. 2. The plots show that the scale dependence is significant at LO but becomes milder at NLO and small at NNLO for $`\xi 0.5`$. Note that the NLO result is completely within the NNLO band arising from the error in the $`f_2`$ estimate (32). From the perspective of scale dependence the estimate in Eq. (32) with the lower bound in the error estimate is preferred because it defines the lower bound of the NNLO band which has a less scale dependence than the upper one. In the presence of this unphysical scale dependence we can take the principle of minimal sensitivity (PMS) Stevenson (1981) values as the predictions of the NNLO resummations. This gives

$$f_{\mathrm{BR}}=e^{H_{\mathrm{BR}}}=0.728\pm 0.011,$$
(33)
where the error was taken from the difference between the PMS values of the central line and the lower bound of the NNLO band. Since an error estimate is always subjective, a more conservative estimate can be obtained, for example, by taking the variation of the NNLO estimates at $`\xi =0.4`$ as the uncertainty, which gives $`f_{\mathrm{BR}}0.728\pm 0.017`$.

We now come back to the case of a finite value of $`q`$. In principle $`f_{\mathrm{BR}}(\alpha _s)`$ should not depend on $`q`$, but with a finite order perturbation there is always scheme dependence, and a scheme with a less scheme dependence is obviously preferable. To see the $`q`$ dependence we repeated the NNLO computation of $`f_{\mathrm{BR}}`$ at various values of $`q`$, and the result is in Fig. 3. The scheme dependence at small $`q`$ is quite significant, for example, the difference between $`q=1`$ and $`q=5`$ is larger than the NNLO contribution at $`\xi 0.25`$. For large $`q`$ the scheme dependence is very mild and becomes minimal at $`q=\mathrm{}`$. This shows that $`q=1`$, the usual choice in the literature, is not a good scheme, but rather $`q=\mathrm{}`$ is a good scheme to choose.

Combining $`m_{\mathrm{BR}}`$ and $`f_{\mathrm{BR}}`$ in Eqs. (17) and (33), respectively, we finally obtain the B decay rate given in Eq. (30) with

$$m_{\mathrm{BR}}^5f_{\mathrm{BR}}=m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^5(1.539\pm 0.023).$$
(34)
To conclude, we summarize our results as follows.

* The leading renormalon in the pole mass can be resummed accurately by employing a bilocal expansion. The BR mass $`m_{\mathrm{BR}}`$, which is the real part of the integral (4), is unambiguous and converges rapidly, although it has the same divergent perturbative expansion as the pole mass and is not a short distance mass. The renormalon ambiguities in the pole mass cancel when a consistent integration contour is taken for all Borel integrals. Defined as the pole mass, the BR mass gives a precise meaning to the relation between the pole mass and a high energy mass like the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass.
* A leading renormalon in the effective field theories is no longer a huddle but a blessing for the perturbation theory. By providing a manageable constraint on the functional form of the Borel transform it allows one to speed up the convergence of perturbation theory.
* The renormalon residue of the pole mass can be determined accurately. Using the renormalon cancellation one can determine the residue of the other perturbative expansion that cancels the renormalon ambiguity in the pole mass to the same accuracy. In the case of the B decay, we used this information on the residue to estimate the NNLO coefficients $`f_2`$ in Eq. (32).
* The renormalization scheme dependence of $`f(\alpha _s)`$, parametrized by Eq. (25), is significant and should be taken into account.
* The B decay rate was calculated to NNLO (using an estimate of $`f_2`$) in the BR scheme.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by BK21 Core Project.


format: text

text:
# Black Hole Masses in Three Seyfert Galaxies

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Reverberation mapping (Blandford & McKee, 1982; Peterson, 1993) is an important technique for probing the supermassive black holes (SMBHs) at the centers of active galactic nuclei (AGNs). Measuring the time lags, $`\tau `$, between fluctuations in the highly variable AGN continuum and the variations of emission lines arising from the broad-line region (BLR) provides a responsivity-weighted radius for the BLR gas distribution around the SMBH. When emission-line time lags are combined with calculations of the gas velocity width, $`\sigma `$, under the assumption of virialized gas motions, it becomes possible to estimate the SMBH mass.

Multiple lines of evidence suggest that to assume a virialized BLR is a reasonable approximation. In AGNs for which several emission lines have been reverberation-mapped (NGC 5548, 3C 390.3, NGC 7469, NGC 3783), an inverse relationship is found between $`\tau `$ and $`\sigma `$ that is consistent with expectations from virialization (Peterson & Wandel, 1999, 2000; Onken & Peterson, 2002). In addition, the close concordance between AGNs and quiescent galaxies in the $`M_{bh}`$-$`\sigma _{}`$ plane under the virial assumption (relating black hole mass to the stellar velocity dispersion of the galactic spheroid; Ferrarese et al., 2001) would seem to imply that any systematic error in reverberation masses is small (a factor of $``$3 or less). Krolik (2001) estimated a similar level of expected systematic scatter assuming gravitational domination of the BLR.

Most of the statistical studies of reverberation-based black-hole masses use the homogeneous compilations of Wandel, Peterson, & Malkan (1999, hereafter WPM) and Kaspi et al. (2000). Missing from these compilations are AGNs observed by the “Lovers of Active Galaxies (LAG)” collaboration that monitored several AGNs in early 1990 (Robinson, 1994). Three of the LAG sources, NGC 3227 (Salamanca et al., 1994), NGC 3516 (Wanders et al., 1993), and NGC 4593 (Dietrich et al., 1994), have well-determined emission-line lags and certainly meet the quality criteria for inclusion in these studies, and indeed were included in the compilation of Ho (1999; based on H$`\beta `$ only). These galaxies were omitted from the WPM compilation only because the data had not been analyzed in the same fashion as the other sources; specifically, (a) WPM use the model-independent Monte Carlo method of Peterson et al. (1998) to assess uncertainties in emission-line lags, and (b) WPM use the FWHM of the emission-line in the root-mean-square (rms) spectrum, rather than the mean spectrum, to characterize the BLR line-of-sight velocity width, $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$, that is used to form the virial product ($`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$)$`{}_{}{}^{2}\tau `$. Because we have converted both our time lags and velocity widths to the AGN rest frame, our results supplement the compilation of Kaspi et al. (2000). (WPM did not correct for the time dilation of their $`\tau `$ values.)

In this contribution, we reanalyze the LAG data on these three sources in the same fashion as Kaspi et al. (2000), with the intent of enlarging that homogeneous database. The total number of AGNs which have been reverberation-mapped (a few dozen) is small enough that additional objects will assist in on-going statistical investigations of (what are hoped to be) fundamental physical relationships. The main aspect on which we have worked is the careful construction the rms spectra over the spans of the respective observing campaigns. With the rms spectra for these AGNs and updated time lag values and uncertainties, we are able to derive masses for the SMBHs in these three galaxies.

In § 2, we briefly describe the original observing campaigns and our data reduction. We explain the details of our time series and velocity width analyses in § 3. Our estimates of the SMBH mass in each galaxy are presented in § 4. In § 5, we address the Mbh-$`\sigma _{}`$ relationship, and we then summarize our conclusions (§ 6).

## 2 OBSERVATIONS AND DATA REDUCTION

The LAG consortium examined the H$`\alpha `$ and H$`\beta `$ wavelength regimes with long slit spectroscopy of moderate resolution and with the temporal sampling rates listed in Table 1. The line marked “cont.” in Table 1 for NGC 3516 indicates the sampling statistics derived for the combination of imaging and spectroscopic measurements of the $``$4000-5000Å continuum. The continuum statistics for NGC 3227 and NGC 4593 are identical to the H$`\beta `$ and H$`\alpha `$ entries, respectively. $`F_{var}`$ indicates the “excess variance,” the mean fractional variation of each dataset (see Rodríguez-Pascual et al., 1997). The ratio of the maximum to minimum flux value is given in Table 1 as $`R_{max}`$.

In general, no alterations were applied to the published light curve data. However, in order to investigate the velocity width characteristics of the broad emission lines, we used the wavelength region around the narrow lines (\[O III\] and \[S II\], which should only vary on timescales much longer than the campaigns) to scale the spectra (van Groningen & Wanders, 1992). The absolute scaling was done so as to yield mean narrow-line fluxes equal to the values derived in the original papers. The slit width selected was an attempt to balance spectral resolution and total detected flux. However, the small slit width introduced a non-trivial degree of difficulty in the removal of seeing effects, as noted below.

### 2.1 NGC 3227

The LAG campaign on NGC 3227 was described by Salamanca et al. (1994). The analysis was complicated by the fact that the two methods they employed for removing the contribution of the stellar host gave significantly different answers: they derived a 24% contribution to the continuum by examining the magnesium triplet of a template galaxy of the same Hubble type, and a 40% continuum contribution from comparisons with the magnesium triplet absorption of the bulge of NGC 3227. We analyzed the data with each of the potential stellar levels removed and found the differences to be insignificant.

A detailed investigation of various origins of uncertainty in their flux calibration was conducted by a portion of the LAG group (Baribaud et al., 1994). In addition to the effects of slit miscentering and seeing, they estimate the uncertainties incurred by their scaling of the spectra by the narrow lines, and conclude an overall flux error of 5–8%. We have assumed the more conservative 8% errors for all of the flux data. Our analysis made use of the full LAG dataset, consisting of 23 H$`\alpha `$ observations and 14 H$`\beta `$ observations. The light curve cross-correlations were made with respect to the continuum at 5020Å.

The systemic redshift of NGC 3227 was taken to be $`z`$ = 0.00380 $`\pm `$ 0.00002 (Keel, 1996).

### 2.2 NGC 3516

Spectra of NGC 3516 were taken at 22 separate epochs for H$`\alpha `$ and 21 epochs for H$`\beta `$. The continuum light curve for this object was constructed from a combination of B-band imaging and spectral fits to the power-law continuum at 4905Å. The results of the LAG study have been published by Wanders et al. (1993) and Wanders & Horne (1994). The spectra we obtained for this object had already been corrected for seeing, the stellar flux from the host galaxy, and contributions from narrow lines (see Wanders et al., 1992). In addition, the \[S II\] and \[O III\] narrow lines had been subtracted from the H$`\alpha `$ and H$`\beta `$ spectra, respectively, preventing any rescaling of the flux levels. Several observations were removed from the calculation of the rms spectrum for a variety of reasons (extremely poor seeing, object miscentering, and other anomalies). Among the H$`\alpha `$ dataset, we have excised observations from the following dates: 31 January, 16 February, 15 April, and 13 May. From the H$`\beta `$ analysis we have removed 24 March, 15 April, and 13 May.

Conversion of time lags and line-of-sight velocity widths to the rest frame was made with $`z`$ = 0.00884 $`\pm `$ 0.00002 (Keel, 1996).

### 2.3 NGC 4593

Spectra of NGC 4593 were obtained at 22 epochs around H$`\alpha `$ and at 11 epochs around H$`\beta `$, and the continuum used was at 6310Å. The H$`\alpha `$ line was contaminated by strong \[N II\] $`\lambda \lambda `$6548, 6584 emission, as well as a narrow H$`\alpha `$ contribution. Using the shape of the narrow \[O III\]$`\lambda `$5007 line as a template for all of the narrow lines, and the flux ratios between the \[N II\] lines and narrow H$`\alpha `$ that Dietrich et al. (1994) calculated, we have bracketed the amount of narrow line removal by limiting cases in which too much or too little narrow line flux was subtracted. Conducting this for each H$`\alpha `$ spectrum, we then separately analyzed our oversubtracted and undersubtracted datasets. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ difference between the oversubtraction and undersubtraction was on the order of 1%, much smaller than the $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ uncertainties as well as the range of values derived by doing no rescaling of the spectra or no removal of the narrow-line contribution.

We converted our results to the galaxy’s rest frame using $`z`$ = 0.00900 $`\pm `$ 0.00013 (Strauss et al., 1992).

## 3 DATA ANALYSIS

Using the published light curves, we generated the cross-correlation functions (CCFs) between the continua and the emission lines with the interpolated CCF technique as implemented by White & Peterson (1994). We calculated both the peak of each CCF ($`\tau _{peak}`$) and its centroid ($`\tau _{cent}`$; above a threshold of 80% of the peak value correlation coefficient) with an interpolation unit of 0.1 days.

Uncertainties in the time lag values were estimated with the method described by Peterson et al. (1998). This model-independent technique addresses two major sources of uncertainty in the CCFs. First, the issue of flux errors is handled by adding to each flux value a randomly generated deviation. This deviation is computed such that a large number of realizations will produce a Gaussian scatter with a standard deviation equal to the quoted uncertainty (this procedure is dubbed “flux randomization (FR)”). Second, the potential errors arising from the limited temporal sampling of the observational campaign are accounted for by “random subset selection (RSS).” The RSS method consists of randomly selecting $`N`$ data points from a sample of size $`N`$, where each selection draws from the entire sample and repeated selections are ignored. This allows us to “bootstrap” our way to reasonable error estimates, while preserving the underlying form of the time series. The FR/RSS method was implemented 1000 times for each continuum-line combination to build up a distribution of the peak and centroid time lags, denoted generally as a cross-correlation peak distribution (CCPD; Maoz & Netzer, 1989). We use the CCPD to define the time lag values within which 68% of the Monte Carlo results lie, and these values set our time lag uncertainties. Table 2 and Figure 3 show our cross-correlation results.

The procedure we applied to the mean and rms spectra of each AGN was to make two estimates of the continuum, at the extrema of where the level could potentially be set. The two resulting measurements of the velocity full-width at half-maximum, $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$, were then averaged and the difference taken to be twice the one-sigma errors. We give the results of our $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ measurements from both the mean and rms spectra in Table 3.

## 4 MASS DERIVATIONS

For consistency with previously published compilations, we calculate the reverberation mass as

$$M_{rev}=\frac{3c\tau (\mathrm{\Delta }V)^2}{4G}$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ is taken from the rms spectrum, $`c`$ is the speed of light, and $`G`$ is the gravitational constant. The asymmetric errors in the time lags are propagated through to the masses derived from the individual lines. Then, the masses for each line are combined in a weighted average. We have measured the reverberation masses for our three targets and present the results in Table 4. Object-specific comments and comparisons with previous results follow.

### 4.1 NGC 3227

The original LAG estimate of the SMBH mass in NGC 3227 was $``$2$`\times `$108M (Salamanca et al., 1994). Our value of (3.6$`\pm `$1.4)$`\times `$107M is consistent with the mass of 4.9$`{}_{5.0}{}^{+2.7}\times `$107M tabulated by WPM, which was based on an independent monitoring campaign (Winge et al., 1995). The value derived by Ho (1999) from H$`\beta `$ was 3.8$`\times `$107M, also consistent with our new SMBH mass in this galaxy. Schinnerer, Eckart, & Tacconi (2000) used CO gas kinematics to calculate a lower mass limit of $``$1.5$`\times `$107M enclosed within the central 25 pc. Again, this value is fully consistent with our results.

### 4.2 NGC 3516

Kazanas & Nayakshin (2001) have noted the difficulty in reconciling the SMBH mass estimates for NGC 3516 arising from a variety of optical, UV, and X-ray constraints within certain models of AGN structure. Although our final estimate of $`M_{rev}`$ = (1.68$`\pm `$0.33)$`\times `$107M lies slightly above a recent mass upper limit of (1.12$`\pm `$0.05)$`\times `$107M derived from models of the X-ray warm absorber in this galaxy (Morales & Fabian, 2002), other models of X-ray properties point towards a mass closer to 108M (Kazanas & Nayakshin, 2001). Our results for this AGN are consistent with the value of $``$2$`\times `$107M from the earlier analysis of the LAG data by Wanders & Horne (1994), and also matches well the mass of 2.3$`\times `$107M Ho (1999) calculated using H$`\beta `$ alone. Recent attempts at accretion disk modeling from X-ray data have given values of 3.1$`\times `$107M (Czerny et al., 2001) and 2$`\times `$107M (Chiang, 2002), both in rough agreement with the present work.

### 4.3 NGC 4593

For NGC 4593, we calculate that Mrev = (6.6$`\pm `$5.2)$`\times `$106M. An earlier reverberation mapping campaign derived a mass of 2.2$`{}_{1.1}{}^{+1.4}\times `$106M from Lyman $`\alpha `$ (Santos-Lleó et al., 1995), and Kollatschny & Dietrich (1997) calculated Mrev = 7$`\times `$106M from the LAG H$`\alpha `$ data (when corrected for our conversion between $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ and the velocity dispersion). Ho (1999) estimated a slightly larger H$`\beta `$ time delay and found a SMBH mass of 8.1$`\times `$106M. With such large uncertainties, these differences cannot be considered statistically significant.

## 5 THE Mbh-$`\sigma _{}`$ RELATIONSHIP

Since the discovery of the exceptionally tight correlation between a galaxy’s SMBH mass and the central value of the velocity dispersion of the galaxy’s spheroid (i.e. Mbh-$`\sigma _{}`$; Ferrarese & Merritt, 2000; Gebhardt et al., 2000a), a number of attempts have been made to reconcile differences in the derived slope of this relationship (e.g., Tremaine et al., 2002) as well as to develop a physical framework that will naturally produce such a correlation. In addition, Gebhardt et al. (2000b) and Ferrarese et al. (2001) have examined whether SMBH masses derived by reverberation mapping are consistent with the Mbh-$`\sigma _{}`$ relationship. Because bulge velocity dispersion measurements exist for all three of our targets, we are able to enlarge the AGN sample used to investigate Mbh-$`\sigma _{}`$.

Nelson & Whittle (1995) measured bulge velocity dispersions for 85 galaxies, including two of our targets. NGC 3227 was found to have $`\sigma _{}`$ = 128$`\pm `$13 km s-1, and NGC 4593 has $`\sigma _{}`$ = 124$`\pm `$29 km s-1. Di Nella et al. (1995) published a value of $`\sigma _{}`$ = 124$`\pm `$5 km s-1 for NGC 3516. These values for $`\sigma _{}`$, in conjunction with our derived Mrev data, are consistent with the current fits to Mbh-$`\sigma _{}`$ (Figure 4). This excellent agreement between the AGN and quiescent galaxy Mbh-$`\sigma _{}`$ relationships is additional evidence that reverberation masses are not subject to large systematic errors.

In addition, we note the relative concentrations of the AGN and quiescent galaxy data in Figure 4 toward the two ends of the relationship. This is a reflection of two facts: (1) in order to measure $`\sigma _{}`$ in AGNs, the continuum emission must be weak enough so as not to wash out the stellar absorption lines, implying the accessibility of only the dimmer AGNs, and therefore only the smaller SMBH masses; (2) the quiescent galaxies need a relatively large SMBH mass to allow the probing of the gravitational sphere of influence, whether by stellar dynamics or gas kinematics. The combination of these requirements gives rise to the observed distribution, in spite of the probable span of both galaxy types over the entire range of SMBH masses.

## 6 SUMMARY

As many of the forefront studies of AGNs are examining correlations between SMBH masses and properties of the AGN host galaxies, a uniform analysis methodology is important for minimizing systematic offsets between datasets. Time lags, calculated from the published light curves, were used in conjunction with rms velocity widths for optical hydrogen emission lines to estimate the reverberation masses for NGC 3227, NGC 3516, and NGC 4593. These masses, listed in Table 4, can now be added to the compilation of Kaspi et al. (2000), as they were calculated in the same manner. In addition, these masses, when combined with published data on the host galaxy spheroid velocity dispersions, strengthen the claim that reverberation masses are accurate measures of the true SMBH mass.

We acknowledge support for this work through NASA grant NAG5-8397. C. A. O. thanks The Ohio State University for support through the Distinguished University Fellowship. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.


text:
# Untitled Document

Bihamiltonian elliptic structures

Alexander Odesskii

Introduction

Bihamiltonian structures play an important role in the theory of dynamic systems. In this approach one starts with two Poisson brackets $`\{,\}_1`$ and $`\{,\}_2`$ on some manifold, such that any linear combination $`\{,\}_{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}=\lambda _1\{,\}_1+\lambda _2\{,\}_2`$ is also a Poisson bracket. Basing on these brackets one constructs a Hamiltonian system. The construction of the dynamical system basing on these brackets is called Lenard scheme . It provides a family of functions in involution. Namely, let $`C_{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}`$ and $`C_{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}^{}`$ be central elements for the Poisson structure $`\{,\}_{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}`$, then one has $`\{C_{\lambda _1,\lambda _2},C_{\mu _1,\mu _2}^{}\}_i=0`$ for $`i=1,2`$.

In this paper we construct three Poisson structures $`\{,\}_i`$ $`(i=1,2,3)`$ on $`^n`$ such that any $`\{,\}_i`$ is quadratic and any linear combination $`\{,\}_{\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3}=_i\lambda _i\{,\}_i`$ is also a Poisson bracket. We also study symplectic leaves of the Poisson structure $`\{,\}_{\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3}`$ and construct central elements.

Let $`=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be an elliptic curve and $`\eta `$. The algebra $`Q_n(,\eta )`$ is generated by $`n`$ elements $`\{x_i;i\mathrm{}n\}`$ with the following defining relations:

$$\underset{r\mathrm{}n}{}\frac{1}{\theta _{jir}(\eta )\theta _r(\eta )}x_{jr}x_{i+r}=0,$$

for all $`i,j\mathrm{}n`$ such that $`ij`$. Here $`\{\theta _i(z),i\mathrm{}n\}`$ are $`\theta `$-functions of order $`n`$ with respect to the lattice $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. It is known  that for generic $`\eta `$ the algebra $`Q_n(,\eta )`$ has the same size of graded components as the polynomial algebra in $`n`$ variables. Hence, for any fixed elliptic curve $``$ one has the flat deformation of the polynomial algebra. Let $`q_n()`$ be the corresponding Poisson structure on $`^n`$. It turns out that the Poisson structure $`\{,\}_{\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3}`$ for generic point $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3)^3`$ is isomorphic to $`q_n()`$ for certain $``$. It follows that the algebras $`Q_n(,\eta )`$ are quantizations of the Poisson structures $`\{,\}_{\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3}`$ for generic $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3`$ and one may expect that there is a lot of commuting elements in the algebras $`Q_n(,\eta )`$, which are quantization of commuting elements in $`\{,\}_{\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3}`$ provided by Lenard scheme.

Now we describe the contents of the paper. In §1 we construct three compatible quadratic Poisson structures. In §2 we give another description of the Poisson structures in terms of elliptic functions. This construction is called functional realization. In §3 we study symplectic leaves of our Poisson structure and construct Casimir elements. In Appendix we collect some standard facts from the theory of elliptic functions .

§1. Three Poisson structures

For any $`n`$ we define three quadratic Poisson structures in the polynomial algebra with infinite number of generators $`\{e_\alpha ;\alpha \}`$. But it will be clear that for $`n`$ the polynomial algebra generated by $`e_0`$ and $`\{e_\alpha ;2\alpha n\}`$ is Poisson subalgebra for all our Poisson structures. We will use the notation: $`S_k(e_\alpha ,e_\beta )=_{r=0}^{\mathrm{}}e_{\alpha +kr}e_{\beta kr}`$. It is clear that if $`\alpha +\beta =\alpha ^{}+\beta ^{}`$ and $`\alpha \alpha ^{}modk`$, then the linear combination $`S_k(e_\alpha ,e_\beta )S_k(e_\alpha ^{},e_\beta ^{})`$ contains only finite number of monomials. Define $`\{,\}_i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, by the following formulas:

$$\{e_\alpha ,e_\beta \}_1=\frac{n}{2}(S_1(e_{\alpha +1},e_\beta )S_1(e_{\beta +1},e_\alpha ))+(\alpha n)e_{\alpha +1}e_\beta (\beta n)e_\alpha e_{\beta +1}$$

$$\{e_{2\alpha },e_{2\beta }\}_2=0$$

$$\{e_{2\alpha },e_{2\beta +3}\}_2=\frac{n}{8}(S_2(e_{2\beta +2},e_{2\alpha 2})S_2(e_{2\alpha },e_{2\beta }))+\frac{1}{4}(2\beta +1)e_{2\alpha }e_{2\beta }$$

$$\{e_{2\alpha +3},e_{2\beta +3}\}_2=\frac{n}{4}(S_2(e_{2\beta +2},e_{2\alpha +1})S_2(e_{2\alpha +2},e_{2\beta +1}))$$

$$\frac{1}{4}(2\alpha +1)e_{2\alpha }e_{2\beta +3}+\frac{1}{4}(2\beta +1)e_{2\alpha +3}e_{2\beta }$$
$`(1)`$
$$\{e_{2\alpha },e_{2\beta }\}_3=0$$

$$\{e_{2\alpha },e_{2\beta +3}\}_3=\frac{n}{8}(S_2(e_{2\beta },e_{2\alpha 2})S_2(e_{2\alpha },e_{2\beta 2}))+\frac{1}{2}\beta e_{2\alpha }e_{2\beta 2}$$

$$\{e_{2\alpha +3},e_{2\beta +3}\}_3=\frac{n}{4}(S_2(e_{2\beta },e_{2\alpha +1})S_2(e_{2\alpha },e_{2\beta +1}))\frac{1}{2}\alpha e_{2\alpha 2}e_{2\beta +3}+\frac{1}{2}\beta e_{2\alpha +3}e_{2\beta 2}$$

Proposition 1. For any $`n`$ these formulas (1) define Poisson structures in the polynomial algebra generated by $`e_0`$ and $`\{e_\alpha ;2\alpha n\}`$. Moreover, any linear combination of $`\{,\}_i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$ is also a Poisson bracket.

Proof of this proposition is straightforward. It also follows from the functional construction in the next paragraph, which explains the elliptic nature of this Poisson structure.

§2. Functional realization

Let us fix an integral lattice $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We will use the standard notations from the theory of elliptic functions, like $`\mathrm{}(z),\zeta (z),g_2,g_3`$ (see Appendix).

Let $``$ be the space of elliptic functions in one variable with respect to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and holomorphic outside $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For $`n`$ let $`_n`$ be the subspace of functions with poles of order $`n`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. It is clear that $`dim_n=n`$. It is known that the functions $`\{e_{2\alpha }(z)=\mathrm{}(z)^\alpha ,e_{2\alpha +3}(z)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}(z)^\alpha \mathrm{}^{}(z);\alpha _0\}`$ form a basis of the linear space $``$. It is clear that for any $`\alpha `$ the function $`e_\alpha (z)`$ has a pole of order $`\alpha `$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with residue 1. The functions $`e_0`$ and $`e_\alpha ,2\alpha n`$ form a basis of the space $`_n`$. It is clear that the symmetric power $`S^m`$ (resp. $`S^m_n`$) is isomorphic to the space of symmetric elliptic functions in $`m`$ variables $`f(z_1,\mathrm{},z_m)`$ holomorphic outside of the divisors $`z_p\mathrm{\Gamma },1pm`$ (resp. with poles of order $`n`$ on these divisors).

We construct a bilinear operator $`\{,\}:\mathrm{\Lambda }^2S^2`$ as follows: for $`f,g`$ we set

$$\{f,g\}(x,y)=n(\zeta (xy)\zeta (x)+\zeta (y))(f(x)g(y)f(y)g(x))$$

$$f^{}(x)g(y)f^{}(y)g(x)+f(x)g^{}(y)+f(y)g^{}(x)$$
$`(2)`$
Proposition 2. The formula (2) defines a Poisson structure on the polynomial algebra $`S^{}`$. If $`n`$, then $`\{_n,_n\}S^2_n`$ and we have the Poisson structure on the polynomial algebra $`S^{}_n`$. Moreover, in the basis $`\{e_\alpha \}`$ we have $`\{e_\alpha ,e_\beta \}=\{e_\alpha ,e_\beta \}_1+g_2\{e_\alpha ,e_\beta \}_2+g_3\{e_\alpha ,e_\beta \}_3`$, where $`\{,\}_i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$ are defined by (1).

Proof is a simple calculation with Weierstrass functions using identities (5) from Appendix. It is clear that if $`f`$ and $`g`$ are elliptic functions, then l.h.s. of (2) is also an elliptic function in two variables. Moreover, if $`f`$ and $`g`$ are holomorphic outside $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with poles of order $`n`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, then $`\{f,g\}`$ has the same property. Verification of the Jacobi identity is straightforward. For calculation of this Poisson brackets in the basis $`e_\alpha `$ one needs only the identities (5) from Appendix.

§3. Symplectic leaves and Casimir elements

For $`p`$ we denote by $`b_{p,n}`$ the Poisson algebra which is spanned by the elements $`\{f(u_1,\mathrm{},u_p)\psi _1^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}\psi _p^{\alpha _p};\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _p_0\}`$ as a linear space, where $`u_1,\mathrm{}u_p,\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _p`$ are independent variables and $`f(u_1,\mathrm{}u_p)`$ are elliptic functions in variables $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_p`$ with respect to the lattice $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ holomorphic outside the divisors $`u_j\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`u_ju_k\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Poisson bracket on $`b_{p,n}`$ is defined as follows:

$$\{u_\alpha ,u_\beta \}=0,\{u_\alpha ,\psi _\beta \}=\psi _\beta ,\{u_\alpha ,\psi _\alpha \}=\frac{n2}{2}\psi _\alpha ,$$

$$\{\psi _\alpha ,\psi _\beta \}=n(\zeta (u_\alpha u_\beta )\zeta (u_\alpha )+\zeta (u_\beta ))\psi _\alpha \psi _\beta ,$$
$`(3)`$
where $`\alpha \beta `$.

Let us define a linear map $`x_p:b_{p,n}`$ by the formula:

$$x_p(f)=\underset{1\alpha p}{}f(u_\alpha )\psi _\alpha $$
$`(4)`$
There is a unique extension of this map to the homomorphism of commutative algebras $`S^{}b_{p,n}`$ which we also denote by $`x_p`$.

Proposition 3. The map $`x_p:S^{}b_{p,n}`$ is a homomorphism of the Poisson algebras.

Proof. It is easy to check that $`x_p(\{f,g\})=_{1\alpha ,\beta p}\{f,g\}(u_\alpha ,u_\beta )\psi _\alpha \psi _\beta `$ for any $`f,g`$. This implies the proposition.

If $`2p<n`$, then the formulas (3) define nondegenerate Poisson structure on the open set $`\{\psi _\alpha 0;u_\alpha ,u_\alpha u_\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$. In this case the formula (4) defines symplectic leaves of the Poisson algebra $`S^{}_n`$. Central elements of the Poisson algebra $`S^{}_n`$ belong to $`\mathrm{ker}x_p`$ for $`2p<n`$, because the algebra $`b_{p,n}`$ is nondegenerated in this case. One can check that for $`p=\frac{n}{2}1`$ for even $`n`$ (resp. $`p=\frac{n1}{2}`$ for odd $`n`$) the ideal $`\mathrm{ker}x_p`$ is generated by two elements of degree $`\frac{n}{2}`$ (resp. by one element of degree $`n`$). Center of the Poisson algebra $`S^{}_n`$ is a polynomial algebra generated by these elements. In fact, our construction of homomorphism $`x_p`$ implies that $`\mathrm{ker}x_p`$ on the space $`S^{p+1}_n`$ consists of such elements $`f(z_1,\mathrm{}z_{p+1})S^{p+1}_n`$, which are equal to zero on the divisors $`z_jz_k\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`1j<kp+1`$. This allows us to construct central elements from $`\mathrm{ker}x_{\frac{n}{2}1}`$ of degree $`\frac{n}{2}`$ for even $`n`$ explicitly.

Examples:

1. $`n=2`$. The Poisson algebra $`S^{}_2`$ is commutative, one has $`\{e_0,e_2\}=0`$ for $`n=2`$.

2. $`n=4`$. Let

$$C_0^{(2)}=\left|\begin{array}{cc}e_0& e_2\\ e_2& e_4\end{array}\right|,C_1^{(2)}=\left|\begin{array}{cc}e_2& e_3\\ e_3& e_4\frac{1}{4}g_2e_0\end{array}\right|+\frac{1}{4}g_3e_0^2$$

These elements are central in the algebra $`S^{}_4`$.

3. $`n=6`$. Let

$$C_0^{(3)}=\left|\begin{array}{ccc}e_0& e_2& e_3\\ e_2& e_4& e_5\\ e_3& e_5& e_6\frac{1}{4}g_2e_2\frac{1}{4}g_3e_0\end{array}\right|,$$

$$C_1^{(3)}=\left|\begin{array}{ccc}e_2& e_3& e_4\\ e_3& e_4\frac{1}{4}g_2e_0& e_5\\ e_4& e_5& e_6\end{array}\right|+\frac{1}{4}g_3\left|\begin{array}{ccc}0& e_0& e_2\\ e_0& e_2& e_4\\ e_2& e_4& e_6\end{array}\right|$$

These elements are central in the Poisson algebra $`S^{}_6`$.

Let $`(f_{\alpha ,\beta }),1\alpha ,\beta p+1`$ be a $`(p+1)\times (p+1)`$-matrix of the elements in $``$. Then $`det(f_{\alpha ,\beta })S^{p+1}`$ defines some element of degree $`p+1`$. It follows from our definition of $`x_p`$, that if rank of $`(f_{\alpha ,\beta })`$ as matrix of functions is equal to 1 (that is $`f_{\alpha ,\beta }(z)f_{\alpha ^{},\beta ^{}}(z)=f_{\alpha ,\beta ^{}}(z)f_{\alpha ^{},\beta }(z)`$ for usual product of functions), then $`det(f_{\alpha ,\beta })\mathrm{ker}x_p`$ as element in $`S^{p+1}`$. Moreover, let us extend the definition of the functions $`e_\alpha `$ to all integral $`\alpha `$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is the space of functions spanned by $`\{e_\alpha ;\alpha \}`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{x}_p`$ be the natural extension of $`x_p`$ to $`S^{}\stackrel{~}{}`$. If $`(f_{\alpha ,\beta }^{(i)})`$ are $`(p+1)\times (p+1)`$-matrices of the elements from $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ such that rank $`(f_{\alpha ,\beta }^{(i)})`$ is equal to 1 for each $`i`$, then $`det(f_{\alpha ,\beta }^{(i)})\mathrm{ker}\stackrel{~}{x}_p`$ as element from $`S^{p+1}\stackrel{~}{}`$. But if some linear combination $`\mathrm{\Psi }=_i\lambda _idet(f_{\alpha ,\beta }^{(i)})`$ belongs to $`S^{p+1}`$, then $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{ker}x_p`$. For example, the elements $`C_1^{(2)},C_1^{(3)}`$ may be written as follow:

$$C_1^{(2)}=\left|\begin{array}{cc}e_2& e_3\\ e_3& e_4\frac{1}{4}g_2e_0\frac{1}{4}g_3e_2\end{array}\right|+\frac{1}{4}g_3\left|\begin{array}{cc}e_2& e_0\\ e_0& e_2\end{array}\right|,$$

$$C_1^{(3)}=\left|\begin{array}{ccc}e_2& e_3& e_4\\ e_3& e_4\frac{1}{4}g_2e_0\frac{1}{4}g_3e_2& e_5\\ e_4& e_5& e_6\end{array}\right|+\frac{1}{4}g_3\left|\begin{array}{ccc}e_2& e_0& e_2\\ e_0& e_2& e_4\\ e_2& e_4& e_6\end{array}\right|.$$

In general case of even $`n`$ the construction of central elements $`C_0^{(\frac{n}{2})}`$ and $`C_1^{(\frac{n}{2})}`$ is similar. Define matrix $`(g_{\alpha ,\beta }),1\alpha ,\beta \frac{n}{2}`$ as follows: $`g_{1,1}=e_0,g_{1,\alpha }=g_{\alpha ,1}=e_\alpha `$ for $`\alpha >1`$; $`g_{\alpha ,\beta }(z)=e_\alpha (z)e_\beta (z)`$ for $`\alpha ,\beta >1`$. For example, $`g_{2,2}(z)=\mathrm{}(z)^2`$, so $`g_{2,2}=e_4`$ and $`g_{3,3}(z)=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{}^{}(z)^2=\mathrm{}(z)^3\frac{1}{4}g_2\mathrm{}(z)\frac{1}{4}g_3`$, so $`g_{3,3}=e_6\frac{1}{4}g_2e_2\frac{1}{4}g_3e_0`$. We set $`C_0^{(\frac{n}{2})}=det(g_{\alpha ,\beta })`$ as element in $`S^{\frac{n}{2}}_n`$. Define the matrix $`(g_{\alpha ,\beta }^{(1)}),1\alpha ,\beta \frac{n}{2}`$ as follow: $`g_{1,\alpha }^{(1)}=g_{\alpha ,1}^{(1)}=e_{\alpha +1}`$ and $`g_{\alpha ,\beta }^{(1)}(z)=\frac{e_{\alpha +1}(z)e_{\beta +1}(z)}{e_2(z)}\stackrel{~}{}`$. It is clear that all $`g_{\alpha ,\beta }^{(1)}`$ belong to $``$ except $`g_{2,2}^{(1)}`$. We have $`g_{2,2}^{(1)}=e_4\frac{1}{4}g_2e_0\frac{1}{4}g_3e_2`$. Let us define the matrix $`(g_{\alpha ,\beta }^{(2)}),1\alpha ,\beta \frac{n}{2}`$ as follows: $`g_{1,1}^{(2)}=e_2,g_{1,2}^{(2)}=g_{2,1}^{(2)}=e_0,g_{1,\alpha }^{(2)}=g_{\alpha ,1}^{(2)}=e_{\alpha 1}`$ for $`3\alpha \frac{n}{2}`$; $`g_{\alpha ,\beta }^{(2)}(z)=\frac{g_{\alpha ,1}^{(2)}(z)g_{1,\beta }^{(2)}(z)}{g_{1,1}^{(2)}(z)}`$. We set $`C_1^{(\frac{n}{2})}=det(g_{\alpha ,\beta }^{(1)})+\frac{1}{4}g_3det(g_{\alpha ,\beta }^{(2)})`$. In fact, $`C_1^{(\frac{n}{2})}S^{\frac{n}{2}}_n`$ and $`x_{\frac{n}{2}1}(C_1^{(\frac{n}{2})})=0`$.

Let us construct the elements $`C^{(n)}S^n_n`$ for odd $`n`$ such that $`C^{(n)}\mathrm{ker}x_{\frac{n1}{2}}`$. It is clear that our elements $`C_0^{(\frac{n+1}{2})}`$ and $`C_1^{(\frac{n+1}{2})}`$ from $`S^{\frac{n+1}{2}}_{n+1}`$ have a form: $`C_0^{(\frac{n+1}{2})}=A_0+B_0e_{n+1}`$ and $`C_1^{(\frac{n+1}{2})}=A_1+B_1e_{n+1}`$ where $`A_0,A_1S^{\frac{n+1}{2}}_n`$ and $`B_0,B_1S^{\frac{n1}{2}}_n`$. We set $`C^{(n)}=B_0C_1^{(\frac{n+1}{2})}B_1C_0^{(\frac{n+1}{2})}=B_0A_1B_1A_0`$. It is clear that $`C^{(n)}\mathrm{ker}x_{\frac{n1}{2}}`$.

Proposition 4. The center of the Poisson algebra $`S^{}_n`$ is generated by $`C_0^{(\frac{n}{2})}`$ and $`C_1^{(\frac{n}{2})}`$ for even $`n`$. For odd $`n`$ the center is generated by $`C^{(n)}`$.

Proof. One can check that the elements $`C_0^{(\frac{n}{2})},C_1^{(\frac{n}{2})}`$ (resp. $`C^{(n)}`$) for even (resp. odd) $`n`$ are central in $`S^{}_n`$. On the other hand, the quotient algebra $`S^{}_n\mathrm{}(C_0^{(\frac{n}{2})},C_1^{(\frac{n}{2})})`$ (resp. $`S^{}_n\mathrm{}(C^{(n)})`$) is isomorphic to the image of the homomorphism $`x_{\frac{n}{2}1}`$ (resp. $`x_{\frac{n1}{2}}`$) which is the algebra of functions on the symplectic manifold and has a trivial center. So the center is generated by $`C_0^{(\frac{n}{2})},C_1^{(\frac{n}{2})}`$ (resp. $`C^{(n)}`$).

Remark. Considering any two linear combinations of our three Poisson brackets one obtains a bihamiltonian structure. Lenard scheme provides a family of commuting elements from Casimir elements $`C_0^{(\frac{n}{2})},C_1^{(\frac{n}{2})}`$ for even $`n`$ and $`C^{(n)}`$ for odd $`n`$.

Appendix

Elliptic functions

For an integral lattice $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the Weierstrass elliptic function is defined as follows:

$$\mathrm{}(z)=\frac{1}{z^2}+\underset{\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}{}(\frac{1}{(z\omega )^2}\frac{1}{\omega ^2}),\text{ where }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}\{0\}$$

One has: $`\mathrm{}^{}(z)^2=4\mathrm{}(z)^3g_2\mathrm{}(z)g_3`$, where $`g_2`$ and $`g_3`$ depend on the lattice $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ only.

The Weierstrass zeta function is defined as follows:

$$\zeta (z)=\frac{1}{z}+\underset{\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}{}(\frac{1}{z\omega }+\frac{1}{\omega }+\frac{z}{\omega ^2})$$

The function $`\zeta (z)`$ is not elliptic, but one has: $`\zeta (z+\omega )=\zeta (z)+\eta (\omega )`$, where $`\eta :\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a $``$-linear function. The function $`\zeta (z_1z_2)\zeta (z_1)+\zeta (z_2)`$ is elliptic in variables $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$. It is clear that $`\zeta (z)=\zeta (z)`$, $`\zeta ^{}(z)=\mathrm{}(z)`$. One has the following useful decomposition:

$$\mathrm{}(z)=\frac{1}{z^2}+\frac{1}{20}g_2z^2+\frac{1}{28}g_3z^4+\mathrm{}$$

We need the following identities:

$$(\zeta (xy)\zeta (x)+\zeta (y))(\mathrm{}(x)\mathrm{}(y))=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{}^{}(x)+\mathrm{}^{}(y))$$
$`(5)`$
$$(\zeta (xy)\zeta (x)+\zeta (y))(\mathrm{}^{}(x)\mathrm{}^{}(y))=2\mathrm{}(x)^2+2\mathrm{}(x)\mathrm{}(y)+2\mathrm{}(y)^2\frac{1}{2}g_2$$

Proof of these identities is standard: to calculate the decomposition in the neighbourhood of the point $`x=y=0`$. Acknowledgments. This work was supported by the grants INTAS-OPEN-00-00055, RFBR-02-01-01015, RFBR-00-15-96579

References

1. Peter D.Lax, Almost periodic solutions of the KdV equation, SIAM Rev. 18(1976), no.3, 351-375.

2. Franco Magri, A simple model of the integrable Hamiltonian equation, Journal of Mathematical Physics 19(1978), no.5, 1156-1162.

3. I.M.Gelfand and I.Ja.Dorfman, Hamiltonian operators and algebraic structures associated with them, Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen. 13(1979), no.4.

4. I.M.Gelfand and I.Zakharevich, Webs, Lenard schemes and the local geometry of bihamiltonian Toda and Lax structures, math.DG/9903080.

5. B.L.Feigin, A.V.Odesskii, Vector bundles on elliptic curve and Sklyanin algebras. Amer.Math.Soc.Transl.Ser.2.V.185.

6. A.V.Odesskii, Elliptic algebras, Russian Mathematical Surveys, Vol.57(2002),no.6.

7. S.Lang, Elliptic functions, Addson-Wesley Publishing Company, INC., 1973.

LANDAU INSTITUTE FOR THEORETICAL PHYSICS

INSTITUT DES HAUTES ETUDES SCIENTIFIQUES

E-mail address: odesskiimccme.ru