text:
# Projected Wavefunctions and High Temperature Superconductivity

Strong correlations are essential to understand $`d`$-wave high temperature superconductivity in doped Mott insulators . The no-double occupancy constraint arising from strong correlations has been treated within two complementary approaches. Within the gauge theory approach , which is valid at all temperatures, the constraint necessitates the inclusion of strong gauge fluctuations. Alternatively, the constraint can be implemented exactly at $`T=0`$ using the variational Monte Carlo (VMC) method. Previous variational studies  have focussed primarily on the energetics of competing states.

In this letter, we revisit projected wavefunctions of the form proposed by Anderson in 1987 . We compute physically interesting correlations using VMC and show that projection leads to loss of coherence. We obtain information about low energy excitations from the singular behavior of moments of the occupied spectral function. Remarkably, our results for various observables are in semi-quantitative agreement with experiments on the cuprates. We also make qualitative predictions for the doping ($`x`$) dependence of correlation functions in projected states (for $`x1`$) from general arguments which are largely independent of the detailed form of the wavefunction and the Hamiltonian.

We use the Hubbard Hamiltonian $`=𝒦+_{\mathrm{int}}`$. The kinetic energy $`𝒦=_{𝐤,\sigma }ϵ(𝐤)c_{𝐤\sigma }^{}c_{𝐤\sigma }`$ with $`ϵ(𝐤)=2t\left(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y\right)+4t^{}\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y`$ the dispersion on a square lattice with nearest ($`t`$) and next-near ($`t^{}`$) hopping. The on-site repulsion is $`_{\mathrm{int}}=U_𝐫n_{}(𝐫)n_{}(𝐫)`$ with $`n_\sigma (𝐫)=c_\sigma ^{}(𝐫)c_\sigma (𝐫)`$. We work in the strongly correlated regime where $`J=4t^2/U,t^{}tU`$ near half filling: $`n=1x`$ with the hole doping $`x1`$. We choose $`t^{}=t/4`$, $`t=300`$meV and $`U=12t`$, so that $`J=100`$meV consistent with neutron data on cuprates.

We describe the ground state by the wavefunction

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\mathrm{exp}(iS)𝒫|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{BCS}}.$$
(1)
Here $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{BCS}}=\left(_𝐤\phi (𝐤)c_𝐤^{}c_𝐤^{}\right)^{N/2}|0`$ is the $`N`$-electron d-wave BCS wave function with $`\phi (𝐤)=v_𝐤/u_𝐤=\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤/[\xi _𝐤+\sqrt{\xi _𝐤^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2}]`$. The two variational parameters $`\mu _{\mathrm{var}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{var}}`$ determine $`\phi (𝐤)`$ through $`\xi _𝐤=ϵ(𝐤)\mu _{\mathrm{var}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{var}}\left(\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y\right)/2`$. The projector $`𝒫=_𝐫\left(1n_{}(𝐫)n_{}(𝐫)\right)`$ in Eq. (1) eliminates all configurations with double occupancy, as appropriate for $`U\mathrm{}`$.

The unitary transformation $`\mathrm{exp}(iS)`$ includes double occupancy perturbatively in $`t/U`$ . The transformation $`\mathrm{exp}(iS)\mathrm{exp}(iS)`$ is well known to lead to the tJ Hamiltonian . We emphasize that our approach effectively transforms all operators, and not only $``$. Using $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0|𝒬|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{BCS}}|𝒫\stackrel{~}{𝒬}𝒫|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{BCS}}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{𝒬}=\mathrm{exp}(iS)𝒬\mathrm{exp}(iS)`$, it follows that incorporating $`\mathrm{exp}(iS)`$ in the wavefunction (1) is equivalent to transforming $`𝒬\stackrel{~}{𝒬}`$ and working with fully projected states.

Using standard VMC techniques  we compute equal-time correlators in the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$. The two variational parameters are determined by minimizing $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0||\mathrm{\Psi }_0/\mathrm{\Psi }_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ at each $`x`$. The doping dependence of the resulting $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{var}}(x)`$ is shown in Fig. 1(a). Varying input parameters in $``$ we find that the scale for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{var}}`$ is mainly determined by $`J=4t^2/U`$. We show below that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{var}}`$ is not proportional to the SC order parameter, in contrast to BCS theory, and also argue that it is not equal to the spectral gap. On the other hand, we find that the optimal $`\mu _{\mathrm{var}}(x)\mu _0(x)`$, the chemical potential of noninteracting electrons described by $`𝒦`$. However, $`\mu _{\mathrm{var}}`$ is quite different  from the chemical potential $`\mu =/N`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the expectation value in the optimal, normalized ground state.

Phase Diagram: We now show that the wavefunction (1) is able to describe three phases: a resonating valence bond (RVB) insulator, a $`d`$-wave SC and a Fermi liquid metal. To establish the $`T=0`$ phase diagram we first study off-diagonal long range order (ODLRO) using $`F_{\alpha ,\beta }(𝐫𝐫^{})=c_{}^{}(𝐫)c_{}^{}(𝐫+\widehat{\alpha })c_{}(𝐫^{})c_{}(𝐫^{}+\widehat{\beta })`$, where $`\widehat{\alpha },\widehat{\beta }=\widehat{x},\widehat{y}`$. We find that $`F_{\alpha ,\beta }\pm \mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ for large $`|𝐫𝐫^{}|`$, with $`+`$ ($``$) sign obtained for $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ ($``$) to $`\widehat{\beta }`$, indicating $`d`$-wave SC. As seen from Fig. 1(b) the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ is not proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{var}}(x)`$, and is nonmonotonic. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ vanishes linearly in $`x`$ as $`x0`$ as first noted in ref. , even though $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{var}}0`$. We argue  that $`\mathrm{\Phi }x`$ is a general property of projected SC wavefunctions. The local fixed number constraint imposed by $`𝒫`$ at $`x=0`$ leads to large quantum phase fluctuations that destroy SC order. The non-SC state at $`x=0`$ is an insulator with a vanishing Drude weight, as shown below. The system is a SC in the doping range $`0<x<x_c0.35`$ with $`\mathrm{\Phi }0`$. For $`x>x_c`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ and the wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{var}}=0`$ describes a normal Fermi liquid. In the remainder of this paper we will study $`0xx_c`$.

Coherence Lengths: We must carefully distinguish between various ‘coherence lengths’, which are the same in BCS theory, but are very different in strongly correlated SC’s. The internal pair wavefunction $`\phi (𝐤)`$ defines a pair-size $`\xi _{\mathrm{pair}}\overline{v}_F^0/\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{var}}`$, where $`\overline{v}_F^0`$ is the bare average Fermi velocity. Projection does not affect the pair-size much, and $`\xi _{\mathrm{pair}}`$ remains finite at $`x=0`$, where it defines the range of singlet bonds in the RVB insulator .

A second important length scale is the inter-hole spacing $`1/\sqrt{x}`$. At shorter distances there are no holes and the system effectively looks like the $`x=0`$ insulator. Thus the superconducting coherence length $`\xi _{\mathrm{sc}}`$ must necessarily satisfy $`\xi _{\mathrm{sc}}\mathrm{max}(\xi _{\mathrm{pair}},1/\sqrt{x})`$. This bound implies that $`\xi _{\mathrm{sc}}`$ must diverge both in the insulating limit $`x0`$ (see also Refs. ) and the metallic limit $`xx_c^{}`$, but is small at optimality; see Fig. 1(c). This non-monotonic behavior of $`\xi _{\mathrm{sc}}(x)`$ should be checked experimentally.

Momentum Distribution: From gray-scale plots like Fig. 2 we see considerable structure in the momentum distribution $`n(𝐤)`$ over the entire range $`0xx_c`$. One cannot define a Fermi surface (FS) since the system is a SC (or an insulator). Nevertheless, for all $`x`$, the $`𝐤`$-space loci (i) on which $`n(𝐤)=1/2`$ and (ii) on which $`|_𝐤n(𝐤)|`$ is maximum, are both quite similar to the corresponding noninteracting FS’s. For $`t^{}=t/4`$, the FS is hole-like for $`x0.22`$, and electron-like for overdoping .

We next exploit the fact that moments of dynamical correlations can be expressed as equal-time correlators, calculable in our formalism. Specifically, we look at $`M_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \omega ^{\mathrm{}}f(\omega )A(𝐤,\omega )`$, where $`A(𝐤,\omega )`$ is the one-particle spectral function and, at $`T=0`$, $`f(\omega )=\mathrm{\Theta }(\omega )`$. We calculate $`M_0(𝐤)=n(𝐤)`$ and the first moment  $`M_1(𝐤)=c_{𝐤\sigma }^{}[,c_{𝐤\sigma }]`$ to obtain important information about the spectral function.

Nodal Quasiparticles: Fig. 2(c) shows that along $`(0,0)`$ to $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ $`n(𝐤)`$ has a jump discontinuity. This implies the existence of gapless quasiparticles (QPs) observed by angle resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) . The spectral function along the diagonal thus has the low energy form: $`A(𝐤,\omega )=Z\delta (\omega \stackrel{~}{\xi }_k)+A_{inc}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_k=v_F(kk_F)`$ is the QP dispersion and $`A_{inc}`$ the smooth incoherent part. We estimate the nodal $`k_F(x)`$ from the location of the discontinuity and the QP weight $`Z`$ from its magnitude. While $`k_F(x)`$ has weak doping dependence, $`Z(x)`$ is shown in Fig. 2(d), with $`Zx`$ as the insulator is approached .

Projection leads to a suppression of $`Z`$ from unity with the incoherent weight $`(1Z)`$ spread out to high energies. We infer large incoherent linewidths as follows. (a) At the “band bottom” $`n(𝐤=(0,0))0.85`$ (for $`x=0.18`$) implying that 15% of the spectral weight must have spilled over to $`\omega >0`$. (b) Even at $`k_F`$, the first moment $`M_1`$ lies significantly below $`\omega =0`$ (defined by the chemical potential $`\mu =/N`$); see Fig. 3(a).

The moments are dominated by the high energy incoherent part of $`A(𝐤,\omega )`$, but their singular behavior is determined by the gapless coherent QPs. Specifically, along the zone diagonal $`M_1(𝐤)=Z\stackrel{~}{\xi }_k\mathrm{\Theta }(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_k)+\mathrm{smooth}\mathrm{part}`$. Thus its slope $`dM_1(𝐤)/dk`$ has a discontinuity of $`Zv_F`$ at $`k_F`$, as seen in Fig. 3(a), and may be used to estimate  the nodal Fermi velocity $`v_F`$. As seen from Fig. 3(b), $`v_F(x)`$ is reduced from its bare value $`v_F^0`$ and is weakly doping dependent, consistent with the ARPES estimate of $`v_F1.5eV`$-$`\AA `$ in Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ (BSCCO).

As $`x0`$, $`Z=[1\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}/\omega ]^1x`$, while $`v_F(x)/v_F^0=Z[1+(v_F^0)^1\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}/k]`$ is weakly $`x`$-dependent. This implies a $`1/x`$ divergence in the $`𝐤`$-dependence of the self energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ on the zone diagonal, which could be tested by ARPES.

Within slave boson mean field theory (MFT) , we find  $`Z^{\mathrm{sb}}=x`$ in Fig.2(d) and $`v_F^{\mathrm{sb}}(x)`$ shown in Fig.3(b), both systematically smaller than the corresponding VMC results. Thus the holons and spinons must be partially bound by gauge fluctuations beyond MFT.

Moments Along $`(\pi ,0)(\pi ,\pi )`$: The moments $`n(𝐤)`$ and $`M_1(𝐤)`$ near $`𝐤=(\pi ,0)`$ are not sufficient to estimate the SC gap, however they give insight into the nature of the spectral function. As seen from Fig. 4(a) $`n(𝐤)`$ is much broader than that for the unprojected $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{BCS}}`$. For $`𝐤`$’s near $`(\pi ,\pi )`$, which correspond to high energy, unoccupied ($`\omega >0`$) states in $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{BCS}}`$ we see a significant build up of spectral weight transferred from $`\omega <0`$. Correspondingly, we see loss of spectral weight near $`(\pi ,0)`$. We thus infer large linewidths at all $`𝐤`$’s, also seen from the large $`|M_1(𝐤)|`$ (in Fig. 4(b)) relative to the BCS result.

The transfer of weight over large energies inferred above suggests that projection pushes spectral weight to $`|\omega |<\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{var}}`$, the gap in unprojected BCS theory. We thus expect that the true spectral gap $`E_{\mathrm{gap}}<\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{var}}`$ and that the coherent QP near $`(\pi ,0)`$ must then reside at $`E_{\mathrm{gap}}`$ in order to be stable against decay into incoherent excitations. It is then plausible that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{var}}`$, the large gap before projection, is related to an incoherent feature in $`A(𝐤,\omega )`$ near $`(\pi ,0)`$ after projection . Indeed, comparing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{var}}`$ with the $`(\pi ,0)`$ “hump” feature seen in ARPES, we find good agreement in the magnitude as well as doping dependence; see Fig. 1(a).

Optical spectral weight: The optical conductivity sum rule states that $`_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega Re\sigma (\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\pi _𝐤m^1(𝐤)n(𝐤)`$ $`\pi D_{\mathrm{tot}}/2`$ where $`m^1(𝐤)=`$ $`\left(^2ϵ(𝐤)/𝐤_x𝐤_x\right)`$ is the noninteracting mass tensor (we set $`\mathrm{}=c=e=1`$). The total optical spectral weight $`D_{\mathrm{tot}}(x)`$ is plotted in Fig. 5(a) and seen to be non-zero even at $`x=0`$, since the infinite cutoff in the integral above includes contributions from the “upper Hubbard band”.

A physically more interesting quantity is the low frequency optical weight, or Drude weight, $`D_{\mathrm{low}}`$ where the upper cutoff extends above the scale of $`t`$ and $`J`$, but is much smaller than $`U`$. This is conveniently defined  by the response to an external vector potential: $`D_{\mathrm{low}}=^2_A_A/A^2`$. Here the subscript on $``$ denotes that $`A`$ enters the kinetic energy via a Peierls minimal coupling, and that on the expectation value denotes the corresponding modification of $`\mathrm{exp}(iS)`$ in Eq. (1). The Drude weight $`D_{\mathrm{low}}(x)`$, plotted in Fig. 5(a), vanishes linearly as $`x0`$, which can be argued to be a general property of projected states . This also proves, following Ref. , that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ describes an insulator at $`x=0`$. Both the magnitude and doping dependence of $`D_{\mathrm{low}}(x)`$ are consistent with optical data on the cuprates .

Motivated by our results on the nodal $`Z(x)`$ and $`D_{\mathrm{low}}(x)`$, we make a parametric plot of these two quantities in Fig. 5(b) and find that $`D_{\mathrm{low}}Z`$ over the entire doping range, a prediction which can be checked by comparing optics and ARPES  on the cuprates.

Superfluid Density: The Kubo formula for the superfluid stiffness $`D_s`$ can be written as $`D_s=D_{\mathrm{low}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^T`$, where $`D_{\mathrm{low}}`$ is the diamagnetic response, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^T`$ is the transverse current-current correlator. Using the spectral representation for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^T`$ it is easy to see that  $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^T0`$ implying $`D_sD_{\mathrm{low}}`$. Two conclusions follow. First, $`D_s0`$ as $`x0`$, consistent with experiments . Second, we obtain a lower bound on the penetration depth $`\lambda _\mathrm{L}`$ defined by $`\lambda _\mathrm{L}^24\pi e^2D_s/\mathrm{}^2c^2d_c`$. Using the calculated $`D_{\mathrm{low}}90meV`$ at optimality and a mean interlayer spacing $`d_c=7.5\AA `$ (appropriate to BSCCO), we find $`\lambda _\mathrm{L}1350\AA `$, consistent with experiment .

Conclusions: We have shown, within our variational scheme, the $`T=0`$ evolution of the system from an undoped insulator to a d-wave SC to a Fermi liquid as a function of $`x`$. The SC order parameter $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ is non-monotonic with a maximum at optimal doping $`x0.2`$,

suggestive of the experimental trend in $`T_c(x)`$ from under- to over-doping. As $`x0`$ $`D_s`$ vanishes, while the spectral gap, expected to scale with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{var}}`$, remains finite. Thus the underdoped state, with strong pairing and weak phase coherence, should lead to pseudogap behavior in the temperature range between $`T_c`$ (which scales like $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$) and $`T^{}`$ (which scales like $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{var}}`$).

Acknowledgements: We thank H.R. Krishnamurthy, P.A. Lee, M.R. Norman and J. Orenstein for helpful comments on an earlier draft. M.R. was supported in part by the DST through the Swarnajayanti scheme.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Until recently it was not clear how many distinct quantum group deformations are admissible for the group $`GL(2)`$ and the supergroup $`GL(1|1)`$. For the group $`GL(2)`$ there were the well-known standard $`GL_{pq}(2)`$  and nonstandard (Jordanian) $`GL_{gh}(2)`$  two-parameter deformations. For the supergroup $`GL(1|1)`$ there were the standard $`GL_{pq}(1|1)`$  and the hybrid (standard-nonstandard) $`GL_{qh}(1|1)`$  two-parameter deformations. (Various aspects of these matrix quantum (super-)group deformations were studied in, e.g., .) Recently, in  it was shown that the list of these four deformations is exhaustive (refuting a long standing claim of  (supported also in ) for the existence of a hybrid (standard-nonstandard) two-parameter deformation of $`GL(2)`$). In particular, it was shown that these four deformations match the distinct triangular $`4\times 4`$ $`R`$-matrices from the classification of  which are deformations of the trivial $`R`$-matrix (corresponding to undeformed $`GL(2)`$).

The matching mentioned above was done by applying the FRT formalism  to these $`R`$-matrices. While applying this we noticed that a particular $`R`$-matrix, namely, the one denoted by $`R_{H2,3}`$ in , gives different results depending on the range of the three parameters $`h_1,h_2,h_3`$ it depends of. Only one of the ranges, namely, $`h_1=h_2=h`$, $`h_3=h^2`$ contains the zero point which gives the trivial $`R`$ matrix. (It is a partial case of the two-parameter $`g,h`$ Jordanian deformation for $`g=h`$.) The other two ranges are given by $`h_1=h_2=h`$, $`h_3h^2`$ $`()`$ and $`h_1h_2`$ $`()`$. Thus, the $`R`$-matrices obtained while varying through these ranges are not deformations of the trivial $`R`$ matrix, and also are distinct between each other. This analysis revealed altogether three distinctly different triangular $`R`$-matrices which are not deformations of the trivial $`R`$-matrix. In this way, in  were obtained three new matrix bialgebras which are not deformations of the classical algebra of functions over the group $`GL(2)`$ or the supergroup $`GL(1|1)`$. These new matrix bialgebras, which we now call exotic are very interesting and deserve further study. One of the first problems when dealing with such matrix bialgebras is to find the bialgebras with which they are in duality, since some of the structural characteristics are more transparent for the duals. The bialgebras in duality are also the interesting objects with respect to the development of the representation theory.

This is the problem we solve in this paper. We find the bialgebras which are in duality with the three exotic matrix bialgebras found in . We then find the quantum planes corresponding to these bialgebras by the Wess-Zumino R-matrix method  (cf. also ). For the latter we find the minimal polynomials pol$`()`$ in one variable such that pol$`(\widehat{R})=0`$ is the lowest order polynomial identity satisfied by the singly permuted $`R`$-matrix $`\widehat{R}PR`$ ($`P`$ is the permutation matrix). These minimal polynomials indeed separate the three cases of $`R_{H2,3}`$ mentioned above. Namely, in case $`()`$ we find a cubic minimal polynomial, while in the case $`()`$ it is quartic, (cf. (6.3),(6.4)). (Recall that the corresponding minimal polynomial in the Jordanian case is only quadratic.) We find also the quantum planes by Manin’s method .

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we give a the overall general setting. Sections 3,4,5, are devoted to the separate study of the three exotic bialgebras. In each case we first give a more detailed (than in ) picture of the structure of these bialgebras, then we construct the bialgebra in duality, noting the bearing it has on the initial bialgebra; finally we show consistency of this approach to duality with the FRT one, noting the failings of the latter for these exotic bialgebras. In Section 6 we construct the quantum planes corresponding to the three matrix bialgebras. Section 7 contains conclusions and outlook.

## 2 Exotic bialgebras: general setting

In this paper we consider the three exotic matrix bialgebras (obtained in ) which are not deformations of the classical algebra of functions over the group $`GL(2)`$ or the supergroup $`GL(1|1)`$. In all three cases these are unital associative algebras generated by four elements $`a,b,c,d`$ which are not deformations of the classical algebra of functions over the group $`GL(2)`$ (or over the supergroup $`GL(1|1)`$). This is evident also from the algebraic relations which we give separately below. The coalgebraic relations are the classical ones:

$$\delta (T)=TT,\epsilon (T)=\mathbf{1}_2\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)$$
(2.1)
or explicitly:

$$\delta \left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}aa+bc& ab+bd\\ ca+dc& cb+dd\end{array}\right)$$
(2.2)
$$\epsilon \left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(2.3)
However, the bialgebras under consideration are not Hopf algebras, as we shall show in each particular case.

## 3 Exotic bialgebras: case 1

### 3.1 Bialgebra relations

In this Section we consider the matrix bialgebra, denoted here by $`𝒜_1`$, which is obtained by applying the RTT relations of :

$$RT_1T_2=T_2T_1R,$$
(3.1)
where $`T_1=T\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}_2`$ , $`T_2=\mathbf{1}_2T`$, for the case when $`R=R_1`$:

$$R_1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& h& h& h_3\\ & 1& 0& h\\ & & 1& h\\ & & & 1\end{array}\right),h_3h^2$$
(3.2)
This $`R`$-matrix together with the condition on the parameters is one of the special cases (mentioned in the Introduction) of the $`R`$-matrix denoted by $`R_{H2,3}`$ in . The algebraic relations of $`𝒜_1`$ obtained in this way are given by formulae (5.11) of , namely:

$`c^2=0,ca=ac=0,dc=cd=0,`$
$`da=ad,cb=bc,a^2=d^2`$
$`ab=ba+h(a^2+bcad),db=bdh(a^2+bcad).`$ (3.3)
Note that the constant $`h_3`$ does not enter the above relations.

Note that this bialgebra is not a Hopf algebra. Indeed, suppose that it is and there is an antipode $`\gamma `$, then we use one of the Hopf algebra axioms:

$$m(\mathrm{id}\gamma )\delta =i\epsilon $$
(3.4)
as maps $`𝒜𝒜`$, where $`m`$ is the usual product in the algebra: $`m(YZ)=YZ,Y,Z𝒜`$ and $`i`$ is the natural embedding of the number field $`F`$ into $`𝒜`$ : $`i(c)=\mu 1_𝒜,\mu F`$. Applying this to the element $`d`$ we would have:

$$c\gamma (b)+d\gamma (d)=1_𝒜$$

which leads to contradiction after multiplying from the left by $`c`$ (one would get $`0=c`$).

The algebra $`𝒜_1`$ has the following PBW basis:

$$b^na^kd^{\mathrm{}},b^nc,n,k_+,\mathrm{}=0,1.$$
(3.5)
The last line of (3.1) strongly suggests the substitution:

$$\stackrel{~}{a}=\frac{1}{2}(a+d),\stackrel{~}{d}=\frac{1}{2}(ad),$$
(3.6)
so that the new algebraic relations and PBW basis are:

$`c^2=0,\stackrel{~}{a}c=c\stackrel{~}{a}=\stackrel{~}{d}c=c\stackrel{~}{d}=\stackrel{~}{a}\stackrel{~}{d}=\stackrel{~}{d}\stackrel{~}{a}=0,cb=bc,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{a}b=b\stackrel{~}{a},\stackrel{~}{d}b=b\stackrel{~}{d}+2h\stackrel{~}{d}^2+hbc`$ (3.7)
$$b^n\stackrel{~}{a}^k,b^n\stackrel{~}{d}^{\mathrm{}},b^nc,n,k_+,\mathrm{}.$$
(3.8)
The coalgebra relations become:

$`\delta \left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{a}\\ \\ b\\ \\ c\\ \\ \stackrel{~}{d}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{a}\stackrel{~}{a}+\stackrel{~}{d}\stackrel{~}{d}+\frac{1}{2}bc+\frac{1}{2}cb\\ \\ \stackrel{~}{a}b+\stackrel{~}{d}b+b\stackrel{~}{a}b\stackrel{~}{d}\\ \\ c\stackrel{~}{a}+c\stackrel{~}{d}+\stackrel{~}{a}c\stackrel{~}{d}c\\ \\ \stackrel{~}{a}\stackrel{~}{d}+\stackrel{~}{d}\stackrel{~}{a}+\frac{1}{2}bc\frac{1}{2}cb\end{array}\right)`$ (3.23)
$`\epsilon \left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{a}& b\\ c& \stackrel{~}{d}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (3.28)
### 3.2 Duality

Two bialgebras $`𝒰,𝒜`$ are said to be in duality  if there exists a doubly nondegenerate bilinear form

$$,:𝒰\times 𝒜,,:(u,a)u,a,u𝒰,a𝒜$$
(3.29)
such that, for $`u,v𝒰,a,b𝒜`$ :

$`u,ab=\delta _𝒰(u),ab,uv,a=uv,\delta _𝒜(a)`$ (3.30a)
$`1_𝒰,a=\epsilon _𝒜(a),u,1_𝒜=\epsilon _𝒰(u)`$ (3.30b)
Two Hopf algebras $`𝒰,𝒜`$ are said to be in duality  if they are in duality as bialgebras and if

$$\gamma _𝒰(u),a=u,\gamma _𝒜(a)$$
(3.31)
It is enough to define the pairing (3.29) between the generating elements of the two algebras. The pairing between any other elements of $`𝒰,𝒜`$ follows then from relations (3.30) and the standard bilinear form inherited by the tensor product.

The duality between two bialgebras or Hopf algebras may be used also to obtain the unknown dual of a known algebra. For that it is enough to give the pairing between the generating elements of the unknown algebra with arbitrary elements of the PBW basis of the known algebra. Using these initial pairings and the duality properties one may find the unknown algebra. One such possibility is given in . However, their approach is not universal. In particular, it is not enough for the algebras considered here, (as will become clear) and will be used only as consistency check.

Another approach was initiated by Sudbery . He obtained $`U_q(sl(2))U(u(1))`$ as the algebra of tangent vectors at the identity of $`GL_q(2)`$. The initial pairings were defined through the tangent vectors at the identity. However, such calculations become very difficult for more complicated algebras. Thus, in  a generalization was proposed in which the initial pairings are postulated to be equal to the classical undeformed results. This generalized method was applied in  to the standard two-parameter deformation $`GL_{p,q}(2)`$, (where also Sudbery’s method was used), then in  to the multiparameter deformation of $`GL(n)`$, in  to the matrix quantum Lorentz group of , in  to the Jordanian two-parameter deformation $`GL_{g,h}(2)`$, in  to the hybrid two-parameter deformation of the superalgebra $`GL_{q,h}(1|1)`$, in  to the multiparameter deformation of the superalgebra $`GL(m/n)`$. (We note that the dual of $`GL_{p,q}(2)`$ was obtained also in  by methods of q-differential calculus.)

Let us denote by $`𝒰_1`$ the unknown yet dual algebra of $`𝒜_1`$, and by $`\stackrel{~}{A},B,C,\stackrel{~}{D}`$ the four generators of $`𝒰_1`$. We would like as in  to define the pairing $`Z,f`$, $`Z=\stackrel{~}{A},B,C,\stackrel{~}{D}`$, $`f`$ is from (3.8), as the classical tangent vector at the identity:

$$Z,f\epsilon \left(\frac{f}{y}\right),$$
(3.32)
however, here this would work only for the pairs: $`(Z,y)=(\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{a}),(B,b),(\stackrel{~}{D},\stackrel{~}{d})`$, but not for $`(C,c)`$. The reason is that classically some of the relations in (3.1) are constraints and we have to differentiate internally with respect to the manifold described by these constraints. In particular, if a constraint is given by setting $`g=0`$, where $`g`$ is some function of $`\stackrel{~}{a},b,c,\stackrel{~}{d}`$, then any differentiation $`𝒟`$ should respect:

$$\left(𝒟gf\right)_{g=0}=0,$$
(3.33)
where $`f`$ is any polynomial function of $`\stackrel{~}{a},b,c,\stackrel{~}{d}`$. Thus, we are lead to define:

$$C,f\epsilon \left(E\frac{}{c}f\right)$$
(3.34)
where:

$`E=\widehat{E}(\stackrel{~}{a},{\displaystyle \frac{}{\stackrel{~}{a}}}),`$ (3.35a)
$`\widehat{E}(x,y){\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^ky^k}{k!}}`$ (3.35b)
From the above definitions we get:

$`\stackrel{~}{A},f=\epsilon \left({\displaystyle \frac{f}{\stackrel{~}{a}}}\right)=\delta _{n0}\{\begin{array}{cc}k\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=b^n\stackrel{~}{a}^k\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=b^n\stackrel{~}{d}^{\mathrm{}}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=b^nc\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.36a)
$`B,f=\epsilon \left({\displaystyle \frac{f}{b}}\right)=\delta _{n1}\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=b^n\stackrel{~}{a}^k\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=b^n\stackrel{~}{d}^{\mathrm{}}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=b^nc\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.36b)
$`C,f=\epsilon \left(E{\displaystyle \frac{f}{c}}\right)=\delta _{n0}\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=b^n\stackrel{~}{a}^k\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=b^n\stackrel{~}{d}^{\mathrm{}}\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=b^nc\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.36c)
$`\stackrel{~}{D},f=\epsilon \left({\displaystyle \frac{f}{\stackrel{~}{d}}}\right)=\delta _\mathrm{}1\delta _{n0}\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=b^n\stackrel{~}{a}^k\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=b^n\stackrel{~}{d}^{\mathrm{}}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=b^nc\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.36d)
$`E,f=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=1_𝒜\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.36e)
We have included above also the auxiliary generator $`E`$ since it will appear in the coproduct relations (cf. below). Note that if we have taken the definition (3.32) for $`(C,c)`$ the result in (3.36) would superficially be the same.

Now we can find the relations between the generators of $`𝒜_1`$. We have:

Proposition 1: The generators $`\stackrel{~}{A},B,C,\stackrel{~}{D},E`$ introduced above obey the following relations:

$`[\stackrel{~}{D},C]=2C`$ (3.37a)
$`[B,C]=\stackrel{~}{D}`$ (3.37b)
$`[B,C]_+=\stackrel{~}{D}^2`$ (3.37c)
$`[\stackrel{~}{D},B]=2B\stackrel{~}{D}^2`$ (3.37d)
$`[\stackrel{~}{D},B]_+=0`$ (3.37e)
$`\stackrel{~}{D}^3=\stackrel{~}{D}`$ (3.37f)
$`C^2=0`$ (3.37g)
$`[\stackrel{~}{A},B]=0`$ (3.37h)
$`[\stackrel{~}{A},C]=0`$ (3.37i)
$`[\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{D}]=0`$ (3.37j)
$`EZ=ZE=0,Z=\stackrel{~}{A},B,C,\stackrel{~}{D}.`$ (3.37k)
Proof: Using the assumed duality the above relations are shown by calculating their pairings with the basis monomials $`f`$ of $`𝒜_1`$. In particular, we have:

$`C\stackrel{~}{D},f=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=c\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.38a)
$`\stackrel{~}{D}C,f=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=c\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.38b)
$`BC,f=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=\stackrel{~}{a}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=\stackrel{~}{d}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.38c)
$`CB,f=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=\stackrel{~}{a}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=\stackrel{~}{d}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.38d)
$`B\stackrel{~}{D},f=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=b\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.38e)
$`\stackrel{~}{D}B,f=B\stackrel{~}{D}^2,f=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=b\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.38f)
$`\stackrel{~}{D}^2,f=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=a\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.38g)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}B,f=B\stackrel{~}{A},f=\{\begin{array}{cc}k+1\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=b\stackrel{~}{a}^k\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.38h)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}C,f=C\stackrel{~}{A},f=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=c\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.38i)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{D},f=\stackrel{~}{D}\stackrel{~}{A},f=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=\stackrel{~}{d}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.38j)
The Proposition now follows by formulae (3.38) and the defining relations (3.36).$`\mathrm{}`$

We note that the algebraic relations (3.37) for $`𝒰_1`$ do not depend on the constant $`h`$ present in the relations (3.1) of the dual algebra $`𝒜_1`$. Later, we shall see that the established duality reduces also the algebra $`𝒜_1`$ so that it also does not depend on $`h`$.

### 3.3 Coalgebra structure of the dual

We turn now to the coalgebra structure of $`𝒰_1`$. We have:

Proposition 2: (i) The comultiplication in the algebra $`𝒰_1`$ is given by:

$`\delta (\stackrel{~}{A})=\stackrel{~}{A}1_𝒰+1_𝒰\stackrel{~}{A},`$ (3.39a)
$`\delta (B)=B1_𝒰+1_𝒰B,`$ (3.39b)
$`\delta (C)=CE+EC,`$ (3.39c)
$`\delta (\stackrel{~}{D})=\stackrel{~}{D}E+E\stackrel{~}{D},`$ (3.39d)
$`\delta (E)=EE`$ (3.39e)
(ii) The co-unit relations in $`𝒰_1`$ are given by:

$`\epsilon _𝒰(Z)=0,Z=\stackrel{~}{A},B,C,\stackrel{~}{D}`$ (3.40a)
$`\epsilon _𝒰(E)=1`$ (3.40b)
where we have included also the auxiliary operator $`E`$.
Proof: (i) We use the duality property (3.30a), namely we have

$$Z,f_1f_2=\delta _𝒰(Z),f_1f_2$$

for every generator $`Z`$ of $`𝒰_1`$ and for every $`f_1,f_2𝒜_1`$. Then we calculate separately the LHS and RHS and comparing the results prove (3.39). (ii) Formulae (3.40) follow from $`\epsilon _𝒰(Z)=Z,1_𝒜`$, cf. (3.30b), and using the defining relations (3.36).$`\mathrm{}`$

There is no antipode for the bialgebra $`𝒰_1`$. Indeed, suppose that there was such. Then by applying the Hopf algebra axiom (3.4) to the generator $`E`$ we would get:

$$E\gamma (E)=1_𝒰$$

which would lead to contradiction after multiplication from the left with $`Z=\stackrel{~}{A},B,C,\stackrel{~}{D}`$ (we would get $`0=Z`$).

### 3.4 Reduction of the bialgebra

We noticed that the algebraic relations (3.37) of $`𝒰_1`$ do not depend on the constant $`h`$ from relations (3.1) of $`𝒜_1`$. The coproduct relations (3.39) also do not depend on $`h`$. We now clarify the reason for this. First we note that $`𝒜_1`$ has the following two-sided ideals and coideals:

$`I=𝒜_1b\stackrel{~}{d}𝒜_1\stackrel{~}{d}^2𝒜_1bc`$ (3.41a)
$`I_2=𝒜_1\stackrel{~}{d}^2𝒜_1bc`$ (3.41b)
$`I_1=𝒜_1bc`$ (3.41c)
so that

$$I_1I_2I𝒜_1$$
(3.42)
Furthermore the pairing of all these ideals with the dual algebra $`𝒰_1`$ vanish, thus we can set them consistently equal to zero. Thus, the basis of $`𝒜_1`$ is reduced to the following monomials:

$$b^n\stackrel{~}{a}^k,n,k_+,\stackrel{~}{d},c$$
(3.43)
Actually, it were only these monomials that appeared in the proof of the dual relations (3.37). The algebraic relations of the reduced algebra become rather trivial:

$`\stackrel{~}{a}c=c\stackrel{~}{a}=\stackrel{~}{d}c=c\stackrel{~}{d}=\stackrel{~}{a}\stackrel{~}{d}=\stackrel{~}{d}\stackrel{~}{a}=cb=bc=\stackrel{~}{d}b=b\stackrel{~}{d}=0,`$
$`c^2=0,\stackrel{~}{a}b=b\stackrel{~}{a},`$ (3.44)
while the coalgebra relations remain unchanged and nontrivial. It is remarkable that the dual algebra has much richer structure both in the algebraic and coalgebraic sectors.

### 3.5 Consistency with the FRT approach

For the application of the FRT approach to duality we need the $`4\times 4`$ R-matrix which for the algebra $`𝒜_1`$ is given by (3.2). In the duality relations enter actually the matrices $`R_1^\pm `$:

$`R_1^+PR_1P=R_1(h)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& h& h& h_3\\ & 1& 0& h\\ & & 1& h\\ & & & 1\end{array}\right)`$ (3.45e)
$`R_1^{}R_1^1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& h& h& h_32h^2\\ & 1& 0& h\\ & & 1& h\\ & & & 1\end{array}\right)`$ (3.45j)
where $`P`$ is the permutation matrix:

$$P\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(3.46)
These R-matrices encode (part of) the duality between $`𝒰_1`$ and $`𝒜_1`$ by formula (2.1) of  taken for $`k=1`$ and written in our setting:

$$L^\pm ,T=R_1^\pm ,$$
(3.47)
where $`L^\pm `$ are $`2\times 2`$ matrices whose elements are functions of the generators of $`𝒰_1`$, $`T`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ matrix formed by the generators of $`𝒜_1`$, c.f., (2.1). In order to make formula (3.47) explicit we have to adopt some convention on the indices. We choose to write it as:

$$L_{ik}^\pm ,T_\mathrm{}j=(R_1^\pm )_{ijk\mathrm{}},i,j,k,\mathrm{}=1,2,$$
(3.48)
where the enumeration of the R-matrices is done as in , namely the rows are enumerated from top to bottom by the pairs $`(i,j)=(1,1),(1,2),(2,1),(2,2)`$, and the columns are enumerated from left to right by the pairs $`(k,\mathrm{})=(1,1),(1,2),(2,1),(2,2)`$.

Using all this and rewriting the result in terms of the new basis (3.1) of $`𝒜_1`$ we have:

$$L_{11}^\pm ,\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{a}& b\\ c& \stackrel{~}{d}\end{array}\right)=L_{22}^\pm ,\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{a}& b\\ c& \stackrel{~}{d}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& h\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(3.49)
$$L_{12}^\pm ,\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{a}& b\\ c& \stackrel{~}{d}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}h& h_\pm \\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(3.50)
where $`h_+=h_3`$ and $`h_{}=h_32h^2`$ . Note that the elements $`L_{21}^\pm `$ have zero products with all generators so we can set them to zero. Next we calculate the pairings with arbitrary elements of $`𝒜_1`$ for which we use the fact that the coproducts of the $`L_{jk}^\pm `$ generators are canonically given by :

$$\delta \left(L_{ik}^\pm \right)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}L_{ij}^\pm L_{jk}^\pm .$$
(3.51)
Using this we obtain:

$$L_{11}^\pm ,b^n\stackrel{~}{a}^k=L_{22}^\pm ,b^n\stackrel{~}{a}^k=(h)^n$$
(3.52)
$$L_{12}^\pm ,b^n\stackrel{~}{a}^k=(1)^nh^{n1}((k+n)h^2n(h_\pm +h^2))$$
(3.53)
All other pairings are zero.

Computing the above pairings with the defining relations (3.36) we conclude that these $`L`$ operators are expressed in terms of the generators of the dual algebra $`𝒰_1`$ as follows:

$`L_{11}^\pm =L_{22}^\pm =e^{hB}`$ (3.54a)
$`L_{12}^\pm =((h_\pm +h^2)B+h\stackrel{~}{A})e^{hB}`$ (3.54b)
where expressions like $`e^{\nu B}`$ are defined as formal power series $`e^{\nu B}=1_𝒰+_{p_+}\frac{\nu ^p}{p!}B^p`$. Formulae (3.54) are compatible with the coproducts (3.39a,b) of the generators $`\stackrel{~}{A},B`$. However, as we see this approach does not say anything about the generators $`C,\stackrel{~}{D}`$.

## 4 Exotic bialgebras: case 2

### 4.1 Bialgebra relations

In this Section we consider the bialgebra, denoted here by $`𝒜_2`$, which is obtained by applying the basic relations (3.1) for the case when $`R=R_2`$:

$$R_2=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& h_1& h_2& h_3\\ & 1& 0& h_2\\ & & 1& h_1\\ & & & 1\end{array}\right),h_1+h_20$$
(4.1)
This $`R`$-matrix together with the condition on the parameters is the second of the special cases (mentioned in the Introduction) of the $`R`$-matrix denoted by $`R_{H2,3}`$ in . Its algebraic relations thus obtained are given by formulae (5.9) of , namely:

$`c^2=0,ca=ac=0,dc=cd=0,`$
$`da=ad,cb=bc,`$
$`a^2=d^2=ad+bc,`$
$`ab=bd=ba+(h_1h_2)bc,db=bd+(h_2h_1)bc.`$ (4.2)
Note that the constant $`h_3`$ does not enter the above relations.

The coalgebra relations are the same as for $`𝒜_1`$. Also the demonstration that this bialgebra is not a Hopf algebra is done as for $`𝒜_1`$. The PBW basis in this case is:

$$b^na^k,a^{\mathrm{}}d,c,n,k_+,\mathrm{}=0,1.$$
(4.3)
Also in this case we make the change of basis (3.6) to obtain:

$`c^2=0,\stackrel{~}{a}c=c\stackrel{~}{a}=\stackrel{~}{d}c=c\stackrel{~}{d}=\stackrel{~}{a}\stackrel{~}{d}=\stackrel{~}{d}\stackrel{~}{a}=0,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{a}b=b\stackrel{~}{a},`$
$`bc=cb=2\stackrel{~}{d}^2,\stackrel{~}{d}^3=0`$
$`\stackrel{~}{d}b=b\stackrel{~}{d}=(h_1h_2)\stackrel{~}{d}^2`$ (4.4)
The PBW basis becomes:

$$b^n\stackrel{~}{a}^k,\stackrel{~}{d}^{\mathrm{}},c,n,k_+,\mathrm{}=1,2.$$
(4.5)
Thus, this bialgebra looks ’smaller’ than $`𝒜_1`$ \- compare with (4.5). It has also a smaller structure of two-sided ideals and coideals:

$`I_2=𝒜_2\stackrel{~}{d}^2𝒜_2bc`$ (4.6a)
$`I_1=𝒜_2bc`$ (4.6b)
so that

$$I_1I_2𝒜_2$$
(4.7)
\- compare with (3.41,3.42).

### 4.2 Algebra and coalgebra structure of the dual

In view of the similarities between the algebras $`𝒜_1`$ and $`𝒜_2`$ it is natural do use the same generators $`\stackrel{~}{A},B,C,\stackrel{~}{D},E`$ for the dual $`𝒰_2`$. It is not surprising that we get the same algebraic and coalgebraic relations. We have:

Proposition 3: The generators $`\stackrel{~}{A},B,C,\stackrel{~}{D},E`$ of the bialgebra $`𝒰_2`$ obey the same algebraic and coalgebraic relations as for the algebra $`𝒰_1`$ given in Propositions 1 and 2.
Proof: The proof is based on the fact that the bialgebras $`𝒜_1`$ and $`𝒜_2`$ differ in the relations involving the (co)ideals $`I_k`$ which have no bearing on the relations of $`𝒰_1`$. Thus, we need only to show that all bilinears built from the generators $`\stackrel{~}{A},B,C,\stackrel{~}{D},E`$ have zero pairings with the ideals $`I_k`$, (cf. (4.6,4.7)), which is easy to demonstrate.$`\mathrm{}`$

As a corollary also here the basis and algebraic relations of $`𝒜_2`$ reduce to (3.43), (3.4).

Thus, we have the following important conclusion:

Proposition 4: The bialgebras $`𝒜_1`$ and $`𝒜_2`$ considered as bialgebras in duality with the bialgebras $`𝒰_1`$, $`𝒰_2`$, respectively, coincide.

We recall that the notion of duality we use does not coincide with the FRT definition of duality. The latter is more stringent as we shall see in the next subsection.

### 4.3 Consistency with the FRT approach

The $`4\times 4`$ R-matrix needed for the FRT approach is given in (4.1). The matrices $`R_2^\pm `$ entering the duality relations are:

$`R_2^+PR_2P=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& h_2& h_1& h_3\\ & 1& 0& h_1\\ & & 1& h_2\\ & & & 1\end{array}\right)`$ (4.8e)
$`R_2^{}R_2^1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& h_1& h_2& 2h_1h_2h_3\\ & 1& 0& h_2\\ & & 1& h_1\\ & & & 1\end{array}\right)`$ (4.8j)
Using the above and relations (3.48) (with $`R_1R_2`$) we obtain:

$$L_{11}^+,\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{a}& b\\ c& \stackrel{~}{d}\end{array}\right)=L_{22}^+,\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{a}& b\\ c& \stackrel{~}{d}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& h_2\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(4.9)
$$L_{12}^+,\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{a}& b\\ c& \stackrel{~}{d}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}h_1& h_3\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(4.10)
$$L_{11}^{},\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{a}& b\\ c& \stackrel{~}{d}\end{array}\right)=L_{22}^{},\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{a}& b\\ c& \stackrel{~}{d}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& h_1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(4.11)
$$L_{12}^{},\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{a}& b\\ c& \stackrel{~}{d}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}h_2& h_3+2h_1h_2\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(4.12)
Iterating this we obtain:

$$L_{11}^+,b^n\stackrel{~}{a}^k=L_{22}^+,b^n\stackrel{~}{a}^k=h_2^n$$
(4.13)
$$L_{12}^+,b^n\stackrel{~}{a}^k=h_2^{n1}((k+n)h_1h_2+n(h_3h_1h_2))$$
(4.14)
$$L_{11}^{},b^n\stackrel{~}{a}^k=L_{22}^{},b^n\stackrel{~}{a}^k=(h_1)^n$$
(4.15)
$$L_{12}^{},b^n\stackrel{~}{a}^k=(h_1)^{n1}((k+n)h_1h_2+n(h_3+h_1h_2))$$
(4.16)
From the above follow:

$`L_{11}^+=L_{22}^+=e^{h_2B}`$ (4.17a)
$`L_{12}^+=((h_3h_1h_2)B+h_1\stackrel{~}{A})e^{h_2B}`$ (4.17b)
$`L_{11}^{}=L_{22}^+=e^{h_1B}`$ (4.17c)
$`L_{12}^{}=((h_3+h_1h_2)Bh_2\stackrel{~}{A})e^{h_1B}`$ (4.17d)
This is compatible with the coproducts for the operators $`\stackrel{~}{A},B`$.

Thus, we see that the $`L`$ operators in this case are different from those of $`𝒰_1`$, cf. (3.54). Thus, the FRT approach is more stringent than the notion of duality we use since it distinguishes the two pairs of bialgebras. However, this difference is not as drastic as the difference between the algebraic relations (3.1), (4.1) of $`𝒜_1`$, $`𝒜_2`$, respectively, since (3.54) is just a special case of (4.17) obtained for $`h_1=h_2=h`$. On the other hand the FRT approach is incomplete in the cases at hand since it gives info only about part of the generators, namely, $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ and $`B`$, and says nothing about the generators $`C,\stackrel{~}{D}`$.

## 5 Exotic bialgebras: case 3

### 5.1 Bialgebra relations

In this Section we consider the bialgebra which we denote here by $`𝒜_3`$. It is obtained by applying the basic relations (3.1) for the case when $`R=R_3`$:

$$R_3=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 1\\ & 1& 0& 0\\ & & 1& 0\\ & & & 1\end{array}\right)$$
(5.1)
This R-matrix is denoted by $`R_{S0,2}`$ in . The algebraic relations of $`𝒜_3`$ are given by formulae (5.13) of , namely:

$`c^2=0,ca=ac=0,dc=cd=0,`$
$`da=ad,cb=bc,a^2=d^2`$
$`ab+ba=0,db+bd=0`$ (5.2)
The coalgebra relations and the demonstration that this bialgebra is not a Hopf algebra are as for $`𝒜_1,𝒜_3`$.

Also in this case we make the change of basis (3.6) to obtain:

$`c^2=0,\stackrel{~}{a}c=c\stackrel{~}{a}=\stackrel{~}{d}c=c\stackrel{~}{d}=\stackrel{~}{a}\stackrel{~}{d}=\stackrel{~}{d}\stackrel{~}{a}=0,cb=bc,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{a}b+b\stackrel{~}{a}=0,\stackrel{~}{d}b+b\stackrel{~}{d}=0.`$ (5.3)
The algebra $`𝒜_3`$ has the same PBW bases (3.5) and (3.8) as the algebra $`𝒜_1`$. It has also the same (co)ideals as $`𝒜_1`$ (cf. (3.41,3.42)).

### 5.2 Algebra and coalgebra structure of the dual

In view of the similarities between the algebras $`𝒜_1`$ and $`𝒜_3`$ it is natural do use the same generators $`\stackrel{~}{A},B,C,\stackrel{~}{D},E`$ for the dual $`𝒰_3`$. It is not surprising that we get the same algebraic relations between generators $`\stackrel{~}{A},B,C,\stackrel{~}{D},E`$. However, unlike the bialgebras $`𝒜_1`$, $`𝒜_2`$ the coalgebraic relations and the relation with the FRT formalism here are different and it is even necessary to introduce two new auxilliary operators $`F_\pm `$ defined as:

$$F_\pm ,f\epsilon \left(\widehat{E}(\pm 1,\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{d}})f\right)=\epsilon \left(\mathrm{exp}(\pm \frac{}{\stackrel{~}{d}})f\right).$$
(5.4)
Explicitly we have:

$`F_+,f=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=\stackrel{~}{d}^{\mathrm{}}\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=1_𝒜\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}`$ (5.5a)
$`F_{},f=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1)^{\mathrm{}}\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=\stackrel{~}{d}^{\mathrm{}}\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \mathrm{for}f=1_𝒜\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}`$ (5.5b)
We have for the algebraic and coalgebraic structure of $`𝒰_3`$:

Proposition 5: The generators $`\stackrel{~}{A},B,C,\stackrel{~}{D},E,F_\pm `$ obey the following algebraic relations:

$`[\stackrel{~}{D},C]=2C`$ (5.6a)
$`[B,C]=\stackrel{~}{D}`$ (5.6b)
$`[B,C]_+=\stackrel{~}{D}^2`$ (5.6c)
$`[\stackrel{~}{D},B]=2B\stackrel{~}{D}^2`$ (5.6d)
$`[\stackrel{~}{D},B]_+=0`$ (5.6e)
$`\stackrel{~}{D}^3=\stackrel{~}{D}`$ (5.6f)
$`C^2=0`$ (5.6g)
$`[\stackrel{~}{A},B]=0`$ (5.6h)
$`[\stackrel{~}{A},C]=0`$ (5.6i)
$`[\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{D}]=0`$ (5.6j)
$`EZ=ZE=0,Z=\stackrel{~}{A},B,C.\stackrel{~}{D}`$ (5.6k)
$`F_+^2=F_{}^2=1_𝒰`$ (5.6l)
$`[F_+,F_{}]=0`$ (5.6m)
$`[\stackrel{~}{A},F_\pm ]=0`$ (5.6n)
$`BF_\pm \pm F_{}B=0`$ (5.6o)
$`[C,F_\pm ]_+=0`$ (5.6p)
$`[\stackrel{~}{D},F_\pm ]=0`$ (5.6q)
$`EF_\pm =F_\pm E=E`$ (5.6r)
Proof: The relations between the generators $`\stackrel{~}{A},B,C,\stackrel{~}{D},E`$ are the same as for the algebra $`𝒰_1`$ and they are proved in the same way using (3.38). The only difference may have being in (3.38h), since $`b`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ anticommute, but what is essential is that $`\delta (b\stackrel{~}{a}^k)`$ is symmetric when paired with $`\stackrel{~}{A}B`$ and $`B\stackrel{~}{A}`$ (the asymmetric terms involve $`bc`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{d}^2`$ and give no contribution). Verifying the relations involving $`F_\pm `$ is a straightforward calculation.$`\mathrm{}`$

Proposition 6: (i) The comultiplication in the algebra $`𝒰_3`$ is given by:

$`\delta (\stackrel{~}{A})=\stackrel{~}{A}1_𝒰+1_𝒰\stackrel{~}{A},`$ (5.7a)
$`\delta (B)=B1_𝒰+F_+F_{}B,`$ (5.7b)
$`\delta (C)=CE+EC,`$ (5.7c)
$`\delta (\stackrel{~}{D})=\stackrel{~}{D}E+E\stackrel{~}{D},`$ (5.7d)
$`\delta (E)=EE`$ (5.7e)
$`\delta (F_\pm )=F_\pm F_\pm `$ (5.7f)
(ii) The co-unit relations in $`𝒰_3`$ are given by:

$`\epsilon _𝒰(Z)=0,Z=\stackrel{~}{A},B,C,\stackrel{~}{D}`$ (5.8a)
$`\epsilon _𝒰(Z)=1,Z=E,F_\pm `$ (5.8b)
Proof: The Proof is by the same methods as that of Proposition 2.$`\mathrm{}`$

There is no antipode for the bialgebra $`𝒰_3`$ \- this is proved exactly as for $`𝒰_1`$.

As in the case of $`𝒰_1𝒜_1`$ (and $`𝒰_2𝒜_2`$) duality one may reduce the basis of $`𝒜_3`$ from the $`𝒰_3𝒜_3`$ duality, but only with the ideal $`I_1=𝒜_3bc`$ (since $`\stackrel{~}{d}^2`$ is not annihilated by $`F_\pm `$). Thus, the basis of $`𝒜_3`$ is reduced to the following monomials:

$$b^n\stackrel{~}{a}^k,b^n\stackrel{~}{d}^{\mathrm{}},c,n,k_+,\mathrm{}.$$
(5.9)
The algebraic relations of the reduced algebra become:

$`c^2=0,\stackrel{~}{a}c=c\stackrel{~}{a}=\stackrel{~}{d}c=c\stackrel{~}{d}=\stackrel{~}{a}\stackrel{~}{d}=\stackrel{~}{d}\stackrel{~}{a}=cb=bc=0,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{a}b+b\stackrel{~}{a}=0,\stackrel{~}{d}b+b\stackrel{~}{d}=0.`$ (5.10)
### 5.3 Consistency with the FRT approach

The $`4\times 4`$ R-matrix needed for the FRT approach is given in (5.1). The matrices $`R_3^\pm `$ entering the duality relations are:

$`R_3^+PR_3P=R_3`$ (5.11a)
$`R_3^{}R_3^1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 1\\ & 1& 0& 0\\ & & 1& 0\\ & & & 1\end{array}\right)`$ (5.11f)
Using the above and relations (3.48) (with $`R_1R_3`$) we obtain:

$$L_{11}^\pm ,\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{a}& b\\ c& \stackrel{~}{d}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(5.12)
$$L_{22}^\pm ,\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{a}& b\\ c& \stackrel{~}{d}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(5.13)
$$L_{12}^\pm ,\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{a}& b\\ c& \stackrel{~}{d}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \pm 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(5.14)
Iterating these relations for arbitrary elements of the basis of $`𝒜_3`$ we can show that the $`L`$ generators are given in terms of some of the other generators in the following way:

$$L_{11}^\pm =F_+,L_{22}^\pm =F_{},L_{12}^\pm =\pm BF_{}$$
(5.15)
Formulae (5.15) are compatible with the coproducts in (5.7) of the generators $`B,F_\pm `$. However, as we see this approach does not say anything about the basic generators $`\stackrel{~}{A},C,\stackrel{~}{D}`$.

## 6 Higher order R-matrix relations and quantum planes

In order to address the question of the quantum planes corresponding to the exotic bialgebras we have to know the relations which the R-matrices fulfil. As we know the R-matrices producing deformations of the $`GL(2)`$ and $`GL(1|1)`$ fulfil second order relations. However, in the cases at hand we have higher order relations.

We start with the R-matrix $`R_{H2,3}`$ of :

$$R=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& h_1& h_2& h_3\\ & 1& 0& h_2\\ & & 1& h_1\\ & & & 1\end{array}\right)$$
(6.1)
We need actually the singly permuted R-matrix:

$$\widehat{R}PR=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& h_1& h_2& h_3\\ 0& 0& 1& h_1\\ 0& 1& 0& h_2\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(6.2)
Explicit calculation shows now that we have:

$`(\widehat{R}\mathrm{𝟏})(\widehat{R}+\mathrm{𝟏})=0,h_1=h_2=h,h_3=h^2,`$ (6.3a)
$`(\widehat{R}\mathrm{𝟏})^2(\widehat{R}+\mathrm{𝟏})=0,h_1=h_2=h,h_3h^2,\widehat{R}=PR_1`$ (6.3b)
$`(\widehat{R}\mathrm{𝟏})^3(\widehat{R}+\mathrm{𝟏})=0,h_1+h_20,\widehat{R}=PR_2,`$ (6.3c)
where 1 is the $`4\times 4`$ unit matrix. Thus the minimal polynomials are:

$$\mathrm{pol}(\widehat{R})=\{\begin{array}{cc}(\widehat{R}\mathrm{𝟏})(\widehat{R}+\mathrm{𝟏})\hfill & \mathrm{for}h_1=h_2=h,h_3=h^2,\hfill \\ (\widehat{R}\mathrm{𝟏})^2(\widehat{R}+\mathrm{𝟏})\hfill & \mathrm{for}h_1=h_2=h,h_3h^2\hfill \\ (\widehat{R}\mathrm{𝟏})^3(\widehat{R}+\mathrm{𝟏})\hfill & \mathrm{for}h_1+h_20\hfill \end{array}$$
(6.4)
Remark: We recall that (6.3a) is the Jordanian subcase which produces the $`GL_{h,h}(2)`$ deformation of $`GL(2)`$. Thus, the three subcases of Hietarinta’s $`R`$-matrix $`R_{H2,3}`$ are distiguished not only and not so much by the algebras they produce but intrinsically by their minimal polynomials. $`\mathrm{}`$

To derive the corresponding quantum planes we shall apply the formalism of  (cf. also ). The commutaion relations between the coordinates $`z^i`$ and differentials $`\zeta ^i`$, ($`i=1,2`$), are given as follows:

$$z^iz^j=𝒫_{ijk\mathrm{}}z^kz^{\mathrm{}}$$
(6.5)
$$\zeta ^i\zeta ^j=𝒬_{ijk\mathrm{}}\zeta ^k\zeta ^{\mathrm{}}$$
(6.6)
$$z^i\zeta ^j=𝒬_{ijk\mathrm{}}\zeta ^kz^{\mathrm{}}$$
(6.7)
where the operators $`𝒫,𝒬`$ are functions of $`\widehat{R}`$ and must satisfy:

$$(𝒫\mathrm{𝟏})(𝒬+\mathrm{𝟏})=0.$$
(6.8)
In the well studied deformations of $`GL(2)`$ there are quadratic minimal polynomials and there are only two choices for the operators $`𝒫,𝒬`$, cf. e.g., (6.3a). Here we have more choices. In particular, for the case (6.3b) we have four choices:

$$(𝒫\mathrm{𝟏},𝒬+\mathrm{𝟏})=\{\begin{array}{cc}(\widehat{R}\mathrm{𝟏},\widehat{R}^2\mathrm{𝟏})\hfill & \\ (\widehat{R}+\mathrm{𝟏},(\widehat{R}\mathrm{𝟏})^2)\hfill & \\ (\widehat{R}^2\mathrm{𝟏},\widehat{R}\mathrm{𝟏})\hfill & \\ ((\widehat{R}\mathrm{𝟏})^2,\widehat{R}+\mathrm{𝟏})\hfill & \end{array}$$
(6.9)
while in the case (6.3c) we have six choices:

$$(𝒫\mathrm{𝟏},𝒬+\mathrm{𝟏})=\{\begin{array}{cc}(\widehat{R}\mathrm{𝟏},(\widehat{R}^2\mathrm{𝟏})(\widehat{R}\mathrm{𝟏}))\hfill & \\ (\widehat{R}+\mathrm{𝟏},(\widehat{R}\mathrm{𝟏})^3)\hfill & \\ (\widehat{R}^2\mathrm{𝟏},(\widehat{R}\mathrm{𝟏})^2)\hfill & \\ ((\widehat{R}\mathrm{𝟏})^2,\widehat{R}^2\mathrm{𝟏})\hfill & \\ ((\widehat{R}^2\mathrm{𝟏})(\widehat{R}\mathrm{𝟏}),\widehat{R}\mathrm{𝟏})\hfill & \\ ((\widehat{R}\mathrm{𝟏})^3,\widehat{R}+\mathrm{𝟏})\hfill & \end{array}$$
(6.10)
Our choice will be the last possibility of both (6.9), 6.10), i.e., we shall use $`𝒫\mathrm{𝟏}=(\widehat{R}\mathrm{𝟏})^a`$ with $`a=2,3`$, respectively, and $`𝒬=\widehat{R}`$ in all cases. With this choices and denoting $`(x,y)=(z^1,z^2)`$ we obtain from (6.5)

$$xyyx=hy^2,h_1=h_2=h,𝒫\mathrm{𝟏}=(\widehat{R}\mathrm{𝟏})^2,$$
(6.11)
or

$$xyyx=\frac{1}{2}(h_1h_2)y^2,h_1h_2,𝒫\mathrm{𝟏}=(\widehat{R}\mathrm{𝟏})^3.$$
(6.12)
We note that the quantum planes corresponding to the bialgebras $`𝒜_1`$ and $`𝒜_2`$ are not essentially different. Furthermore the quantum plane (6.11) is the same as for the Jordanian subcase if we choose $`𝒫\mathrm{𝟏}=\widehat{R}\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

Denoting $`(\xi ,\eta )=(\zeta ^1,\zeta ^2)`$ we obtain from (6.6) with $`𝒬=\widehat{R}`$:

$`\xi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{h_1h_2}{2}}\xi \eta =0`$ (6.13a)
$`\eta ^2=0`$ (6.13b)
$`\xi \eta =\eta \xi `$ (6.13c)
Of course, for $`\widehat{R}=PR_1`$ (6.13a) simplifies to

$$\xi ^2+h\xi \eta =0,$$
(6.14)
which is valid also for the Jordanian subcase.

Finally, for the coordinates-differentials relations we obtain from (6.7) with $`𝒬=\widehat{R}`$ again for all subcases:

$`x\xi =\xi x+h_1\xi y+h_2\eta x+h_3\eta y`$ (6.15a)
$`x\eta =\eta x+h_1\eta y`$ (6.15b)
$`y\xi =\xi y+h_2\eta y`$ (6.15c)
$`y\eta =\eta y`$ (6.15d)
Finally we derive the quantum plane relations for the case of the $`R_3`$ matrix. It is easy to see that (6.3b) holds also in this case, i.e., for

$$\widehat{R}_3PR_3=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(6.16)
Using (6.5,6.6,6.7) with $`𝒫\mathrm{𝟏}=(\widehat{R}_3\mathrm{𝟏})^2`$, $`𝒬=\widehat{R}_3`$, we obtain, respectively:

$$xy=yx$$
(6.17)
$`\xi ^2=0`$ (6.18a)
$`\eta ^2=0`$ (6.18b)
$`\xi \eta =\eta \xi `$ (6.18c)
$`x\xi =\xi x+\eta y`$ (6.19a)
$`x\eta =\eta x`$ (6.19b)
$`y\xi =\xi y`$ (6.19c)
$`y\eta =\eta y`$ (6.19d)
Finally, we note that a check of consistency of this formalism is to implement Manin’s approach to quantum planes . Namely, one takes quantum matrix $`T`$, cf. (2.1) as transformation matrix of the two-dimensional quantum planes. This means, that if we define:

$$z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}=T_{ij}z^j,\zeta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}=T_{ij}\zeta ^j,$$
(6.20)
then $`(x^{},y^{})=(z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1},z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ and $`(\xi ^{},\eta ^{})=(\zeta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1},\zeta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ should satisfy the same relations as $`(x,y)`$ and $`(\xi ,\eta )`$. The latter statement may be used to recover the algebraic relations of the bialgebras. Namely, suppose, that relations (6.11),(6.13b,c),(6.14),(6.15), or relations (6.12),(6.13),(6.15), or relations (6.17),(6.18),(6.19), hold for both $`(x,y)`$ and $`(\xi ,\eta )`$, $`(x^{},y^{})`$ and $`(\xi ^{},\eta ^{})`$; then substitute the expressions for $`(x^{},y^{})`$ and $`(\xi ^{},\eta ^{})`$ in the these relations, under the assumption that $`a,b,c,d`$ commute with $`(x,y)`$ and $`(\xi ,\eta )`$; then the coefficients of the independent bilinears that may be built from $`(x,y)`$ and $`(\xi ,\eta )`$, will reproduce the algebraic relations of the bialgebras $`𝒜_1`$, $`𝒜_2`$, $`𝒜_3`$, respectively.

## 7 Conclusions and outlook

In this paper we have found the bialgebras which are in duality with the three exotic matrix bialgebras (obtained in ) which are not deformations of the classical algebra of functions over the group $`GL(2)`$ or the supergroup $`GL(1|1)`$.

These bialgebras are rather degenerate and on their example we discover several hitherto unknown phenomena. To illustrate this we comment in more detail on the first two cases (considered in sections 3 and 4). The starting point are the $`4\times 4`$ $`R`$-matrices $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$, cf. (3.2), (4.1). On the one hand $`R_1`$ is a special case of $`R_2`$ obtained for

$$h_1=h_2=h$$
(7.1)
On the other hand the algebraic relations obtained in  by applying the FRT formalism are different and those for $`𝒜_1`$ (3.1) cannot be obtained from those for $`𝒜_2`$ (4.1) by using (7.1). Another peculiarity is that the parameter $`h_3`$ does not appear neither in (3.1), nor in (4.1). However, the dependence on the parameters turns out to be redundant in both cases, after we find the bialgebras they are in duality with, namely, $`𝒰_1`$ and $`𝒰_2`$, respectively. This is so since the parameter dependence enters only through the (co)ideals of the bialgebras, which (co)ideals have zero pairings with $`𝒰_1`$ and $`𝒰_2`$, respectively. Thus, these (co)ideals can be neglected (or we can pass to factor-algebras). As a result the reduced bialgebras coincide and the same holds for their bialgebras in duality. The two algebras differ, though only in a limited sense, if we use also the $`LT`$ duality of FRT , cf. (3.47). The limited sense being that the $`L`$ operators have the same parameter dependence as the matrices $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$, respectively, and in the same way the $`L`$ operators for $`𝒰_1`$ can be obtained from the $`L`$ operators of $`𝒰_2`$ by (7.1).

Thus, the FRT formalism is more stringent since it preserves the initial parameter dependence. On the other hand, it reproduces only two of the basic generators of $`𝒰_1`$ and $`𝒰_2`$, namely, those, that we denote by $`\stackrel{~}{A},B`$, and gives no information on the other two basic generators $`C,\stackrel{~}{D}`$. This insufficiency of the FRT formalism is similar to the one observed for the Jordanian deformations, cf., e.g., .

To conclude, the real difference between the two cases is exhibited by only the minimal polynomials of the permuted $`R`$-matrices. The significance of this will be revealed fully in the representation theory of the exotic bialgebras and their duals which we intend to develop next.

#### Acknowledgments:

This work was supported in part by the CNRS-BAS
France/Bulgaria agreement number 6608.


text:
# Aging dynamics in a colloidal glass of Laponite

## I INTRODUCTION

Glassy systems are characterized by an equilibration time that is much longer than any laboratory time scale: glasses are out of equilibrium systems. One of the interesting consequences is that, in any case for short times after a quench into the glassy phase, the properties of a glass may still evolve on an observable time scale: we say that the system ages. The typical relaxation time of the glass does not become infinite immediately, but grows with the waiting time $`t_w`$, i.e., the time expired after the quench into the glassy phase was done. Understanding the aging processes is of great interest as the glass transition is still ill-understood.

Recent progress in mode-coupling theory has allowed for a first detailed description of the aging process . The aging dynamics of the system is described in term of the evolution of the correlation and response functions with the waiting time. In most systems such as structural glasses, unfortunately correlation and response functions are not easy to obtain experimentally. Testing the applicability of the new mode coupling theory has therefore been limited to specific theoretical models and simulations (Lennard-Jones glass) studies .

Colloidal glasses can be looked upon as model glasses compared to structural glasses where there are two coupled control parameters, density and temperature. In colloidal glasses, the volume fraction of the particles is one of the control parameters that can be varied independently from the others. Because of the experimental difficulties in studying structural glasses, colloidal glasses have been studied extensively. In fact, it is probably fair to say that the strongest evidence for the applicability of classical mode coupling theory (that applies only above the glass transition temperature and therefore cannot describe aging) comes from colloidal systems .

In order to see whether colloidal glasses can also be used to investigate aging processes, we study colloidal suspensions of Laponite, a synthetic clay composed of monodisperse disc-shaped particles. These colloidal suspensions form very viscous phases at low particle concentrations . The first evidence of aging in colloidal glasses of Laponite was reported in . In this paper, we present quantitative results of aging dynamics in a glassy suspension of Laponite using dynamic light scattering measurements and viscometry.

## II PREPARATION AND VISCOMETRY

The experiments are performed with aqueous suspensions of Laponite RD, a hectorite synthetic clay provided by Laporte Ltd. The particles are colloidal disks of $`25`$ nm diameter and $`1`$ nm thickness , with a negative surface charge on both faces. Laponite powder was mixed with ultra-pure water at pH =10 obtained by addition of NaOH, providing chemically stable particles . The suspension was stirred vigorously during 15 minutes and then filtered through a Millipore Millex-AA 0.8 $`\mu `$m filter unit. This preparation procedure allows us to obtain a reproducible initial liquid state. Evaporation of water or CO2 contamination of the sample was completely avoided by covering the sample with a layer of vaseline oil. The aging time $`t_w=0`$ is defined as the moment the suspension passes through the filter.

Suspensions prepared in this way are optically transparent and are initially liquid. Within a time varying from a few minutes to a few hours for the different concentrations considered here ($`2\%`$ wt to $`5\%`$ wt), a three order of magnitude increase in viscosity is observed : the suspension does not flow anymore when tumbling the recipient. Since the physical properties of the dispersion depend on the time after preparation $`t_w`$, the conclusion is that the samples age. That the origin of this aging behavior is due to the glassy dynamics was shown by Bonn et al. . They showed that Laponite suspensions form glasses and not gels, as had been proposed before . Bonn et al.  studied the structure of Laponite suspensions using static light scattering. Contrary to previous observations, they found no evidence for a fractal-like organization of the particles, provided the suspensions were filtered. They consequently showed that the large viscosity increase is not due to the formation of a fractal network. In addition, it has been shown recently that Laponite powder dissolves quickly into both individual particles and aggregates of a few particles dispersing more slowly . At the final state of dispersion (about 5 hours), the system contains aggregates responsible for the strong scattering at small scattering vectors. In our experiments, aggregates of particles are broken up by the filtration.

This colloidal glass is obtained for very low volume fractions $`\mathrm{\Phi }0.01`$ compared to those for usual spherical colloids, for which glasses are obtained above $`\mathrm{\Phi }0.5`$ . To account for this difference, it was proposed  that the Laponite suspensions form so-called Wigner glasses, very low-density glasses whose formation is due to the existence of long-range Coulombic repulsions . These repulsions originate from the strong surface charges at the faces of the colloidal disks, making that the effective volume fraction is very high. Recent experiments have shown that the location of the ”glass transition” line in the (volume fraction / electrolyte concentration) phase diagram is consistent with this assumption .

The Laponite suspensions age on time scales that depend on the particle concentration. Oscillatory shear experiments were performed on a controlled stress (Reologica StressTech) rheometer using a Couette geometry with a 1 mm gap. The sample was exposed to a sinusoidal strain $`\gamma =\gamma _0\mathrm{sin}\omega t`$, with $`\gamma _0=0.01`$ and $`\omega =1`$ s-1, and allowing for measurement of the visco-elastic response. The storage modulus $`G^{}`$ and the loss modulus $`G^{\prime \prime }`$ were determined in the linear visco-elastic regime. At $`t_w=0`$, the loss and storage moduli are roughly of the same order of magnitude with $`G^{\prime \prime }>G^{}`$. As the system ages, the storage modulus increases more rapidly than the loss modulus, becoming easily more than two orders of magnitude larger within a typical experimental time scale. Figure 1 shows the evolution of the complex viscosity $`\eta ^{}`$, as a function of the aging time $`t_w`$, for suspensions with different concentrations. The complex viscosity $`\eta ^{}`$ was calculated from the visco-elastic moduli, as $`\eta ^{}=\sqrt{G^{}_{}{}^{}2+G^{{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }2}}/\omega `$. The complex viscosity of the suspension with $`2.5\%`$ wt increases by three orders of magnitude on a time scale of 100 minutes while the same increase of viscosity arises on about 10 minutes for a suspension with $`3.5\%`$ wt. The aging dynamics of the suspensions can therefore be varied by changing the particle concentration.

## III DYNAMIC LIGHT SCATTERING

The dynamics of formation of the colloidal glass was investigated using dynamic light scattering (DLS). The light scattering set-up is as follows: a He-Ne laser beam ($`\lambda =632.8`$ nm) is focused on a cylindrical sample in an index-matching bath of Toluene ($`n=1.50`$). The scattered intensity transmitted through the cell is detected by an optical fiber coupled to an avalanche photodiode under a scattering angle $`\theta `$, defined as the angle between the transmitted and the scattered beam. The signal is then analysed by a ALV-5000 logarithmic correlator, which directly calculates the normalized intensity autocorrelation function over nine decades in time $`g_2(𝐪,t)1<I(𝐪,0)I(𝐪,t)>/<I(𝐪,0)>^2`$, where $`t`$ is the delay time. The modulus of the scattering wave vector, defined as $`q=(4\pi n/\lambda )sin(\theta /2)`$, with $`n`$ the refractive index of the suspension ($`n=1.33`$) was between $`9.10^6\text{m}^1<q<3.10^7\text{m}^1`$, as the scattering angle was varied between $`40^\text{o}`$ and $`150^\text{o}`$. Its inverse, $`2\pi /q`$, determines the length scale probed in a DLS experiment.

In our experiments, the intensity correlation function was recorded while the system is aging. In such an experiment, the acquisition time should allow for a good average of the auto-correlation function data without a significant aging of the system occuring during the experiment. Because of that, experiments were performed with suspensions of sufficiently low concentration so that the aging is slow compared to the time necessary to obtain the correlation functions. In the following, we present results obtained with a $`2.5\%`$ wt suspension. The acquisition time was chosen to be $`60`$ seconds, allowing for a good average of the whole curve. We experimentally checked that aging was negligible during this acquisition time for the $`2.5\%`$ wt suspension by recording the auto-correlation functions just before and just after the measurement.

Auto-correlation functions taken for various aging times $`t_w`$, under a scattering angle $`\theta =90^\text{o}`$, are shown in Figure 2. Mainly two relaxations can be observed. The first one, observed for short delay times $`t`$, is relatively fast and appears to be independent on the aging time. The second relaxation, observed for long delay times $`t`$, depends strongly on the waiting time.

In order to describe the two processes quantitatively, $`g_2(𝐪,t)1`$, was fitted by a sum of an exponential and a stretched exponential function as:

$$g_2(𝐪,t)1=A\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau _1)+(1A)\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau _2)^\alpha $$

The stretched exponential is used since it has been found empirically that it provides a good description of the slow relaxation processes encountered in glassy systems. The fits corresponding to different aging times $`t_w`$ are shown in Figure 2 and describe the correlation functions very well, for all aging times.

The first term of the fit function corresponds to a fast relaxation. The parameter $`\tau _1`$ was in fact determined independently by a linear fit of $`\mathrm{ln}(g_2(𝐪,t)1)`$ for short times $`t`$, in order to constrain the fitting procedure. This relaxation time was found to be independent on the aging time $`t_w`$. Furthermore, studying the angular dependence of the scattering, it is found that the inverse of $`\tau _1`$ varies as $`q^2`$ as shown in Figure 3. This shows that, for short times, the Laponite particles undergo ’normal’ Brownian motion: this q-dependence is the same as that found for very dilute colloidal dispersions ; for our system, we find a collective diffusion coefficient $`D=9.510^{12}`$ m2 s-1, of the same order of magnitude as the one measured in a very dilute solution . On the other hand, the relaxation time $`\tau _2`$, that characterizes the aging, was found to increase exponentially fast as a function of $`t_w`$ as $`\tau _2=\tau _0\mathrm{exp}(t_w/t_0)`$, where $`\tau _00.1`$ ms and $`t_010^5`$ s (Figure 4; see also the discussion below). As the total decay time of the correlation function is a measure for the time a particle needs to ”forget” its initial position, this shows that very rapidly, the aging freezes in a certain degrees of freedom of the system.

As was the case for $`\tau _1`$, the relaxation time $`\tau _2`$ was found also to scale with $`1/q^2`$, a feature again reminiscent of classical (Fickian) diffusion, although the stretched exponential shows that there are strong hydrodynamic interactions between the particles. Finally, the stretch exponent $`\alpha `$ was found to depend only on the aging time and not on the scattering wavevector $`q`$. The exponent $`\alpha `$ decreases roughly linearly between $`1`$ and $`0`$, as shown in Figure 5. The aging time $`t_w`$ for which $`\alpha 0`$ corresponds to the ergodic-nonergodic transition on the laboratory time scale .

The observation of the scaling of $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _2`$ with $`1/q^2`$ allows us to rescale the autocorrelation functions for different scattering angles. Rescaling the time $`t`$ as $`q^2a^2t`$, where $`a`$ is the radius of the Laponite particles, leads to a collapse of the different correlation functions (Figure 6).

In order to interpret these results, we determine the distribution of relaxation times $`\tau `$ in the system. This we do using a commercially available constrained regularization method (ALV-NonLin Data Analysis ). The method consists in decomposing the intensity autocorrelation function in exponential modes by directly inverting : $`g_2(𝐪,t)1=(_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{min}}^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{max}}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)G(\mathrm{\Gamma })𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma })^2`$, yielding the distribution function of decay times $`G(\tau )`$, where $`G(\tau )=G(1/\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Figure 7 shows the decay time distribution functions $`G(\tau )`$ corresponding to different aging times $`t_w=0`$ and $`t_w=400`$ min. One observes two distinct modes, the fast one corresponding to the first relaxation time $`\tau _1`$, and the slow one to $`\tau _2`$. The intensity fast mode has been arbitrarily normalised to unity for the sake of comparison. This fast mode remains almost unchanged as the system ages. The slow relaxation exhibits two different features. First, the maximum of the distribution shifts to larger times, which corresponds to the increase in $`\tau _2`$ already observed from the direct fit of the correlation function. Second, the distribution of relaxation times $`G(\tau )`$ becomes wider as the system ages. This corresponds in fact to the decrease in the stretch exponent $`\alpha `$: the distribution of relaxation times $`\tau `$ becomes wider and wider. These two combined effects make that, very rapidly, the longest relaxation time in the system exceeds the laboratory time scale of observation. The direct consequence of this is that, for short aging times $`t_w`$, the correlation function decays to zero as shown in Figure 2. For longer aging times ($`t_w>10`$ hours for a $`2,5\%`$ wt suspension), the auto-correlation function does not decay to zero within the observation time scale: the system is no longer ergodic .

Experimentally, the dependence of $`\tau _2`$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ on $`t_w`$ leads to the consequence that the viscosity of the suspension is not simply proportional to $`\tau _2`$ as usually assumed in simulations  (Figure 8).

## IV DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

We propose the following interpretation of our measurements. The diffusion of particles can be described as a cage-diffusion process. The first relaxation $`\tau _1`$ characterizes the short-time Brownian diffusion of a particle in the suspending liquid. For short times $`t`$, the particle diffuses freely within a ’cage’ formed by the surrounding particles. This diffusive motion consequently does not depend on the aging time. The second relaxation process, occurring for long times $`t`$, can be interpreted as the escape from the cages. The corresponding characteristic time $`\tau _2`$ increases rapidly with $`t_w`$, indicating that it becomes more and more difficult for a particle to ’escape’. This characteristic relaxation time was found also to scale as $`1/q^2`$, reminescent of diffusive motion. However, this diffusive motion of particles for long times is complex as it is characterized by a broad distribution of relaxation times, leading to the stretched exponential behavior of the correlation function. From this it follows immediately that for short aging times, the system is ergodic: the particles reside in the ’cages’ formed by surrounding particles and escape from them after a characteristic time that depends on the aging time $`t_w`$. As the system ages, the escape from the ’cages’ becomes slower. The particles are subsequently constrained by the ’cages’, resulting in an ergodicity breaking within the observation time scale.

The comparison of our experimental results with predictions from MCT  shows a qualitative agreement with respect to the slow relaxation (so-called $`\alpha `$-relaxation) and faster relaxation (so-called $`\beta `$-relaxation) features of the particle dynamics. The non-aging $`\beta `$-relaxation part would correspond to the relaxation time $`\tau _1`$ which is independent of the aging time $`t_w`$. Only the slow $`\alpha `$-relaxation part of the autocorrelation function is predicted to depend on $`t_w`$, which is consistent with the dependence of $`\tau _2`$ on $`t_w`$. As in the MCT scenario, we found that the typical relaxation time $`\tau _2`$ increases with increasing $`t_w`$, which leads to a non-ergodic system when the largest $`\tau _2`$ is comparable to the observation time scale. In other experiments on aging , the systems were found to relax on typical time scales that increase as $`t_w^\mu `$, in agreement with calculations from mean field models of aging . When $`\mu <1`$, the process of aging is called sub-aging; this situation is encountered in spin glasses , in concentrated colloidal suspension  or polymer glasses . Recently, diffusing wave spectroscopy (DWS) measurements of the motion of the tracer particles in glassy Laponite suspensions have also been performed . The measurements show that the slow collective relaxation time scales linearly with the waiting time $`t_w`$ (so that $`\mu =1`$) called full aging. Interestingly, in our experiments, the typical relaxation time $`\tau _2`$ is found to grow exponentially fast with $`t_w`$. The log-log inset plot of Figure 4 shows that indeed our data are inconsistent with a power law $`\tau _2t_w^\mu `$. In our experiments, the typical decay time $`\tau _2`$ of the slow relaxation is of the order of 1 to 10 ms and is consequently seven orders of magnitude smaller than the aging time $`t_w`$. In the experiments cited above, the aging processes were observed in a different regime where the aging times $`t_w`$ and the decay times $`\tau `$ of the slow relaxation are of the same order of magnitude.

In conclusion, the collective diffusion process of particles can be interpreted as a cage-diffusion process. For short aging times, the system is ergodic. The particles reside in the cages formed by surrounding particles and escape from them after a characteristic time which is aging time dependent. As the system ages, the escape from the cages become slower, resulting in a strong ergodicity breaking. In many systems, such as spin-glasses and concentrated colloidal supensions, the typical relaxation time is found to behave as $`t_w^\mu `$ with $`\mu <1`$. Interestingly, in our experiments, the characteristic time of the slow relaxation process is found to grow even faster, i.e. exponentially fast with the aging time. In addition, we find that this dependence on $`t_w`$ results in a non-trivial relation between the viscosity and the relaxation time.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

LPS de l’ENS is UMR 8550 of the CNRS, associated with the universities Paris 6 and Paris 7. We thank Leticia Cugliandolo for helpful discussions. We thank the Ministere de la Recherche for financial support (ACI blanche).


text:
# How Does CMB + BBN Constrain New Physics?

## I INTRODUCTION

Until recently, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) provided the only precision estimates of the baryon density of the universe. Based on recent deuterium observations , BBN identifies a value for the baryon density which has been variously estimated (depending on the choice for the primordial deuterium abundance) as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.0150.023`$ , and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.0170.021`$ , or incorporating the most recent data $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.0170.024`$ , where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ is the baryon density expressed as a fraction of the critical density, $`h`$ is the Hubble parameter in units of 100 km/sec/Mpc, and the ranges quoted are intended to be at the 95% confidence level.

In the past year, observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) fluctuations have become a competitive means for estimating the baryon density. These data have been used both alone and in combination with other observations (such as type Ia supernovae and large-scale structure) to set limits on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$. The preliminary CMB data from BOOMERANG  and MAXIMA  suggested a higher baryon density ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^20.03`$) than that predicted from BBN, due to the unexpectedly low second acoustic peak in these CMB observations (see, for example, Ref.  \- ). This discrepancy has vanished in the wake of more recent data from BOOMERANG , MAXIMA  and DASI .

This original discrepancy between the BBN and CMB predictions for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ led to the suggestion that perhaps new physics must be invoked to reconcile the BBN and CMB predictions for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$. The problems for BBN at the high baryon density suggested by the Refs.  \-  are that the BBN-predicted abundance of deuterium is too low while those of helium-4 and lithium-7 are too high when compared to the observationally inferred primordial abundances. If, however, the universal expansion rate were increased during the BBN epoch by, for example, the contribution to the total energy density of “new” neutrinos and/or other relativistic particles, the BBN-predicted abundance of deuterium would increase (less time for D-destruction), while that of lithium would decrease (less time for production of 7Be). This increase in the expansion rate results in a higher helium abundance, but the BBN-predicted helium abundance can be reduced by a non-zero chemical potential for the electron neutrinos. An excess of $`\nu _e`$ over $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ can drive the neutron-proton ratio down, leading to reduced production of helium-4. Thus, reconciling BBN with a high baryon density would require two kinds of “new physics”: the expansion rate should be faster than the standard value and $`\nu _e`$ should be “degenerate”. Although these two effects may be unrelated, neutrino degeneracy can provide an economic mechanism for both, since the energy density contributed by degenerate neutrinos exceeds that from non-degenerate neutrinos, leading to an enhanced expansion rate during the epoch of BBN. As Kang & Steigman  and Olive et al.  have shown, the observed primordial abundances of the light nuclides can be reconciled with very large baryon densities provided sufficient neutrino degeneracy is permitted.

Although the most recent CMB observations suggest that no new physics need be invoked to reconcile the CMB and BBN observations, these measurements also provide another tool, independent of BBN, to constrain such new physics. From the contribution of Ref.  and the combined CMB and BBN analyses of Ref.  -, it is already clear that the constraints on “new physics” are strongly dependent on the priors assumed in the analysis for the other, non-BBN related cosmological parameters. Here we explore this issue further. In particular, we consider the concordance between the CMB and BBN predictions for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ in models with neutrino degeneracy using four different representative sets of priors. In the next section we discuss our calculation and give results for our four models. Our conclusions are summarized in Secs. 3 and 4.

## II CALCULATIONS

Our first step is the calculation of element abundances in BBN for models with degenerate neutrinos. This is a well-understood calculation with a long history, and the reader is referred to Refs. , ,  for the details.

The degeneracy of any of the three neutrinos increases the total relativistic energy density, leading to an increase in the overall expansion rate. During “radiation dominated” epochs the expansion rate (Hubble parameter) is proportional to the square root of the total energy density in extremely relativistic (ER) particles so the speedup factor, $`S`$, is

$$SH^{}/H=(\rho ^{}/\rho )^{1/2}.$$
(1)
In addition, the electron neutrino separately affects the rates of the weak reactions which interconvert protons and neutrons, and so it is convenient to parameterize the neutrino degeneracy in terms of $`\xi _e`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$, where $`\xi _e=\mu _e/T_\nu `$ is the ratio of the electron neutrino chemical potential $`\mu _e`$ to the neutrino temperature $`T_\nu `$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ ($`N_\nu 3`$) is the additional energy density contributed by all the degenerate neutrinos as well as any other energy density not accounted for in the standard model of particle physics (e.g., additional relativistic particles) expressed in terms of the equivalent number of extra, non-degenerate, two-component neutrinos:

$$\rho ^{}\rho \mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{ER}\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu \rho _\nu (\xi =0).$$
(2)
The contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$from one species of degenerate neutrinos is ,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu =15/7[(\xi /\pi )^4+2(\xi /\pi )^2],$$
(3)
We emphasize that our results are independent of whether $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$(or, equivalently, the corresponding value of $`S`$) arises from neutrino degeneracy, from “new” (ER) particles, or from some other source. Note that a non-zero value of $`\xi _e`$ implies a non-zero contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ from the electron neutrinos alone; we have included this contribution in our calculations. However, for the range of $`\xi _e`$ which proves to be of interest for BBN consistency (ξe
<0.5subscript𝜉𝑒
<0.5\xi_{e}~{}\lower 2.58334pt\vbox{\hbox{$\buildrel\textstyle<\over{\sim}\ $}}0.5), the degenerate electron neutrinos contribute only a small fraction of an additional neutrino species to the energy density (ΔNν
<0.1Δsubscript𝑁𝜈
<0.1\Delta N_{\nu}~{}\lower 2.58334pt\vbox{\hbox{$\buildrel\textstyle<\over{\sim}\ $}}0.1).

The question we address is: for a given value of the baryon-photon ratio $`\eta `$ ($`\eta _{10}10^{10}\eta =274\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$), are there values for $`\xi _e`$ and for $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ which result in agreement between the BBN predictions and the known limits on the primordial element abundances? Through the hard work of many observers, aided by better detectors and bigger telescopes, the statistical uncertainties in the observationally inferred primordial abundances have been reduced significantly in recent years. In contrast, the systematic errors are still quite large (cf. ). For this reason we adopt generous ranges for the primordial abundances of 4He, D, and 7Li. Furthermore, even for fixed values of $`\eta `$, $`\xi _e`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$, there are uncertainties in the BBN-predicted abundances due to uncertainties in the nuclear and/or weak reaction rates. We have chosen the ranges for the primordial abundances large enough to encompass these uncertainties as well. For the primordial helium-4 mass fraction, we take the limits to be

$$0.23\mathrm{Y}_P0.25.$$
(4)
For deuterium and lithium-7, expressed as number ratios to hydrogen, we take the limits

$$2\times 10^5\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H}5\times 10^5,$$
(5)
and

$$1\times 10^{10}{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}/\mathrm{H}4\times 10^{10}.$$
(6)
Our allowed parameter range is thus a three-dimensional volume in the space of $`\eta `$, $`\xi _e`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$. However, since we wish to compare to the predictions of the CMB, which are sensitive to $`\eta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$, but independent of $`\xi _e`$, we project our allowed BBN region onto the $`\eta \mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ plane. Our BBN results are shown in the four panels of Figure 1 where, for four choices of $`\xi _e`$ we show the iso-abundance contours for YP, D/H and Li/H in the $`\eta \mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ plane. The shaded areas highlight the acceptable regions in our parameter space. As $`\xi _e`$ increases, the allowed region moves to higher values of $`\eta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$, tracing out a BBN-consistent band in the $`\eta \mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ plane. This band is shown by the dashed lines in Figures 2 & 5. The trends are easy to understand (see  & ). As the baryon density increases the universal expansion rate (as measured by $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$) must increase to keep the deuterium and lithium unchanged, while the $`\nu _e`$ degeneracy ($`\xi _e`$) must increase to maintain the helium abundance at its SBBN value.

We then use CMBFAST  to calculate the CMB fluctuation spectrum as a function of $`\eta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ and compare with the BOOMERANG  and MAXIMA  and DASI  observations. However, the CMB anisotropy spectrum is sensitive to a large number of other parameters which have no effect on BBN, including the fraction of the critical density in non-relativistic matter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ (where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ includes both baryonic and non-baryonic matter), the fraction of the critical density contributed by the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (or an equivalent vacuum energy density), the total $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ corresponds to a “flat” universe), the Hubble parameter $`h`$, and the slope of the primordial power spectrum $`n`$ (“tilt”). Since we are interested in the way in which restricting these parameters affects the agreement between the CMB and BBN, we consider four representative sets of prior assumptions:

Case A: $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, $`0.4h1.0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B\mathrm{\Omega }_M1`$,
$`n=1`$,

Case B: $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, $`0.4h1.0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B\mathrm{\Omega }_M1`$,
$`0.7n1.3`$,

Case C: $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, $`0.5h0.9`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B\mathrm{\Omega }_M0.4`$,
$`0.7n1.3`$,

Case D: $`\mathrm{\Omega }1`$, $`0.5h0.9`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B\mathrm{\Omega }_M=\mathrm{\Omega }`$,
$`0.7n1.3`$.

In models A – C, the inflation-inspired assumption that the universe is flat is adopted and a cosmological constant is assumed to give $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$; in contrast, in model D the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is set to zero and the universe is allowed to be open or flat . Tensor modes are ignored in all of these cases. Case A differs from Case B only in the restriction of tilt to $`n=1`$. Case C differs from Case B in the adoption of a slightly smaller range for the Hubble parameter and, of more significance, a more restricted range for the non-relativistic matter density, both of which are consistent with complementary observational data. Case C is closest to what is often referred to as the “concordance $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model” while Case D is closest to the “SCDM model” which is inconsistent with the SN Ia data .

For each of these sets of priors, we determine the best fit CMB model for a given pair of values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ and $`\eta `$ and assign a confidence limit based on the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ value calculated with RADPACK . In the four panels of Figure 2 we display the (two-parameter) 68% and 95% contours in the $`\eta `$$`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ plane for the four choices of priors discussed above. The different shapes of the confidence interval contours highlight the sensitivity of the “new physics” ($`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$) to the choices of priors for the other cosmological parameters.

## III DISCUSSION

The effect on the post-BBN universe of a non-zero $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$is to enhance the relativistic energy density, delaying the epoch of equal matter and radiation densities. This can be offset by increasing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$, effectively restoring the original, $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$= 0, ratio of matter and radiation densities. This effect produces the large difference between cases A & B and case C. This may be seen in Figure 3 where the sensitivity of the constraints on $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ to the priors adopted in the CMB fits is explored by comparing the $`\chi ^2`$ distributions for our four Cases A – D. In cases A & B, very large values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$are allowed, corresponding to large values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$. Thus, cases A & B do not provide very effective upper limits on $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$when only the CMB data is taken into account (Fig. 3). For case C, in contrast, large values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ are not permitted. As seen in Figure 3 this results in a stronger upper bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$: at the 68% confidence level, $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$$`<6.7`$. Case D yields a very different set of constraints. In this model, values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M<1`$ are compensated with curvature, rather than with a cosmological constant. But the position of the first acoustic peak strongly constrains the curvature to be nearly zero, forcing $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to be nearly unity. Hence, in these models $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M1`$, with almost no freedom to vary, and a change in $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$cannot be cancelled by changing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$. Thus, the allowed range for $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$is very small.

Despite the differences, there are some striking similarities in the parameter ranges identified in Figure 2. With the exception of case D, the preferred ranges of baryon densities are very similar (see Figure 4). At 68% confidence 5.4
<η10
<6.65.4
<subscript𝜂10
<6.65.4~{}\lower 2.58334pt\vbox{\hbox{$\buildrel\textstyle<\over{\sim}\ $}}\eta_{10}~{}\lower 2.58334pt\vbox{\hbox{$\buildrel\textstyle<\over{\sim}\ $}}6.6 (at 95% confidence, 4.8
<η10
<7.24.8
<subscript𝜂10
<7.24.8~{}\lower 2.58334pt\vbox{\hbox{$\buildrel\textstyle<\over{\sim}\ $}}\eta_{10}~{}\lower 2.58334pt\vbox{\hbox{$\buildrel\textstyle<\over{\sim}\ $}}7.2), for cases A – C; for case D, $`\eta _{10}`$ is shifted downwards by $`0.6`$. For all cases, a baryon density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^20.02`$ is a robust prediction of the CMB observations.

In contrast, constraints on the magnitude of the “new physics” ($`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$) do depend sensitively on the choice of priors. As noted earlier, for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models (cases A – C), case C produces a stronger upper bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$, than do cases A or B. Figure 3 also illustrates a point which is only marginally apparent from Figure 2: Case A prefers a non-zero value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$slightly more than do cases B and C (albeit not at a statistically significant level). Since case A fixes $`n=1`$, this suggests that a nonzero $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$can mimic, to some extent the effect of “tilt”. This point is further emphasized when the BBN data are included in Figure 2: for $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$= 0, the overlap between the allowed values for $`\eta `$ for CMB and BBN is smaller for case A (ruled out at the 68% confidence level), than for cases B and C. However, given the marginal level of exclusion (68%), this cannot be used to argue for “new physics”. In contrast, as already noted, case D is anomalous; in the absence of new physics it disagrees with the CMB data at the 93% confidence level.

It is clear from Figure 3 that, with the exception of the statistically disfavored case D, the CMB provides only very weak constraints on $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$. The notable constrast between cases B and C, with very similar priors, demonstrates the significant sensitivity of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$to the choice of priors. Because of this sensitivity, it is difficult to compare our results directly with those of Hannestad , Lesgourgues & Liddle , and of Hansen et al. . We are in agreement with Hannestad  in that although $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$$`36`$ appears to be favored by the CMB data, the standard model value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$= 0 is entirely compatible with the present data.

## IV CONCLUSIONS

In Figure 5 we choose the priors corresponding to Case C (“$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM”) to illustrate the confrontation between the BBN constraints and those from the CMB. As already alluded to above, the points in the $`\eta `$$`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$plane (Fig. 2) are projections from a multi-dimensional parameter space and the relevant values of those additional parameters may not always be consistent with other, independent observational data. As an illustration, in Figure 5 we also show three isochrones, for 11, 12, and 13 Gyr.

The trend in the isochrones is easy to understand: as $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$increases, so too do the corresponding values of the matter density ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$) and the Hubble parameter (H0) which minimize $`\chi ^2`$. In addition, since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decreases. All of these lead to younger ages for larger values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$. Note that if a constraint is imposed that the universe today is at least 11 Gyr old , then the BBN and CMB overlap is considerably restricted (to the shaded region in Figure 5). Even with this constraint it is clear that there is room for modest “new physics” ($`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$
<6
<6\lower 2.58334pt\vbox{\hbox{$\buildrel\textstyle<\over{\sim}\ $}}6; ξe
<0.3subscript𝜉𝑒
<0.3\xi_{e}~{}\lower 2.58334pt\vbox{\hbox{$\buildrel\textstyle<\over{\sim}\ $}}0.3), for which there is a limited range of baryon density (0.018
<ΩBh2
<0.018
<subscriptΩ𝐵superscript2
<0.018~{}\lower 2.58334pt\vbox{\hbox{$\buildrel\textstyle<\over{\sim}\ $}}\Omega_{B}h^{2}~{}\lower 2.58334pt\vbox{\hbox{$\buildrel\textstyle<\over{\sim}\ $}} 0.026) which is concordant with both the BBN and CMB constraints. If instead we were to impose a stricter, but still reasonable, constraint on the age, say that the Universe be older than 13 Gyr, the acceptable range of baryon density and “new physics” would be considerably narrowed.

BBN alone does not provide any significant constraint on the magnitude of the “new physics” arising from neutrino degeneracy; larger values of $`\xi _e`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$simply correspond to larger values of $`\eta `$ (see , ). In this paper we have shown that CMB observations can constrain $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$(and, correspondingly, $`\xi _e`$) but this constraint is sensitive to the priors chosen when fitting the CMB data. However, we have noted that if an additional cosmological constraint (on the age of the universe) is imposed, this ambiguity can be eliminated and a restricted range of parameters is identified: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^20.0180.026`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$
<6
<6\lower 2.58334pt\vbox{\hbox{$\buildrel\textstyle<\over{\sim}\ $}}6, and ξe
<0.3subscript𝜉𝑒
<0.3\xi_{e}~{}\lower 2.58334pt\vbox{\hbox{$\buildrel\textstyle<\over{\sim}\ $}}0.3. If the extra relativistic energy density ($`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$) is contributed by degenerate $`\nu _\mu `$, and/or $`\nu _\tau `$, then (see eq. 3) ξμ
<3.1subscript𝜉𝜇
<3.1\xi_{\mu}~{}\lower 2.58334pt\vbox{\hbox{$\buildrel\textstyle<\over{\sim}\ $}}3.1 (for $`\xi _\tau =0`$ or, vice-versa) or, ξμ=ξτ
<2.3subscript𝜉𝜇subscript𝜉𝜏
<2.3\xi_{\mu}=\xi_{\tau}~{}\lower 2.58334pt\vbox{\hbox{$\buildrel\textstyle<\over{\sim}\ $}}2.3.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank U. Seljak and M. Zaldariagga for the use of CMBFAST  and Manoj Kaplinghat for many useful discussions. We thank Lloyd Knox for use of RADPACK. This work was supported in part by the DOE (DE-FG02-91ER40690).