text:
# Introduction

### Introduction

Let $`𝒢`$ be simple finite dimensional Lie algebra over complex numbers $``$. The universal central extension of $`𝒢[t_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},t_n^{\pm 1}]`$ are called toroidal Lie algebras. For $`n=1`$ they are precisely the affine Kac-Moody Lie-algebras so that toroidal Lie-algebras are generalisations of affine Kac-Moody Lie-algebras. The major difference in the toroidal case is that the centre is infinite dimensional unlike the affine case where the centre is one dimensional. This poses a major difficulty in studying representation theory of toroidal Lie algebras. The toroidal Lie-algebras are naturally $`^n`$graded and there is an infinite dimensional centre with non-zero degree. Generally in an irreducible representation the non-zero degree central operator does not act as scalars but acts as a invertible central operators. The main purpose of this paper is to prove that the study of irreducible representation for toroidal Lie-algebra is reduced to the study of irreducible representation where the infinite centre acts as scalars.

We now give a more details of the paper. We fix an integer $`n2`$. Let $`A_n=[t_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},t_n^{\pm 1}]`$ be a Laurent polynomial in $`n`$ commuting variables. We consider the universal central extension of $`𝒢A_n`$ and add degree derivations $`D=\{d_1,\mathrm{},d_n\}`$ which we call the toroidal Lie-algebra $`\tau `$. (see section 1). Let $`V`$ be irreducible representation for the toroidal Lie-algebra with finite dimensional weight spaces. We prove in section 1 that such a representation is actually a representation for $`𝒢_{\mathrm{aff}}A_{n1}`$ up to an automorphism of $`\tau `$ (see 1.12).

In the process we prove an important result which is independent interest. Let $`\overline{\tau }`$ be the quotient of $`\tau `$ by non-zero degree central elements. Then $`\overline{\tau }`$ does not admit representations with finite dimensional weight spaces where some zero degree central operator acts non-trivially (Corollary (1.11)). See \[BC\], \[MJT\] and \[F\] where representations for $`\overline{\tau }`$ are studied.

We prove in section 2 that the above irreducible representation admits an irreducible quotient $`V_1`$ for $`𝒢_{\mathrm{aff}}A_{n1}d_n`$ (Theorem (2.5)). Note that the quotient is only graded by $`d_n`$ which comes from the gradation of $`𝒢_{\mathrm{aff}}`$. In this quotient the central operators act by scalars (Lemma (3.1)).

In the last section we give a $`𝒢_{\mathrm{aff}}A_{n1}D`$ module structure on $`V_1A_{n1}`$ and prove complete reducibility in Proposition (3.8). In Theorem (3.9) we prove that the original module $`V`$ is isomorphic to a component of $`V_1A_{n1}`$. In fact all components are isomorphic up to a grade shift. Thus we conclude that the study of irreducible representations for $`\tau `$ with finite dimensional weight spaces is reduced to the study of irreducible representation for $`𝒢_{\mathrm{aff}}A_{n1}d_n`$ with finite dimensional weight spaces where the centre acts as scalars.

It may be appropriate to mention that irreducible integrable representations for $`\tau `$ with finite dimensional weight spaces are classified by the author in \[E3\] and \[E4\]. See also \[Y\]. The integrable modules are not completely reducible. Indecomposable modules which are not necessarily irreducible has been studied by \[CT\]. Further vertex representations are constructed and studied in \[MEY\], \[EM\], \[E1\], \[JMT\] and \[CO\].

### Section 1

Let $`𝒢`$ be simple finite dimensional Lie algebra over complex numbers $``$. Let (,) be $`𝒢`$-invariant non-degenerate symmetric billinear form. Fix a positive integer $`n2`$. Let $`A=A_n=[t_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},t_n^{\pm 1}]`$ be a Laurent polynomial ring in $`n`$ commuting variables. For $`\underset{¯}{m}=(m_1,\mathrm{},m_n)^n`$, let $`t^{\underset{¯}{m}}=t_1^{m_1}\mathrm{}t_n^{m_n}A`$. For any vector space $`V`$, let $`V_A=VA`$. Let $`v(\underset{¯}{m})=vt^{\underset{¯}{m}}`$. Let $`Z=\mathrm{\Omega }_A/d_A`$ be the module of differentials. That is $`Z`$ is spanned by vectors $`t^{\underset{¯}{m}}K_i,1in,\underset{¯}{m}^n`$ with a relation.

### (1.1)

$`m_it^{\underset{¯}{m}}K_i=0`$.

Let $`\tau =𝒢AZD`$ where $`D`$ is spanned by $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_n`$. We will now define a Lie algebra structure on $`\tau `$.

### (1.2)

$`F`$ or $`X,Y𝒢,\underset{¯}{r},\underset{¯}{s}^n`$.

1. $`[X(\underset{¯}{r}),Y(\underset{¯}{s})]=[X,Y](\underset{¯}{r}+\underset{¯}{s})+(X,Y)d(t^{\underset{¯}{r}})t^{\underset{¯}{s}}`$ where $`d(t^{\underset{¯}{r}})t^{\underset{¯}{s}}=r_it^{\underset{¯}{r}+s}K_i`$.
2. $`Z`$ is central in $`𝒢AZ`$.
3. $`[d_i,X(\underset{¯}{r})]=r_iX(\underset{¯}{r}),[d_i,d(t^{\underset{¯}{r}})t^{\underset{¯}{s}}]=(r_i+s_i)d(t^{\underset{¯}{r}})t^{\underset{¯}{s}},[d_i,d_j]=0`$.

### Proposition (3.1)

(\[MY\], \[K\]). $`𝒢AZ`$ is the universal central extension of $`𝒢A`$.

### (1.4)

Let $`h`$ be a Cartan subalgebra of $`𝒢`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ be the span of $`h,K_1,\mathrm{}K_n`$ and $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_n`$. We call $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ a Cartan subalgebra of $`\tau `$. Let $`\delta _1,\mathrm{},\delta _n`$ be in $`\stackrel{~}{h}^{}`$ defined by $`\delta _i(h)=0,\delta _i(K_j)=0`$ and $`\delta _i(d_j)=\delta _{ij}`$. For $`\underset{¯}{r}^n,\delta _{\underset{¯}{r}}=r_i\delta _i`$. Let $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}`$ be the root system of $`𝒢`$ and let $`𝒢=_\alpha \stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}𝒢_\alpha h`$ be the root space decomposition. Let $`\mathrm{}=\{\alpha +\delta _{\underset{¯}{r}},\delta _{\underset{¯}{s}},\alpha \stackrel{}{\mathrm{}},\underset{¯}{r},\underset{¯}{s}^n\}`$. Let

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\tau _{\alpha +\delta _{\underset{¯}{r}}}\hfill & =\hfill & 𝒢_\alpha t^{\underset{¯}{r}},\alpha \stackrel{}{\mathrm{}},\underset{¯}{r}^n\hfill \\ \tau _{\delta _{\underset{¯}{r}}}\hfill & =\hfill & ht^{\underset{¯}{r}},\underset{¯}{r}^n,\underset{¯}{r}0\hfill \\ \tau _0\hfill & =\hfill & \stackrel{~}{h}\hfill \end{array}$$

Then clearly $`\tau =_\alpha \mathrm{}\tau _\alpha `$ is a root space decomposition of $`\tau `$.

### (1.5)

Let $`G=GL(n,)`$ be the set of $`n\times n`$ matrices with entries in $``$ whose determinant is $`\pm 1`$. For every $`B`$ in $`G`$ we define an automorphism of $`\tau `$ again denoted by $`B`$. Let $`\underset{¯}{r},\underset{¯}{s}^n`$ and let $`\underset{¯}{m}^T=B\underset{¯}{r}^T`$ and $`\underset{¯}{n}^T=B\underset{¯}{s}^T`$. Define

$$BX(\underset{¯}{r})=X(\underset{¯}{m}),X𝒢$$

$$Bd(t^{\underset{¯}{r}})t^{\underset{¯}{s}}=d(t^{\underset{¯}{m}})t^{\underset{¯}{n}}$$

Let $`(d_1^1,\mathrm{},d_n^1)^T=A^1(d_1,\mathrm{}d_n)^T`$. Define $`Bd_i=d_i^1`$. It is easy to check that $`B`$ is an automorphism of $`\tau `$.

### (1.6)

We recall some simple results from \[E4\].

Let $`V`$ be irreducible weight module for $`\tau `$ with finite dimensional weight spaces with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$. the following is proved in \[E4\].

### Lemma (1.7)

(Lemma (4.3) and (4.4) of \[E4\]). Let $`z`$ be in $``$ of degree $`\underset{¯}{m}`$.

(1) Suppose $`zv0`$ for some $`v`$ in $`V`$. Then $`zv0`$ for all non-zero $`v`$ in $`V`$.

(2) Suppose $`z0`$. Then there exists a central operator $`T`$ on $`V`$ such that $`zT=Tz=Id`$.

Let $`L=\{\underset{¯}{r},\underset{¯}{r}t^{\underset{¯}{r}}K_i0`$ on $`V`$ for some $`i\}`$.

Let $`T`$ be the $``$ linear span of $`L`$. Clearly $`T`$ is a subgroup of $`^n`$. Let $`k`$ be the rank of $`T`$. Clearly $`k`$ is invariant under the automorphism defined above. Now by standard basis theorem there exists a $``$ basis $`\underset{¯}{m}_1,\mathrm{},\underset{¯}{m}_n`$ of $`^n`$ such that $`k_1\underset{¯}{m}_1,\mathrm{},k_k\underset{¯}{m}_k`$ is a basis of $`T`$ for some non-zero integers $`k_1,\mathrm{}k_k`$. It is a standard fact that there exists a $`B`$ in $`G`$ such that $`B\underset{¯}{m}_i=(0,\mathrm{}1,0\mathrm{}0)`$ (1 in the $`i`$th place). Thus up to automorphism, we can assume that there exists non-zero central operator $`z_1,\mathrm{}z_k`$ on $`V`$ such that their degree are $`(k_1,0\mathrm{}0)\mathrm{}(0,\mathrm{}k_k,0\mathrm{}0)`$. We have the following:

### Proposition 1.8

(Theorem (4.5) of \[E4\]). Let $`V`$ be irreducible module for $`\tau `$ with finite dimensional weight spaces with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$. Then up to automorphism the following is true on $`V`$.

1. There exists non-zero central operators $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_k`$ of degree
$`(k_1,0\mathrm{}0)\mathrm{}(0\mathrm{}k_k,0\mathrm{}0)`$.
2. $`k<n`$
3. $`t^{\underset{¯}{r}}K_i=0`$ for all $`i`$ and for all $`\underset{¯}{r}`$ such that for some $`j,k+1jn,r_j0`$.
4. $`t^{\underset{¯}{r}}K_i=01ik,\underset{¯}{r}^n`$.
5. There exists a proper submodule $`W`$ of $`𝒢AZD_k`$ (where $`D_k`$ is spanned by $`d_{k+1},\mathrm{}d_n)`$ such that $`V/W`$ has finite dimensional weight spaces with respect to $`hK_iD_k`$.

### Theorem (1.9)

Let $`V`$ be an irreducible $`\tau `$-module with finite dimensional weight spaces with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$. Let $`k`$ be as defined above. Suppose some central operator is non-zero. Then $`k=n1`$.

Before we prove the theorem, we prove an important proposition which is also of independent interest.

Let $`H`$ be a finite dimensional vector space over $``$ with a non-degenerate billinear form $`<,>`$. Consider the Lie-algebra $`\stackrel{~}{H}=H[t_1^{\pm 1},t_2^{\pm 1}]C_1C_2d_1d_2`$ with the following Lie bracket

1. $`[h_1t_1^{r_1}t_2^{r_2},h_2t_1^{s_1}t_2^{s_2}]=(h_1,h_2)\delta _{r_1+s_1,0}\delta _{r_2+s_2,0}(r_1C_1+r_2C_2)`$.
2. $`C_1,C_2`$ are central
3. $`[d_i,h_1t_1^{r_1}t_2^{r_2}]=r_ih_1t_1^{r_1}t_2^{r_2},[d_i,d_j]=0`$.

Let $`h=HC_1C_2d_1d_2`$.

### Proposition (1.10)

Let $`W`$ be a $`h`$-weight module for $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ with finite dimensional weight spaces. Suppose, at least on $`C_i`$ acts non trivially. Then such a $`W`$ does not exists.

### Proof

The proof is inspired by Futorny’s work \[F\].

First note that $`GL(2,)`$ acts on $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ as automorphism. Now twisting by automorphism we can assume that both central elements act non trivially on $`W`$.

Let $`W=_{\underset{¯}{n}^2}W_{\underset{¯}{n}}`$ be the weight space decomposition. Let $`ht_1^{r_1}t_2^{r_2}=ht_1^{r_1}t_2^{r_2}`$.

Choose $`hH`$ such that $`(h,h)=1`$. Let $`e=ht_1ht_1^1`$ and $`f=ht_2ht_2^1`$. Then $`e`$ and $`f`$ leaves each finite dimensional space $`W_{\underset{¯}{n}}`$ invariant.

Fix $`\underset{¯}{n}^2`$ such that $`W_{\underset{¯}{n}}0`$. Let $`v`$ be in $`W_{\underset{¯}{n}}`$ such that, $`v`$ is a common eigen vector for $`e`$ and $`f`$. Let $`v`$ be a submodule of $`W`$ generated by $`v`$. Let $`V_{\underset{¯}{m}}=VW_{\underset{¯}{m}}`$. We call a vector of the form $`h_1t_1^{r_{11}}t_2^{r_{21}}\mathrm{}h_nt_1^{r_{n1}}t_2^{r_{n2}}v`$ a monomial. Note that each monomial is a eigen vector for $`e`$ and $`f`$. Conversely any eigen vector of $`e`$ or $`f`$ is a linear combination of monomials with same eigenvalue. From Futorny’s work (Lemma (4.2) of \[F\]) it follows that the eigen values of $`e`$ and $`f`$ are of the form $`m_1C_1`$ and $`m_2C_2`$ for some $`m_i`$. Choose a eigen vector $`w`$ in $`V_{\underset{¯}{n}}`$ of eigenvalue $`m_2C_2`$ for $`f`$ such that the absolute value of $`m_2`$ is maximal.

Suppose $`m_2>0`$. From the above observations we can assume $`w`$ is a monomial. Suppose $`ew=mw`$.

### Claim 1

Suppose $`m>0`$. Then $`ht_1^{\mathrm{}}t_2^kw=0`$ for all $`k2`$ and for all $`\mathrm{}>0`$. Suppose $`ht_1^{\mathrm{}}t_2^kw0`$ for some $`k2`$ and for some $`\mathrm{}>0`$. Consider $`ht_2ht_2^1ht_1^{\mathrm{}}t_2^kw=m_2C_2ht_1^{\mathrm{}}t_2^kw`$. We are using the fact that $`k2`$ so that $`f`$ commutes with $`ht_1^{\mathrm{}}t_2^k`$. This proves that $`ht_2^1ht_1^{\mathrm{}}t_2^kw0`$. Let $`w_s=(ht_2^1)^sht_1^{\mathrm{}}t_2^kw`$. We prove by induction on $`s`$ that $`w_s0`$. Consider $`ht_2w_{s+1}=fw_s=(s+m_2)w_s`$. By induction $`w_s0`$ and we know $`s+m_2>0`$. This proves $`w_{s+1}0`$. In particular $`w_k0`$.

### Sub-claim

$`(ht_1^1)^{\mathrm{}}w_k0`$. Consider $`ht_1ht_1^1w_k=mw_k`$. Since $`m0`$, this proves $`ht_1^1w_k0`$. Consider $`v_s=(ht_1^1)^sw_k`$. We prove by induction on $`s`$ that $`v_s0`$. Consider $`ht_1v_{s+1}=ev_s=(s+m)v_s`$. By induction $`v_s0`$ and we know that $`s+m>0`$. This proves $`v_{s+1}0`$. In particular $`v_{\mathrm{}}=(ht_1^1)^{\mathrm{}}w_k0`$. But $`fv_{\mathrm{}}=(k+m_2)v_{\mathrm{}},v_{\mathrm{}}V_{\underset{¯}{n}}`$. This is a contradiction to the maximality of $`m_2`$. This proves the claim 1.

### Claim 2.

suppose $`m0`$. Then $`ht_1^{\mathrm{}}t_2^kw=0`$ for all $`k2`$ and for all $`\mathrm{}<0`$. Consider $`ht_1^1ht_1w=ht_1ht_1^1wC_1w`$

$$=(m1)C_1w$$

.

Note that $`m1<0`$. By arguing as in the claim 1 we prove that

$$(ht_2^1)^kht_1^{\mathrm{}}t_2^kw0.$$

Now we claim that

$$b=(ht_1)^{\mathrm{}}(ht_2^1)^kht_1^{\mathrm{}}t_2^kw0.$$

This can be established by arguing as in the claim 1. Now using $`ht_1^1ht_1`$ instead of $`ht_1ht_1^1`$, noting $`m1<0`$. Now $`fb=(m_2+k)b`$. It is a contradiction to the maximality to $`m_2`$.

### Claim 3

$`ht_1^{\mathrm{}}t_2^kw0`$ for all $`k2`$ and for all $`\mathrm{}>0`$ or for all $`\mathrm{}<0`$ such that $`\mathrm{}C_1\pm kC_20`$. This follows from claim 1 and 2 by applying $`ht_1^{\mathrm{}}t_2^k`$ on the above vector.

### Case 1

Assume $`ht_1^{\mathrm{}}t_2^kw0`$ for all $`k2`$ and all $`\mathrm{}1`$. Suppose $`ht_1^{\mathrm{}}t_2^kw0`$ for some $`k2`$ and for all $`\mathrm{}>0`$ such that $`\mathrm{}C+1\pm kC_20`$. Then we claim that

$$\{ht_1^{\mathrm{}}t_2^kht_1^{\mathrm{}}t_2^kw,\mathrm{}C_1\pm kC_20\}$$

is linearly independent. Suppose the claim is true. Then $`V_{\underset{¯}{n}+(0,2k)}`$ is infinite dimension a contradiction. This prove the proposition.

Suppose

$$a_\mathrm{}_iht_1^\mathrm{}_it_2^kht_1^\mathrm{}_it_2^kw=0.$$

Apply $`ht_1^\mathrm{}_1t_2^k`$ to the above sum. It commutes with the first term. Thus we get

$$a_\mathrm{}_1ht_1^\mathrm{}_1t_2^k(\mathrm{}C_1kC_2)w.$$

This forces from our assumptions that $`a_\mathrm{}_1=0`$. Similarly $`a_\mathrm{}_i=0`$. Thus the above set is linearly independent. Now suppose $`ht_1^{\mathrm{}}t_2^kw=0`$ for all $`k2`$ and for some $`\mathrm{}>0\mathrm{}C_1\pm kC_20`$. Then it follows that $`ht_1^{\mathrm{}}t_2^kw0`$. Now consider the set

$$\{ht_1^{\mathrm{}}t_2^kht_1^{\mathrm{}}t_2^kw,\mathrm{}C_1\pm kC_20\}$$

which can be shown to be linearly independent.

This contradicts the finite dimensionality of the weight space.

### Case 2

$`ht_1^{\mathrm{}}t_2^kw0`$ for all $`k2`$ and for all $`\mathrm{}<0`$. This case can be dealt with as in the Case 1.

We are now left with the case $`m_20`$. Consider

$$ht_2^1ht_2w=ht_2ht_2^1wC_2w$$

$$=(m_21)C_2w.$$

Now we have $`m_21<0`$. Now the above proof works with $`ht_2^1ht_2`$ instead of $`ht_2ht_2^1`$. \[QED\]
We first deduce an interesting corollary. Let $`\overline{\tau }=𝒢AK_id_i`$ be a Lie-algebra defined by

$$[X(\underset{¯}{r}),Y(\underset{¯}{s})]=[X,Y](\underset{¯}{r}+\underset{¯}{s})+(X,Y)\delta _{\underset{¯}{r}+\underset{¯}{s},0}r_iK_i$$

$`K_i`$ are central.

$$[d_i,X(\underset{¯}{r})]=r_iX(\underset{¯}{r}),[d_i,d_j]=0.$$

### Corollary (1.11)

Let $`V`$ be a weight module for $`\overline{\tau },n2`$ generated by a weight vector with finite dimensional weight spaces. Assume at least one $`K_i`$ acts non trivially on the generator. Then such a $`V`$ does not exist.

### Proof

Follows from the above proposition by restricting the module to the subalgebra generated by $`ht_i^rt_{i\pm 1}^s`$.

Proof of the Theorem (1.9).

¿From Proposition (1.8) we know that $`k<n`$. Suppose $`k<n1`$.

### Case 1

Assume $`K_i0`$ on $`V`$ for some $`i`$. Then $`ik+1`$ from Proposition (1.8) (4). Let us say $`i=k+1`$. Then $`k+2n`$. Consider the Lie sub algebra generated by $`ht_k^rt_{k+1}^s`$. Consider $`[h_1t_k^{r_1}t_{k+1}^{s_1},h_2t_k^{r_2}t_{k+1}^{s_2}]=(h_1,h_2)\delta _{r_1+r_2,0}\delta _{s_1+s_2,0}(r_1K_{k+1}1+s_1K_{k+2})`$. This is because $`d(t_k^{r_1}t_{k+1}^{s_1})t_k^{r_2}t_{k+1}^{s_2}=0`$ unless $`r_1+r_2=0`$ and $`s_1+s_2=0`$ from Proposition (1.8) (3). Now by restriction the module to the above sub algebra, we get a contradiction to Proposition (1.10).

### Case 2

Assume $`t^{\underset{¯}{m}}K_i`$ is non zero on $`V`$. Then by Proposition (1.8) (3), $`ik+1`$. Further $`m_{k+1}=0\mathrm{}=m_n`$. Let us say $`i=k+1`$. Consider the subalgebra generated by
(1) $`ht^{\underset{¯}{m}}t_k^rt_{k+1}^s,s>0`$ or $`s=0`$ but $`r>0`$,
(2) $`ht_k^rt_{k+1}^s,s<0`$ or $`s=0,r<0`$
(3) $`ht^{\underset{¯}{m}}`$.

Consider in the above sub algebra,

$$[h_1t^{\underset{¯}{m}}t_k^{r_1}t_{k+1}^{s_1},h_2t_k^{r_2}t_{k+1}^{s_2}]$$

$$=(h_1,h_2)\delta _{r_1+s_1,0}\delta _{r_2+s_2,0}(r_1t^{\underset{¯}{m}}K_{k+1}+r_2t^{\underset{¯}{m}}K_{k+2}).$$

All other brackets of the above sub algebra are zero. This is due to the Proposition (1.8). It is easy to see that the above sub algebra is isomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ defined earlier to Proposition (1.10). By abuse of notation we call the above sub algebra $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$. Now we can not appeal to Proposition (1.10) as the central operator $`t^{\underset{¯}{m}}K_{k+1}`$ has a non zero degree. But now by Proposition (1.8) (5), there exists a proper submodule $`W`$ for $`𝒢A\mathrm{\Omega }_A/d_AD_k`$ such that $`V/W`$ has finite dimensional weight space for $`hK_iD_k`$. Now in this new module the central operator $`t^{\underset{¯}{m}}K_i`$ has zero degree and leaves finite dimensional weight space invariant. We now claim that $`t^{\underset{¯}{m}}K_{k+1}`$ is non zero on $`V/W`$. Suppose it is zero. Then $`t^{\underset{¯}{m}}K_{k+1}VW`$. But $`V=t^{\underset{¯}{m}}K_{k+1}VW`$ a contradiction as $`W`$ is proper. Thus the $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ module generated by any $`t^{\underset{¯}{m}}K_{k+1}`$ invariant vector in $`V/W`$ has all the properties of the Proposition 1.10. So such a module does not exist. This proves $`k=n1`$.

### (1.12)

Let $`V`$ be an irreducible $`\tau `$-module with finite dimensional weight spaces. After twisting the module by an automorphism we can assume that the following central operators are zero.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}t^{\underset{¯}{m}}K_i=0\hfill & & 1in1\hfill \\ t^mK_n=0\hfill & & \mathrm{for}m_n0\hfill \end{array}$$

Consider $`𝒢_{\mathrm{aff}}=𝒢[t_n,t_n^1]K_n`$ with the obivious Lie bracket. Consider the Lie algebra homomorphism

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\phi =\tau \hfill & \hfill & 𝒢_{\mathrm{off}}A_{n1}D.\hfill \\ Xt^{\underset{¯}{r}}\hfill & \hfill & (Xt_n^{r_n})t^{\underset{¯}{r^1}}\hfill \\ & & \underset{¯}{r}^1=(r_1,r_2\mathrm{}r_{n1})\hfill \end{array}$$

$$t^{\underset{¯}{m}}K_i=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\mathrm{for}1in1\hfill & \\ 0i=n,m_n0\hfill & \\ K_nt^{\underset{¯}{m}},m_n=0,i=n\hfill & \end{array}$$

$$d_id_i$$

It is easy to check that $`\phi `$ defines a Lie algebra homomorphism. ¿From the above observation it follows that on an irreducible module for $`\tau `$ with finite dimensional weight spaces, the Ker $`\phi `$ vanishes after twisting by an automorphism.

Thus we can assume $`V`$ is actually a module for $`𝒢_{\mathrm{aff}}A_{n1}D`$. Thus we study only such module.

## Section 2.

### (2.1)

We will first introduce some notation

Let $`J=𝒢_{\mathrm{aff}}A_{n1}`$ where $`𝒢_{\mathrm{aff}}=𝒢[t_n^{\pm 1}]`$ and $`A_n=[t_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{}t_{n1}^{\pm 1}]`$. Let $`D_k`$ be the linear span of $`d_{k+1},\mathrm{}d_n`$. Let $`h_k=hk_nD_k`$ so that $`h_{k1}=h_kd_k`$ and $`h_0=hk_nD`$.

We start with an irreducible $`JD`$-module $`V`$ with finite dimensional weight spaces with respect to $`h_0`$. We further assume that there exists non-zero central operators $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_{n1}`$ with degree $`(k_1,0\mathrm{}0),\mathrm{}(0,\mathrm{}0,k_{n1},0)`$ without loss of generality we can assume that each $`k_i`$ is a positive integer. Our aim is this section is to prove that a maximal $`Jd_n`$-sub module $`W_1`$ exists such that $`V/W_1`$ is an irreducible $`Jd_n`$\- module with finite dimensional weight spaces with respect to $`h_{n1}`$.

We will first produce an irreducible quotient of $`V`$ for the Lie-algebra $`JD_1`$ with finite dimensional weight space with respect to $`h_1`$.

### (2.2)

First notice that $`\{z_1vvvV\}`$ is a $`JD_1`$ proper submodule of $`V`$. Thus $`V`$ is reducible as $`JD_1`$-module. So let $`W`$ be a non-zero proper $`JD_1`$ submodule of $`V`$. Let $`\overline{\mu }`$ be a weight of $`V`$ with respect to $`h_0`$. Let $`\mu =\overline{\mu }h_1`$. Let $`wW`$ be any $`\mu `$weight vector.

Let $`w={\displaystyle \underset{1im}{}}w_i,w_iV_{\overline{\mu }+k_i\delta _i}`$ where $`k_1<k_2<\mathrm{}<k_m`$. Note that $`m2`$ as $`W`$ can not contain $`h_0`$-weight vectors. If it contains then it will not be proper. Define $`d(W)=k_{\mathrm{}}k_1`$. A vector $`w`$ in $`W`$ is called minimal if $`d(W)`$ is minimal for all the $`\mu `$-weight vector. Now one can prove, that $`d(W)`$ depends on $`W`$ but not on $`w`$. The proof is same as given in Lemma (3.8) of \[E2\]. (In the proof of the Lemma one has to assume $`k_nk_1+\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_m`$ to conclude $`d(Xwv)<\mathrm{}_m\mathrm{}_1`$. The rest of the proofs works as it is ). As in the proof of Lemma (3.9) of \[E2\], we can prove that $`V/W`$ has finite dimensional weight space for $`h_1`$. We can further prove, as in Proposition (3.11) of \[E2\]. $`V`$ has a maximal $`JD_1`$-submodule so that the quotient is irreducible. Thus we have proved the following:

### (2.3) Proposition

Let $`V`$ be as defined in 2.1. Then there exists a maximal $`JD_1`$ submodule $`W_1`$ of $`V`$ such that $`V/W`$ is irreducible and has finite dimensional weight spaces with respect to $`h_1`$.

### (2.4)

Let $`V/W_1`$ as above. Consider $`\{z_2vvvV/W_1\}`$. This is a $`JD_2`$ non-zero submodule of $`V/W_1`$ and vectors are not $`d_2`$ invariant. But $`V/W_1`$ contains $`d_2`$-invariant vector. Thus $`\{Z_2vvvV/W_1\}`$ is a non-zero proper submodule of $`V/W_1`$. In particular $`V/W_1`$ is $`JD_2`$ reducible. Now by repeating the above process. We get an irreducible quotient of $`V/W_1`$ which $`JD_2`$\- module with finite dimensional weight spaces with respect to $`h_2`$. By repeating the process $`n1`$ times we have the following theorem.

### (2.5) Theorem

Let $`V`$ be as defined in (2.1). Then there exists a maximal $`JD_{n1}`$ submodule $`W`$ of $`V`$ so that $`V/W`$ is an irreducible $`JD_{n1}`$-module and has finite dimensional weight spaces with respect to $`h_{n1}`$. Further we can choose $`W`$ such that $`W`$ contains $`\{z_ivvvV,i=1,\mathrm{}n1\}`$.

## Section 3

Let $`V`$ be irreducible $`JD`$-module with finite dimensional weight spaces with respect to $`h_0`$. Assume that there exists non-zero central operators $`z_1,z_2,\mathrm{},z_{n1}`$ of degree $`\underset{¯}{k}_1=(k_1,0\mathrm{}0)\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{k_{n1}}=(0,\mathrm{}(0,\mathrm{}k_{n1},0)`$. Let $`W`$ be a maximal $`JD_{n1}`$ submodule of $`V`$ so that $`V/W`$ is irreducible $`JD_{n1}`$-module with finite dimensional weight space with respect to $`h_{n1}`$. Let $`V_1=V/W`$.

### (3.1) Lemma

Each $`z`$ in $`Z`$ acts as scalar on $`V_1`$. Further each $`z`$ in $`Z`$ which acts as non-zero on $`V`$ acts as non-zero scale on $`V_1`$.

### Proof

First note that for any $`z`$ that acts non trivially on $`V`$ is of degree $`(,\mathrm{},0)`$. Such a $`z`$ leaves each finite dimensional weight space of $`V_1`$ invariant. Thus $`z`$ has a eigen vector with eigen value $`\mathrm{}`$. Since $`V_1`$ is irreducible $`z`$ acts by the same scalar on the full module $`V_1`$. Suppose $`z`$ is non-zero on $`V`$. Then we claim $`\mathrm{}0`$. Suppose $`\mathrm{}=0`$ then it follows that $`zVW`$. But $`V=zVW`$ which contradicts the fact that $`W`$ is proper. So $`\mathrm{}0`$. This proves the Lemma.

### (3.2)

Let $`V_1`$ be as above. We now define $`JD`$ module structure on $`V_1A_{n1}`$. Recall $`J=𝒢_{\mathrm{aff}}A_{n1}`$. Let $`\overline{m}=(m_1,\mathrm{}m_{n1})^{n1}`$. Let $`X(\overline{m})=Xt^{\overline{m}},X𝒢_{\mathrm{aff}},t^{\overline{m}}=t_1^{m_1}\mathrm{}t_{n1}^{m_{n1}}A_{n1}`$. Define a module structure $`\pi (\alpha )`$ on $`V_1A_{n1}`$ where $`\alpha =(\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1})^{n1}`$.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\pi (\alpha )X(\overline{m})v(\overline{n})\hfill & =\hfill & (X(\overline{m})v)(\overline{m}+\overline{n})\hfill \\ d_nv(\overline{n})\hfill & =\hfill & (d_nv)(\overline{n})\hfill \\ d_iv(\overline{n})\hfill & =\hfill & (\alpha _i+n_i)v(\overline{n}),1in1\hfill \end{array}$$

The aim of this section is to prove that $`(V_1A_{n1},\pi (\alpha ))`$ is completely reducible and $`V`$ is isomorphic to some component of $`V_1A_{n1}`$ for a suitable $`\alpha `$. First consider the $`JD_{n1}`$ map $`S`$ from $`V_1A_{n1}V_1`$ given by

$$S(v(\overline{n}))=v.$$

### (3.3) Lemma

Let $`W`$ be any non-zero $`JD`$-submodule of $`V_1A_{n1}`$.
(1) $`S(W)=V_1`$
(2) If $`\lambda `$ is a weight of $`V_1`$ then $`\lambda +\delta _{\overline{m}}`$ is a weight of $`W`$ for some $`\overline{m}`$.

### Proof

Since $`V_1`$ is irreducible, it is sufficient to prove that $`S(W)`$ is non-zero. But $`W`$ is $`h_0`$ weight module and hence contains vectors of the form $`v(\overline{m})`$. Then $`S(v(\underset{¯}{m})=v0`$.

(2) Let $`wV_1`$ be a weight vector of weight $`\lambda `$. Then there exists $`vW`$ such that $`S(w)=v`$. Now write $`w=w_{\overline{m}}`$. Since $`w`$ is a weight module it follows that $`w_{\overline{m}}W`$. Thus (2) follows.

### (3.4)

Suppose $`z_i`$ acts by $`\mathrm{}_i`$ on $`V_1`$ and we know that $`\mathrm{}_i0`$.

Consider $`z_iv(\overline{m})=\mathrm{}_iv(\overline{m}+\underset{¯}{k}_i)`$. Clearly $`z_i`$ is central operator and invertible on $`V_1A_{n1}`$. Let

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_{n1}^{n1}.$$

It is easy to see that for each $`\overline{m}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ there exists a central operator $`z_{\overline{m}}`$ on $`V_1A_{n1}`$ which is invertible.

Let $`W`$ be a submodule of $`V_1A_{n1}`$.

We claim then dim $`W_\lambda =`$ dim $`W_\lambda +\delta _{\overline{m}}`$ for all $`\underset{¯}{m}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Note that $`z_{\overline{m}}W_\lambda W_{\lambda +\delta _{\overline{m}}}`$ and equality holds as $`z_{\overline{m}}`$ is invertible. Thus the claim follows. let $`\lambda `$ be a fixed weight of $`V_1`$. Let $`K(W)={\displaystyle \underset{0m_i<k_i}{}}`$ dim $`(W_{\lambda +\delta _{\underset{¯}{m}}})`$.

Now from Lemma 3.3 (2) and the above claim it follows that $`K(W)0`$.

### (3.5) Proposition

$`V_1A_{n1}`$ contains an irreducible submodule.

### Proof

We will prove that for any non-zero submodule $`W`$ of $`V_1A_{n1}`$ either $`W`$ contains an irreducible submodule or $`W`$ contains a module $`W_1K(W_1)<K(W)`$. Fix a non-zero submodule $`W`$ of $`V_1A_{n1}`$. Consider $`S=_{\overline{m}^{n1}}W_{\lambda +\delta _{\overline{m}}}`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ be a submodule of $`W`$ generated by $`S`$. Then clearly $`K(\stackrel{~}{W})=K(W)`$. Suppose $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ has a proper submodule $`W_1`$.

### Claim

$`K(W_1)<K(\stackrel{~}{W})`$. Suppose the claim is false. Consider

$$W_1(V_1A_{n1})_{\lambda +\delta _{\overline{m}}}\stackrel{~}{W}(V_1A_{n1})_{\lambda +\delta _{\overline{m}}}.$$
$`()`$
Now $`K(W_1)=K(\stackrel{~}{W})`$ implies that equality holds for all $`\overline{m}0m_i<k_i`$. Now by the claim in (3.4) it follows that equally holds in * for all $`\overline{m}`$ in $`^{n1}`$. This proves $`W_1`$ contain $`S`$ and hence contain $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$. This contradicts the fact that $`W_1`$ is proper in $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$. Hence the claim. Now by repeating the above process we get an irreducible submodule of $`V_1A_{n1}`$. We now prove complete reducibility of $`V_1A_{n1}`$.

### (3.6)

Let $`W`$ be an irreducible submodule of $`V_1A_{n1}`$. We have fixed a weight $`\lambda `$ of $`V_1`$. By Lemma 3.3 (b) there exists a weight vector $`v`$ in $`V`$ of weight $`\lambda `$ such that $`v(\overline{r})W`$.

Let $`\overline{U}`$ be the universal enveloping algebra of $`JD`$. Write

$$\overline{U}=_{\overline{m}^{n1}}\overline{U}_{\overline{m}}$$

$$\overline{U}_{\overline{m}}=\{XU[d_i,X]=r_iX,1in1\}$$

Clearly $`\overline{U}v(\overline{r})=W`$ where $`\overline{U}v(\overline{r})`$ is the $`JD`$-module generated by $`v(\overline{r})`$

### (3.7) Lemma

(1) $`\overline{U}v(\overline{s})`$ is irreducible $`JD`$-module for any $`\overline{s}^{n1}`$.

(2) $`{\displaystyle \underset{0s_i<k_i}{}}\overline{U}v(\overline{s})=V_1A_{n1}`$.

### Proof

Consider the map $`\phi :\overline{U}v(\overline{r})\overline{U}v(\overline{s})`$ given by $`\phi (w(\underset{¯}{k}))=w(\overline{k}+\overline{s}\overline{r})`$. It is a $`JD_{n1}`$ module map. But need not be $`JD`$\- module map. Nevertheless it is an isomorphism. It is easy to see that $`\overline{U}v(\overline{s})`$ is irreducible.

### Claim

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{s}^{n1}}{}}\overline{U}v(\overline{s})=V_1A_{n1}`$. Let $`w(\underset{¯}{s})V_1A_{n1},wV_1`$. Since $`V_1`$ is irreducible there exists $`X\overline{U}Xv=w`$. Write $`X=X_{\overline{r}}`$ where $`X_{\overline{r}}\overline{U}_{\overline{r}}`$.

Consider

$$X_{\overline{r}}v(\overline{s}\overline{r})=(X_{\overline{r}}v)(\overline{s})=w(\overline{s}).$$

This proves the claim. Now recall that there exists a non-zero central operator $`z_{\overline{m}}`$ for any $`\underset{¯}{m}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Further $`z_{\overline{m}}`$ is invertible.

Thus $`z_{\overline{m}}\overline{U}v(\overline{r})=U(\overline{r}+\overline{m})`$. From this it follows that

$$\underset{\overline{s}^{n1}}{}\overline{U}v(\overline{s})=\underset{0s_i<k_i}{}\overline{U}v(\overline{s}).$$

### (3.8) Proposition

$`V_1A_{n1}`$ is completely reducible as $`JD`$-module.

### Proof

We have already seen that $`{\displaystyle \underset{0s_i<k_i}{}}\overline{U}v(\overline{s})=V_1A_{n1}`$. The sum is finite. Let $`T=\{\underset{¯}{s}0s_i<k_i\}`$. Suppose $`\overline{U}v(\overline{s}){\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\underset{¯}{r}T}{\underset{¯}{r}\underset{¯}{s}}}{}}\overline{U}v(\overline{s})0`$. Since $`\overline{U}v(\overline{s})`$ is irreducible it follows that $`\overline{U}v(\overline{s}){\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\overline{r}T}{\overline{s}\overline{r}}}{}}\overline{U}v(\overline{r})`$. Thus we have reduced the finite sum by 1. Repeating this process we can replace the $``$ by direct sum with fewer terms.

Let $`\overline{U}=_{\eta h_0^{}}\overline{U}_\eta ,\overline{U}_\eta =\{X\overline{U}[h,X]=\eta (h)Xhh_0\}`$. Let $`U`$ be the universal enveloping algebra of $`JD_n`$. Let $`U=_{\eta h_{\eta h_{n1}^{}}}U_\eta ,U_\eta =\{XU[h,X]=\eta (h)Xh_{n_1}\}`$

### (3.9) Theorem

$`V`$ is isomorphic to a component of $`V_1A_{n1}`$ as $`JD`$-module.

### Proof

It can be proved similar to the techniques of 3.13, 3.14, 3.15 and 3.16 of \[E2\]. The $`U`$ and $`\overline{U}`$ is taken as defined by us. The $`d`$ in \[E2\] is taken as the space spanned by $`d_1,\mathrm{}d_{n1}`$. We do not need the condition (2.2) of \[E2\]. In stead we have non-zero central operators $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_{n1}`$ which are invertible in $`V`$ as well as $`V_1A_{n1}`$.

### (3.10) Remark

The study of irreducible $`\tau `$-modules with finite dimensional weight space where some part of the center acts non-trivially is now reduced to the study of irreducible modules of $`JD_n`$ with finite dimensional weight spaces. The advantage of the later modules is that the infinite dimensional center acts as scalars.

REFERENCES

1. Berman, S. and Cox, B. Enveloping algebras and representations of toroidal Lie-algebras, Pacific Journal of Math. 165 (1994), 239-267.
2. Cox, Ben. Two Realizations of Toroidal $`s\mathrm{}_2()`$, Contemporary Mathematics, 297, (2002), 47-68.
3. Chari, V. and Thang Le, Representations of double affine Lie- algebras, Preprint, arxiv / org - 0205312.
4. Eswara Rao, S. Iterated loop modules and a filteration for vertex representation of toroidal Lie-algebras, Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 171 (2), (1995), 511-528.
5. Eswara Rao, S. Classification of loop modules with finite dimensional weight spaces, Math. Anal., 305 (1996), 651-663.
6. Eswara Rao, S. Classification of irreducible integrable modules for multi-loop algebras with finite dimensional weight spaces, Journal of Algebra, 246, (2001), 215-225.
7. Eswara Rao, S. Classification of irreducible integrable modules for toroidal Lie-algebras with finite dimensional weight spaces, TIFR Preprint (2001) arxiv / org. 0209060.
8. Eswara Rao, S. and Moody, R.V. Vertex representations for $`n`$\- toroidal Lie-algebras and a generalization of Virasoro algebra, Comm. Math. Physics, 159 (1994), 239-264.
9. Eswara Rao, S., Moody, R.V., and Yokonuma, T. Toroidal Lie-algebras and vertex representations, Geom. Ded. 35, (1990), 283-307.
10. Futorny, V. and Kashuba, I. Verma type modules for toroidal Lie algebras, Comm.in Math. 27 (8), (1999), 3979-3991.
11. Futorny, V. Representations of affine Lie-algebras, Queen’s papers in Pure and Applied Mathematics, (1997).
12. Jing, N., Misra, K. and Tan, S. Bosonic realization of higher level toroidal Lie-algebra, Preprint 2002.
13. Kassel, C., Kahler differentials and coverings of complex simple Lie-algebra extended over a commutative algebra, J Pure Appl. Algebra, 34 (1985), 266-275.
14. Morita, J. and Yoshi, Y. Universal central extensions of Chevally Algebras over Laurent polynomials rings and GIM Lie algebra, Proc. Japan Acad. Ser.A 61 (1985), 179-181.
15. Youngsun, Yoon. On the polynomial representations of current algebras, Journal of Algebra, 252 (2) (2002), 376-393.


format: text

text:
# Entanglement in SU(2)-invariant quantum spin systems

## I Introduction

Entanglement is one of the most intriguing properties of quantum physics  and the key ingredient of the emerging field of quantum information theory and processing . Very recently substantial interest has developed concerning the question of quantum entanglement in equilibrium states of quantum spin systems  as often studied in condensed matter physics and statistical mechanics. More specifically, a typical question arises: Tracing out from a many-body system all degrees of freedom except for, say, two spins, is this reduced density matrix separable or not?

In the present work we study SU(2)-invariant density matrices of two spins. These states are are defined to be invariant under all uniform rotations $`U_1U_2`$ of both spins $`\stackrel{}{S}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{S}_2`$, where $`U_a=\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{}{\eta }\stackrel{}{S}_a)`$, $`a\{1,2\}`$, are transformations corresponding to the same set of real parameters $`\stackrel{}{\eta }`$ in the representation of SU(2) appropriate for the spin lengths $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ ($`\mathrm{}=1`$). In other words, such states $`\rho `$ commute with all components of the total spin $`\stackrel{}{J}=\stackrel{}{S}_1+\stackrel{}{S}_2`$. SU(2)-invariant density matrices arise from thermal equilibrium states of spin systems with an rotationally invariant Hamiltonian by tracing out all degrees of freedom but those two spins . Our results generalize previous work on such systems  to the case of higher spins, and we discuss our findings with respect to generic antiferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic Heisenberg spin lattice models. These considerations lead to the natural conclusion that pairwise quantum entanglement in equilibrium states is strongest in systems with small spin length and low spatial dimension. Moreover, an inseparable equilibrium reduced two-spin state can usually only be achieved for neighboring spins, but not for more distant lattice sites. Viewed like this, equilibrium states of such systems do not appear to be a particularly strong source of pairwise quantum entanglement.

To investigate the separability of this type of density matrices in the case of higher spins we shall make use of the Peres-Horodecki criterion . This criterion states that a separable density matrix has necessarily a positive partial transpose . Moreover a positive partial transpose is also sufficient  for the separability of a given density matrix in the case of two qubits, and in the case of a qubit and a qutrit (i.e. the case of two spins of length 1/2, and of a spin 1/2 and a spin 1, respectively). For larger dimensions of the parties (spins) involved non-separable states with positive partial transpose exist . To apply the Peres-Horodecki criterion one can perform the partial transposition with respect to either subsystem (spin), since both resulting matrices have the same spectrum. For definiteness we will consider in the following the partial transpose $`\rho ^{T_2}`$ with respect to $`\stackrel{}{S}_2`$.

SU(2)-invariant two-spin states where mentioned briefly already by Vollbrecht and Werner , where it was pointed out that the case $`S_1=S_2=1`$ corresponds to states invariant under $`OO`$ with $`O`$ being a O(3) rotation. In this work we will also give explicit criteria in terms of spin correlators for such states to have a positive partial transpose .

## II SU(2)-invariant states and their partial transpose

Let us start with some general considerations. Since an SU(2)-invariant state commutes with all components of $`\stackrel{}{J}`$, it acts, according to Schur’s Lemma, as a scalar on each irreducible representation (multiplet) of $`\stackrel{}{J}`$. Therefore $`\rho `$ has the general from

$$\rho =\underset{J=|S_1S_2|}{\overset{S_1+S_2}{}}\frac{A(J)}{2J+1}\underset{J^z=J}{\overset{J}{}}|J,J^z_0_0J,J^z|,$$
(1)
where the constants $`A(J)`$ fulfill $`A(J)0`$, $`_JA(J)=1`$. Here $`|J,J^z_0`$ denotes a state of total spin $`J`$ and $`z`$-component $`J^z`$.

Now let $`𝒪`$ be a general operator acting on a bipartite system. If $`𝒪`$ is transformed by $`U_1U_2`$, $`𝒪^{T_2}`$ transforms covariantly under $`U_1U_2^{}`$,

$`\left(\left(U_1U_2\right)𝒪\left(U_1^+U_2^+\right)\right)^{T_2}`$ (2)
$`=\left(U_1U_2^{}\right)𝒪^{T_2}\left(U_1^+(U_2^{})^+\right).`$ (3)
Here $`U_1`$, $`U_2`$ are general unitary transformations acting on the subsystems and do not necessarily represent SU(2) transformations. The relation (3) can be derived readily by writing $`𝒪`$ in the form $`𝒪_{i_1i_2,j_1j_2}`$ where the subscripts at the indices refer to the different subsystems . In particular, it follows that if $`𝒪`$ is invariant under $`U_1U_2`$, $`𝒪^{T_2}`$ is invariant under $`U_1U_2^{}`$.

Now let $`U_1`$, $`U_2`$ represent again SU(2) transformations. In the standard representations of their generators the $`x`$\- and $`z`$-components are given by real matrices while the matrices for the $`y`$-components are imaginary. Thus, a complex conjugation of $`U_2=\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{}{\eta }\stackrel{}{S}_2)`$, is equivalent to changing the sign of $`S_2^x`$, $`S_2^z`$. Therefore, $`\rho ^{T_2}`$ commutes with the operators $`\stackrel{}{K}`$ defined by $`K^x=S_1^xS_2^x`$, $`K^y=S_1^y+S_2^y`$, $`K^z=S_1^zS_2^z`$, and these operators also furnish a representation of su(2), $`[K^\alpha ,K^\beta ]=i\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }K^\gamma `$ (using standard notation). In the basis of tensor product states $`|S_1^z,S_2^z`$ of $`S_1^z`$, $`S_2^z`$, $`\rho ^{T_2}`$ is block-diagonal with respect given values of $`K^z`$. In particular, $`|\pm S_1,S_2`$ are eigenstates of $`\rho ^{T_2}`$ with the degenerate eigenvalue $`\pm S_1,S_2|\rho |\pm S_1,S_20`$. Now it follows from elementary representation theory that $`\rho ^{T_2}`$ has actually an SU(2) multiplet structure with respect to the operators $`\stackrel{}{K}`$. The multiplets are labeled by the value of $`\stackrel{}{K}^2=K(K+1)`$ with $`|S_1S_2|K(S_1+S_2)`$. On these multiplets $`\rho ^{T_2}`$ acts as a constant. As seen above, the eigenvalue corresponding to the largest $`K`$-multiplet is always nonnegative.

## III The case $`S_2=1/2`$

Let us now consider system consisting of a spin $`\stackrel{}{S}_1`$ of arbitrary length $`S`$ and a spin $`\stackrel{}{S}_2`$ of length $`1/2`$. Here a general SU(2)-invariant density matrix has the form

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F}{2S}}{\displaystyle \underset{J^z=S+1/2}{\overset{S1/2}{}}}|S{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},J^z_0_0S{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},J^z|`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1F}{2S+2}}{\displaystyle \underset{J^z=S1/2}{\overset{S+1/2}{}}}|S+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},J^z_0_0S+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},J^z|.`$ (5)
The quantity $`F[0,1]`$ is in thermal equilibrium a function of temperature and, in the case of $`\rho `$ being a reduced density matrix of a larger system, it contains information about the entire system which has been traced out except for the spins $`\stackrel{}{S}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{S}_2`$. By expressing $`F`$ in terms of the projector onto the $`J=S1/2`$ multiplet one finds $`F=(S2\stackrel{}{S}_1\stackrel{}{S}_2)/(2S+1)`$, where $``$ denotes the expectation value with respect to $`\rho `$. Thus, $`\rho `$ is completely determined by the correlator $`\stackrel{}{S}_1\stackrel{}{S}_2`$.

In order to perform a partial transposition on $`\rho `$ it is convenient to express it in a basis of tensor product eigenstates $`|S^z,\pm 1/2`$ of $`S_1^z`$ and $`S_2^z`$. Using the well-known Clebsch-Gordan coefficients for coupling a spin $`S`$ to a spin $`1/2`$, the nonvanishing matrix elements are given by

$`S^z,\pm 1/2|\rho |S^z,\pm 1/2`$ (6)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2S+1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(SS^z)F}{2S}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(S\pm S^z+1)(1F)}{2S+2}}\right)`$ (7)
$`S^z,1/2|\rho |S^z+1,1/2`$ (8)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{(SS^z)(S+S^z+1)}}{2S+1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{F}{2S}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1F}{2S+2}}\right).`$ (9)
The partial transpose $`\rho ^{T_2}`$ is diagonal on the subspace spanned by $`|S,1/2`$, $`|S,+1/2`$ lying in the largest $`\stackrel{}{K}`$ multiplet with the eigenvalue $`\lambda _1:=S,1/2|\rho |S,1/2=S,1/2|\rho |S,1/2`$ where

$$\lambda _1=\frac{1}{2S+1}\left(F+\frac{1F}{2S+2}\right).$$
(10)
On the remaining Hilbert space the partial transpose is block-diagonal, where the blocks act on subspaces spanned by the basis vectors $`|S^z,1/2`$, $`|S^z+1,1/2`$ and have the from

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}S^z,1/2|\rho |S^z,1/2& S^z,1/2|\rho |S^z+1,1/2\\ S^z,1/2|\rho |S^z+1,1/2& S^z+1,1/2|\rho |S^z+1,1/2\end{array}\right).`$
The eigenvalues of these submatrices are given by $`\lambda _1`$ and

$$\lambda _2=\frac{1}{2S+1}\frac{1}{2S}F.$$
(12)
These eigenvalues do not depend on $`S^z`$. Therefore $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ occur with the multiplicities $`2S+2`$ and $`2S`$, respectively, in accordance with the above general results. Moreover, $`\lambda _1`$ is always positive, while $`\lambda _2`$ becomes negative for $`F>2S/(2S+1)`$, or, equivalently,

$$\stackrel{}{S}_1\stackrel{}{S}_2<\frac{S}{2}.$$
(13)
Thus, our state has non-positive partial transpose if and only if the correlator $`\stackrel{}{S}_1\stackrel{}{S}_2`$ is negative and larger in modulus than $`S/2`$. This is the maximum value $`|\stackrel{}{S}_1\stackrel{}{S}_2|`$ achieve in a separable state. This intuitively very reasonable criterion includes earlier results by Wang and Zanardi  who investigated the case $`S_1=S_2=1/2`$ by evaluating the entanglement of formation  using Wootters’ concurrence . Unfortunately this is not a viable route for $`S_1>1/2`$ since Wootters’ construction appears to be restricted to the case of two qubits. Moreover, with increasing $`S`$, the states with non-positive partial transpose have increasing weight in the smaller multiplet $`J=S1/2`$, approaching unity for $`S\mathrm{}`$.

If a given state has a negative partial transpose it is necessarily entangled. Moreover, in the case of SU(2)-invariant states with $`S_2=1/2`$ studied in this section, a positive partial transpose, i.e. $`\stackrel{}{S}_1\stackrel{}{S}_2S/2`$, is also a sufficient criterion for separable states. We prove this fact by explicitly constructing a decomposition consisting of projectors on porduct states. If a given state has a positive partial transpose we can write $`\stackrel{}{S}_1\stackrel{}{S}_2=(S/2)\mathrm{cos}(\gamma )`$ with some real angle $`\gamma `$. Now let $`|0`$ denote a spin-coherent state  of $`S_1`$ pointing in some arbitrary direction, and $`|\gamma `$ denote a spin-coherent state of $`S_2`$ with its polarization direction forming the angle $`\gamma `$ with the polarization direction of $`S_1`$. In the pure product state $`|0|\gamma `$ we have by construction $`\stackrel{}{S}_1\stackrel{}{S}_2=(S/2)\mathrm{cos}(\gamma )`$, and the value of this correlator is invariant under all uniform rotations of both spins. Now consider

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`N(S){\displaystyle }d^3\eta [(U_1(\eta )U_2(\eta ))`$ (15)
$`(|0|\gamma 0|\gamma |)(U_1(\eta )U_2(\eta ))^+]`$
where the integration goes over all simultaneous rotations parametrized as $`U_a=\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{}{\eta }\stackrel{}{S}_a)`$, $`a\{1,2\}`$, and $`N(S)`$ is a normalization constant. Thus the state (15) is a separable state which is obviously invariant under simultaneous rotations of both spins and fulfills $`\stackrel{}{S}_1\stackrel{}{S}_2=(S/2)\mathrm{cos}(\gamma )`$. Since such an SU(2)-invariant state is uniquely determined by this correlator, we have constructed a decomposition of the original state in terms of projectors on product states, which completes the proof.

Let us now discuss the above result with respect to isotropic Heisenberg lattice spin models as studied intensively in condensed matter physics and statistical mechanics. Previous studies have concentrated on one-dimensional systems. This has on the one hand the practical reason that for such systems the body of exact results concerning correlations is largest. On the other hand this is due to the fact that quantum correlations can generically be expected to become weaker with increasing spatial dimension, i.e. with increasing number of neighbors to each spin. Therefore one-dimensional systems are the most attractive to look for equilibrium quantum entanglement.

Since quantum correlations like $`\stackrel{}{S}_1\stackrel{}{S}_2`$ can generally be expected to decay with increasing temperature, the criterion (13) defines implicitly a threshold temperature for the occurrence of a non-positive partial transpose, provided the inequality (13) is fulfilled in the ground state at $`T=0`$ . This can only be the case in antiferromagnetic or, for $`S_1>S_2=1/2`$, ferrimagnetic systems. In particular, in an antiferromagnetic spin 1/2 chain correlations are generically of the from

$$\stackrel{}{S}_m\stackrel{}{S}_{m+n}=(1)^n\chi (n),$$
(16)
where $`m`$ denotes some lattice site in the translationally invariant chain, $`n`$ is the number of lattice sites between the spins considered, and $`\chi `$ is a positive and monotonously decaying function. The alternating sign resembles Néel ordering as it is present in the ground state of a classical antiferromagnet. It follows that the reduced equilibrium two-spin density matrix can only be entangled if the spins involved reside on different sublattices (corresponding to odd $`n`$). This intuitively clear finding also holds for generic antiferromagnets or ferrimagnets on bipartite lattices in higher spatial dimension.

The spin 1/2 Heisenberg chain with antiferromagnetic exchange between nearest neighbors is described by the Hamiltonian $`=_m\stackrel{}{S}_m\stackrel{}{S}_{m+1}`$ Here the correlator $`\stackrel{}{S}_m\stackrel{}{S}_{m+1}`$. is equal to the ground state energy per spin and given by $`\mathrm{ln}21/40.443<0.25`$ . Thus, the criterion (13) is fulfilled . However, for larger distances between the spins, $`n\{3,5,\mathrm{}\}`$, numerical data  shows that the inequality (13) is violated and, according to the Peres-Horodecki criterion, the corresponding reduced density matrix is separable. The same statements apply to another typical antiferromagnetic spin 1/2 wave function, the so-called Gutzwiller wave function , where $`\stackrel{}{S}_m\stackrel{}{S}_{m+n}`$ can be evaluated analytically for all $`n`$ .

In summary, one-dimensional antiferromagnetic isotropic Heisenberg models of spins 1/2 do generically not appear to be in thermal equilibrium a particularly strong source of entanglement, since usually only the reduced density matrices of neigboring spins are inseparable, while all others are non-entangled. This result might appear somewhat surprising since such systems are usually considered to have particularly strong spin correlations because of the small spin length as well as the low spatial dimension . However, as seen here, these strong quantum correlations do in general not translate to long-ranged entanglement in equilibrium reduced density matrices.

As pointed out already, this finding cannot be expected to change in the case of higher spatial dimension. Moreover, ferrimagnetic systems involving spins $`S_1>1/2`$ will generically have the same properties, since we have the same type of criterion (13) for the partial transpose being non-positive. This criterion requires sufficiently strong quantum fluctuations which are generically reduced with increasing spin length. To illustrate these trends let us rewrite the criterion (13) in the form $`\stackrel{}{S}_1\stackrel{}{S}_2/(S_1S_2)<1`$. For a ferrimagnetic chain consisting of alternating spins $`S_1=1`$, $`S_2=1/2`$ a numerical estimate for the l.h.s. of this inequality in the case of neighboring spins is given by  $`\stackrel{}{S}_1\stackrel{}{S}_2/(S_1S_2)=1.455`$. For a two-dimensional spin-1/2 antiferromagnet on the square lattice one finds  $`\stackrel{}{S}_1\stackrel{}{S}_2/(S_1S_2)=1.344`$. Both values are larger than the result for the spin-1/2 chain as discussed above, $`\stackrel{}{S}_1\stackrel{}{S}_2/(S_1S_2)=1.773`$, indicating the suppression of pairwise entanglement with increasing spatial dimension and lengths of spins involved.

## IV The case $`S_21`$

We now turn to the case $`S_1=:S1`$, $`S_2=1`$. Here the general SU(2)-invariant density matrix reads

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G}{2S1}}{\displaystyle \underset{J^z=S+1}{\overset{S1}{}}}|S1,J^z_0_0S1,J^z|`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H}{2S+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{J^z=S}{\overset{S}{}}}|S,J^z_0_0S,J^z|`$ (18)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1GH}{2S+3}}{\displaystyle \underset{J^z=S1}{\overset{S+1}{}}}|S+1,J^z_0_0S+1,J^z|.`$ (19)
Expressing the quantities $`G`$ and $`H`$ in terms of projectors onto the multiplets on the total spin $`J\{S1,S,S+1\}`$ one finds

$`G`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{S(2S+1)}}\left(S(S1)\stackrel{}{S}_1\stackrel{}{S}_2+(\stackrel{}{S}_1\stackrel{}{S}_2)^2\right)`$ (20)
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{S(S+1)}}\left(\stackrel{}{S}_1\stackrel{}{S}_2+(\stackrel{}{S}_1\stackrel{}{S}_2)^2\right).`$ (21)
Therefore, $`\rho `$ is completely determined by the correlators $`\stackrel{}{S}_1\stackrel{}{S}_2`$ and $`(\stackrel{}{S}_1\stackrel{}{S}_2)^2`$ and has three different eigenvalues with degeneracies $`2S1`$, $`2S+1`$, and $`2S+3`$, corresponding to multiplets of the total spin $`\stackrel{}{J}`$. The three different eigenvalues of $`\rho ^{T_2}`$ can be found in the subspaces spanned by $`(|S^z+1,1,|S^z,0,|S^z11)`$, $`|S^z|S`$ having $`K^z=S^z`$. With respect to this basis $`\rho ^{T_2}`$ reads

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha (S^z)& \delta (S^z)& \epsilon (S^z)\\ \delta (S^z)& \beta (S^z)& \eta (S^z)\\ \epsilon (S^z)& \eta (S^z)& \gamma (S^z)\end{array}\right).$$
(22)
with

$`\alpha (S^z)`$ $`=`$ $`S^z+1,1|\rho |S^z+1,1`$ (23)
$`\beta (S^z)`$ $`=`$ $`S^z,0|\rho |S^z,0`$ (24)
$`\gamma (S^z)`$ $`=`$ $`S^z11|\rho |S^z1,1`$ (25)
$`\delta (S^z)`$ $`=`$ $`S^z,1|\rho |S^z+1,0`$ (26)
$`\epsilon (S^z)`$ $`=`$ $`S^z+1,1|\rho |S^z1,1`$ (27)
$`\eta (S^z)`$ $`=`$ $`S^z,1|\rho |S^z1,0`$ (28)
Unfortunately, the evaluation of the matrix elements in (22) for general values of $`S`$ and $`S^z`$ turns out to be extremely tedious because the form of the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients is drastically more complicated than in the previous case $`S_2=1/2`$. For simplicity we therefore concentrate on the case $`S=1`$ where the only block of the form (22) corresponds to $`S^z=0`$ with $`\alpha =\gamma `$ and $`\delta =\eta `$. In this case we have the eigenvalues

$`\mu _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{30}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{10}}G+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{15}}H`$ (29)
$`\mu _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G`$ (30)
$`\mu _3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}H`$ (31)
The eigenvalue $`\mu _1`$ is always positive and corresponds to the largest $`K`$-multiplet. Thus, $`\rho ^{T_2}`$ has negative eigenvalues if and only if $`G>1/3`$ or $`H>1/2`$. Expressed in terms of correlators these conditions read

$`2`$ $`<`$ $`(\stackrel{}{S}_1\stackrel{}{S}_2)^2`$ (32)
$`1`$ $`>`$ $`\stackrel{}{S}_1\stackrel{}{S}_2+(\stackrel{}{S}_1\stackrel{}{S}_2)^2`$ (33)
Similarly as in the previous case $`S_1=S`$, $`S_2=1/2`$, the two-spin density matrix has a non-positive partial transpose only if the weight of the smaller multiplets is sufficiently large. We note that, differently from the case $`S_1=S`$, $`S_2=1/2`$, an analogous proof for the sufficiency of the Peres-Horodecki criterion cannot be given for $`S_21`$ since such states are determined by more than just a single correlator.

## V Conclusions

We have analyzed the pairwise quantum entanglement in SU(2)-invariant quantum spin systems by studying their behavior under partial transposition. As a general result, the partial transpose of an SU(2)-invariant two-spin state has the same multiplet structure and degeneracies as the original matrix with eigenvalue of largest multiplicity being non-negative. SU(2)-invariant density matrices arise from thermal equilibrium states of isotropic spin systems in sufficiently low spatial dimension. The case $`S_1=S`$, $`S_2=1/2`$ can be solved completely and is discussed in detail with respect to well-known Heisenberg spin models. Moreover, in this case the Peres-Horodecki ciriterion turns out to be a sufficient condition for non-separability. As a general trend, low spatial dimension and small lengths of the spins involved tend to facilitate the occurrence of inseparable equilibrium states. However, inseparability occurs typically only between neighboring spins in such spin lattice systems. In this sense, isotropic Heisenberg spin models do not appear to be a particularly strong source of quantum entanglement, at least as far as their equilibrium properties are concerned. Finally we have also characterized the properties of SU(2)-invariant states of two spins of length 1 under partial transposition.

###### Acknowledgements.

I thank Maciej Lewenstein and R. F. Werner for useful discussions, and Guo-Qiang Zhu for pointing out typos in the manuscript.


text:
# Interacting many-body systems as non-cooperative games

## Abstract

We explore the possibility that physical phenomena arising from interacting multi-particle systems, can be usefully interpreted in terms of multi-player games. We show how non-cooperative phenomena can emerge from Ising Hamiltonians, even though the individual spins behave cooperatively. Our findings establish a mapping between two fundamental models from condensed matter physics and game theory.

The spatial prisoner’s dilemma game of Nowak and May  showed that complex macroscopic patterns can develop and evolve in a system even when the microscopic interactions are local in space and time . This is reminiscent of the observation in multi-particle interacting systems in condensed matter physics (e.g. a spatial array of spins) whereby different macroscopic ‘phases’ can emerge. In a separate development, multi-spin models have been shown to offer new tools and viewpoints to help in understanding problems in information processing and optimization problems . Meanwhile multi-agent games have recently caught physicists’ attention via Econophysics ; just as in more conventional condensed matter systems, it has been shown that a renormalization of inter-agent interactions to form non-interacting ‘crowd-anticrowd’ clusters provides a good description of the macroscopic fluctuations . Game-theoretic language has also emerged in the quantum domain via the new field of quantum games . Of relevance to biologically-motivated physics is the finding that mesoscopic biological systems such as viruses can play games, in particular the fundamental prisoner’s dilemma game . Furthermore, it is known that such games can exhibit a variety of non-linear dynamical phenomena when evolved in time .

Given all this cirumstancial evidence, is there possibly a deeper connection between games and physical phenomena? At first sight, games and physics do appear to have some common elements: both consider collections of interacting objects following certain local rules which can give rise to a number of macroscopic configurations. However there is a fundamental problem with the analogy. Physical systems are always driven to minimize the free energy hence the global optimal solution is preferred: particles’ behavior is therefore cooperative. On the other hand, the games which are arguably most interesting and important are non-cooperative: as we explain below, this means that their Nash equilibria are not Pareto optimal.

This Letter shows that non-cooperative behavior can indeed emerge in physical systems, even with the individual particles behaving cooperatively. We specifically consider Ising spin models because they serve as basic models in condensed matter physics, and focus on the classical regime to avoid the complication of quantum entanglement . By treating each site or subset of sites in the Ising-model as a game-playing agent, we show that non-cooperative behaviour is indeed possible. In particular, we show the emergence of a prisoner’s dilemma game being ‘played’ within a multi-spin system.

We start with some necessary background material. The two-player prisoner’s dilemma game  is characterized by the following payoff matrix:

$$M:=\begin{array}{cc}& \\ (2,2)& (0,3)\\ & \\ (3,0)& (1,1)\end{array}.$$

The rows designate Rose’s choice of strategy (A or B) while the columns designate Colin’s choice of strategy (A or B). The entry $`(a,b)`$ indicates that Rose receives payoff $`a`$ while Colin receives $`b`$. A Nash equilibrium is the set of strategy choices that provides the optimal payoff for each player individually: no individual player can improve his payoff by changing strategy. There is a Nash equilibrium $`(1,1)`$ with payoffs 1 to each player. However the global or ‘Pareto’ optimum is $`(2,2)`$ wth payoffs 2 to each player. Since the players have no way of ‘planning’ coordinated moves, the system will end up choosing a payoff which is macroscopically inferior yet microscopically superior for the individual players: hence the game is *non-cooperative*. Next we motivate the introduction of game-theoretic language to a physical system, by means of the following simple example involving two spins with a ferromagnetic spin-spin interaction: $`H=2||+2||+2||2||`$. At zero temperature and at equilibrium, the system will adopt the state with the lowest energy, i.e. $`|`$ or $`|`$. (Recall we are ignoring quantum effects such as entanglement for the present discussion). The energy of the system will now be $`2`$. In comparison with the other two possible states $`(|`$ and $`|)`$, the two particles have gained in stability by losing energy. The negative form of the Hamiltonian can be used to quantify this gain (and hence loss in energy) at zero temperature. Hence the system has gained a payoff of 2 as compared to the value with the spins separated to infinity. Because of the system’s symmetry, there is no change if we exchange particles 1 and 2 – hence we quantify the gain for each particle by dividing the total gain by two. Hence particles 1 and 2 have gained a payoff of 1. With these definitions, we may use the following game payoff matrix to represent the physical system:

$$H:=\begin{array}{cc}& \\ (1,1)& (1,1)\\ & \\ (1,1)& (1,1)\end{array}$$

which has two equivalent Nash equilibria $`(1,1)`$.

We now consider the case of two more general subsystems each having two possible choices of states. These subsystems may be individual spins, blocks of spins, or more general subsets of the total many-particle system. For simplicity, we assume the two subsystems are identical in their composition. We will prove that the global optimal solutions of the total system will always be at a Nash equilibrium and hence the interesting dilemma associated with the prisoner’s game cannot unfortunately arise. We suppose that the states of subsystems 1 and 2 are completely described by the vectors $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{y}`$ respectively. A general Hamiltonian for the combined system will have the form: $`H_1+H_2+H_{12}`$ where $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ are the internal energies of the subsystems when separated (or equivalently, when the interaction is turned off) while $`H_{12}`$ is the interaction term. The symmetry within the system means that we can denote $`H_1=H_2H`$ and $`H_{12}=H_{21}I`$. The condition $`H(\stackrel{}{x})=H(\stackrel{}{y})`$ implies that no one particular state is preferred and so the two subsystems will have equal incentive to start in any of the two states before the interaction is turned on. Since the two subsystems share the payoff in the interaction term, they each have the payoff $`[H(.)I(.)/2]`$. It follows that whichever strategy they each adopt, the two subsystems will always have the same payoffs. To complete the proof, we first define the set of best replies with respect to $`\stackrel{}{y}`$ for system $`1`$ to be $`B_1(\stackrel{}{y}):=\{\stackrel{}{x}^{}:P_1(\stackrel{}{x}^{},\stackrel{}{y})P_1(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y}),\stackrel{}{x}\}`$. In words, given that system 2 has adopted state-vector $`\stackrel{}{y}`$ then the choice of state-vector $`\stackrel{}{x}^{}`$ by system 1 yields the maximum payoff $`P_1`$. The set of best replies is defined similarly for system 2. Using this notation, a Nash equilibrium represents an operator profile $`(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y})`$ for which $`\stackrel{}{x}B_1(\stackrel{}{y})`$ and $`\stackrel{}{y}B_2(\stackrel{}{x})`$. If $`(\stackrel{}{x}^{},\stackrel{}{y}^{})`$ is a global optimal state, then by definition $`\stackrel{}{x}^{}B_1(\stackrel{}{y}^{})`$ and $`\stackrel{}{y}^{}B_2(\stackrel{}{x}^{})`$ and so $`(\stackrel{}{x}^{},\stackrel{}{y}^{})`$ is a solution at Nash equilibrium. Therefore, in this ‘two-player-two-move’ symmetric scenario, the global optimal solutions are always at Nash equilibrium. We will refer to this situation as cooperative, noting that this word has a somewhat more general meaning in game theory . The above analysis indicates that any effective two-body (i.e. two-subsystem) Hamiltonion system containing just two strategies/states, is cooperative.

So can macroscopic non-cooperative behavior ever arise? We now show that it can, if the subsystem under consideration has several possible configurations and hence more states from which to choose. In particular, we will search for non-cooperative phenomena in two subsystems each containing many spins. We concentrate on the specific example of non-cooperation offered by the prisoner’s dilemma, since this is the only symmetric two-player two-strategy game with a unique Nash equilibrium which never coincides with the global optimum . We start by specifying more precisely the criterion for the existence of non-cooperative behaviour. A system composed of two-body Ising Hamiltonians such as

$$H=a(||||||+||),$$

may easily be represented as a graph. For example, consider the following graphical representation of the total Hamiltonian for a particular five-particle spin system comprising various two-body interactions:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}_1& \hfill \mathrm{}(2)\mathrm{}& _2& & \\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& & \\ (3)& & (3)& & H_5\\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& & \\ _3& \hfill \mathrm{}(2)\mathrm{}& _4& \mathrm{}(1)\mathrm{}_5\hfill & \end{array}$$

where entries in brackets denotes the $`a`$-parameters in the five-body Hamiltonian. The total Hamiltonian may then be represented by the following matrix:

$$H_5\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 2& 3& 0& 0\\ 2& 0& 0& 3& 0\\ 3& 0& 0& 2& 0\\ 0& 3& 2& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right].$$

We now consider the coexistence of two subsystems, each containing $`n`$ spins. In order that the total system can be considered as exhibiting the prisoner’s dilemma scenario, the following requirements must be met: (1) there are two locally stable states that each subsystem can be in when they are separated, i.e. in the absence of interaction terms between the subsystems; (2) when the two subsystems are put together, i.e. when the interactions between them are turned on, the final state of the two subsystems depends on the initial states of these two subsystems; (3) the final payoff for each subsystem (as defined above) must reproduce the same form as the prisoner’s dilemma payoff matrix. By symmetry, we require that the two subsystems are identical and that all interactions are invariant under the exchange of the two subsystems. Therefore, it must be possible to write the overall Hamiltonian in the following form:

$$M:=\left[\begin{array}{cc}X& Y\\ & \\ Y& X\end{array}\right],$$
(1)
where $`[X]`$ denotes the Hamiltonian for each system when isolated, and $`[Y]`$ denotes the interaction between the two subsystems. We note that $`X`$ and $`Y`$ must be symmetric matrices in order to render the resulting game symmetric. We will represent $``$ by 1 and $``$ by $`1`$ and can hence represent the state of the whole system by a string $`\delta _1\mathrm{}\delta _{2n}`$ with $`\delta _k=1`$ or $`1`$. The total energy of the system will be $`\frac{1}{2}_{i,j}\delta _i\delta _jM_{ij}`$. The payoff for subsystem 1 will be the negative of the sum corresponding to the upper half of the matrix $`M`$, while the payoff for subsystem 2 will be the negative of the sum corresponding to the lower half of the matrix $`M`$. From now on, we will use $`A`$ and $`B`$ to denote the two states corresponding to the two strategies.

With all the criteria for non-cooperativity laid out, we are now ready to discuss under what conditions non-cooperative behavior is possible. We will concentrate on the infinite-range Ising model and will look for the minimal number of restrictions for two interacting subsystems which each contain $`n`$ spins. By condition (1), we see that we need to construct two wells with the same energy at the bottom. In general, this would mean one equality and $`2n`$ inequalities. The equality comes from the equal energies for the two ground states of the subsystems before interacting, and the $`2n`$ inequalities come from the fact that the whole system is equivalent to a $`2n`$-dimensional vector space where each element has $`2n`$ neighbors in terms of Hamming distance. But since we are looking for the minimum number of restrictions, we may choose the two states corresponding to the bottoms of the two wells to be adjacent: for example, the state $`|00\mathrm{}00`$ and $`|00\mathrm{}01`$ (where for simplicity, we are now representing $``$ by 0 and $``$ by 1). In this case only one equality and $`2n2`$ inequalities need to be satisfied. However the two initial states cannot be adjacent since we do not want $`(A,A)=|00\mathrm{}00|00\mathrm{}00`$ to be adjacent to $`(A,B)=|00\mathrm{}00|00\mathrm{}01`$; if it were adjacent, then there is an incentive for the whole system to go from one configuration to another, thereby implying that the resulting game may not have well-defined payoffs. Fortunately, due to the symmetry in the Ising Hamiltonians, we may replace $`00\mathrm{}01`$ by $`11\mathrm{}10`$. Therefore, we designate $`00\mathrm{}00`$ and $`11\mathrm{}10`$ to be the two initial states (i.e. strategies) $`A`$ and $`B`$ respectively. We note that since the interactions have infinite range, it does not matter where the 1s and 0s are located. In terms of the entries in matrix (1), we have the following equalities and inequalities:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{1jn}{}}x_{nj}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{1jn}{}}x_{kj}`$ $`>`$ $`0,1kn1`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{1jn1}{}}x_{kj}x_{kn}`$ $`>`$ $`0,1kn1.`$ (4)
We now come to condition 2. In order to obtain the least number of restrictions, we again require that the state $`(A,A)`$ is at a local minimum of the whole system, which amounts to $`n`$ inequalities:

$$\underset{1jn}{}(x_{kj}+y_{kj})>0,1kn.$$
(5)
Similarly, requiring the state $`(B,B)`$ to be at local minimum means:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{1jn1}{}}(x_{kj}y_{kj})x_{kn}y_{kn}`$ $`>`$ $`0,1kn1`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{1jn1}{}}(x_{nj}y_{nj})x_{nn}+y_{nn}`$ $`>`$ $`0`$ (7)
Using Eq. 2, we can write Eq. 7 as:

$$\underset{1jn1}{}(y_{nj})+y_{nn}>0$$
(8)
If the initial state of the whole system is at state $`(A,B)`$, we then require that the first system, which is at state $`|00\mathrm{}00`$, transform itself to state $`|10\mathrm{}00`$. Therefore, the whole system will then be at state $`|10\mathrm{}00|11\mathrm{}10`$. We further require that it is at a local minimum. Hence the following inequalities apply:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{1jn1}{}}(y_{1j}x_{1j})y_{1n}`$ $`>`$ $`0`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{1jn1}{}}(x_{kj}y_{kj})+x_{kn}+y_{kn}`$ $`>`$ $`0,2kn`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{1jn1}{}}(x_{kj}y_{kj})x_{kn}y_{kn}`$ $`>`$ $`0,1kn1`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{1jn}{}}y_{nj}`$ $`>`$ $`0.`$ (12)
Finally, since the prisoner’s payoff table is desired, we need the following three inequalities concerning the payoffs in different scenarios:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{1jn}{}}y_{nj}y_{nn}`$ $`>`$ $`0`$ (13)
$`y_{n1}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{1kn1}{2jn}}{}}y_{kj}`$ $`>`$ $`0`$ (14)
$`2{\displaystyle \underset{1jn1}{}}x_{1j}+{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{2kn1}{1jn1}}{}}y_{kj}{\displaystyle \underset{2jn1}{}}y_{nj}`$ $`>`$ $`0.`$ (15)
Indeed, there are $`6n`$ inequalities and 1 equality in total. We know that if there are $`6n+1`$ arbitrary parameters, then the above system of inequalities has a solution . However by exploiting many of the redundancies inherent in the system, we will now show that only $`n+2`$ non-zero parameters are actually needed. Table 1 summarizes the ranges of these inequalities. From Table 1, we see that for $`k=1`$ we may set every parameter to zero except $`b_1,d_1`$ and $`f_1`$, which satisfy the following inequalities:

$`b_1`$ $`>`$ $`0`$ (16)
$`d_1`$ $`>`$ $`0`$ (17)
$`f_1`$ $`<`$ $`0`$ (18)
$`d_1`$ $`>`$ $`b_1+f_1.`$ (19)
For $`k=n`$, since we have set $`f_1`$ to be non-zero and $`Y`$ is symmetric, we have $`d_n=f_1`$. Hence we may now set every parameter to zero except $`d_n,e_n`$ and $`f_n`$. The following inequalities then follow:

$`e_n`$ $`>`$ $`f_1`$ (20)
$`f_n`$ $`>`$ $`0`$ (21)
$`f_n`$ $`>`$ $`e_n+f_1.`$ (22)
For $`2kn1`$, we may set all parameters to zero except $`b_k`$. Recall that we have already set $`e_n>0`$ hence we may now also set $`b_k>e_n`$. Finally, we come back to Eqs 14 and 15, which yields two further inequalities:

$`2f_1`$ $`>`$ $`e_n`$ (23)
$`2b_1`$ $`>`$ $`f_1.`$ (24)
The following form corresponds to two $`n=3`$ spin subsystems, and is one of many possible scenarios which satisfies the above requirements:

$$X:=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 2& 0\\ 2& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right];Y:=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}2& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1.5\\ 1& 1.5& 2\end{array}\right],$$

The corresponding payoff matrix is:

$$M:=\begin{array}{cc}& \\ (4.5,4.5)& (1,5)\\ & \\ (5,1)& (3.5,3.5)\end{array}.$$
(25)
By considering the number of non-zero parameters required, one can deduce that an $`n=3`$-spin subsystem ‘playing’ against another $`n=3`$-spin subsystem is the smallest total system which exhibits non-cooperative behaviour within the Ising framework: the phrase ‘two’s company but three’s a crowd’ therefore comes to mind . The above discussion has been mostly concerned with infinite-range interactions, however we note that one may also analyse the positions of the non-zero parameters in order to discuss various other models such as nearest-neighbor interaction models, etc.

We now return to discuss whether the Ising-based games considered here exhibit similar behavior to that observed in spatial games. One interesting phenomenon observed in the spatial prisoner’s game is the coexistence of different strategies up to some critical point . It turns out that this same phenomenon also occurs for our Ising games. To show this, we consider a large system with many $`n`$-spin subsystems such that each subsystem is playing a prisoner’s game with its immediate neighbors. In order that the subsystems evolve their strategies, we add in fluctuations which we assume to be thermal. At low enough temperature, only very few subsystems (which are statistically far apart) will have the chance to change their states at a given timestep. These subsystems will, with high probability, change to a state which minimizes their free energy – we assume this to be close to the energy that we use to construct the payoff matrix table. Regardless of what their neighbors’ states actually are, these subsystems will always choose state $`B`$. (If their neighbors are in state $`A`$, they can exploit their neighbors by adopting state $`B`$, whereas if their neighbors are in state $`B`$, then adopting state $`B`$ is the best they can do). We note that this is in marked contrast to previous assumptions used in spatial games , where agents were usually assumed to imitate the strategy of the best player in their neighborhood; since a subsystem cannot ‘know’ the surrounding subsystems’ payoffs, it can only maximize its own payoff given any particular situation. At low enough temperature, the whole system will evolve to the situation where every subsystem is in state $`B`$ given any initial condition. This resembles the phenomenon of condensation. By contrast, if the temperature is high enough that many subsystems are allowed to change their states simultaneously but still low enough that the free energies exhibit a payoff matrix similar to the prisoner’s dilemma (see Eq. (25)), then with high probability neighboring sites or blocks of neighboring sites may be able to change their states together. Then with high probability, the subsystems in the block will all end up in state $`A`$ because it maximizes the payoff for the whole block. Therefore at high temperature, the majority of sites will adopt state $`A`$. Just as for the spatial games considered previously in the literature, a whole spectrum of scenarios is possible for the Ising games even though the detailed dynamics of these two models may have different origins. Beside thermal fluctuations, we may also consider a fluctuation in the payoffs. In Ref. , Nowak and May used the following payoff matrix:

$$M:=\begin{array}{cc}& \\ (1,1)& (0,b)\\ & \\ (b,0)& (0,0)\end{array}$$
(26)
where $`b>1`$. They found that a region where the coexistence of both strategies is encouraged, appears for $`1.8<b<2`$. In our Ising games, this is also what one expects to happen: when $`b`$ is close to the prescribed range, the configurations $`(A,A),(A,B)`$ and $`(B,A)`$ will all have similar global energies, hence all three configurations are preferred at high enough temperature such that neighboring subsystems can evolve together. This similarity in the region of interest further strengthens the tie between spatial games and condensed matter systems.

Finally we note that the kind of fluctuation considered here is different from the conventional models considered in the fluctuating systems literature associated with spin glasses and other condensed matter systems. Instead it is usually assumed that given enough time, a system will achieve equilibrium: the fluctuation of the whole system is taken to mean that the subsystems fluctuate as well, hence the whole system has an incentive to move to equilibrium. Here we encounter something different: given the initial conditions, some subsystems can actually benefit from the fluctuation and so have no incentive to increase the global payoff. For more general models, such as the Heisenberg model, one would expect quantum fluctuations to play an essential role, thereby suggesting a possible future role for quantum game theory .