text:
# Isospin model for suppression of charge order in hole- doped NaV2O5

## I Introduction

The layered perovskite NaV2O5 shows an interesting interplay between charge ordering (CO) of 3d- electrons on the rungs of V-V ladders and a spin- Peierls transition associated with spin gap formation first observed in  below Tc= 34 K. This transition is associated with a distortion of the high temperature orthorhombic structure of NaV2O5 . The latter can be viewed as Trellis lattice with ab- planes stacked along c. They consist of ladders with V-O-V rungs (inset of Fig. 1) shifted alternatingly along b by half a lattice constant. The precise low temperature structure is still controversial with the proposed models differing in the number of inequivalent V and Na sites and an associated charge ordering on each or only on every second ladder. The slow progress and ambiguity of experimental results has hindered theoretical understanding considerably. However it has become clear now that there is a close connection between charge ordering on the V-V rungs and exchange dimerisation on the ladders which leads to the spin gap formation directly seen in inelastic neutron scattering. It was realized early on that the CO on the V- rungs may be described within an Ising model in a transverse field (ITP) where the isospin (S=$`\frac{1}{2}`$) represents the charge degree of freedom on the V-V rung with inter- site Coulomb forces correspond to Ising interactions and the intra-rung hopping to a transverse field. This is due to the charge transfer (CT) gap of $``$ 0.4-0.5 eV  which leads to an insulating state of NaV2O5 despite having only one 3d- electron per rung (quarter-filled ladders). Therefore only singly occupied rungs have to be considered which may be represented by an isospin and the real spin. A detailed model of the combined Ising- spin Peierls system and its phase transitions has been discussed in .

The charge ordering in a Trellis lattice compound is severely hindered by frustration of inter-site Coulomb forces which is directly obvious in the Ising model representation. In fact on a rigid lattice CO would be prohibited since the lattice of V-V rungs corresponds to a trigonal covering lattice of Ising spins. The simultaneous structural distortion at Tc reduces the frustration by leading to inequivalent adjacent ladders. The driving mechanism for the transition are inter- site Coulomb interactions and exchange-striction. The gain in Coulomb energy (Vb) by complete CO in a rung is in competition with the loss of intra-rung kinetic energy (ta), the control parameter for CO is therefore $`\lambda `$ =$`2t_a/V_b`$ (for convenience the inverse definition of  is used here). The very low CO transition temperature suggest that in NaV2O5 one is close to the quantum critical point $`\lambda _c`$=1 of the corresponding ITP model. The charge ordering is then essentially of 1D Ising type, this means one has long range correlations along the ladder and no correlations between them, this was indeed obtained in exact diagonalisation studies of the ITP. The ordering may then be viewed as arising from Ising like correlations along the chain which lead to a true 2D broken symmetry state at finite T due to a staggered longitudinal Ising field set up by the distortion of the neighboring ladders .

In this context it is suggestive that even small perturbations of the 1D Ising correlations might reduce or destroy the CO state in NaV2O5 . This can be achieved by reducing the filling factor n of the 1D ladders below $`\frac{1}{4}`$ by doping with holes. This introduces ”empty” rungs into the ladder which cut the Ising bonds. The ensuing destruction of long range 1D correlations should then strongly reduce Tc as function of the hole concentration $`\delta `$ (n=$`\frac{1}{4}`$-$`\delta `$). This has indeed been found by introducing holes in the ladders through Na- deficiency doping  where a few per cent holes are sufficient to destroy the CO state and the associated spin Peierls transition. Rapid suppression of charge order has also been found in various other doping series, i.e. replacing Na by Li and K (isoelectronic) or Ca (electron-doping).  This may be observed directly by specific heat measurements which show a progressive suppression of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$C(Tc) with increasing doping. It is also seen in the susceptibility which shows a closing of the CO induced spin gap.

Most importantly in this doping range NaV2O5 remains an insulator which is not easy to understand within a Hubbard like model for the quarter filled ladder, possibly 1D loalization effects play a role, indeed the conductivity was found to exhibit variable range hopping behaviour for hole doping. The notion that charge ordering Tc is reduced because doping creates empty rungs which cut the Ising bonds along the ladder is however completely static and invokes a disordered state. It lacks the important ingredient of kinetic energy gain due to the hopping of holes between adjacent rungs leading to a homogeneous state. This problem has sofar not been considered theoretically.

In this work we will give a more solid theoretical basis for the influence of hole doping on CO in NaV2O5 . This will again be done in the context of an effective isospin approach. In sect. II we give the basics of the electronic structure of NaV2O5 and discuss the isospin model for the undoped case in sect. III. Subsequently in sect. IV we show that even in the doped case the low energy Hamiltonian may be projected to an effective Ising type form, albeit with an Ising spin T=1 to accomodate the holes on empty rungs. In sect. V we discuss how order parameter, kinetic energy and chemical potential (doping level) are represented in the isospin formalism and their respective coupled mean field equations in the ground state in sect. VI. They are solved in sect. VII numerically and we discuss the variation of the CO parameter with the control parameter $`\lambda `$ and the hole doping $`\delta `$ which leads to the zero temperature CO phase diagram. Finally sect. VIII gives summary and outlook.

## II Electronic structure of NaV2O5

The electronic structure of the charge transfer insulator NaV2O5 has been investigated within the LDA and LDA+U approach respectively. A mapping of the resulting band structure to an extended tight binding (TB) model involving both V 3d and O 2p orbitals has also been performed and an excellent fitting of the LDA+U bandstructure was obtained. For our present purpose it is sufficient to use a reduced TB model involving only V 3dxy orbitals. The hopping elements involved in this model are defined in Fig. 1. There are four V atoms in the unit cell resulting in two 3dxy occupied valence and two empty 3dxy conduction bands separated by a charge transfer gap of about 0.3 meV which is largely determined by the effective intra- rung hopping ta. In the effective TB model this gap may be interpreted as bonding- antibonding gap of V 3dxy orbitals of a rung. Furthermore the valence and conduction band are each almost twofold degenerate due to the weak hopping between ladders. The 3dxy bonding bands have a considerable dispersion of order tb+td along the b- direction while the dispersion tb-td of 3dxy antibonding bands is almost zero due to accidental near equality t$`{}_{b}{}^{}t_d`$.

## III The isospin model Hamiltonian for undoped NaV2O5

The basic many body Hamiltonian describing NaV2O5 is of the single band (3dxy) extended Hubbard type . As shown in , due to the presence of a CT gap the charge degrees of freedom may be represented by an effective ITP Hamiltonian (T=$`\frac{1}{2}`$) which is obtained by projecting the original Hamiltonian to the subspace of singly occupied rungs. The states $`|\frac{1}{2}`$, $`|\frac{1}{2}`$ of the T=$`\frac{1}{2}`$ isospin describes occupied dxy\- orbitals on the left and right V atom of each rung respectively. A simplified version of the resulting ITP Hamiltonian for a single ladder is given by

$`H_{ITP}`$ $`=`$ $`2V_b{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}[T_{zi}T_{zj}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}]2t_a{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}T_{ix}`$ (2)
$`h_s^0{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(1)^iT_{zi}`$
Here ta is the hopping across the rung and Vb the Coulomb interaction along the leg of a ladder. The last term is due to a staggered longitudinal isospin field hsi =(-1)ih$`{}_{}{}^{0}{}_{s}{}^{}`$ which simulates the influence of the neighboring ladders. For $`\lambda `$ = 2ta/V$`{}_{b}{}^{}<\lambda _c`$=1 one obtains an AF ordering of isospins which corresponds to the zig-zag ordering of 3d- electrons on the ladder as illustrated in Fig. 1. It was shown in  that the interaction parameters in Eq. 2 are renormalized by virtual processes via doubly occupied rungs or sites which depends on the spin state. This leads to a coupling of isospin (charge) and spin degrees of freedom whose contribution is neglected here.

The zig-zag CO in a ladder is characterized by the order parameter $`T_{zi}=(1)^ix`$ at zero temperature with ($`\lambda `$1)

$$x=\left[1\left(\frac{\lambda }{\lambda _c}\right)^2\right]^\beta $$
(3)
The exact solution of the 1D ITF model has the exponent $`\beta =\frac{1}{8}`$ and $`\lambda _c`$=1. It is understood that an infinitesimal staggered field hsi has to be applied to lift the twofold degeneracy of the ordered ground state. A truncated mean field (mf) approximation suppressing double counting of bonds in the molecular field leads to a critical value $`\lambda _c`$=1. This is the same quantum critical point that separates the CO ($`\lambda <`$1) phase from the disordered phase ($`\lambda >`$1) as for the exact solution. Naturally the mf critical OP exponent $`\beta =\frac{1}{2}`$ is different.

## IV T=1 isospin model for doped NaV2O5

The charge ordering described by the ITP model and its implications for the (spin-) superexchange have been described in detail in . In the present work we want to investigate whether the convenient and physically appealing isospin approach for CO in NaV2O5 can also be applied to the hole doped compound to study the suppression of CO. For this purpose the hole states, that is empty V-V rungs with zero 3d- occupation, also have to be represented by an isospin degree of freedom. As in the stoichiometric case doubly occupied rung states either have a large charge transfer energy (ta) or a large on-site Coulomb repulsion and therefore contribute only as intermediate states by renormalizing the interaction parameters of the effective Hamiltonian. Thus the model has to incorporate three basis states, two singly occupied and one empty rung state which suggests to use a T=1 isospin instead of T=$`\frac{1}{2}`$ for the stoichiometric ($`\delta `$=0) case. The mapping of electronic states to isospin states for rung i is then defined as

$`|T_z=1_i`$ $`=`$ $`|10_i=c_{Li}^{}|00_i`$ (4)
$`|T_z=0_i`$ $`=`$ $`|00_i`$ (5)
$`|T_z=1_i`$ $`=`$ $`|01_i=c_{Ri}^{}|00_i`$ (6)
with $`|00_i`$ denoting the empty rung state. We first express the inter- rung Coulomb energy already present in Eq. (2) in the above extended isospin basis. The projectors to this basis may be written in terms of the T=1 isospin operators T= (Tx,Ty,Tz) as

$`P_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}T_z(T_z+1)`$ (7)
$`P_R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}T_z(T_z1)`$ (8)
$`P_0`$ $`=`$ $`1T_z^2`$ (9)
where P0+P1=1 and P1=PL+PR holds. The other projector properties P0P1= P1P0=0 and P$`{}_{\lambda }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$= Pλ ($`\lambda `$=0,L,R) are easily verified. Using these projection operators the intra- ladder Coulomb interactions Vb between adjacent rungs i,j may be represented by the Hamiltonian

$`H_C(i,j)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(V_b+V_d)T_{zi}^2T_{zj}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(V_bV_d)T_{zi}T_{zj}`$ (10)
Compared to the T=$`\frac{1}{2}`$ case of Eq. (2) HC also contains now biquadratic terms in the isospin. Similarly we construct the intra- rung kinetic energy responsible for the charge transfer gap. Since the R,L- occupation of each rung is now described by $`|T_z=\pm 1`$ respectively the intra-rung hopping term must change the isospin by $`\pm `$2 units. The corresponding rung Hamiltonian then reads

$`H_K(i)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}t_a(T_{+i}^2+T_i^2)=t_a(T_{xi}^2T_{yi}^2)`$ (11)
which should be compared to the second term in Eq. (2) for T=$`\frac{1}{2}`$. Finally there has to be an additional term describing the hole kinetic energy, i.e. when the empty rung (Fig.1) is shifted along the ladder direction. Such processes are described by inter- rung terms like

$`H_K^{}(i,j)`$ $`=`$ $`2t_+[O_{zy}(i)O_{zy}^{}(j)+O_{zy}^{}(i)O_{zy}(j)]`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`2t_{}[O_{zx}(i)O_{zx}^{}(j)+O_{zx}^{}(i)O_{zx}(j)]`$ (13)
with i,j denoting rungs along the ladder. Here t±=$`\frac{1}{2}`$(t$`{}_{b}{}^{}\pm `$td) and Ozy=iTzTy and Ozx=TzTx may be interpreted as a quadrupolar operator in the T=1 isospin space. In the following we consider only the special case t$`{}_{b}{}^{}`$ td which is appropriate for NaV2O5 . Then the second term above vanishes and the total T=1 model Hamiltonian for the doped ladder now reads

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[ϵT_{zi}^2+t_a(T_{xi}^2T_{yi}^2)h_{si}^0T_{zi}]`$ (16)
$`+2t_b{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}[O_{zy}^iO_{zy}^j+O_{zy}^iO_{zy}^j]`$
$`+V_{}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}T_{zi}T_{zj}+V_+{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}T_{zi}^2T_{zj}^2`$
Here $`ϵ`$ is the on-site orbital energy and h$`{}_{s}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$(i)= h$`{}_{s}{}^{0}(1)_{}^{i}`$ is again a staggered field due to the influence of neighboring ladders, $`ij`$ denotes n.n. rungs along the ladder. Furthermore we have defined V$`{}_{\pm }{}^{}=\frac{1}{2}(V_b\pm V_d)`$. If we neglect the ladder diagonal Coulomb interaction (V$`{}_{d}{}^{}`$0) then V±=$`\frac{1}{2}`$Vb leading to a single control parameter $`\lambda `$= 2ta/Vb. Although we expect the isospin model a convenient framework to discuss the energetics of charge ordering as function of doping it can however not give answer to the question why the doped system stays an insulator, for this problem one also has to include the doubly occupied rung states. It was argued in  that even under a finite charge transfer between ladders, i.e. deviations from quarter-filling, an insulating state can be expected for the relevant hopping and interaction parameters realised in NaV2O5 .

## V Charge order parameter, doping and ’chemical potential’

It is obvious that the model defined by eq. 16 is much more complex due to the additional hole state (Tz=0) and has no exact 1D solution like the T=$`\frac{1}{2}`$ ITF model. As mentioned previously the truncated mf approximation for the charge order parameter of the ITF model has the same quantum critical point $`\lambda _c`$=1 as the exact solution. It is therefore plausible that a mf treatment of Eq. 16 in the doped case still gives a qualitatively correct picture for the conditions of charge ordering. As in the ITF case the order parameter for V$`{}_{b}{}^{}>`$Vd should be staggered, i.e zig-zag CO should be realized, then for the two sublattices we have

$`x=T_{zA}=T_{zB}`$ (17)
Now x not only depends on the control parameter $`\lambda `$=2ta/Vb but also on the number of holes or unoccupied rungs. The representation of the hole number operator in fermionic and isospin language is given by

$`\widehat{\delta }_i`$ $`=`$ $`1\widehat{n}_i=1c_{Li}^{}c_{Li}c_{Ri}^{}c_{Ri}`$ (18)
$`\widehat{\delta }_i`$ $`=`$ $`1P_{iL}P_{iR}=1T_{zi}^2`$ (19)
so that the hole concentration is obtained as

$`\delta =1T_z^2`$ (20)
Since it is externally fixed by the level of doping the local orbital energy has to be adjusted selfconsistently for each parameter set such that $`\delta `$ is obtained. This can be done by adding a ’chemical potential’ , i.e. replacing $`ϵϵ\mu `$. For each microscopic parameter set and order parameter x, the chemical potential $`\mu `$ has to be adjusted appropriately to obtain the physical hole number.

## VI Mean field approximation and solution for CO

The usefulness of a simple mf solution relies on the Ising type nature of the present model. In this approximation the doping term $`t_b`$ in Eq. 16 simplifies considerably using Ozy+O$`{}_{zy}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ = Tx and Ozy-O$`{}_{zy}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$=iTy, we obtain

$`H_{Kmf}^{}(i)`$ $`=`$ $`2t_b[O_{zy}O_{yz}+O_{yz}O_{zy}]`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`t_b(T_xT_x(i)+T_yT_y(i))`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`t_bT(\mathrm{cos}\varphi T_x+\mathrm{sin}\varphi T_y)`$ (23)
where $`T`$=$`\sqrt{T_x^2+T_y^2}`$ and $`\varphi `$ which is given by $`\mathrm{tan}^1\varphi `$=$`T_y`$/$`T_x`$ is an arbitrary angle which may be chosen as $`\varphi `$=0. Then only $`T_x`$ appears and the quantity W= t$`{}_{b}{}^{}T_x`$ may be interpreted as the average inter- rung hopping amplitude of the hole. Together with the remaining terms in Eq. 16 we get the following rung mf Hamiltonian for A,B sublattices:

$`H_A^{mf}`$ $`=`$ $`[ϵ+V_+(1\delta )\mu ]T_{zA}^2t_a(T_{xA}^2T_{yA}^2)`$ (25)
$`(h_s^0+V_{}x)T_{zA}WT_{xA}`$
$`H_B^{mf}`$ $`=`$ $`[ϵ+V_+(1\delta )\mu ]T_{zB}^2t_a(T_{xB}^2T_{yB}^2)`$ (27)
$`+(h_s^0+V_{}x)T_{zB}WT_{xB}`$
The effective mf orbital energies and staggered fields are then given by

$`\widehat{ϵ}=ϵ\mu +V_+(1\delta )`$ (28)
$`h_s=h_s^0+V_{}x`$ (29)
In the T=1 isospin space the mf Hamiltonian for A,B sublattices can explicitly be written as

$`H_{A,B}^{mf}=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\widehat{ϵ}h_s& W/\sqrt{2}& t_a& \\ W/\sqrt{2}& 0& W/\sqrt{2}& \\ t_a& W/\sqrt{2}& \widehat{ϵ}\pm h_s& \end{array}\right)`$ (30)
where A,B corresponds to upper and lower signs respectively. These equations have to be selfconsistently solved for the charge order parameter x, keeping the hole concentration fixed by varying the chemical potential $`\mu `$. Only the T=0 case is considered, then the expectation values $`X=\psi _0^{mf}|X|\psi _0^{mf}`$ are obtained from the ground state $`\psi _0^{mf}`$ solution of Eq. 30. For the actual calculation, in addition to assuming t$`{}_{a}{}^{}`$ td which has been justified in , we take for simplicity $`V_d`$ 0. If we suppress the hole hopping described by the matrix elements $``$W for the moment, the Tz=0 and T$`{}_{z}{}^{}=\pm 1`$ subspaces disconnect and the mf ground state and its energy of the isolated rungs can be written explicitly as

$`E_0`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{ϵ}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ)^2+(2t_a)^2}`$ (31)
$`|\psi _0^{mf}_i`$ $`=`$ $`u_{1i}|1+u_{2i}|1`$ (32)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ`$=Vbx is the splitting of L,R orbital energies and the staggered mf coefficients are given by

$$u_{1,2i}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\left[1\pm \frac{(1)^i\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_i}{\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ)^2+(2t_a)^2}}\right]}$$
(33)
When the effect of hole hopping along the legs (W$`>0`$) is now included the mf eigenstates will be mixtures of the isolated rung states $`|\psi _0^{mf}_i`$ and the hole state $`|0_i`$. The hole concentration is then given by

$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`1\psi _0^{mf}|T_z^2|\psi _0^{mf}`$ (34)
The new mf- ground state energy, its wave function and associatied expectation values of Tx, Tz and T$`{}_{z}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ then have to be calculated selfconsistently from Eq. 30. The numerical results will be discussed in the next section.

## VII Numerical solution, doping dependence of CO and phase diagram

In this section the numerical results for the above model will be presented. The main goal is the determination of the charge order parameter x($`\delta ,\lambda `$) as function of the hole concentration $`\delta `$ and the control parameter $`\lambda `$= 2ta/Vb. To achieve a given hole number $`\delta `$= 1-$`T_z^2`$ the ’chemical potential’ $`\mu `$ has to be adjusted selfconsistently together with the determination of the order parameter x=$`T_z`$ and the normalized kinetic energy $`T_x`$=W/tb. Physically $`\mu `$ corresponds to an orbital energy shift of the empty and singly occupied rung states. This energy shift together with the mf eigenvalues of Eq. 30 as function of the control parameter $`\lambda `$ is shown in Fig. 1 for $`\delta `$=0.09.

The corresponding variation of the charge order parameter x for several hole concentrations is shown in Fig. 2. As the hole concentration increases our results show the expected qualitative behaviour: i) the CO even for large Vb (small $`\lambda `$) is no longer complete due to the presence of empty rung states and its variation with $`\lambda `$ becomes essentially flat. ii) the critical value $`\lambda _c`$ for the CO transition to appear is reduced from the value $`\lambda _c`$=1 of the undoped ITF model. In addition the kinetic energy $`T_x`$ is shown. It increases almost linearly with $`\lambda `$= 2ta/Vb and rapidly with the hole concentration.

The complementary reduction of charge order as function of the hole concentration for constant $`\lambda `$ is shown in Fig. 3. Most significantly for small $`\delta `$ one observes a rapid reduction of the CO- parameter with increasing hole concentration. The slope of this reduction increases even further when $`\lambda `$ approaches the quantum critical point $`\lambda _c`$=1 of CO from below. This is shown in more detail in the inset of Fig. 3. The origin of this drastic reduction of CO for small $`\delta `$ lies in the rapid increase of hole kinetic energy with doping as can bee seen in the lower panel of Fig. 3.

Our results shown in Fig. 3 describe qualitatively correct the experimental situation, namely a destruction of the CO state in NaV2O5 by a few percent hole doping . For example assuming a value $`\lambda `$ =0.95 close to $`\lambda _c`$ =1 one obtains a critical concentration $`\delta `$ = 0.03. The maximum size of CO at $`\delta `$=0 for this $`\lambda `$\- value is already considerably reduced to x$`{}_{0}{}^{}`$ 0.3. The experimental value of the nominal hole concentration for suppression of CO in Na- deficient NaV2O5 is indeed about $`\delta `$ = 0.03.

Finally we summarize the results of our calculations in Fig. 4 which shows the phase diagram of CO in the ($`\delta `$,$`\lambda `$)- plane and the size of the charge order parameter x as a contour plot in the ordered regime.

## VIII Summary and Oulook

In this work we have proposed an extended isospin approach proposed in  to the charge ordering transition in Na- deficient (hole-doped) NaV2O5 . The additional hole (empty rung) state can be acommodated within a T=1 isospin as the Tz=0 component wheras the (left and right) occupied rung states are represented by the T$`{}_{z}{}^{}=\pm `$1 components. The effective isospin Hamiltonian for the doped system is of more complex type than the simple T=$`\frac{1}{2}`$ ITF model in the undoped case due to the existence of biquadratic terms. Contrary to the ITF model there is no exact solution. However it was argued that a mf treatment of the extended model for the doped ladder still gives a qualitatively correct description of charge order and its destruction by doping.

Indeed it was found that the CO ground state is rapidly destroyed by hole doping and the size of the slope of the order parameter reduction -dx/d$`\delta `$ increases strongly when one approaches the quantum critical point ($`\lambda `$ 1) which corresponds qualitatively to the observed behaviour in NaV2O5 . A phase diagram in the doping($`\delta `$) \- control parameter ($`\lambda `$) plane was derived showing the evolution of the charge order parameter.

Naturally the present model should be investigated beyond the present mf approximation. As shown in the case of the ITF model for pure NaV2O5  the exact diagonalisation Lanczos approach of finite ladders or clusters with the Trellis lattice structure is a powerful method to gain more insight into the appearance of charge order. It can also be used for the present extended T=1 isospin model of hole- doped NaV2O5 .

Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank A. Bernert, Y. Jang, A. Yaresko and V. Yushankhai for useful discussions and remarks.


format: text

text:
# Quantum coadjoint orbits of 𝐺𝐿(𝑛) and generalized Verma modules

## 1 Introduction

Amongst Poisson manifolds with symmetries the simplest and the most natural one is the dual space $`𝔤^{}`$ to a Lie algebra $`𝔤`$. The Poisson structure on $`𝔤^{}`$ is induced by the Lie bracket of $`𝔤`$ considered as a bivector field on $`𝔤^{}`$. The symplectic leaves of $`𝔤^{}`$ are precisely the coadjoint orbits of the corresponding Lie group $`G`$. The restriction of the Poisson-Lie structure from $`𝔤^{}`$ to an orbit is called the Kirillov-Kostant-Souriau (KKS) bracket. Importance of this bracket is accounted for the fact that every $`G`$-homogeneous symplectic manifold is locally isomorphic to a $`G`$-coadjoint orbit via the moment map. Construction of $`G`$-equivariant quantization of the KKS bracket is a classic problem of the deformation quantization theory, \[BFlFrLSt\].

By a quantization of a manifold $`M`$ we mean a flat $`[[t]]`$-algebra $`𝒜_t(M)`$ with an isomorphism $`𝒜_t(M)/t𝒜_t(M)𝒜(M)`$, where $`𝒜(M)`$ is the function algebra on $`M`$. A quantization of a $`G`$-space $`M`$ is called equivariant if $`G`$ acts on $`𝒜_t(M)`$ by algebra automorphisms and that action extends the original action of $`G`$ on $`𝒜(M)`$. There are various approaches to quantization of Poisson manifolds. One of them, the $``$-product, presents a deformed multiplication in $`𝒜(M)_{}[[t]]`$ (the tensor product is completed in the $`t`$-adic topology) as a formal $`t`$-series with coefficients being bi-differential operators. Famous Fedosov’s construction guarantees existence of an equivariant $``$-product on a symplectic manifold with a $`G`$-invariant connection. However, Fedosov’s quantization is not given by an explicit formula for a particular manifold. Another approach to quantization is to describe the algebra $`𝒜_t(M)`$ in terms of generators and relations. While associativity holds by the very construction and $`G`$-equivariance can be easily guaranteed, the principal difficulty is to ensure flatness of an algebra built in such a way.

There is a universal approach to equivariant quantization of semisimple coadjoint orbits of complex reductive Lie groups which is based on generalized Verma modules, \[DGS\]. By a generalized Verma module $`V_{𝔭,\lambda }`$ we mean the left $`𝒰(𝔤)`$-module $`𝒰(𝔤)_{𝒰(𝔭)}_\lambda `$, where $`𝔭𝔤`$ is a parabolic subalgebra and $`_\lambda `$ is a one-dimensional representation of $`𝒰(𝔭)`$. It is generated by a $`𝔭`$-character $`\lambda `$, which can be identified with a certain element of $`𝔤^{}`$. The approach of \[DGS\] presents a quantized orbit as a subalgebra of endomorphisms of a generalized Verma module. Consider the Lie algebra $`𝔤_t`$ over $`[t]`$ which coincides with $`𝔤[t]`$ as a $`[t]`$-module and whose Lie bracket $`[.,.]_t`$ extends from the bracket of $`𝔤`$: $`[x,y]_t=t[x,y]`$ for all $`x,y𝔤`$. The universal enveloping algebra $`𝒰(𝔤_t)`$ is a $`G`$-equivariant quantization of the polynomial algebra on $`𝔤^{}`$. There is a family of isomorphisms $`𝒰(𝔤_t)𝒰(𝔤)`$ at $`t0`$ (this extends to a natural embedding of $`[t]`$-algebras) such that the image of the composite map $`𝒰(𝔤_t)𝒰(𝔤)\mathrm{End}(V_{𝔭,\lambda /t})`$ gives an equivariant quantization of the orbit passing through $`\lambda `$.

The approach of \[DGS\] also presents quantized orbits as quotients of $`𝒰(𝔤_t)`$. This fact was used in \[DM2\] for explicit description of quantized semisimple $`GL(n)`$-orbits in terms of generators and relations. There was built a $`[t]`$-algebra $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$ giving quantization of the polynomial algebra on the orbit of matrices with eigenvalues $`\mu =(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _k)`$ of multiplicities $`𝕞=(m_1,\mathrm{},m_k)`$. The algebra $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$ is a quotient of $`𝒰\left(𝔤_t\right)`$ by a certain ideal whose generators are given explicitly. This ideal can be realized (not uniquely) as the annihilator of a generalized Verma module $`V_{𝔭,\lambda /t}`$, where $`𝔭`$ and $`\lambda `$ depend on $`𝐦`$, $`\mu `$, and $`t`$. In the present paper, we find this dependence explicitly.

Our first result is the following. We relate the two approaches to equivariant quantization of semisimple orbits: the quantization via generalized Verma modules and the one in terms of generators and relations.

As our second result, we describe the annihilator of a generalized Verma module $`V_{𝔭,\lambda }`$ for generic $`\lambda `$ as an ideal in $`𝒰(𝔤)`$ by presenting its set of generators.

As an application, we classify all finite dimensional representations of the algebras $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$ for fixed $`𝐦`$, $`\mu `$, and $`t`$. We show that they all are factored through generalized Verma modules. For a finite dimensional representation to exist, the numbers $`(\mu _i\mu _j)/t`$ should satisfy certain integral conditions. When $`\mu `$ is fixed, the dimension of representations grows as the deformation parameter $`t`$ tends to zero. This process yields ”fuzzyfication” for semisimple orbits of $`GL(n)`$. Let us note that a reversed approach from fuzzy geometry to $``$-product quantization was used for quantization of grassmanian spaces in \[DolJ\]. For applications of fuzzy geometry to theoretical physics see e.g. \[ARSch\].

As another application, we construct real forms $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$ that are compatible with the standard real forms of $`gl(n)`$.

Finally, we show that special rational functions defining the central character of a quantum orbit, \[DM2\], give the Connes index for the basic quantum homogeneous vector bundles on the orbit.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sections 2 and 3 we recall respectively the quantization via generalized Verma modules and the quantization in terms of generators and relations. The correspondence between these two approaches is established in Section 4. Subsection 4.6 is devoted to finite-dimensional representations of the algebras $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$. In Section 5 we construct real forms on $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$. In Subsection 6.2, we compute the non-commutative Connes index for the case of two-parameter quantization of \[DM2\]. In Appendix we deduce an explicit polynomial expression for the central characters of quantum orbits.

## 2 Quantization via generalized Verma modules.

###### 2.1.

Consider a complex reductive Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ and let $`G`$ be the corresponding connected Lie group. The dual space $`𝔤^{}`$ is a Poisson $`G`$-manifold endowed with the standard Poisson-Lie structure induced by the Lie bracket of $`𝔤`$. This bracket can be restricted to every orbit of $`G`$ in $`𝔤^{}`$ making it a homogeneous symplectic manifold. That symplectic structure is called Kirillov-Kostant-Souriau bracket. An element from $`𝔤^{}`$ is called semisimple if it is the image of a semisimple element under the $`G`$-equivariant isomorphism $`𝔤𝔤^{}`$ via a non-degenerate ad-invariant inner product on $`𝔤`$. An orbit is called semisimple if it passes through a semisimple element.

Semisimple coadjoint orbits are closed affine varieties in $`𝔤^{}`$. By the (polynomial) function algebra on a subvariety $`M𝔤^{}`$ we mean the algebra $`𝒜(M)`$ consisting of restrictions of polynomial functions on $`𝔤^{}`$. In the present paper a quantization of $`M`$ is a flat333By flatness of a $`[t]`$-module we mean flatness of its $`t`$-adic completion over $`[[t]]`$. $`[t]`$-algebra $`𝒜_t(M)`$ together with an isomorphism $`\kappa :𝒜_t(M)/t𝒜_t(M)𝒜(M)`$. The quantization is called $`G`$-equivariant if there is a $`G`$-action on $`𝒜_t(M)`$ by algebra automorphisms, an extension of the natural action on $`𝒜(M)`$. Such an action gives rise to a Hopf algebra action of $`𝒰(𝔤)`$,

$$x(ab)=(xa)b+a(xb),x𝔤,a,b𝒜_t(M),$$

and vice versa, so we also call a $`G`$-equivariant quantization $`𝒰(𝔤)`$-equivariant.

###### 2.2.

Let $`𝔥`$ be a Cartan subalgebra in $`𝔤`$ and $`𝔤=𝔫^{}𝔥𝔫^+`$ a triangular decomposition relative to $`𝔥`$. Let $`𝔭`$ be a parabolic subalgebra in $`𝔤`$ containing $`𝔥`$ and $`𝔫^+`$ and let $`𝔩`$ be its Levi factor. The projection $`𝔤𝔥`$ along the triangular decomposition gives rise to an embedding $`𝔥^{}𝔤^{}`$. Denote by $`𝔠`$ the center of $`𝔩`$; then $`𝔠^{}`$ is identified with the annihilator of $`[𝔩,𝔩]`$ in $`𝔥^{}`$ via decomposition $`𝔥=[𝔩,𝔩]𝔥𝔠`$. Any $`\lambda 𝔠^{}`$ defines a one-dimensional representation $`_\lambda `$ of $`𝔭𝔩`$, which extends to a representation of the universal enveloping algebra $`𝒰(𝔭)`$. By definition, the generalized Verma module $`V_{𝔭,\lambda }`$ is the left $`𝒰(𝔤)`$-module $`𝒰(𝔤)_{𝒰(𝔭)}_\lambda `$. When $`𝔭`$ coincides with the Borel subalgebra $`𝔟=𝔥𝔫^+`$, $`V_{𝔟,\lambda }`$ is the ordinary Verma module, i.e. the maximal object in the category of $`𝒰(𝔤)`$-modules with the highest weight $`\lambda `$.

Denote by $`𝔤_t`$ the Lie algebra over $`[t]`$ which coincides with $`𝔤[t]`$ as a $`[t]`$-module and equipped with the Lie bracket $`[x,y]_t=t[x,y]`$ for all $`x,y𝔤`$. The universal enveloping algebra $`𝒰(𝔤_t)`$ is a $`G`$-equivariant quantization of $`𝔤^{}`$. If $`𝔳`$ is a subspace in $`𝔤`$, we put $`𝔳_t=𝔳[t]𝔤[t]`$. Given a parabolic subalgebra $`𝔭_t𝔤_t`$ and its character $`\lambda `$ (one dimensional representation on $`[t]`$) we denote by $`V_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$ the $`𝒰(𝔤_t)`$-module $`𝒰(𝔤_t)_{𝒰(𝔭_t)}[t]`$ and call it a generalized Verma module over $`𝒰(𝔤_t)`$.

Introduce the subset $`𝔠_{reg}^{}`$ of elements in $`𝔠^{}𝔥^{}`$ whose stabilizer in $`𝔤`$ is $`𝔩𝔠`$. We call such elements regular. The set $`𝔠_{reg}^{}`$ is a dense cone in $`𝔠^{}`$. Let us fix an element $`\lambda 𝔠_{reg}^{}`$.

###### Theorem 2.1 (\[DGS\]).

The image $`𝒜_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$ of $`𝒰(𝔤_t)`$ in $`\mathrm{End}(V_{𝔭_t,\lambda })`$ is a $`G`$-equivariant quantization of the KKS bracket on the semisimple orbit $`O_\lambda 𝔤^{}`$ passing through $`\lambda `$.

Let $`𝒥_{𝔭_t,\lambda }𝒰(𝔤_t)`$ denote the annihilator of the module $`V_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$. Theorem 2.1 says that the $`G`$-equivariant quantization of a semisimple orbit $`O_\lambda `$ can be realized as a quotient of the algebra $`𝒰(𝔤_t)`$ by the ideal $`𝒥_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$.

## 3 Explicit quantization for the $`GL(n)`$-case

###### 3.1.

From now on $`𝔤`$ stands for the Lie algebra $`gl(n)`$ of the complex general linear group $`G=GL(n)`$. Let us specialize the definitions of the previous subsection to this case. The Cartan subalgebra $`𝔥`$ is chosen to be the subalgebra of diagonal matrices; the nilpotent subalgebras $`𝔫^\pm `$ consist of respectively upper- and lower-triangular matrices. Using the trace pairing, we identify the dual space $`𝔤^{}`$ with $`\mathrm{End}(^n)`$ and $`𝔥^{}`$ with the subspace of diagonal matrices in $`\mathrm{End}(^n)`$; the coadjoint action of the group $`G`$ on $`𝔤^{}`$ becomes the similarity transformation under this identification.

Let us define the set $`\{n:k\}^k`$ of $`k`$-tuples $`𝐦=(m_1,\mathrm{},m_k)`$ such that $`0m_i`$ and $`m_1+\mathrm{}+m_k=n`$; the subset $`\{n:k\}_+\{n:k\}`$ consists of $`𝐦`$ with all $`m_i`$ positive. Let $`_{reg}^k`$ denote the subspace in $`^k`$ of $`\mu =(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _k)`$ with pairwise distinct $`\mu _i`$.

The Levi subalgebra $`𝔩𝔤`$ consists of block diagonal matrices, $`𝔩=_{i=1}^k𝔤_i`$, where $`k`$ is the number of blocks and $`𝔤_i=gl(m_i)`$. We denote by $`\mathrm{m}(𝔩)`$ the $`k`$-tuple $`(m_1,\mathrm{},m_k)\{n:k\}_+`$. Clearly the parabolic subalgebras in $`𝔭`$ containing upper-triangular matrices are in one-to-one correspondence with elements of $`_{k=1}^n\{n:k\}_+`$. Consider the decomposition $`^n=^{m_1}\mathrm{}^{m_k}`$ and denote by $`p_i:^n^{m_i}`$ the corresponding projectors. The center of $`𝔭`$ is the linear space $`𝔠=_{i=1}^kp_i`$. Under the identification $`𝔤^{}𝔤`$, the dual space $`𝔠^{}`$ coincides with $`𝔠`$, and the linear isomorphism between $`^k`$ and $`𝔠^{}𝔥^{}`$ is given by the map $`\mu _{i=1}^k\mu _ip_i`$. The image of the subspace $`_{reg}^k^k`$ is the set of regular elements $`𝔠_{reg}^{}𝔠^{}`$.

###### 3.2.

The algebra $`𝒰(𝔤_t)`$ is generated by the set $`\{E_j^i\}_{i,j=1}^n𝔤_t`$ of elements satisfying the relations

$`E_j^iE_l^mE_l^mE_j^i`$ $`=`$ $`t(\delta _j^mE_l^i\delta _l^iE_j^m),i,j,l,m=1,\mathrm{},k.`$ (1)
They can be arranged into a matrix, $`E=E_j^i_{i,j=1}^n`$. The matrix $`E`$ can be considered as an element $`E=_{i,j=1}^nE_j^ie_j^i𝒰(𝔤_t)_{}\mathrm{End}(^n)`$, where $`\{e_j^i\}_{i,j=1}^n`$ is the standard base in $`\mathrm{End}(^n)`$. It is invariant with respect to the diagonal action of $`𝒰(𝔤)`$ on $`𝒰(𝔤_t)_{}\mathrm{End}(^n)`$.

We fix a multiplication in $`\mathrm{End}(^n)`$ by setting it on the base by the formula $`e_j^ie_m^l=\delta _j^le_m^i`$, where $`\delta _j^l`$ is the Kronecker symbol. One can consider polynomials in $`E`$ as an element of the algebra $`𝒰(𝔤_t)_{}\mathrm{End}(^n)`$. Explicitly, the $`\mathrm{}`$-th power $`E^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a matrix with the entries

$`(E^{\mathrm{}})_j^i={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _\mathrm{}1=1}{\overset{n}{}}}E_j^{\alpha _1}E_{\alpha _1}^{\alpha _2}\mathrm{}E_{\alpha _\mathrm{}1}^i.`$ (2)
We will also consider the matrix algebra $`\mathrm{End}^{}(^n)`$ whose multiplication is opposite to that of $`\mathrm{End}(^n)`$. The matrix $`E`$ may be thought of as an element from $`𝒰(𝔤_t)_{}\mathrm{End}^{}(^n)`$, then its $`\mathrm{}`$-th power $`E^{\mathrm{}}`$ is explicitly

$`(E^{\mathrm{}})_j^i={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _\mathrm{}1=1}{\overset{n}{}}}E_{\alpha _1}^iE_{\alpha _2}^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}E_j^{\alpha _\mathrm{}1}.`$ (3)
In \[DM2\], a special series $`\left\{\vartheta _{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{𝐦},\mu ,q^2,t)\right\}_{\mathrm{}=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of polynomials in $`\mu ^k`$ and $`t,q^2`$ was introduced in connection with a two-parameter quantization on semisimple orbits. The notation $`\widehat{𝐦}`$ stands for the vector $`(\widehat{m}_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{m}_k)`$, where the hat denotes the q-integers, $`\widehat{m}=\frac{1q^{2m}}{1q^2}`$, $`m`$. Here we will use the restriction $`\vartheta _{\mathrm{}}(𝐦,\mu ,t)=\vartheta _{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{𝐦},q^2,\mu ,t)|_{q=1}`$. An explicit polynomial expression for $`\vartheta _{\mathrm{}}(𝐦,\mu ,t)`$ is presented in Appendix, formula (28).

###### Definition 3.1.

Let $`𝐦=(m_1,\mathrm{},m_k)\{n:k\}_+`$ and $`\mu =(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _k)^k`$.

1. The $`[t]`$-algebra $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$ is a quotient of $`𝒰(𝔤_t)`$ by the ideal specified by the relations

$`(E\mu _1)\mathrm{}(E\mu _k)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{Tr}E^{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\vartheta _{\mathrm{}}(𝐦,\mu ,t),\mathrm{}1,\mathrm{},k1.`$ (5)
2. The $`[t]`$-algebra $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}^{}`$ is a quotient of $`𝒰(𝔤_t)`$ by the ideal specified by the relations

$`(E\mu _1)\mathrm{}(E\mu _k)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{Tr}E^{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\vartheta _{\mathrm{}}(𝐦,\mu ,t),\mathrm{}1,\mathrm{},k1.`$ (7)

The algebras $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$ and $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}^{}`$ are related by a certain transformation of parameters whose exact form will be presented in Subsection 5.2, formula (19). We will use that relation in Subsection 5.4 concerning real forms of quantum orbits.

###### Theorem 3.2 (\[DM2\]).

Given $`\mu _{reg}^k`$ and $`𝐦\{n:k\}_+`$ the algebra $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$ ($`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}^{}`$) is a $`G`$-equivariant quantization of the semisimple orbit of matrices with eigenvalues $`\mu `$ of multiplicities $`𝐦`$.

This theorem was proven in \[DM2\] for the algebra $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$. For the algebra $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}^{}`$ the proof is analogous. Besides, the family $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}^{}`$ can be obtain from $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$ via the automorphism of the $``$-algebra $`𝒰(𝔤_t)`$ extending the map $`E_j^iE_j^i`$, $`tt`$.

###### 3.3.

Let $`S_k`$ be the symmetric group of permutations of a $`k`$-element set. It acts on the family of algebras $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$ through the action on the $`k`$-tuples $`𝐦`$ and $`\mu `$. Denote by $`𝐥`$ the element $`(1,\mathrm{},1)^k`$.

###### Proposition 3.3.

The $`[t]`$-algebras $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$ and $`𝒜_{𝐦^{},\mu ^{},t}`$ are isomorphic if and only if there is an element $`\tau S_k`$ and a complex number $`b`$ such that $`𝐦^{}=\tau (𝐦)`$ and $`\mu ^{}=\tau (\mu )+b𝐥`$. The same holds for the family $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}^{}`$ as well.

###### Proof.

The proof is straightforward in one direction. Indeed, equations (4) and (5) are symmetric with respect to permutations of the pairs $`(m_i,\mu _i)`$. The correspondence $`E_j^iE_j^ib\delta _j^i`$ extends to an isomorphism $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}𝒜_{𝐦,\mu +b𝐥,t}`$, as it is seen from relations (1), (4), and (5).

Conversely, suppose $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$ and $`𝒜_{𝐦^{},\mu ^{},t}`$ are isomorphic as $`[t]`$-algebras. They are quantizations of orbits characterized by eigenvalues of constituent matrices and their multiplicities. Those orbits are isomorphic as symplectic manifolds if and only if there is a permutation $`\tau `$ and a complex number $`b`$ such that $`𝐦^{}=\tau (𝐦)`$ and $`\mu ^{}=\tau (\mu )+b𝐥`$. ∎

###### Remark 3.4.

Given a $`[t]`$-module $`V`$ we will often treat it as a family of $``$-modules. Specialization of $`V`$ at a point $`t=t_0`$ is the $``$-module $`V_{[t]}`$ corresponding to the $``$-homomorphism $`[t][t]/(tt_0)`$.

###### 3.4Cayley-Hamilton identity.

The elements $`\mathrm{Tr}E^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},n`$, generate the center $`𝒵(𝔤_t)`$ of the algebra $`𝒰(𝔤_t)`$. There is another set of generators of $`𝒵(𝔤_t)`$, namely, the coefficients, $`\{c_i\}_{i=1}^n`$, of the ”characteristic” polynomial equation

$`𝒫(E)=E^nc_1E^{n1}+\mathrm{}+(1)^nc_n=0`$ (8)
identically held in $`𝒰(𝔤_t)_{}\mathrm{End}(^n)`$. Equation (8) is a non-commutative analog of the Cayley-Hamilton identity in the classical polynomial algebra on matrices. Its existence immediately follows from representation theory arguments and the fact that $`𝒰(𝔤_t)`$ is an equivariant quantization on $`𝔤^{}`$, see \[DM2\].

Let us define two characters of the center $`𝒵(𝔤_t)`$ that will appear in what follows.

1. The assingment $`\mathrm{Tr}E^{\mathrm{}}\vartheta _{\mathrm{}}(𝐦,\mu ,t)`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, defines a central character, \[DM2\], which we denote by $`\chi _{𝐦,\mu }`$.
2. Given a weight $`\lambda 𝔥_t^{}`$ we denote by $`\chi _\lambda `$ the central character whose kernel lies in the annihilator of the Verma module $`V_{𝔟_t,\lambda }`$. It follows that if $`\lambda `$ is a character of a parabolic subalgebra $`𝔭_t𝔟_t`$, then $`\mathrm{ker}\chi _\lambda `$ lies in $`𝒥_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$, the annihilator of the generalized Verma module $`V_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$. One has $`zv_0=\chi _\lambda (z)v_0`$, where $`z𝒵(𝔤_t)`$ and $`v_0V_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$ is the highest weight vector.

Let $`\chi `$ be a character of the center $`𝒵(𝔤_t)`$. Consider its specialization at $`t0`$, which is a $``$-algebra homomorphism $`𝒵(𝔤_t)`$. We denote by $`(\chi )`$ the set of roots of the polynomial

$`x^n\chi (c_1)x^{n1}+\mathrm{}+(1)^n\chi (c_n)`$ (9)
with complex coefficients $`\chi (c_i)`$.

###### Proposition 3.5.

Given $`𝐦\{n:k\}_+`$ and $`\mu ^k`$ one has

$`(\chi _{𝐦,\mu })`$ $`=`$ $`\{\mu _1,\mu _1t,\mathrm{},\mu _1(m_11)t;\mathrm{};\mu _k,\mu _kt,\mathrm{},\mu _k(m_k1)t\}.`$ (10)
###### Proof.

This follows from the construction of the functions $`\vartheta _{\mathrm{}}(𝐦,\mu ,t)`$, \[DM2\]. ∎

###### Remark 3.6.

Relations (5) specify an ideal in $`𝒰(g_t)`$ which is generated by the kernel of the character $`\chi _{𝐦,\mu }`$. Remark that for $`k=n`$ matrix polynomial (4) is obtained from (8) by the substitution $`c_i\chi _{𝐦,\mu }(c_i)`$, as follows from (10). Thus equation (4) becomes superfluous, being a consequence of (5) and (8). This situation corresponds to an orbit of maximal rank, which is determined solely by a central character, \[Kost\].

## 4 Generalized Verma modules and quantum orbits

###### 4.1.

Theorem 2.1 describes quantization of the semisimple orbit $`O_\lambda `$ as a quotient of the algebra $`𝒰(𝔤_t)`$ by the ideal $`𝒥_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$. Assuming $`\lambda `$ to be a formal function, $`\lambda =\lambda (\mu ,t)`$, such that $`\lambda (\mu ,0)=\mu 𝔠_{reg}^{}`$, we obtain a family, $`𝒜_{𝔭_t,\lambda (\mu ,t)}`$, of non-isomorphic quantizations of $`O_\mu `$. The vector $`\mu `$ is an element of $`^k`$ under the identification $`𝔠^{}^k`$. On the other hand, the algebra $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$, where $`𝐦=\mathrm{m}(𝔩)`$, is a quantization of the same orbit $`O_\mu `$ and it is a quotient of $`𝒰(𝔤_t)`$, too. The question is what dependence $`\lambda (\mu ,t)`$ ensures an isomorphism $`𝒜_{𝔭_t,\lambda (\mu ,t)}𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$.

###### Lemma 4.1 (\[DM2\]).

Let $`𝔭`$ be a parabolic subalgebra with the center $`𝔠^k`$. For any $`\lambda 𝔠_{reg}^{}`$ there exists a polynomial in one variable,

$`p(x)=x^k\sigma _1x^{k1}+\mathrm{}+(1)^k\sigma _k`$ (11)
with coefficients $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}[[t]]`$ such that the entries of the matrix $`p(E)=p(E)_j^i`$ lie in $`𝒥_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$.

For $`\lambda 𝔠_{reg}^{}`$, the polynomial $`p`$ has only simple roots. Rephrasing this lemma, the entries of the matrix $`p(E)=p(E)_j^i`$ annihilate the Verma module $`V_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$. Thus the coefficients $`\sigma _i`$ of the polynomial $`p`$ depend on $`\lambda `$ and $`t`$. At the same time they are symmetric polynomials of its roots $`\{\mu \}`$. Our goal is to find the relation between $`\mu `$, $`\lambda `$, and $`t`$. The present section is devoted to a proof of the following theorem.

###### Theorem 4.2.

Let $`𝔭𝔤`$ be a parabolic subalgebra with the Levi factor $`𝔩`$ and the center $`𝔠^k`$. Put $`𝐦=\mathrm{m}(𝔩)\{n:k\}_+`$ and take a regular element $`\lambda 𝔠_{reg}^{}_{reg}^k`$ as a $`𝔭`$-character. Then

1. the algebra $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$ is isomorphic to $`𝒜_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$ over $`[t]`$ with

$`\mu _i=\lambda _i{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{i1}{}}}m_\alpha t,i=1,\mathrm{},k.`$ (12)
2. the algebra $`𝒜_{𝐦,\nu ,t}^{}`$ is isomorphic to $`𝒜_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$ over $`[t]`$ with

$`\nu _i=\lambda _i+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =i+1}{\overset{k}{}}}m_\alpha t,i=1,\mathrm{},k.`$ (13)

The rest of the section is devoted to the proof of Theorem 4.2. We prove only statement 1; statement 2 is verified in the same manner.

###### 4.2.

Consider the coefficients $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`p(x)`$ in (11) as the elementary symmetric polynomials in $`\mu ^k`$, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}(\mu )=_{1i_1<\mathrm{}<i_{\mathrm{}}m}\mu _{i_1}\mathrm{}\mu _i_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},k`$. First of all, to prove Theorem 4.2, we must show that the matrix entries $`p(E)_j^i`$ annihilate the generalized Verma module $`V_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$ provided condition (12) holds. Let us check the following elementary lemma.

###### Lemma 4.3.

Let $`W𝒰(𝔤_t)`$ be a submodule with respect to the adjoint representation. The left ideal $`𝒥_W=𝒰(𝔤_t)W`$ coincides with the right ideal $`W𝒰(𝔤_t)`$, which is therefore a two-sided ideal. Then $`𝒥_W𝒥_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$ if and only if $`W`$ annihilates the highest weight vector of $`V_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\gamma `$ denote the comultiplication and antipode of the Hopf algebra $`𝒰(𝔤_t)`$. In the standard Sweedler notation with implicit summation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)=x_{(1)}x_{(2)}`$. Let $`x𝒰(𝔤_t)`$ and $`wW`$. Then $`wx=x_{(1)}\gamma \left(x_{(2)}\right)wx_{(3)}𝒰(𝔤_t)W`$; this proves that $`𝒰(𝔤_t)WW𝒰(𝔤_t)`$. The reversed inclusion is checked similarly. This proves the first assertion of the lemma.

If $`𝒥_W𝒥_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$, than $`W`$ annihilates the highest weight vector $`v_0V_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$. Conversely, suppose $`Wv_0=0`$. An element $`vV_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$ can be represented as $`xv_0`$, where $`x𝒰(𝔤_t)`$. Hence $`Wv=(Wx)v_0𝒥_Wv_0=0`$ and therefore $`𝒥_W𝒥_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$. ∎

We will use Lemma 4.3 in the situation when the module $`W`$ is spanned by the entries of the polynomial $`p(E)`$, that is, $`W=W_p=\mathrm{Span}\left(p(E)_j^i\right)`$.

###### 4.3.

Consider the map $`\sigma :^n^n`$, $`\lambda _i\sigma _i(\lambda )`$, where $`\sigma _i`$ are the elementary symmetric polynomials in $`\lambda ^n`$. The differential of this map is a matrix $`D(\lambda )=D_{ij}(\lambda )_{i,j=1}^n`$, where $`D_{ij}(\lambda )=\frac{\sigma _i}{\lambda _j}(\lambda )`$.

###### Lemma 4.4.

The determinant $`\mathrm{det}D(\lambda )`$ is equal to $`_{1i<jn}(\lambda _i\lambda _j)`$.

###### Proof.

Multiply the top row of $`D(\lambda )`$, which is $`D_{1i}(\lambda )=(1,\mathrm{},1)`$, by $`D(\lambda )_{i1}`$ and subtract it from the $`i`$-th row, $`i=2,\mathrm{},n`$. This kills the entries of the first column except for the upper one. The determinant is preserved and it equals to its minor $`\mathrm{det}D_{ij}(\lambda )_{i,j=2}^n`$. It is easy to see, that the $`j`$-th column of the matrix $`D_{ij}(\lambda )_{i,j=2}^n`$ turns zero at $`\lambda _1\lambda _j`$ and, when divided by $`\lambda _1\lambda _j`$, it forms the $`(j1)`$-th column of the $`(n1)\times (n1)`$ matrix $`D(\lambda ^{})`$, $`\lambda ^{}=(\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)`$. It remains to apply induction on $`n`$. ∎

###### 4.4.

The following lemma is a key step in the proof of Theorem 4.2.

###### Lemma 4.5.

Let $`𝔭𝔤`$ be a parabolic subalgebra with the center $`𝔠^k`$. There is a vector $`a(𝔭)^k`$ such that for every $`\lambda ^k𝔠^{}`$ the ideal $`𝒥_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$ contains the module $`W_p`$ for the polynomial $`p(x)=(x\mu _1)\mathrm{}(x\mu _k)`$ with roots $`\{\mu _i\}=\{\lambda _ia_i(𝔭)t\}`$.

###### Proof.

First of all, let us prove this lemma assuming that $`𝔭`$ is the Borel subalgebra $`𝔟=𝔥+𝔫^+`$, i.e. for $`k=n`$. Denote by $`p`$ the polynomial (9) obtained from the characteristic polynomial $`𝒫`$ by substitution $`c_i\chi _\lambda (c_i)`$. Its entries annihilate the module $`V_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$ because $`p(E)_j^iv_0=𝒫(E)_j^iv_0=0`$. So we have $`W_p𝒥_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$. We will prove the statement for $`𝔭=𝔟`$ if we show that the roots $`\{\mu \}`$ of the polynomial $`p`$ has the form stated in the lemma. It suffices to consider only $`\lambda _{reg}^n`$. The coefficients $`\chi _\lambda (c_i)`$ are homogeneous polynomials in $`(\lambda ,t)`$ of degree $`i`$. On the other hand, they are elementary symmetric polynomials $`\sigma _i(\mu )`$. The map $`^n^n`$, $`\mu \sigma (\mu )`$, is locally invertible at regular $`\mu _{reg}^n`$. Hence every point in $`_{reg}^n\times \{0\}`$ has a neighborhood $`U_{reg}^n\times `$ and an analytic function $`\psi :U^n`$ such that $`\mu =\psi (\lambda ,t)`$, $`(\lambda ,t)U`$, are roots of the polynomial $`p`$. We want to show that $`\psi (\lambda ,t)=\lambda at`$ for some $`a=a(𝔟)^n`$.

Observe that dilatation $`E_j^i\frac{1}{c}E_j^i`$ with $`c0`$ extends to a $``$-algebra isomorphism $`𝒜_{𝔭_t,\lambda }𝒜_{𝔭_{ct},c\lambda }`$. Similarly, the dilatation $`E_j^i\frac{1}{c}E_j^i`$ extends to an isomorphism of $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}𝒜_{𝐦,c\mu ,ct}`$. This implies $`\psi (c\lambda ,ct)=c\psi (\lambda ,t)`$. Consider the $`t`$-expansion of the function $`\psi `$:

$`\psi (\lambda ,t)=\lambda +{\displaystyle \underset{j>0}{}}t^j\psi ^{(j)}(\lambda ),`$ (14)
where $`\psi ^{(j)}:^n^n`$ are homogeneous functions of degree $`j+1`$. Substituting $`\mu =\psi (\lambda ,t)`$ to $`\sigma _i(\mu )`$ and comparing coefficients before $`t^j`$, we find

$$\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}D_{il}(\lambda )\psi _l^{(j)}+(\text{terms depending on}\psi ^{(l)}\text{with}l<j)^n[\lambda ].$$

Using induction on $`j`$ and Lemma 4.4, we see that $`\psi _i^{(j)}`$ are rational functions in $`\lambda `$ maybe having poles only at $`\lambda _i=\lambda _l`$, $`il`$. But $`\psi ^{(j)}`$ are bounded at $`\lambda _i=\lambda _l`$ since $`\mu =\psi (\lambda ,t)`$ are roots of the polynomial $`p`$ with the coefficients $`\chi _\lambda (c_i)`$ being regular functions in $`(\lambda ,t)`$. Therefore $`\psi ^{(j)}^n[\lambda ]`$ and, taking into account their homogeneity degree $`j+1`$, all they are zero except for the term $`\psi ^{(1)}=a(𝔟)`$. Thus we have proven the statement for $`𝔭=𝔟`$. As a corollary, we obtained $`(\chi _\lambda )=\{\lambda a(𝔟)t\}`$.

Let us consider the situation of a general parabolic subalgebra $`𝔭𝔟`$. Take $`\lambda 𝔠_{reg}^{}`$ and denote $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ its image under the canonical embedding in $`𝔠^{}𝔥^{}`$. By Lemma 4.1, there is a polynomial $`p`$ of degree $`k`$ whose entries lie in $`𝒥_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$. Let $`\mu `$ be its roots. The central character $`\chi _{𝐦,\mu }`$ coincides with $`\chi _{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}`$, therefore $`\{\mu \}\{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }a(𝔟)t\}`$ by Proposition 3.5. This proves the lemma when $`\lambda 𝔠_{reg}^{}`$. But the condition $`W_pv_0=0`$ determines the coefficients of $`p`$ as rational functions of $`(\lambda ,t)`$. We have already proven that they are in fact polynomials, being the elementary symmetric polynomials in the roots. Therefore the polynomial $`p`$ with the property $`W_p𝒥_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$ does exist for all $`\lambda `$. Its roots $`\{\mu \}`$ are contained in $`\{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }a(𝔟)t\}`$, so $`\mu `$ is related to $`\lambda `$ as stated in the lemma. ∎

###### Remark 4.6.

The module $`W_p`$ is unique for regular $`\lambda `$ and sufficiently small $`t`$. Indeed, the condition $`W_pv_0=0`$ gives rise to a system of equations on the polynomial $`p`$. It goes over to the system $`p(\lambda _i)=0`$, $`i=1\mathrm{}k`$, at $`t=0`$. This uniquely determines $`p`$ up to a factor at $`\lambda 𝔠_{reg}^{}`$ and $`t=0`$, hence $`p`$ is unique for $`\lambda 𝔠_{reg}^{}`$ and small $`t0`$.

To finish the proof of Theorem 4.2, it remains to determine the vector $`a(𝔭)^k`$.

###### 4.5Proof of Theorem 4.2.

Let $`𝔭`$ be the parabolic subalgebra with the center $`𝔠^k`$ and put $`𝐦=m(𝔩)\{n:k\}`$. In this subsection we show that the $`j`$-th coordinate of the vector $`a(𝔭)^k`$ from Lemma 4.5 is equal to $`_{i=1}^{j1}m_i`$. This will prove Theorem 4.2. Let us first consider the case $`k=2`$. Suppose $`\lambda 𝔠_{reg}^{}`$. Only two equations are independent in the system $`p(E)_i^iv_0=0`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, say for $`i=1`$ and $`i=m_1+1`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda _1^2(\mu _1+\mu _2)\lambda _1+\mu _1\mu _2\hfill & =& 0,\\ \lambda _2^2(\mu _1+\mu _2+tm_1)\lambda _2+\mu _1\mu _2+tm_1\lambda _1\hfill & =& 0.\end{array}$$

This system has a solution $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)=(\mu _1,\mu _2+tm_1)`$ satisfying the condition $`\lambda =\mu `$ at $`t=0`$. Thus we have proven Theorem 4.2 for $`k=2`$.

We deduce the case $`k=n`$ from the studied case $`k=2`$. Recall that given an element $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }𝔥^{}`$ the set $`(\chi _{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }})`$ is equal to $`\left\{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_ia_i(𝔟)t\right\}_{i=1}^n`$. Putting $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_i=\lambda _1`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},m_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_i=\lambda _2`$ for $`i=m_1+1,\mathrm{},n`$, we obtain a central character $`\chi _{𝐦,\mu }`$ associated with the algebra $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$, for $`𝐦\{n:2\}_+`$, and $`\mu ^2`$. We have already shown that $`\mu _1=\lambda _1`$ and $`\mu _2=\lambda _2tm_1`$. Thus we have, by Proposition 3.5,

$$(\chi _{𝐦,\mu })=\{\lambda _1(i1)t\}_{i=1}^{m_1}\{\lambda _2(m_1+i1)t\}_{i=1}^{m_2}.$$

On the other hand,

$$(\chi _{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }})=\left\{\lambda _1a_i(𝔟)t\right\}_{i=1}^{m_1}\left\{\lambda _2a_{m_1+i}(𝔟)t\right\}_{i=1}^{m_2}.$$

The sets $`(\chi _{𝐦,\mu })`$ and $`(\chi _{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }})`$ coincide since $`\chi _{𝐦,\mu }=\chi _{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}`$. Let us put $`t=1`$ and take $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ to be positive and negative real numbers, respectively. We can assume them big enough in their absolute values so as to ensure coincidence of the subsets $`\left\{\lambda _1(i1)\right\}_{i=1}^{m_1}(\chi _{𝐦,\mu })`$ and $`\left\{\lambda _1a_i(𝔟)\right\}_{i=1}^{m_1}(\chi _{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }})`$. Using this argument, we can apply induction on $`m_1`$ and prove the case $`k=n`$ of Theorem 4.2. This gives $`a_i(𝔟)=(i1)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$.

It remains to consider the case $`2<k<n`$. Let us set $`t=1`$ and assume that the coordinates of $`\lambda 𝔠_{reg}^{}^k`$ are real and form a strictly decreasing sequence, $`\lambda _j>\lambda _{j+1}`$. The vector $`\lambda ^k`$ corresponds to the vector $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }𝔥^{}^n`$ via the canonical embedding $`^k𝔠^{}𝔥^{}^n`$; the coordinates of $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ are $`(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _1;\mathrm{};\lambda _k,\mathrm{},\lambda _k)`$, where each $`\lambda _i`$ is taken $`m_i`$ times. The set $`(\chi _{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }})`$ is a union $`_{j=1}^k_j`$ of non-intersecting subsets

$`_j=\left\{\lambda _j({\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{j1}{}}}m_l+i1)\right\}_{i=1}^{m_j}.`$ (15)
We have $`\mathrm{min}_j>\mathrm{max}_{j+1}`$. On the other hand, we know from Proposition 3.5 and Lemma 4.5 that $`(\chi _{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }})`$ is a union the of subsets

$`_j^{}=\{\mu _j(i1)\}_{i=1}^{m_j}=\{\lambda _j(a_j(𝔭)+i1)\}_{i=1}^{m_j}.`$ (16)
We can chose such $`\lambda _j`$ that $`_j^{}`$ do not intersect and, moreover, $`\mathrm{min}_j^{}>\mathrm{max}_{j+1}^{}`$ (for that to be true, it is enough to assume $`\lambda _j\lambda _{j+1}>a_j(𝔭)a_{j+1}(𝔭)+m_j1`$). Taking into account $`\mathrm{\#}_j^{}=m_j=\mathrm{\#}_j`$ we conclude that $`_j^{}=_j`$ for all $`j`$. Comparing (15) and (16), we find $`a(𝔭)`$ and thus prove Theorem 4.2.

###### Remark 4.7.

As follows from Lemma 4.5, the identity map $`𝔤_t𝔤_t`$ extends to an epimorphism $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}𝒰(𝔤_t)/𝒥_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$ of $``$-algebras if the pair $`(𝔭_t,\lambda )`$ is related to the pair $`(𝐦,\mu )`$ as in (12). For regular $`\lambda `$ this map is an isomorphism of $`[t]`$-algebras. It is known, \[J\], that for almost all $`\lambda 𝔠^{}`$ the annihilator of $`V_{𝔭,\lambda }`$ is generated by a copy of adjoint representation and the kernel of a central character. Theorem 4.2 gives an explicit description of the annihilator.

###### 4.6Representations of quantum orbits.

This subsection is devoted to finite dimensional representations of the $``$-algebras $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$. Our principal tool is the established correspondence between the family $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$ and generalized Verma modules. Note that this correspondence is not one-to-one. The algebra $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$ can be realized as the algebra $`𝒜_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$ for some $`𝔭_t`$ and $`\lambda `$ in different ways. This freedom comes out from permutations $`(𝐦,\mu )(\tau (𝐦),\tau (\mu ))`$, $`\tau S_k`$, leaving $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$ invariant but changing the generalized Verma modules. The situation is exactly the same as in the case $`𝔭=𝔟`$ when the Weyl group transitively acts on the set of the ordinary Verma modules with isomorphic annihilators.

Any representation of $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$ is at the same time a representation of $`𝒰(𝔤_t)`$. Therefore to describe representations of $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$ it is necessary and sufficient to determine those representation of $`𝒰(𝔤_t)`$ that are factored through the ideal specifying $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$. We do it for finite dimensional representations.

###### Proposition 4.8.

The quantum orbit $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$ has a finite dimensional representation if and only if there is an element $`\tau S_k`$ such that $`(\mu _i^{}\mu _{i+1}^{})/tm_i^{}`$, where $`\mu ^{}=\tau (\mu )`$ and $`m^{}=\tau (m)`$, are non-negative integers for $`i=1,\mathrm{},k1`$. If exists, such a representation is unique and it is factored through a generalized Verma module.

###### Proof.

As was already mentioned in the proof of Lemma 4.5, the correspondence $`E_j^i\frac{1}{c}E_j^i`$, where $`c0`$, extends to an isomorphism between the algebras $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$ and $`𝒜_{𝐦,c\mu ,ct}`$. Therefore we can assume $`t=1`$ in the proof.

Suppose there is such element $`\tau S_k`$ as stated in the proposition. Take the parabolic subalgebra $`𝔭`$ with the Levi factor $`𝔩`$ such that $`\mathrm{m}(𝔩)=𝐦^{}`$. Consider the $`𝒰(𝔤)`$-module $`V_{𝔭,\lambda }`$, where $`\lambda `$ is related to $`\mu ^{}`$ by formula (12), where one should set $`t=1`$. By assumption, the numbers $`\lambda _i=\mu _i^{}+_{\alpha =1}^{i1}m_\alpha ^{}`$ define a dominant integral weight of $`sl(n)𝔤`$, so the module $`V_{𝔭,\lambda }`$ is projected onto a finite dimensional $`𝒰(𝔤)`$-module $`W`$ with the highest weight $`\lambda `$. The homomorphism of modules induces a representation of $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,1}𝒜_{𝐦^{},\mu ^{},1}`$ on $`W`$.

Conversely, suppose $`W`$ is a finite dimensional module over $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,1}`$. Then it is a module over $`𝒰(𝔤)`$ as well. There is a cyclic $`𝒰(𝔤)`$-submodule in $`W`$ with the highest weight $`\lambda `$. We can think that this submodule coincides with $`W`$. The highest weight gives rise to a central character, $`\chi _\lambda `$. On the other hand, one has $`\chi _\lambda =\chi _{𝐦,\mu }`$, and the set $`(\chi _\lambda )=\left\{\lambda _j(j1)\right\}_{j=1}^n`$ contains $`\{\mu _i\}_{i=1}^k`$ as a subset, by Proposition 3.5. Further, $`W`$ is a finite dimensional $`𝒰(𝔤)`$-module with the highest weight $`\lambda `$, therefore $`\lambda _j\lambda _{j+1}`$ are non-negative integers. The elements of $`(\chi _\lambda )`$ are ordered by their real components; then the numbers $`\lambda _j(j1)t(\chi _\lambda )`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$, form a strictly decreasing sequence. The subset $`\{\mu \}(\chi _\lambda )`$ is ordered by inclusion, hence there is a permutation $`\tau `$ such that $`\mu _i^{}>\mu _{i+1}^{}`$, $`\mu ^{}=\tau (\mu )`$. The permutation $`\tau `$ satisfies the condition of the theorem. Uniqueness of the module $`W`$ follows from the ordering on $`\{\mu ^{}\}`$.

Let us show that the module $`W`$ is a quotient of a generalized Verma module associated with $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,1}`$. The elements $`\lambda _j(j1)`$ belonging to the interval $`[\mu _i^{},\mu _{i+1}^{})(\chi _\lambda )`$ form an arithmetic progression with the initial term $`\mu _i^{}`$ and decrement $`1`$, as follows from (10). Thus $`\lambda _j`$ is stable within this interval. Therefore $`\lambda `$ defines a character of the parabolic subalgebra $`𝔭`$ with Levi factor $`𝔩`$ such that $`\mathrm{m}(𝔩)=𝐦^{}`$. Let $`\rho `$ denote the homomorphism $`𝒰(𝔤)\mathrm{End}(W)`$. As $`dimW<\mathrm{}`$, for all $`x𝔩`$ one has $`\rho (x)w_0=\lambda (x)w_0`$, where $`w_0W`$ is the highest weight vector. Therefore the subspace $`w_0W`$ forms a one dimensional $`𝒰(𝔭)`$-module $`_\lambda `$. The map $`𝒰(𝔤)_{}W`$, $`x1\rho (x)w_0`$, is a homomorphism of left $`𝒰(𝔤)`$-modules, which is obviously factored through the generalized Verma module $`𝒰(𝔤)_{𝒰(𝔭)}_\lambda `$. ∎

## 5 Real forms of quantum orbits

As an application of the established relation between the algebras $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$ ($`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}^{}`$) and the generalized Verma modules we construct real forms of quantum orbits.

###### 5.1.

An anti-linear endomorphism of a complex vector space $`V`$ is an additive map $`f:VV`$ satisfying $`f(\beta a)=\overline{\beta }f(a)`$ for any $`aV`$ and $`\beta `$; the bar stands for the complex conjugation. When $`V`$ is a $`[t]`$-module, we assume $`f(t)=t`$.

###### Definition 5.1.

A $``$-structure on an associative algebra $`𝒜`$ over $``$ or $`[t]`$ is an anti-linear involution $`:𝒜𝒜`$ that is an anti-automorphism with respect to the multiplication, $`(ab)^{}=b^{}a^{}`$.

Let $``$ be a Hopf algebra over $``$ or $`[t]`$ with the multiplication $`m`$, comultiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and antipode $`\gamma `$, \[ChPr\].

###### Definition 5.2.

A real form on $``$ is an anti-linear involution such that

$`\theta m=m(\theta \theta ),\tau \mathrm{\Delta }\theta =(\theta \theta )\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (17)
where $`\tau `$ is the flip on $``$.

When $``$ is the universal enveloping algebra $`𝒰(𝔤)`$ of a complex Lie algebra $`𝔤`$, the involution restricts to $`𝔤`$. The set of $`\theta `$-fixed points in $`𝒰(𝔤)`$ is the universal enveloping algebra $`𝒰(𝔤_{})`$ over $``$ of the Lie algebra $`𝔤_{}`$, a real form of $`𝔤`$.

###### Proposition 5.3.

Let $`\theta `$ be a real form of a Hopf algebra $``$ with invertible antipode $`\gamma `$. Then $`\gamma \theta \gamma =\theta `$.

###### Proof.

Consider the map $`\theta \gamma \theta :`$. It satisfies the axioms of antipode for the opposite comultiplication and therefore equals to $`\gamma ^1`$, due to uniqueness of the antipode. ∎

This proposition implies that the composition of $`\theta `$ with any odd power of $`\gamma `$ makes $``$ an involitive algebra. We are going to define involutions on $``$-module algebras that will be compatible with real forms on $``$ in the sense of the following definition.

###### Definition 5.4.

Let $`\theta `$ be a real form of a Hopf algebra $``$. A real form of an $``$-module algebra $`𝒜`$ is a $``$-structure on $`𝒜`$ such that

$`(xa)^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\theta (x)a^{},x,a𝒜.`$ (18)
###### Example 5.5.

Let $``$ be a Hopf algebra equipped with a real form $`\theta `$. Consider $``$ as a left module algebra over itself with respect to the adjoint action $`xy=x_{(1)}y\gamma \left(x_{(2)}\right)`$. Define a $``$-structure on $``$ by the involution $`\gamma \theta `$. Then, $``$ is a real form of the self-adjoint module algebra $``$. Indeed, one has

$$(xy)^{}=(x_{(1)}y\gamma (x_{(2)}))^{}=(\gamma \theta \gamma )(x_{(2)})y^{}(\gamma \theta )(x_{(1)})=\theta (x_{(2)})y^{}(\gamma \theta )(x_{(1)}),$$

which is equal to $`\theta (x)y^{}`$.

###### 5.2.

Before proceeding with real forms as applied to $`G`$-equivariant quantization, we study a relation between the two algebras $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$ and $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}^{}`$ from Definition 3.1.

###### Proposition 5.6.

The identity map $`𝔤_t𝔤_t`$ induces an isomorphism of algebras $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$ and $`𝒜_{𝐦,\nu ,t}^{}`$ over $``$, provided

$`\nu _i=\mu _i+(nm_i)t,i=1,\mathrm{},k.`$ (19)
###### Proof.

Both algebras are quotients of $`𝒰(𝔤_t)`$ by the ideals generated by certain copies of the adjoint and trivial submodules. Denote them by $`W_\mu `$ and $`W_\nu ^{}`$ correspondingly. It is sufficient to show that $`W_\mu `$ and $`W_\nu ^{}`$ are related by the transformation of parameters (19). With $`𝐦`$ given, both modules are determined by their adjoint components, generated by the matrix coefficients of polynomials in $`E`$. Every monomial (2) is expressed as a linear combination of monomials (3) with coefficients being polynomial functions in $`t`$. A polynomial (4) can be represented as a polynomial in the sense of (3), and the coefficients of the latter will be polynomials in $`\mu `$ and $`t`$. Therefore it suffices to prove the proposition only for generic $`\mu `$.

Take the parabolic subalgebra $`𝔭𝔩`$ such that $`m(𝔩)=𝐦`$. Assuming $`\mu `$ regular and $`t`$ small, there is a generalized Verma module such that $`W_\mu 𝒥_{𝔭_t,\lambda }`$. Further, there is a unique, as emphasized in Remark 4.6, module $`W_\nu ^{}`$ such that $`𝒥_{𝔭_t,\lambda }W_\nu ^{}`$. Hence $`W_\mu =W_\nu ^{}`$, and the parameters $`\mu `$, $`\lambda `$, and $`\nu `$ are related by transformations (12) and (13). This proves the statement for regular $`\mu `$ and small $`t`$ and therefore for all $`\mu `$ and $`t`$. ∎

###### 5.3.

It is known, \[Kn\], that all real forms of the Lie algebra $`gl(n,)`$ are isomorphic to $`gl(n,)`$, $`u^{\mathrm{}}(2m)`$ when $`n=2m`$ is even, and $`u(r,s)`$ with $`r+s=n`$, $`rs0`$. When $`s=0`$, $`u(r,s)`$ turns into the compact real form $`u(n)`$. The corresponding involutions are defined on generators $`\{E_j^i\}_{i,j=1}^k`$ as

$$\theta _{gl(n,)}(E)=E,\theta _{u(r,s)}(E)=J_{(r,s)}E^{}J_{(r,s)}^1,\theta _{u^{\mathrm{}}(2m)}(E)=J_mEJ_m^1,$$

where $`J_{(r,s)}=_{i=1}^re_i^i_{i=r+1}^ne_i^i`$, $`J_m=_{i=1}^m(e_{i+m}^ie_i^{i+m})`$, and the prime stands for the matrix transposition.

###### 5.4.

Take $`\mu ^k`$, $`𝐦\{n:k\}`$ and denote by $`S_k^𝐦`$ the stabilizer of $`𝐦`$ in the symmetric group $`S_k`$.

###### Proposition 5.7.

The map $`EJ_{(r,s)}E^{}J_{(r,s)}^1`$ extends to a $`\theta _{u(r,s)}`$-compatible $``$-real form of the algebra $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$, provided $`\overline{\mu }=\tau (\mu )`$ for some $`\tau S_k^𝐦`$.

###### Proof.

Consider $`𝒰(𝔤)`$ as a module algebra over itself with respect to the adjoint representation. Define a $`\theta _{u(r,s)}`$-compatible $``$-real form on $`𝒰(𝔤)`$ as in Example 5.5. It is naturally extended to a $`\theta _{u(r,s)}`$-compatible $``$-real form on $`𝒰(𝔤)[t]`$ considered as a $`𝒰(𝔤)`$-module algebra. This real form is restricted to the $`𝒰(𝔤)`$-equivariant embedding $`𝒰(𝔤_t)𝒰(𝔤)[t]`$. On the generators $`\{E_j^i\}𝔤_t`$, it is defined by the map $`EJ_{(r,s)}E^{}J_{(r,s)}^1`$. Let us prove that it induces an isomorphism $`(𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t})^{}𝒜_{𝐦,\overline{\mu },t}`$. Setting $`J=J_{r,s}`$ we have $`J^2=1`$ and $`J^{}=J`$; hence for $`m>0`$

$`(E^{\mathrm{}})_j^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _\mathrm{}1}{}}E_j^{\alpha _1}E_{\alpha _1}^{\alpha _2}\mathrm{}E_{\alpha _\mathrm{}1}^i\stackrel{}{}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _{\mathrm{}}}{}}J_i^\alpha _{\mathrm{}}E_\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{\alpha _\mathrm{}1}\mathrm{}E_{\alpha _2}^{\alpha _1}E_{\alpha _1}^iJ_{\alpha _0}^j.`$
In the concise matrix form this reads $`(E^{\mathrm{}})^{}=(JE^{\mathrm{}}J)^{}`$. If $`p(x)`$ is a polynomial in one variable and $`\overline{p}(x)`$ is obtained from $`p(x)`$ by the complex conjugation of its coefficients, then $`p(E)\stackrel{}{}\left(J\overline{p}(E)J\right)^{}`$. Relations (5) go over to $`\mathrm{Tr}E^{\mathrm{}}=\vartheta _{\mathrm{}}(𝐦,\overline{\mu },t)`$, $`\mathrm{}`$. Therefore $`(𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t})^{}𝒜_{𝐦,\overline{\mu },t}=𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$ if $`\overline{\mu }=\tau (\mu )`$ for some $`\tau S_k^𝐦`$. ∎

###### Proposition 5.8.

Suppose $`\overline{\mu }=\tau (\mu t𝐦)+tn𝐥^k`$ for some $`\tau S_k^𝐦`$. Then

1. the map $`EE`$ extends to a $`\theta _{gl(n,)}`$-compatible $``$-real form of $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$
2. the map $`EJ_mEJ_m^1`$ extends to a $`\theta _{u^{\mathrm{}}(2m)}`$-compatible $``$-real form of $`𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t}`$

###### Proof.

Let $`J`$ denote either the unit matrix or $`J_m=_{i=1}^m(e_{i+m}^ie_i^{i+m})`$. We will consider the two cases simultaneously. Define a $``$-real form on the algebra $`𝒰(𝔤_t)`$ in the same way as in the proof of Proposition 5.7. It is compatible with the corresponding real form of the Hopf algebra $`𝒰(𝔤)`$. On the generators $`\{E_j^i\}𝔤_t`$, it is defined by the map $`EJEJ^1`$. We have

$`(E^{\mathrm{}})_j^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _\mathrm{}1}{}}E_j^{\alpha _1}E_{\alpha _1}^{\alpha _2}\mathrm{}E_{\alpha _\mathrm{}1}^i\stackrel{}{}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _{\mathrm{}}}{}}(1)^{\mathrm{}}J_\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^iE_{\alpha _\mathrm{}1}^\alpha _{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}E_{\alpha _1}^{\alpha _2}E_{\alpha _0}^{\alpha _1}\left(J^1\right)_j^{\alpha _0}.`$
Thus every matrix monomial $`E^{\mathrm{}}`$ is transformed into the matrix $`(1)^{\mathrm{}}JE^{\mathrm{}}J^1`$; therefore $`(𝒜_{𝐦,\mu ,t})^{}𝒜_{𝐦,\overline{\mu },t}^{}`$, with respect to either $`sl(n,)`$\- or $`u^{\mathrm{}}(2m)`$-involutions. Now the rest of the proof follows from (19). ∎

## 6 Non-commutative Connes index

###### 6.1.

The purpose of the section is to give an interpretation of certain rational functions arising in our theory of quantum orbits, \[DM2\]. We show that those functions give the non-commutative Connes index, \[C\], of basic projecitve modules over quantum orbits. We will consider the two-parameter $`𝒰_q(𝔤)`$-equivariant quantization of \[DM2\] (see also \[DM1\]) including the $`G`$-equivariant quantization as the limit case $`q1`$. A two-parameter quantum orbit is a quotient of the so called modified reflection equation algebra, \[KSkl, IP, DM3\], $`_{q,t}`$, which itself is a $`𝒰_q(𝔤)`$-equivariant quantization of the polynomial algebra on $`𝔤^{}`$. The algebra $`_{q,t}`$ is generated by the elements $`\{L_j^i\}_{i,j=1}^n`$ subject to certain quadratic-linear relations turning to commutation relations (1), where $`E_j^i=lim_{q1}L_j^i`$. There is a $`𝒰_q(𝔤)`$-equivariant generalization, $`\mathrm{Tr}_q`$, of the trace operation such that $`\mathrm{Tr}_qL^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, belong to the center of $`_{q,t}`$. For details the reader is referred to \[DM2\] and references therein.

The functions $`\vartheta _{\mathrm{}}(𝐦,\mu ,t)`$ in the right-hand side of (5) are the specialization of certain functions $`\vartheta _{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{𝐦},\mu ,q^2,t)`$ introduced in \[DM2\] (see also Appendix). Here, $`\widehat{𝐦}=(\widehat{m}_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{m}_k)`$ and $`\widehat{m}=\frac{1q^{2m}}{1q^2}`$ for $`m`$. Also, we introduced in \[DM2\] rational functions $`C_j(\widehat{𝐦},\mu ,q^2,t)`$ satisfying relation (30).

###### Theorem 6.1 (\[DM2\]).

For any $`𝐦\{n:k\}`$ and $`\mu _{reg}^k`$, the quotient $`𝒜_{\widehat{𝐦},\mu ,q,t}`$ of the algebra $`_{q,t}`$ by the relations

$`(L\mu _1)\mathrm{}(L\mu _k)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{Tr}_q(L^{\mathrm{}})`$ $`=`$ $`\vartheta _{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{𝐦},q^2,\mu ,t),\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},k1,`$ (21)
is a $`𝒰_q(𝔤)`$-equivariant quantization on the orbit of semisimple matrices with eigenvalues $`\mu `$ of multiplicities $`𝐦`$.

###### 6.2.

In the classical geometry, a vector bundle over a manifold $`M`$ may be given by an idempotent $`\pi `$ of the algebra $`𝒜(M)_{}\mathrm{End}(V)`$, where $`V`$ is a finite dimensional vector space. It forms a projective $`𝒜(M)`$-module $`\pi \left(𝒜(M)_{}V\right)`$. If $`M`$ is a $`G`$-manifold and $`V`$ a $`G`$-module, a $`G`$-equivariant bundle corresponds to an invariant idempotent. For every semisimple coadjoint orbit $`O_\mu `$ in $`\mathrm{End}(^n)`$ of rank $`k1`$ there are $`k`$ projector-valued functions $`\pi _i:O_\mu \mathrm{End}(^n)`$. At a point $`AO_\mu `$, they commute with $`A`$ and map the linear space $`^n`$ onto the $`A`$-eigenspaces. These basic vector bundles generate the Grothendieck ring of equivariant vector bundles over $`O_\mu `$.

In the two-parameter quantization setting an idempotent $`\pi `$ from $`𝒜_{q,t}(M)_{}\mathrm{End}(V)`$ defines the projective $`𝒜_{q,t}`$-module $`\pi \left(𝒜_{q,t}(M)_{}V\right)`$, which we consider as a quantized vector bundle over $`M`$. Let us built the idempotents for the quantized basic vector bundles over the orbits.

###### Proposition 6.2.

Let $`L=L_j^i_{i,j=1}^k`$ be the matrix of generators of the algebra $`𝒜_{\widehat{𝐦},\mu ,q,t}`$ and suppose $`\mu _{reg}^k`$. The elements

$`\pi _j(L)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i=1,\mathrm{},k}{ij}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{L\mu _i}{\mu _j\mu _i}}𝒜_{\widehat{𝐦},\mu ,q,t}_{}\mathrm{End}(^n),j=1,\mathrm{},k,`$ (22)
are invariant projectors. One has $`\mathrm{Tr}_q\pi _j(L)=C_j(\widehat{𝐦},\mu ,q^2,t)`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},k`$, see (30).

###### Proof.

The matrix $`L𝒜_{\widehat{𝐦},\mu ,q,t}_{}\mathrm{End}(^n)`$ satisfies (20). This implies that the elements (22) are orthogonal idempotents, and $`L=_{j=1}^k\mu _j\pi _j(L)`$. Therefore, every positive integer power of the matrix $`L`$ has the decomposition over the basis $`\pi _j(L)`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},k`$:

$`L^{\mathrm{}}={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}}\mu _j^{\mathrm{}}\pi _j(L),\mathrm{}=.`$ (23)
Taking trace on the both sides of this equation and using condition (21) extended for all $`\mathrm{}`$ (see \[DM2\]) and representation (30), we get $`_{j=1}^k\mu _j^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Tr}_q\pi _j(L)=_{j=1}^k\mu _j^{\mathrm{}}C_j(\widehat{𝐦},\mu ,q^2,t)`$ for all $`\mathrm{}=`$. Since the numbers $`\{\mu _i\}`$ are pairwise distinct, this proves the statement. ∎

The quantities $`\mathrm{Tr}_q\pi _j(L)`$ are central elements of $`𝒜_{\widehat{𝐦},\mu ,q,t}`$. Therefore we can take the function $`C_j(\widehat{𝐦},\mu ,q^2,t)`$ as the ”universal” Connes index of the family of quantum vector bundles $`\pi _j\left(𝒜_{\widehat{𝐦},\mu ,q,t}_{}^n\right)`$.

Note that the problem of $`𝒰_q(𝔤)`$-equivariant quantization of vector bundles on orbits as one- and two-sided projective modules over quantized function algebras was considered in \[D\]. An interesting problem is to construct the quantum bundles explicitly, in terms of projectors. This problem is solved for non-commutative sphere $`𝕊_q^2`$ in \[GLS\].

Appendix

In this subsection, we study the functions $`\vartheta _{\mathrm{}}`$ entering the right-hand side of (5). They were introduced in \[DM2\] as specialization at $`q=1`$ of certain functions participating in the two-parameter quantization of orbits. Assuming $`\nu ,\mu ^k`$ and $`\omega `$ consider the functions

$`\stackrel{~}{\vartheta }_{\mathrm{}}(\nu ,\mu ,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{k}{}}}\omega ^{s1}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<\mathrm{}<j_sk}{}}\nu _{j_1}\mathrm{}\nu _{j_s}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐝\{\mathrm{}:s\}}{}}\mu _{j_1}^{d_1}\mathrm{}\mu _{j_s}^{d_s},\mathrm{}=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ (24)
They satisfy the recurrent relation

$`\stackrel{~}{\vartheta }_{\mathrm{}}(\nu ,\mu ,\omega )=\stackrel{~}{\vartheta }_{\mathrm{}}(\nu ^{},\mu ^{},\omega )+\nu _k\omega {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m1}{}}}\stackrel{~}{\vartheta }_\mathrm{}i(\nu ^{},\mu ^{},\omega )\mu _k^i+\nu _k\mu _k^m,`$ (25)
where $`\mu ^{}=(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _{k1})`$ and $`\nu ^{}=(\nu _1,\mathrm{},\nu _{k1})`$. Using this relation, it is easy to prove by induction on $`k`$ that

$`\stackrel{~}{\vartheta }_{\mathrm{}}(\nu ,\mu ,\omega )={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}}\mu _j^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{C}_j(\nu ,\mu ,\omega ),`$ (26)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{C}_j(\nu ,\mu ,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _j+\nu _j{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k1}{}}}\omega ^{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1i_1<\mathrm{}<i_{\mathrm{}}k}{i_1,\mathrm{},i_{\mathrm{}}j}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _{i_1}\mu _{i_1}}{\mu _j\mu _{i_1}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _i_{\mathrm{}}\mu _i_{\mathrm{}}}{\mu _j\mu _i_{\mathrm{}}}},`$ (27)
If one puts, by definition, $`\stackrel{~}{\vartheta }_0(\nu ,\mu ,\omega )=\nu _\omega `$, where $`\nu _\omega `$ is determined by the equation $`(1\omega \nu _\omega )=_{i=1}^k(1\omega \nu _i)`$, then representation (26) is valid for $`\mathrm{}=0`$ as well.

Suppose $`\nu `$ has a polynomial dependence in $`\omega `$ and $`lim_{\omega 0}\nu (\omega )=𝐦`$. Recall that $`𝐥^k`$ denotes the vector $`(1,\mathrm{},1)`$.

###### Proposition 6.3.

The function $`_{j=1}^k\mu _j^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{C}_j(\nu (\omega ),\mu +\frac{t}{\omega },\omega )`$ is a polynomial in all its arguments. Its specialization $`\omega =0`$ is a polynomial

$`\vartheta _{\mathrm{}}(𝐦,\mu ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{k}{}}}t^{s1}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<\mathrm{}<j_sk}{}}m_{j_1}\mathrm{}m_{j_s}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐝\{\mathrm{}+1s:s\}}{}}\mu _{j_1}^{d_1}\mathrm{}\mu _{j_s}^{d_s}.`$ (28)
###### Proof.

It seen from (27) that the functions $`\stackrel{~}{C}_j(\nu (\omega ),\mu +\frac{t}{\omega },\omega )`$ are regular at $`\omega =0`$; this proves the first assertion. Consider the specialization at $`\omega =0`$:

$`C_j(𝐦,\mu ,t)=\stackrel{~}{C}_j(\nu (\omega ),\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{t}{\omega }},\omega )|_{\omega =0}.`$ (29)
We assume $`\mu _i0`$ for all $`i`$ and put $`𝐦/\mu =(𝐦_1/\mu _1,\mathrm{},𝐦_k/\mu _k)`$. Now the statement follows from formulas (24) and (26) if one observes that $`C_j(𝐦,\mu ,t)=\stackrel{~}{C}_j(𝐦/\mu ,\mu ,t)`$ from (27). ∎

Specialization at $`\nu =\widehat{𝐦}`$, $`\omega =1q^2`$ yields polynomials $`\vartheta _{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{𝐦},\mu ,q^2,t)`$ participating in the two-parameter $`𝒰_q(𝔤)`$-equivariant quantization of orbits, \[DM2\]:

$`\vartheta _{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{𝐦},\mu ,q^2,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}}\mu _j^{\mathrm{}}C_j(\widehat{𝐦},\mu ,q^2,t),`$ (30)
where $`C_j(\widehat{𝐦},\mu ,q^2,t)=\stackrel{~}{C}_j(\widehat{𝐦},\mu +\frac{t}{\omega },\omega )|_{\omega =1q^2}`$. The coefficients $`C_j(\widehat{𝐦},\mu ,q^2,t)`$ were shown above to give the non-commutative Connes index for basic homogeneous vector bundles over the two-parameter quantum orbits.


text:
# Inflationary cosmology - a dissipative quantum field theory process

## I Introduction

Early universe cosmology is a subject with limited access to observation, since there is only so much information that can be acquired about this time period from our one local region in the universe. As such, a convincing theory about this time period must rely substantially on the soundness and unambiguity of its mathematical foundation. At present, inflation is the most hopeful idea for developing into a theory, since it is based on quantum field theory, and quantum fields so far have been exclusively successful in explaining the high energy world, up to at least the TeV scale. However, consistent solutions of inflation founded on quantum field theory have been allusive. Inflationary dynamics inherently is a multifield problem, since the vacuum energy that drives inflation eventually must convert to radiation, which generally is comprised of a variety of particle species. In the earliest conception of inflation , it was pictured that inflation would result in a isentropic expansion that would rapidly put the universe in a supercooled thermodynamic phase. Subsequently it was observed that supercooled inflation is not mandatory and that nonisentropic inflationary expansion, warm inflation, also is possible . Moreover, since the main condition for inflation is $`\rho _v>\rho _r`$, where $`\rho _v`$,$`\rho _r`$ are the vacuum and radiation energy densities respectively, supercooled inflation appears as a limiting case within the general regime of warm inflation.

The most nontrivial aspect of the inflaton model is understanding the energy transfer dynamics from potential energy to radiation. In the most commonly followed inflation picture, dissipative effects of the inflaton field are ignored throughout the inflation period, leading to a supercooled inflationary regime. However, from a thermodynamic perspective, this picture appears very restrictive. The point being, even if the inflaton were to allow a minuscule fraction of the energy to be released, say one part in $`10^{20}`$, it still would constitute a significant radiation energy density component in the universe. For example, for inflation with vacuum (i.e. potential) energy at the GUT scale $`10^{1516}\mathrm{GeV}`$, leaking one part in $`10^{20}`$ of this energy density into radiation corresponds to a temperature of $`10^{11}\mathrm{GeV}`$, which is nonnegligible. In fact, the most relevant lower bound that cosmology places on the temperature after inflation comes from the success of hot Big-Bang nucleosynthesis, which requires the universe to be within the radiation dominated regime by $`T\stackrel{>}{}1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$. This limit can be met in the above example by dissipating as little as one part in $`10^{60}`$ of the vacuum energy density into radiation. Thus, from the perspective of both interacting field theory and basic notions of equipartition, it appears to be a highly tuned requirement of supercooled inflation to prohibit the inflaton from such tiny amounts of dissipation.

These considerations have led to examining the possibility of warm inflation, an inflationary regime in which radiation also is present. Warm inflation is comprised of non-isentropic expansion in the background cosmology  and thermal seeds of density perturbations  (for related earlier work please see ). During warm inflation, interactions between the inflaton and other fields cause the radiation energy density to remain substantial due to its constant production from conversion of vacuum energy. This expansion regime is intrinsically different from the supercooled inflation regime, since warm inflation smoothly terminates into a subsequent radiation dominated regime, without a reheating period.

The warm inflation picture has one immediate conceptual advantage, that the dynamics is free of questions about quantum-to-classical transition. The scalar inflaton field is in a classical state, thus justifying the application of a classical evolution equation, and the inflaton fluctuations, which induce the metric perturbations, are classical. Another problem alleviated by dissipative effects is the initial condition problem of inflation .

Warm inflation continues proving to be a promising solution to the early universe problem, with now several variants and perspectives on the basic idea . Development of it has had two directions, which will be addressed in this talk. First is deriving a first principle quantum field theory realization of its dynamics. Second is determining observational tests for warm inflation.

## II First Principles Origin

The earliest works looked for high temperature warm inflation solutions, under rigid adiabatic, equilibrium conditions . Within this limited framework, one type of warm inflation solution was obtained . The high-T regime was examined first, since considerable methodology was already available for treating it. However, intrinsically, the statistical state relevant for warm inflation is not required to be an equilibrium state. The slowly varying nature of the macroscopic variables in warm inflation cosmology suggest that the statistical state may not be far from equilibrium, although this is something that should be proven from the dynamics. Much work remains in order to develop the mathematical formalism necessary to address this problem. As one step in this direction to fill the missing gaps, recently we studied the zero temperature dissipative dynamics of interacting scalar field systems in Minkowski spacetime  (for another interesting direction see ). This is useful to understand, since the zero temperature limit constitutes a baseline effect that will be prevalent in any general statistical state. The key result presented in this talk is that for a broad range of cases, involving interaction with as few as one or two fields, we find dissipative regimes for the scalar field system. This is important for inflationary cosmology, since it suggests that dissipation may be the norm not exception for an interacting scalar field system, thus warm inflation could be a natural dynamics once proper treatment of interactions is done.

We study the Lagrangian, where

$`_I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4!}}\mathrm{\Phi }^4{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N_\chi }{}}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{f_j}{4!}}\chi _j^4+{\displaystyle \frac{g_j^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }^2\chi _j^2\right\}`$ (1)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N_\psi }{}}}\overline{\psi }_k\left[h_{k\varphi }\mathrm{\Phi }+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N_\chi }{}}}h_{kj\chi }\chi _j\right]\psi _k`$ (2)
and $`\mathrm{\Phi }\phi +\varphi `$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\phi `$. Our aim is to obtain the effective equation of motion for $`\phi (t)`$ and from that determine the energy dissipated from the $`\phi (t)`$ system into radiation.

The tadpole method, which requires $`\varphi =0`$, gives effective equation of motion for $`\phi (t)`$,

$`\ddot{\phi }(t)+m_\varphi ^2\phi (t)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{6}}\phi ^3(t)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\phi (t)\varphi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{6}}\varphi ^3`$ (3)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N_\chi }{}}}g_j^2\left[\phi (t)\chi _j^2+\varphi \chi _j^2\right]+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N_\psi }{}}}h_{k\varphi }\overline{\psi _k}\psi _k=0.`$ (4)
The field expectation values in this equation are obtained by solving the coupled set of field equations. In our calculation, we have evaluated them in a perturbative expansion using dressed Green’s functions. One general feature of these expectation values is they will depend of the causal history of $`\phi (t)`$, so that Eq. (4) is a temporally nonlocal equation of motion for $`\phi (t)`$.

The general expression for the effective equation of motion is given in  and is very complicated. Formally, we can examine Eq. (4) within a Markovian-adiabatic approximation, in which the equation of motion is local in time and the motion of $`\phi (t)`$ is slow. At $`T=0`$, such an approximation is not rigorously valid. Nevertheless, this approximation allows understanding the magnitude of dissipative effects. Furthermore, we have shown in  that the nonlocal effects tend to filter only increasingly higher frequency components of $`\phi (t)`$ from nonlocal effects increasingly further back in time. Thus for low frequency components of $`\phi (t)`$, memory only is retained to some short interval in the past. Since within the adiabatic approximation, $`\phi (t)`$ only has low frequency components, we believe the Markovian-adiabatic approximation is legitimate at least for order of magnitude estimates. Within this approximation, the effective equation of motion for $`\phi (t)`$ has the general form

$$\ddot{\phi }(t)+m_\varphi ^2\phi (t)+\frac{\lambda }{6}\phi ^3(t)+\eta (\phi )\dot{\phi }(t)=0,$$
(5)
where

$`\eta (\phi )\phi ^2(t){\displaystyle \frac{N_\psi }{256\pi ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2h_{\varphi \psi }^2}{4m_\varphi }}.+{\displaystyle \frac{N_\chi g^4h_{\chi \psi }^2}{m_\chi }}).`$
An alternative to the above Lagrangian based derivation, is the canonical derivation following formalism developed in the mid 80’s . Although the canonical and Lagrangian approaches should agree, the former is far less developed in dissipative quantum field theory, in particular for treating interactions. Nevertheless, the canonical approach provides useful insight, especially for understanding the origin of particle creation. For example, consider in the canonical approach the expectation value of $`\chi _i^2`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^32\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\omega _{𝐪,\chi _𝐣}}\left[2x_{𝐪,\chi _𝐣}(t)+2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}y_{𝐪,\chi _𝐣}(t)+1\right]},`$
where $`x_{𝐪,\chi _j}(t)=a_{𝐪,\chi _j}^{}(t)a_{𝐪,\chi _j}(t)`$ is the particle number density and $`y_{𝐪,\chi _𝐣}(t)=a_{𝐪,\chi _j}(t)a_{𝐪,\chi _j}(t)`$ is the off-diagonal correlation. The evolution equations for $`x_{𝐪,\chi _𝐣}(t)`$ and $`y_{𝐪,\chi _𝐣}(t)`$ can be obtained from the field equation for $`\chi _j`$ to give

$`\dot{x}_{𝐪,\chi _j}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\omega }_{𝐪,\chi _𝐣}}{\omega _{𝐪,\chi _𝐣}}}\mathrm{Re}y_{𝐪,\chi _𝐣},`$ (6)
$`\dot{y}_{𝐪,\chi _𝐣}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\omega }_{𝐪,\chi _𝐣}}{\omega _{𝐪,\chi _𝐣}}}\left[x_{𝐪,\chi _𝐣}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right]2i\omega _{𝐪,\chi _𝐣}y_{𝐪,\chi _𝐣}.`$ (7)
To yield dissipation, it is noted in  that the correlation amongst produced particles needs to be destroyed sufficiently rapidly and $`\dot{x}_{𝐪,\chi _𝐣}(t)`$ and $`\chi _j(t)`$ should become local functions of time involving $`\phi (t)`$ and $`\dot{\phi }(t)`$. Based on this requirement,  asserts that $`\omega _{𝐪,\chi _𝐣}`$ in the above equation for $`\dot{y}_{𝐪,\chi _𝐣}(t)`$ must have an imaginary part, which in fact should be the $`\chi _j`$-particle decay width, $`\mathrm{Im}\omega _{𝐪,\chi _j}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝐪,\chi _𝐣}`$. Applying these assumptions, the contribution to $`\eta (\phi )`$ in Eq. (5) from the $`\chi _j`$ field, say $`\eta _{\chi _j}(\phi )`$, once again is obtained (up to O(1) factors). Since this approach has ad-hoc assumptions, it still is incomplete and requires development. Nevertheless, the approach is interesting and for now accepting the assumptions, the origin of particle creation and energy conservation are clearly seen. In particular, the particle production rate is given by $`(d^3k/(2\pi )^3)\dot{x}_{𝐪,\chi _𝐣}(t)\omega _{𝐪,\chi _𝐣}`$ and similar to , it can be shown this is equal to the vacuum energy loss rate from the $`\chi _j`$ field contribution, $`\eta _{\chi _j}(\phi )\dot{\phi }^2`$.

Returning to Eq. (5), estimated magnitudes of energy production will be obtained in the overdamped regime of warm inflation, $`m^2(\varphi )=m_\varphi ^2+\lambda \phi ^2/2<\eta ^2`$. In this regime, the energy dissipated by the scalar field goes into radiation energy density $`\rho _r`$ at the rate $`\dot{\rho }_r=dE_\varphi /dt=\eta (\phi )\dot{\phi }^2`$.

In  we have determined radiation production for two cases $`(\mathrm{a}).m(\phi )>m_\chi >2m_\psi `$, $`(\mathrm{b}).m_\chi >2m_\psi >m(\phi )`$. To focus on a case typical for inflation, suppose the potential energy is at the GUT scale $`V(\phi )^{1/4}10^{15}\mathrm{GeV}`$ and we consider the other parameters in a regime consistent with the e-fold and density fluctuation requirements of inflation. Note, although this is a flat nonexpanding spacetime analysis, since the dissipative effects will be at subhorizon scale, one expects these estimates to give a reasonable idea of what to expect from a similar calculation done in expanding spacetime. Expressing the radiation in terms of a temperature scale as $`T\rho _r^{1/4}`$, we find for case (a) $`1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}<T<10^7\mathrm{GeV}<H`$ and for case (b) $`T\stackrel{>}{}10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}>H`$, where $`H=\sqrt{8\pi V/(3m_p^2)}`$.

## III Observational Tests

Supercooled inflation has three parameters, related to the potential energy magnitude $`V_0`$, slope $`ϵ`$, and curvature $`\eta `$, whereas there are four observable constraints ($`\delta _H`$, $`A_g`$, $`n_s`$, $`n_g`$). This implies a redundancy in the observations and allows for a consistency relation . This is usually expressed as a relationship between the tensor-to-scalar ratio and the slope of the tensor spectrum. Warm inflation has an extra parameter, the dissipation factor, which implies four constraints for four parameters. Hence we do not expect the consistency relation of standard inflation to hold in warm inflation . Thus, to discriminate between warm and standard inflation, it requires a measure of all four observables. The upcoming MAP and Planck satellite missions should provide strong constraints on the scalar spectrum and being equipped with polarization detectors, it is hoped the tensor spectrum also will be measured. Recently nongaussian effects from warm inflation models were computed and found to be too small to measure .

## IV Conclusion

The key point emphasized in this talk has been that any typical inflaton field theory model has interactions and so dissipation can be an unexceptional consequence. These dissipative effects have always been ignored, unjustifiably, in supercooled inflation, but as shown here their effects can be nontrivial. The most significant effect of dissipation is to completely alter the inflationary regime from supercooled to warm. However, irrespective of the inflation regime, as discussed above and in , dissipative effects before the inflation period may be important in alleviating the initial condition problem. Also, dissipative effects imply new realizations of thermal inflation . Moreover, dissipative effects can alter density perturbations. In this talk we discussed the case where dissipation leads to an ideal thermalized state, thus with thermal density perturbations. However the opposite limit can be considered from ideal thermalization to that of negligible influence from the radiation field on the density perturbations, so that only the quantum fluctuations contribute. Then simple calculations show warm inflation models would not require fine tuning, so that scalar potentials of reasonably large curvature would be acceptable. The nature of density perturbations during warm inflation still requires much investigation in particular to understand the interplay between radiation and the scalar field. In conclusion, this talk discussed how dissipation during inflation could be robust and possibly solve inflation’s most challenging dilemma, the scalar field fine tuning problem.