text:
# Quantum Invariant Measures

## 1. Introduction

Let $`G`$ be a simply connected complex simple algebraic group. The cocommutative Hopf algebra $`[G]`$ of regular functions on $`G`$ has a standard quantization, denoted by $`_q[G]`$ and called quantized algebra of regular functions on $`G.`$ It is a Hopf subalgebra of the dual Hopf algebra of the standard quantized universal enveloping algebra $`U_q𝔤.`$ Let $`K`$ denote a compact real form of $`G.`$ The complex conjugation in the algebra $`[K](=[G])`$ can be deformed to a conjugate linear antiisomorphism $``$ of $`_q[G]`$. This gives rise to a Hopf $``$-algebra $`(_q[G],)`$ called quantized algebra of regular functions on $`K`$ which will be denoted by $`_q[K].`$

The Hopf algebra $`_q[K]`$ is known  to have a unique Haar functional $`H:_q[K]`$ normalized by $`H(1)=1.`$ It is known by a quantum analog of the Schur orthogonality relations. At the same time an analog of the classical expression for the bi-invariant functional on $`[K]`$ as an integral over $`K`$ with respect to the Haar measure was found only in the case of $`SU_2,`$ . The first result which we obtain in this paper is a representation for the Haar integral on $`_q[K]`$ of this type in the general case.

Let us first note that the quantum analog of the set of points on $`K`$ is the set of irreducible $``$-representations of the Hopf $``$-algebra $`_q[K].`$ Its representations were classified by Soibelman  and can be nicely described by a version of Kirillov–Kostant orbit method. Fix a maximal torus $`T`$ of $`K.`$ Let $`G=KAN`$ be the related Iwasawa decomposition of $`G.`$ The group $`K`$ has a standard Poisson structure making it a real Poisson algebraic group which is the semiclassical structure of the deformation of $`[K]`$ to $`_q[K].`$ The double and dual Poisson algebraic groups of $`K`$ are isomorphic to $`G`$ and $`AN`$ as real algebraic groups, respectively. The dressing action of $`AN`$ on $`K`$ is global and is explicitly given by the rule

(1.1)
$$\delta _{an}(k)\text{for}aA,nN,kK\text{is such that}ank=\left(\delta _{an}(k)\right)a_1n_1$$

for some $`a_1A,n_1N`$ (see  for general facts about the dressing action). Let us choose for each element $`w`$ of the Weyl group $`W`$ of $`G`$ a representative $`\dot{w}`$ in the normalizer of $`A`$ in $`K.`$ The orbits of the dressing action of $`AN`$ on $`K`$ (symplectic leaves of $`K)`$ are $`𝒮_w.t`$ where $`wW,`$ $`tT`$ and $`𝒮_w`$ denotes the orbit of $`\dot{w}.`$ The disjoint union $`_{tT}𝒮_w.t`$ is the Bruhat cell $`KB\dot{w}B`$ where $`B`$ is the Borel subgroup $`B=TAN`$ of $`G.`$ Soibelman proved that the leaves $`𝒮_w.t`$ are deformed to a set $`\pi _{w,t}`$ of (unequivalent) irreducible $``$-representations of the Hopf $``$-algebra $`_q[K].`$ Up to an equivalence they exhaust all such representations of $`_q[K].`$

Our result on the Haar integral on $`_q[K]`$ expresses it as an integral over the maximal torus $`T`$ of $`K`$ of the traces of the representations $`\pi _{w_{},t}`$ for the maximal length element $`w_{}`$ of $`W.`$ In other words these are the irreducible $``$-representations of $`_q[K]`$ corresponding to the symplectic leaves in the maximal Bruhat cell of $`K.`$ This result is derived in Section 5. It is particularly suited for obtaining integral expressions for quantum spherical functions. This will be discussed in a future publication.

For each $`wW`$ denote $`N_w=NwN_{}w^1`$ and $`N_w^+=NwNw^1`$ where $`N_{}`$ is the opposite to $`N`$ unipotent subgroup of $`G.`$ Our next result is a quantum analog of the Haar measures on the unipotent groups $`N_w.`$ The symplectic leaf $`𝒮_w.t,`$ considered as an $`AN`$-homogeneous space via the dressing action, is isomorphic to

(1.2)
$$S_w.t=AN/AN_w^+.$$

The quotient $`AN/AN_w^+`$ does not have a left invariant measure because the ratio of the corresponding modular functions is not equal to 1, see . Using the factorization $`AN=N_wAN_w^+`$ we can identify $`AN/AN_w^+N_w`$ which induces a measure on the symplectic leaf (1.2) from the Haar measure on $`N_w.`$ The resulting measure transforms under the action of $`AN`$ by the following multiplicative character of $`AN`$

(1.3)
$$\chi (an)=a^{2(\rho w\rho )},aA,nN.$$

The dressing action of $`AN=K^{}`$ on the symplectic leaf $`𝒮_w.t`$ of $`K`$ induces an action of $`K^{}`$ on the space of functions on $`𝒮_w.t.`$ The latter transforms in the quantum situation to an action of $`_q[G]`$ on the space of linear operators in the Hilbert space completion $`\overline{V}_{w,t}`$ of the representation space of $`\pi _{w,t}.`$ It coincides with the standard adjoint action

(1.4)
$$c.L=\pi _{w,t}(c_{(1)})L\pi _{w,t}(S(c_{(2)})).$$

(Here and later we use the standard notation for the comultiplication in a Hopf algebra $`\mathrm{\Delta }(c)=c_{(1)}c_{(2)}.)`$ Let us also note that $`_q[K]`$ acts by bounded operators in all of its $``$-representations and thus in particular in $`\overline{V}_{w,t}.`$

The standard trace in $`\overline{V}_{w,t}`$ is not a homomorphism from the space of trace class operators in $`\overline{V}_{w,t}`$ with the adjoint $`_q[G]`$-action (1.4) to the 1-dimensional representation of $`_q[G]`$ determined by its counit. After Reshetikhin and Turaev such a homomorphism, from possibly a “deformation” of the space of trace class operators, is called a quantum trace for the Hopf algebra module under consideration. We define a space $`_1^q(\overline{V}_{w,t})`$ of “quantum” trace class operators in $`\overline{V}_{w,t},`$ stable under the adjoint $`_q[G]`$-action (1.4), and construct a homomorphism from it to the 1-dimensional representation of $`_q[G]`$ determined by a multiplicative character of it which is a deformation of the character (1.3). Such homomorphisms, to be called quantum quasi-traces, are treated in Section 6 where we also study some of their properties. They are quantum analogs of the invariant measures on the unipotent groups $`N_w`$ and the almost $`AN`$-invariant measures on the symplectic leaves $`𝒮_w.t.`$

Section 7 contains an application to quantum analogs of Harish-Chandra $`c`$-functions related to the elements of the Weyl group of $`G.`$ They are constructed by the help of the quantum quasi-traces from Section 6 and are explicitly computed by a $`q`$-analog of the original Harish-Chandra formula. In the quantum situation the role of the factorization formulas for the groups $`N_w`$ as products of 1-dimensional unipotent subgroups is played by tensor product formulas for the representations $`\pi _{w,t}`$ . In a forthcoming publication we will discuss the relation between the quantum $`c`$-functions and the asymptotics of quantum spherical functions at infinity which is similar to the one in the classical case.

Sections 2 and 3 review some standard facts about quantized universal enveloping algebras, quantized function algebras, and their representations. Section 4 deals with a family of elements of $`_q[K]`$ which enter in all formulas for quantum invariant functionals derived in this paper.

## 2. Preliminaries on quantized enveloping algebras

### 2.1. Root data

Let $`𝔤`$ be a complex simple Lie algebra of rank $`l`$ with Cartan matrix $`(a_{ij}).`$ Denote by $`(.,.)`$ the invariant inner product on $`𝔤`$ for which the square length of a minimal root equals 2 in the resulting identification $`𝔥^{}𝔥`$ for a Cartan subalgebra $`𝔥`$ of $`𝔤.`$ The sets of simple roots, simple coroots, and fundamental weights of $`𝔤`$ will be denoted by $`\{\alpha _i\}_{i=1}^l,`$ $`\{\alpha _i^{}\}_{i=1}^l,`$ and $`\{\omega _i\}_{i=1}^l,`$ respectively. Let $`P,`$ $`Q,`$ and $`Q^{},`$ denote the weight, root, and coroot lattices of $`𝔤.`$ Denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta },`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+,`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{},`$ and $`P_+`$ the sets of roots, positive/negative roots, and dominant weights of $`𝔤.`$ Set $`Q_+=\{m_i\alpha _i\}`$ and $`Q_+^{}=\{m_i\alpha _i^{}\},`$ $`m_i.`$

Recall that there exists a unique set of relatively prime positive integers $`\{d_i\}_{i=1}^l`$ for which the matrix $`(d_ia_{ij})`$ is symmetric and for it

$$(\alpha _i,\alpha _j)=d_ia_{ij}.$$

The Weyl group of $`𝔤`$ will be denoted by $`W.`$ The simple reflections in $`W`$ will be denoted by $`s_i`$ and the maximal length element in $`W`$ by $`w_{}.`$

### 2.2. Definition of $`U_q𝔤`$

Throughout this paper we will assume that $`q`$ is a real number different from $`\pm 1`$ and $`0.`$ The adjoint rational form of the quantized universal enveloping algebra $`U_q𝔤`$ of $`𝔤`$ is generated by $`K_i^{\pm 1},`$ and $`X_i^\pm ,`$ $`i=1,\mathrm{},l,`$ subject to the relations

$$K_i^1K_i=K_iK_i^1=1,K_iK_j=K_jK_i,$$

$$K_iX_j^\pm K_i^1=q_i^{a_{ij}}X_j^\pm ,$$

$$X_i^+X_j^{}X_j^{}X_i^+=\delta _{i,j}\frac{K_iK_i^1}{q_iq_i^1},$$

$$\underset{r=0}{\overset{1a_{ij}}{}}\left[\begin{array}{c}1a_{ij}\\ r\end{array}\right]_{q_i}(X_i^\pm )^rX_j^\pm (X_i^\pm )^{1a_{ij}r}=0,ij.$$

It is a Hopf algebra with comultiplication given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(K_i)=K_iK_i,$$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(X_i^+)=X_i^+K_i+1X_i^+,$$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(X_i^{})=X_i^{}1+K_i^1X_i^{},$$

antipode and counit given by

$$S(K_i)=K_i^1,S(X_i^+)=X_i^+K_i^1,S(X_i^{})=K_iX_i^{},$$

$$ϵ(K_i),ϵ(X_i^\pm )=0$$

where $`q_i=q^{d_i}.`$ As usual $`q`$-integers, $`q`$-factorials, and $`q`$-binomial coefficients are denoted by

$$[n]_q=\frac{q^nq^n}{qq^1},[n]_q!=[1]_q\mathrm{}[n]_q,\left[\begin{array}{c}n\\ m\end{array}\right]_q=\frac{[n]_q}{[m]_q[nm]_q}$$

for $`n,m`$ and $`mn.`$

The conjugate linear antiisomorphism $``$ of $`U_q𝔤`$ defined on its generators by

(2.5)
$$K_i^{}=K_i,(X_i^+)^{}=X_i^{}K_i,(X_i^{})^{}=K_i^1X_i^{}$$

equips $`U_q𝔤`$ with a structure of a Hopf $``$-algebra. In the limit $`q1`$ the involution $``$ recovers the Cartan (anti)involution (conjugate linear antiisomorphism of order 2) of $`𝔤`$ associated to its compact real form $`𝔨.`$ For the definition and properties of Hopf $``$-algebras we refer to \[7, pp. 95–97\] and \[1, pp. 117–118\].

For $`i=1,\mathrm{},l`$ the Hopf subalgebra of $`U_q𝔤`$ generated by $`K_i`$ and $`X_i^\pm `$ will be denoted by $`U_{q_i}𝔤_i.`$ It is naturally isomorphic to $`U_{q_i}𝔰𝔩_2.`$ The canonical embedding $`U_q𝔰𝔩_2U_{q_i}𝔤_iU_q𝔤`$ will be denoted by $`\phi _i.`$ Recall that a $`U_q𝔤`$-module is called integrable if the subalgebras $`U_{q_i}𝔤_i`$ act locally finitely.

The subalgebras of $`U_q𝔤`$ generated by $`\{K_i\}_{i=1}^l,`$ $`\{X_i^+\}_{i=1}^l,`$ and $`\{X_i^{}\}_{i=1}^l`$ will be denoted by $`U_0,`$ $`U^+,`$ and $`U^{},`$ respectively. Clearly $`U_0`$ is a commutative Hopf subalgebra of $`U_q𝔤`$ isomorphic to the group algebra of the lattice $`Q`$ equipped with the standard structure of a cocommutative Hopf algebra.

### 2.3. Quantum Weyl group

Let $`_𝔤`$ denote the (generalized) braid group associated to the Coxeter group $`W`$ with generators $`T_i`$ corresponding to the simple reflections $`s_iW.`$ For any integrable $`U_q𝔤`$-module $`V`$ one can define an action of $`_𝔤`$ on $`V.`$ It is given by

$$T_i=\underset{a,b,c}{}(1)^bq_i^{acb}(X_i^+)^{(a)}(X_i^{})^{(b)}(X_i^+)^{(c)}$$

where

$$(X_i^\pm )^{(n)}=\frac{X_i^\pm }{[n]_{q_i}}$$

In the case of the adjoint representation of $`U_q𝔤`$ this gives an action of the braid group $`_𝔤`$ on $`U_q𝔤.`$ The explicit action of $`T_i`$ on the generators $`K_j,`$ $`X_j^\pm `$ of $`U_q𝔤`$ is

$`T_i(X_i^+)=X_i^{}K_i,T_i(X_i^{})=K_i^1X_i^+,T_i(K_j)=K_jK_i^{a_{ij}},`$
$`T_i(X_j^+)={\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{a_{ij}}{}}}(1)^rq_i^r(X_i^+)^{(a_{ij}r)}X_j^+(X_i^+)^{(r)}\text{if}ij,`$
$`T_i(X_j^{})={\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{a_{ij}}{}}}(1)^rq_i^r(X_i^{})^{(r)}X_j^{}(X_i^{})^{(a_{ij}r)}\text{if}ij.`$
The defined actions of $`_𝔤`$ are compatible in the sense that for any integrable $`U_q𝔤`$-module $`V`$

$$T_i.xv=(T_ix).T_iv,xU_q𝔤,vV.$$

Recall that there exists a canonical section $`T:W_𝔤`$ of the natural projection $`_𝔤W`$ (where $`T_is_i).`$ If

$$w=s_{i_1}\mathrm{}s_{i_n}$$

is a reduced decomposition of $`wW`$ then the image $`T_w`$ of $`w`$ in $`_𝔤`$ is defined by

$$T_w=T_{i_1}\mathrm{}T_{i_n}.$$

It does not depend on the choice of a reduced decomposition.

The weight subspaces of a $`U_0`$-module (in particular of a $`U_q𝔤`$-module) $`V`$ are defined by

$$V_\lambda =\{vVK_i.v=q^{(\lambda ,\alpha _i)}v\},\lambda P.$$

The elements of $`_𝔤`$ preserve the weight space decomposition of an integrable $`U_q𝔤`$-module, in particular

$$T_wV_\lambda =V_{w\lambda }.$$

### 2.4. $`R`$-matrix

Put

(2.6)
$$U_k^\pm =\underset{\begin{array}{c}\lambda \pm Q_+,\\ |(\lambda ,\rho ^{})|k\end{array}}{}U_\lambda ^\pm ,k$$

where $`\rho ^{}`$ is the half-sum of positive coroots of $`𝔤.`$ Denote by $`U_+\widehat{}U_{}`$ the completion of the vector space $`U_+\widehat{}U_{}`$ according to the descending sequence of vector spaces

$$\left(U_k^+U^{}\right)\left(U^+U_k^{}\right).$$

Any element of the completion $`U_+\widehat{}U_{}`$ acts in the tensor product of two finite dimensional $`U_q𝔤`$-modules.

Recall that a representation $`V`$ of $`U_q𝔤`$ is called a type 1 representation if it is a direct sum of its weight subspaces. For a pair $`(V_1,V_2)`$ of type 1 $`U_q𝔤`$-modules define the linear operator $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{V_1,V_2}:V_1V_2V_1V_2`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{V_1,V_2}(v_1v_2)=q^{(\lambda ,\mu )}v_1v_2\text{if}v_1(V_1)_\lambda ,v_2(V_2)_\mu .$$

Denote also by $`\sigma :V_1V_2V_2V_1`$ the flip operator

$$\sigma (v_1v_2)=v_2v_1.$$

There exists  a unique element $`RU^+\widehat{}U^{},`$ called a quasi $`R`$-matrix for $`U_q𝔤,`$ normalized by

$$R1U_1^+\widehat{}U_1^{}$$

such that for any pair $`(V_1,V_2)`$ of finite dimensional $`U_q𝔤`$-modules of type 1 the composition

(2.7)
$$\sigma \mathrm{\Psi }_{V_1,V_2}R:V_1V_2V_2V_1$$

defines an isomorphism of $`U_q𝔤`$-modules.

For any pair $`(V_1,V_2)`$ of finite dimensional $`U_q𝔤`$-modules and an element $`wW`$ the actions of $`T_w_𝔤`$ on $`V_1,V_2,`$ and $`V_1V_2,`$ to be denoted by $`T_{w,V_1},T_{w,V_2},`$ and $`T_{w,V_1V_2},`$ are related as follows. There exists a unique element $`R^wU^+\widehat{}U^{}`$ which does not depend on $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ such that

(2.8)
$$T_{w,V_1V_2}=R^w\left(T_{w,V_1}T_{w,V_2}\right).$$

As the quasi $`R`$-matrix $`R,`$ $`R^w`$ satisfies

(2.9)
$$R^w1U_1^+\widehat{}U_1^{}.$$

The element $`R^w_{}`$ associated to the maximal element $`w_{}`$ of $`W`$ is equal to the quasi $`R`$-matrix $`R.`$

## 3. Quantized algebras of functions

### 3.1. Quantized algebras of regular functions

Let $`G`$ be a connected, simply connected, complex simple algebraic group and $`𝔤=\mathrm{Lie}G.`$ The finite dimensional, $`U_q𝔤`$-modules of type 1 form a quasitensor category. Hence their matrix coefficients form a Hopf subalgebra of the Hopf dual $`(U_q𝔤)^{}`$ of $`U_q𝔤.`$ It is called the quantized algebra of regular functions on $`G`$ and is denoted by $`_q[G].`$

Every finite dimensional type 1 $`U_q𝔤`$-module is a direct sum of irreducible type 1 $`U_q𝔤`$-modules. The latter are highest weight modules with highest weights $`\mathrm{\Lambda }P_+`$ (the corresponding module will be denoted by $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda })).`$ The matrix coefficient of $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ associated to $`vL(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`lL(\mathrm{\Lambda })^{}`$ will be denoted by $`c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda }:`$

$$c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda }_q[G],c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)=l,x.v.$$

The above implies

$$_q[G]=\mathrm{span}\{c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }P_+,vL(\mathrm{\Lambda }),lL(\mathrm{\Lambda })^{}\}.$$

The $``$-involution in $`U_q𝔤`$ induces a structure of Hopf $``$-algebra on $`_q[G]`$ by

(3.10)
$$\xi ^{},x=\overline{\xi ,S(x)^{}},\xi _q[G],xU_q𝔤.$$

The resulting Hopf $``$-algebra $`(_q[G],)`$ is called quantized algebra of regular functions on the compact real form $`K`$ of $`G`$ and is denoted by $`_q[K].`$

The inclusions $`\phi _i:U_{q_i}𝔤_iU_q𝔤`$ induce surjective homomorphisms $`\phi _i^{}:(_q[G],)(_{q_i}[G_i],)`$ where $`G_i`$ is the subgroup of $`G`$ isomorphic to $`SL_2`$ with tangent Lie algebra $`𝔤_i`$ generated by the root vectors of $`\pm \alpha _i.`$

We finish this subsection with a simple fact on the explicit structure of the Hopf $``$-algebra $`_q[K]`$ (see, for instance, \[1, Proposition 13.1.3\]).

Recall that $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda })^{}L(w_{}\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and if we fix these isomorphisms, we can consider any $`vL(\mathrm{\Lambda }),`$ $`lL(\mathrm{\Lambda })^{}`$ as elements of $`L(w_{}\mathrm{\Lambda })^{},`$ $`L(w_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }),`$ respectively. Recall that any module $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ can be equipped with a unique (up to a constant) inner product which turns it into a $`(U_q𝔤,)`$ $``$-representation.

###### Lemma 3.1.

(i) The comultiplication, the counit, and the antipode of $`_q[G]`$ are given by

(3.11)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }(c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{j}{}c_{l,v_j}^\mathrm{\Lambda }c_{l_j,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda },$$

(3.12)
$$ϵ(c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda })=l,v,S(c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda })=c_{v,l}^{w_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }}$$

where in (3.11) $`(\{v_j\},\{l_j\})`$ is an arbitrary pair of dual bases of $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda })^{}.`$

(ii) Fix an orthonormal basis $`\{v_i\}`$ of $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ equipped with an invariant inner product as above and a dual basis $`\{l_j\}`$ of $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda })^{}.`$ The action of the $``$-involution (3.10) on the corresponding elements of $`_q[G]`$ is given by

(3.13)
$$(c_{l_i,v_j}^\mathrm{\Lambda })^{}=(c_{v_i,l_j}^{w_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }}).$$

### 3.2. Quantized algebra of continuous functions of $`K`$

Let $`G`$ be a complex simple algebraic group as in the previous subsection and $`K`$ be its compact real form. The quantized algebra of continuous functions $`𝒞_q(K)`$ on $`K`$ is by definition the $`C^{}`$-completion of the $``$-algebra $`_q[K]`$ with respect to the norm

(3.14)
$$f=\underset{\eta }{sup}\eta (f),f_q[K]$$

where $`\eta `$ runs through all $``$-representations of $`_q[K].`$

The fact that for any $``$-representation $`\eta `$ of $`_q[K]`$ $`\eta (f)`$ is a bounded operator and that the supremum in (3.14) is finite for all $`f_q[G]`$ follows from the following identity in $`_q[K]`$

$$\underset{j}{}c_{l_j,v_i}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(c_{l_j,v_i}^\mathrm{\Lambda })^{}=1$$

where $`\{v_i\}`$ and $`\{l_j\}`$ are dual bases of $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda })^{}`$ as in part (ii) of Lemma 3.1, see \[1, eq. (13) p. 452\].

The $`C^{}`$-algebras $`𝒞_q(K)`$ posses natural structures of compact matrix quantum groups in the sense of Woronowicz , see \[1, Section 13.3\].

### 3.3. $`_q[SU_2]`$

The $`U_q𝔰𝔩_2`$-module $`L(\omega _1)`$ has a basis in which the operators $`K_1,`$ $`X_1^\pm `$ act by

$$K_1\left(\begin{array}{cc}q& 0\\ 0& q^1\end{array}\right),X_1^+\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),X_1^{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$

The corresponding matrix coefficients $`c_{ij}_q[SL_2]`$ $`i,j=1,2`$ generate $`_q[SL_2].`$ More precisely:

###### Lemma 3.2.

The Hopf algebra $`_q[SL_2]`$ is isomorphic to the algebra generated by $`c_{ij},`$ $`i,j=1,2,`$ subject to the relations

$`c_{11}c_{12}=q^1c_{12}c_{11},`$ $`c_{11}c_{21}=q^1c_{21}c_{11},`$
$`c_{12}c_{22}=q^1c_{22}c_{12},`$ $`c_{21}c_{22}=q^1c_{22}c_{21},`$
$`c_{12}c_{21}=c_{21}c_{12},`$ $`c_{11}c_{22}c_{22}c_{11}=(q^1q)c_{12}c_{21}`$
$`c_{11}c_{22}q^1c_{12}c_{21}=1.`$
In these generators the comultiplication, the counit, the antipode, and the $``$-involution of $`_q[SU_2]`$ are given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(c_{ij})=\underset{k=1,2}{}c_{ik}c_{kj},ϵ(c_{ij})=\delta _{ij},$$

$$S(c_{11})=c_{22},S(c_{22})=c_{11},S(c_{12})=qc_{12},S(c_{21})=q^1c_{21},$$

$$c_{11}^{}=c_{22},c_{21}^{}=qc_{12}.$$

A proof of Lemma 3.2 can be found, for instance, in \[7, Example 2.3.3 and Theorem 3.0.1\].

Let $`q,`$ $`q>1.`$ The Hopf $``$-algebra $`_q[SU_2]`$ has an infinite dimensional $``$-representation $`\pi `$ on $`l^2()`$ given by the following action of its generators $`c_{ij},`$ $`i,j=1,2`$ (see )

(3.15) $`\pi (c_{12})e_k=q^{k1}e_k,\pi (c_{11})e_k=\sqrt{1q^{2k}}e_{k1},`$
(3.16) $`\pi (c_{21})e_k=q^ke_k,\pi (c_{22})e_k=\sqrt{1q^{2k2}}e_{k+1}`$
where $`e_1:=0.`$

### 3.4. Irreducible star representations of $`_q[K]`$

The group of multiplicative characters of the Hopf algebra $`C_q[G]`$ is isomorphic to the complex torus $`(^\times )^l,`$ see \[4, Theorem 3.3\] and \[6, Section 10.3.8\] in the case when $`q`$ is an indeterminate. The character corresponding to the $`l`$-tuple $`t=(t_1,\mathrm{},t_l)(^\times )^l`$ is given by

(3.17)
$$\chi _t(c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}t_i^{(\lambda ,\alpha _i^{})}l,v=\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}t_i^{(\lambda ,\alpha _i^{})}ϵ(c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda }),vL(\mathrm{\Lambda })_\lambda .$$

The unitary ones among these are the ones corresponding to the real torus $`(S^1)^l=\{(t_1,\mathrm{},t_l)(^\times )^l|t_i|=1\}.`$

From now on we will assume that $`q,`$ $`q>1.`$ Denote by $`\pi _i`$ the $``$-representation of $`(_{q_i}[G_i],)_{q_i}[SU_2]`$ given by (3.15)–(3.16). The $``$-representation of $`_q[K](_q[G],)`$ induced from it by the homomorphism $`\phi _i^{}:(_q[G],)(_{q_i}[G_i],)`$ will be denoted by $`\pi _{s_i}.`$ (Recall that $`s_i`$ denotes the simple reflection in the Weyl group $`W`$ of $`𝔤`$ corresponding to the root $`\alpha _i.)`$

The irreducible $``$-representations of the Hopf $``$-algebra $`_q[K]`$ were classified by Soibelman , see also the book  for an exposition.

###### Theorem 3.3.

(i) For any reduced decomposition $`w=s_{i_1}\mathrm{}s_{i_n}`$ of an element $`w`$ of $`W`$ and any $`t(S^1)^l`$ the tensor product

(3.18)
$$\pi _{w,t}=\pi _{s_{i_1}}\mathrm{}\pi _{s_{i_n}}\chi _t$$

is an irreducible $``$-representation of $`_q[K].`$

(ii) Up to an equivalence the representation $`\pi _{w,t}`$ does not depend on the choice of reduced decomposition of $`w.`$

(iii) Every irreducible $``$-representation of $`_q[G]`$ is isomorphic to some $`\pi _{w,t}.`$

Denote by $`V_{w,t}`$ the representation space of $`\pi _{w,t}`$ equipped with the Hermitian inner product from Theorem 3.3. The Hilbert space completion of $`V_{w,t}`$ with respect to it will be denoted by $`\overline{V}_{w,t}.`$ Then:

The representations $`\pi _{w,t}`$ naturally induce irreducible representations of the $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒞_q(K),`$ $`\pi _{w,t}:𝒞_q(K)(\overline{V}_{w,t}).`$ The latter exhaust all irreducible representations of $`𝒞_q(K)`$ up to a unitary equivalence.

Each module $`V_{w,t}`$ has a natural orthonormal basis

(3.19)
$$e_{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n}=e_{k_1}\mathrm{}e_{k_n}1,n=l(w),k_1,\mathrm{},k_n$$

induced from the orthonormal basis $`\{e_k\}`$ of the $`_q[SU_2]`$-module $`V`$ defined by (3.15)–(3.16). Here $`1`$ denotes a (fixed) vector of the 1-dimensional representation of $`_q[G]`$ corresponding to $`\chi _t.`$

For an element $`w`$ of the Weyl group $`W`$ denote by $`I_w`$ the $``$-ideal of $`_q[K]`$ generated by

(3.20)
$$c_{l,v_\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{such that}\mathrm{\Lambda }P_+,l,U^+T_w.v_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0$$

where $`v_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ denotes a highest weight vector of $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda }).`$

The annihilation ideals of the representations $`\pi _{w,t}`$ are contained in $`I_w`$ :

(3.21)
$$\mathrm{ker}\pi _{w,t}I_w.$$

## 4. A family of elements $`a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}_q[K]`$

### 4.1. Definitions

For a dominant integral weight $`\mathrm{\Lambda }P_+`$ and a highest weight vector $`v_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ denote by $`l_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}`$ the unique element of $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda })_{w\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}`$ such that

$$l_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w},T_wv_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.$$

(The uniqueness follows from the fact that $`dimL(\mathrm{\Lambda })_{w\mathrm{\Lambda }}=1.)`$

Define

(4.22)
$$a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}=c_{l_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w},v_\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$

Note that $`a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}`$ does not depend on the choice of highest weight vector $`v_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda }).`$

The $``$-subalgebras of $`_q[K]`$ generated by $`a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}`$ played an important role in Soibelman’s classification of the irreducible $``$-representations of $`_q[K],`$ see Theorem 3.3. Most of the results in this subsection are due to Soibelman . We include their proofs since  does not assume the normalization made in the definition of $`a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}.`$

Properties (2.8) and (2.9) of the elements $`R^wU^+\widehat{}U^{}`$ allow to write $`l_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}`$ and thus $`a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}`$ slightly more explicitly. Let $`l_\mathrm{\Lambda }=l_{\mathrm{\Lambda },1},`$ i.e. let $`l_\mathrm{\Lambda }L(\mathrm{\Lambda })_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ be the unique element such that

$$l_\mathrm{\Lambda },v_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.$$

Then (2.8), (2.9) imply

$$l_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}=T_wl_\mathrm{\Lambda }$$

and thus

(4.23)
$$a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}=c_{T_wl_\mathrm{\Lambda },v_\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$

###### Proposition 4.1.

(i) The elements $`a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w},`$ $`a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}^{}_q[K],`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }P_+`$ are normal modulo $`I_w:`$

(4.24) $`a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}q^{(\mathrm{\Lambda },\lambda ^{})(w\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu ^{})}c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}I_w,`$
(4.25) $`a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}^{}c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}q^{(\mathrm{\Lambda },\lambda ^{})(w\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu ^{})}c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}^{}I_w,`$
for $`vL(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})_\lambda ^{},`$ $`lL(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})_\mu ^{}^{}.`$

(ii) The images of $`\{a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w},a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}^{}\}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }P_+}`$ in $`_q[K]/I_w`$ generate a commutative subalgebra. More precisely the following identity holds in $`_q[K]`$

(4.26)
$$a_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,w}a_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,w}=a_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,w},\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_2P_+.$$

Proofs of Proposition 4.1 can be found in . The property (4.24) follows from the existence of a quasi $`R`$-matrix for $`U_q𝔤,`$ see (2.7). Eq. (4.25) follows from (4.24), Lemma 3.1, and the fact that the ideals $`I_w`$ are stable under the $``$-involution. The first statement in part (ii) is a direct consequence of part (i). The second statement in (ii) follows from the existence of the element $`R^wU_1^+\widehat{}U_1^{}`$ with the properties (2.8), (2.9) and the fact that $`v_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}v_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}L(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)L(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)`$ generates a submodule isomorphic to $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2).`$

### 4.2. The action of $`a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}`$ in $`V_{w,t}`$

###### Lemma 4.2.

Let $`w,w^{}W`$ be such that $`w=s_iw^{}`$ and $`l(w)=l(w^{})+1`$ for some simple reflection $`s_iW.`$ Then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w})c_{l_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w},T_w^{}v_\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\mathrm{\Lambda }a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w^{}}.$$

###### Proof.

According to (3.11) $`\mathrm{\Delta }(a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w})`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w})=\underset{j}{}c_{l_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w},v_j}^\mathrm{\Lambda }c_{l_j,v_\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\mathrm{\Lambda }$$

where $`(\{v_j\},\{l_j\})`$ is a pair of dual bases of $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda })^{}`$ consisting of weight vectors $`(v_jL(\mathrm{\Lambda })_{\lambda _j},`$ $`l_jL(\mathrm{\Lambda })_{\lambda _j},`$ $`\lambda _jP).`$ The definition (3.20) of $`I_w^{}`$ implies

(4.27)
$$c_{l_j,v_\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\mathrm{\Lambda }I_w^{}\text{if}\lambda _jw\mathrm{\Lambda }+Q_+.$$

The map $`\phi _i^{}:_q[G]_{q_i}[G_i]`$ acts on the matrix coefficients of a $`U_q𝔤`$-module by restricting the module to $`U_{q_i}𝔤_i.`$ Since $`w=s_iw^{}`$ and $`l(w)=l(w^{})+1`$

$$w^1\alpha _i^{}Q_+^{}.$$

If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a dominant weight, then

$$\mathrm{\Lambda },w^1\alpha _i^{}0\text{and thus}w\mathrm{\Lambda },\alpha _i^{}0.$$

Hence $`T_wv_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a lowest weight vector for the $`U_{q_i}𝔤_i`$-submodule of $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ generated by $`T_wv_\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ The corresponding $`U_{q_i}𝔤_i`$-highest weight vector is $`T_w^{}v_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and

(4.28)
$$c_{l_j,v_\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(\phi _i^{})^1(T_{s_i})\text{if}\lambda _j\{w\mathrm{\Lambda },w\mathrm{\Lambda }+\alpha _i,\mathrm{},w^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\}.$$

The lemma now follows from (4.27) and (4.28). ∎

For an element $`wW`$ and a reduced decomposition $`w=s_{i_1}\mathrm{}s_{i_n}`$ of it denote

(4.29)
$$w_j=s_{i_{j+1}}\mathrm{}s_{i_n},j=0,\mathrm{},n1,w_n=1.$$

###### Proposition 4.3.

In the notation (4.29) the action of the elements $`a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}`$ in the module $`V_{w,t}`$ is given by

(4.30)
$$\pi _{w,t}(a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w})=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\pi _{s_{i_j}}(a_{(w_j\mathrm{\Lambda },\alpha _{i_j}^{})\omega _{i_j},s_{i_j}}).\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}t_i^{(\mathrm{\Lambda },\alpha _i^{})}.$$

In the orthonormal basis $`\{e_{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n}\}_{k_j=0}^{\mathrm{}},`$ of $`V_{w,t},`$ see (3.19), the elements $`a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}`$ act diagonally by

(4.31)
$$\pi _{w,t}(a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}).e_{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}q^{(k_j+1)(w_j\mathrm{\Lambda },\alpha _{i_j})}\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}t_i^{(\mathrm{\Lambda },\alpha _i^{})}e_{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n}.$$

Formula (4.30) follows by induction from Lemma 4.2 and the definition (3.17) of the multiplicative characters $`\chi _t`$ of $`_q[G].`$ To prove (4.31) we first compute that in $`_q[SL_2]`$

(4.32)
$$a_{\omega _1,s_1}=qc_{21}$$

(cf. Section 3.3) and then use (4.26) which implies $`a_{m\omega _1,s_1}=(a_{\omega _1,s_1})^m.`$ We also use the identity $`d_i\alpha _i^{}=(\alpha _i,\alpha _i)\alpha _i^{}/2=\alpha _i,`$ see Section 2.1.

## 5. The Haar integral on $`𝒞_q(K)`$

### 5.1. Definition and the Schur orthogonality relations

Recall that a left invariant integral on a Hopf algebra $`A`$ is a linear functional $`H`$ on $`A`$ satisfying

(5.33)
$$(\mathrm{id}H)\left(\mathrm{\Delta }(a)\right)=H(a).1,aA.$$

Analogously is defined a right invariant integral. In the analytic setting a left Haar integral for a $`C^{}`$-Hopf algebra $`A`$ is a state $`H`$ on $`A`$ satisfying (5.33), see .

###### Proposition 5.1.

There exists a unique left invariant integral $`H`$ on the Hopf algebra $`_q[K]`$ normalized by $`H(1)=1.`$ It is also right invariant and can be uniquely extended to a bi-invariant Haar integral on $`𝒞_q(K).`$ It is given by a quantum version of the classical Schur orthogonality relations:

$$H(c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda }c_{l^{},v^{}}^\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})=\frac{\delta _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}l,v^{}l^{},v}{_\lambda dimL(\mathrm{\Lambda })_\lambda q^{2(\lambda ,\rho )}}$$

or equivalently by

(5.34)
$$H(c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda })=\delta _{\mathrm{\Lambda },0}l,v.$$

### 5.2. Statement of the main result

###### Theorem 5.2.

The bi-invariant integral $`H`$ on $`𝒞_q(K)`$ $`(q,q>1)`$ is given in terms of the irreducible representations $`\pi _{w,t}`$ of $`𝒞_q(K)`$ by

(5.35)
$$H(c)=\left(\underset{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_+}{}(q^{(2\rho ,\beta )}1)\right)_{(S^1)^l}\mathrm{tr}_{\overline{V}_{w_{},t}}(\pi _{w_{},t}(a_{\rho ,w_{}}a_{\rho ,w_{}}^{}c))𝑑t$$

where $`w_{}`$ is the maximal length element of the Weyl group $`W`$ of $`𝔤,`$ $`\rho `$ is the half sum of all positive roots of $`𝔤,`$ and $`dt`$ is the invariant measure on the torus $`(S^1)^l`$ normalized by $`_{(S^1)^l}𝑑t=1.`$

In the special case of $`K=SU_2`$ Theorem 5.2 was established by Soibelman and Vaksman . Similar formula is also known for quantum spheres . Theorem 5.2 answers Question 3 in .

Note that formula (4.31) implies that $`\pi _{w,t}(a_{\rho ,w_{}}a_{\rho ,w_{}}^{})`$ is a trace class operator in $`\overline{V}_{w,t}.`$ Since $`\pi _{w,t}(c)`$ is a bounded operator for $`c𝒞_q(K),`$ the product is also a trace class operator in $`\overline{V}_{w,t}`$ for all $`c𝒞_q(K).`$ From the definition (3.18) of $`\pi _{w,t}`$ it is also clear that

$$\mathrm{tr}_{\overline{V}_{w_{},t}}(\pi _{w_{},t}(a_{\rho ,w_{}}a_{\rho ,w_{}}^{}c))$$

is a continuous function in $`t(S^1)^l`$ for a fixed $`c𝒞_q(K)`$ and that the r.h.s. of (5.35) defines a continuous linear functional on $`𝒞_q(K).`$

By identifying $`(S^1)^l\{(t_1,\mathrm{},t_l)^l:|t_i|=1\},`$ the normalized invariant measure on the torus $`(S^1)^l`$ is represented as

$$dt=\frac{1}{(2\pi i)^l}\frac{dt_1}{t_1}\mathrm{}\frac{dt_l}{t_l}$$

In Sections 5.3 and 5.4 we show that the functional $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ on $`_q[G]`$ given by the right hand side of (5.35) satisfies

(5.36)
$$\stackrel{~}{H}(c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda })=0\text{if}\mathrm{\Lambda }0.$$

In Section 5.5 we check that it satisfies the normalization condition $`\stackrel{~}{H}(1)=1.`$ Combined with (5.34) this proves Theorem 5.2.

### 5.3. Proof of (5.36): reduction to the rank 1 case

Recall first the following simple characterization of $`w_{}W.`$

###### Lemma 5.3.

The maximal length element $`w_{}W`$ is the only element $`wW`$ that has a representation of the form $`w=w^{}s_i`$ with $`l(w^{})=l(w)1`$ for an arbitrary simple reflection $`s_i.`$

Lemma 5.3 follows from the so called “deletion condition”, see , and the property of $`w_{}`$ that it is the only element $`wW`$ such that $`w^1(\alpha _i)`$ is a negative root of $`𝔤`$ for all simple roots $`\alpha _i`$ of $`𝔤.`$

We show that (5.36) for $`K=SU_2`$ implies its validity in the general case. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }P_+,`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0.`$ Equip $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ with a Hermitian inner product making it a $`(U_q𝔤,)`$ $``$-representation, recall (2.5). Denote

$$L_i=\{vL(\mathrm{\Lambda })U_{q_i}𝔤_i.v=0\},i=1,\mathrm{},l.$$

Since $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is an irreducible $`U_q𝔤`$-module

$$_{i=1}^lL_i=0$$

and

$$L_1^{}+\mathrm{}+L_2^{}=(_{i=1}^lL_i)^{}=L(\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$

Hence to show (5.36) it is sufficient to show that

(5.37)
$$\stackrel{~}{H}(c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda })=0\text{if}vL_m^{}\text{for some}m=1,\mathrm{},l.$$

Note that $`L_m^{}`$ is the span of the nontrivial irreducible $`U_{q_m}𝔤_m`$-submodules of $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda }).`$

Choose a reduced decomposition of $`w_{}`$ of the form

$$w_{}=s_{i_1}\mathrm{}s_{i_{n_{}1}}s_m$$

and consider the corresponding model for the representation $`\pi _{w_n_{},t}`$

$$\pi _{w_n_{},t}\pi _{s_{i_1}}\mathrm{}\pi _{i_{n_{}1}}\pi _{s_m}\chi _t.$$

Taking trace over the component $`\pi _{s_m}\chi _t`$ of $`\pi _{w_n_{},t}`$ and using (3.11) and (4.30) we see that to prove (5.37) it is sufficient to prove that

(5.38)
$$_{(S^1)^l}\mathrm{tr}_{\overline{V}_{s_m}}(\pi _{s_m}(a_{\omega _m,s_m}a_{\omega _m,s_m}^{}\phi _m^{}(c_{l^{},v}^\mathrm{\Lambda })))𝑑t=0\text{for all}l^{}L(\mathrm{\Lambda })^{}.$$

(Recall that by definition $`(w_{})_n_{}=1,`$ see (4.29).) Since $`vL_m^{}`$

$$\phi _m^{}(c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{p}{}c_{l_p,v_p}^{p\omega _m}$$

with all $`p>0.`$ By appropriately breaking the integral (5.38) into a product of a 1-dimensional and an $`(l1)`$-dimensional integrals one sees that (5.38) follows from (5.36) for $`K=SU_2.`$

### 5.4. Proof of (5.36): the case of $`_q[SU_2]`$

Our proof in the rank 1 case is similar to the one from . Lemma 3.2 implies that $`_q[SU_2]`$ is spanned by the elements

$$c_{11}^mc_{12}^pc_{21}^r\text{and}c_{22}^mc_{12}^pc_{21}^r\text{for}m,p,r.$$

The Haar functional $`H`$ acts on them by \[1, Example 13.3.9\]

$$H(c_{11}^mc_{12}^pc_{21}^r)=H(c_{22}^mc_{12}^pc_{21}^r)=\delta _{m,0}\delta _{p,r}\frac{(q)^p(q^21)}{q^{2p+2}1}$$

We check that the functional $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ has the same property. This implies (5.36) for $`K=SU_2.`$

Recall from (4.32) that $`a_{\omega _1,s_1}=q^1c_{21}`$ and thus $`a_{\omega _1,s_1}^{}=c_{12},`$ see Lemma 3.2. Using (3.15)–(3.16) we compute

$`\mathrm{tr}_{\overline{V}}(\pi (a_{\omega _1,s_1}a_{\omega _1,s_1}^{}c_{ii}^mc_{12}^pc_{21}^r))`$ $`=\delta _{m,0}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}q^1.q^{(k+1)(p+1)}.(q^k)^{r+1}`$
$`=\delta _{m,0}{\displaystyle \frac{(q)^r}{q^{p+r+2}1}}`$
for $`i=1,2.`$ This gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{S^1}}\mathrm{tr}_{\overline{V}_{s_1,t}}(\pi _{s_1,t}(a_{\omega _1,s_1}a_{\omega _1,s_1}^{}c_{ii}^mc_{12}^pc_{21}^r)){\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}`$
$`=\delta _{m,0}{\displaystyle \frac{(q)^r}{q^{p+r+2}1}}{\displaystyle t^{rp1}𝑑t}=\delta _{m,0}\delta _{p,r}{\displaystyle \frac{(q)^p}{q^{2p+2}1}}`$
$`(i=1,2)`$ which shows that $`\stackrel{~}{H}=H`$ in the case $`K=SU_2.`$

### 5.5. Checking the normalization $`\stackrel{~}{H}(1)=1`$

Let $`w_{}=s_{i_1}\mathrm{}s_{i_n_{}}`$ be a reduced decomposition of the maximal element of $`W.`$ Using (4.31) and the notation (4.29) we compute

$`{\displaystyle _{(S^1)^l}}\mathrm{tr}_{\overline{V}_{w_{},t}}(\pi _{w_{},t}(a_{\rho ,w_{}}a_{\rho ,w_{}}^{}))𝑑t`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n_{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k_j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}q_{i_j}^{2(k_j+1)((w_{})_j\rho ,\alpha _{i_j}^{})}\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n_{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q_{i_j}^{(2\rho ,(w_{})_j^1\alpha _{i_j}^{})}}}`$
Note that $`q_i^{(\lambda ,\alpha _i^{})}=q^{(\lambda ,\alpha _i)}`$ for all simple roots $`\alpha _i`$ of $`𝔤.`$ The set of elements $`(w_{})_j^1\alpha _{i_j}Q,`$ $`j=1,\mathrm{},n_{},`$ coincides with the set of positive roots of $`𝔤.`$ This together with the definition of the functional $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ via the r.h.s. of (5.35) gives

$$\stackrel{~}{H}(1)=1.$$

### 5.6. Semiclassical limit

Here we explain the semiclassical analog of the integral formula from Theorem 5.2.

As earlier $`G`$ denotes a complex simple algebraic group and $`K`$ denotes a compact real form of $`G.`$ For each element $`w`$ of the Weyl group $`W`$ of $`K`$ choose a representative $`\dot{w}`$ of it in the normalizer of a fixed maximal torus $`T`$ of $`K.`$ Using the related Iwasawa decomposition of $`G,`$ introduce the map

(5.39)
$$a_w:NA\text{by}\dot{w}^1n\dot{w}=k_1a_w(n)n_1,k_1K,n_1N,$$

see for instance . It can be pushed down to a well defined map from the symplectic leaf $`𝒮_w`$ to $`A`$

$$a_w(\delta _n\dot{w}):=a_w(n),nN.$$

We refer to the introduction for details on the dressing action of $`AN`$ on $`K`$ related to the standard Poisson structure on $`K.`$

The semiclassical analog of formula (5.35) is the following formula for the normalized Haar integral on $`K`$

(5.40)
$$H(f)=\left(\underset{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_+}{}\frac{\pi }{(\rho ,\beta )}\right)_{𝒮_w_{}\times T}a_w_{}(k)^{2\rho }f(k.t)\mu _w_{}dt,fC(K).$$

Here $`\mu _w_{}`$ denotes the Liouville volume form on the symplectic leaf $`𝒮_w_{}`$ corresponding to the maximal element $`w_{}W`$ and $`dt`$ denotes the invariant measure on the torus $`T`$ normalized by $`_T𝑑t=1.`$ Recall that $`𝒮_w_{}\times T`$ coincides with the maximal Bruhat cell of $`K.`$

Formula (5.40) can be easily proved following the idea of Sections 5.35.5 on the basis of the product formulas  for the symplectic leaves $`𝒮_w`$ of $`K,`$ $`wW`$

(5.41)
$$𝒮_w=𝒮_{s_{i_1}}\mathrm{}𝒮_{s_{i_n}}$$

where $`s_{i_1}\mathrm{}s_{i_n}`$ is a reduced decomposition of $`w.`$

The integral with respect to the symplectic measure on the leaf $`𝒮_w.t`$ is (up to a factor) a semiclassical limit of the trace in the module $`\overline{V}_{w,t}.`$

At the end we explain the connection between the functions $`a_w^{2\rho }`$ on the leaves $`𝒮_w`$ and the operators $`\pi _{w,t}(a_{\rho ,w}a_{\rho ,w}^{})`$ in $`\overline{V}_{w,t}.`$ Let us consider the highest weight module $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ of $`𝔤`$ with heighest weight $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the matrix coefficient

$$a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}[G],a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}(g)=l_{w,\mathrm{\Lambda }},gv_\mathrm{\Lambda },gG$$

where $`v_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a highest weight vector of $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`l_{w,\mathrm{\Lambda }}L(\mathrm{\Lambda })_{w\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}`$ is normalized by $`l_{w,\mathrm{\Lambda }},\dot{w}v_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1,`$ cf. (4.22). It is easy to show that the restriction of $`a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}`$ to the symplectic leaf $`𝒮_w`$ coincides with $`a_w^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$

$$a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}|_{𝒮_w}=a_w^\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$

For $`tT`$ the functions

$$|a_{w,\rho }(k.t)|^2=|a_{w,\rho }(k)|^2=a_w(k)^{2\rho },k𝒮_w$$

are semiclassical analogs of the linear operators $`\pi _{w,t}(a_{w,\rho }a_{w,\rho }^{})`$ in $`\overline{V}_{w,t}.`$

## 6. Quantum quasi-traces of $`V_{w,t}`$

### 6.1. Motivation

Let $`A`$ be a Hopf algebra and $`A^{}`$ be its dual Hopf algebra. Denote by $`A^{}`$ the dual Hopf algebra of $`A`$ equipped with the opposite comultiplication. Recall  that the quantum double $`𝒟(A)`$ of $`A`$ is isomorphic to $`AA^{}`$ as a coalgebra and the following commutation relation holds in $`𝒟(A)`$

(6.42)
$$\xi a=\xi _{(1)},a_{(3)}\xi _{(2)}a_{(2)}S^1\xi _{(3)},a_{(1)},\xi A^{},aA.$$

Analogously to the classical situation one defines a quantum dressing action $`\delta `$ of $`A^{}`$ on $`A.`$ Using the identification $`𝒟(A)AA^{}`$ as vector spaces, set

$$\delta _\xi a=(\mathrm{id}ϵ)(\xi a).$$

In view of the commutation relation (6.42) it is explicitly given by

$$\delta _\xi a=\xi _{(1)},a_{(3)}a_{(2)}S^1\xi _{(2)},a_{(1)}.$$

It is dual to the standard adjoint action of $`A^{}`$ on itself

$$\mathrm{ad}_\xi \xi ^{}=\xi _{(1)}\xi ^{}S(\xi _{(2)})$$

in the sence that

(6.43)
$$\mathrm{ad}_\xi \xi ^{},a=\xi ^{},\delta _{S(\xi )}a.$$

For any representation $`\pi `$ of $`A^{}`$ in the vector space $`V`$ the adjoint action of $`A^{}`$ on itself lifts to an action of $`A^{}`$ in the space of linear operators on $`V`$ by

(6.44)
$$\mathrm{ad}_\xi L=\pi (\xi _{(1)})L\pi (S\xi _{(2)}).$$

Suppose that $`A^{}`$ is a deformation of the Poisson Hopf algebra $`[F]`$ of regular functions on a Poisson algebraic group $`F.`$ According to Kirillov–Kostant orbit method philosophy an irreducible $`A^{}`$-module $`V`$ can be viewed as a quantization of a symplectic leaf $`𝒮`$ in $`F.`$ The left action of $`A^{}`$ in the space of linear operators in $`V`$ is a deformation of the Poisson $`[F]`$-module of functions on the leaf $`𝒮.`$ At the same time the dual Poisson algebraic group $`F^{}`$ of $`F`$ acts in the space of functions on $`𝒮`$ by the dressing action. The quantum analog of this action is the the adjoint action (6.44) of $`A^{}`$ in the space of linear operators in the $`A^{}`$-module $`V.`$ This leads to:

The quantum analog of a measure on the symplectic leaf $`𝒮`$ in the Poisson algebraic group $`F`$ which is invariant up to a multiplicative character of $`F^{}`$ is a homomorphism from a subspace of linear operators in the $`A^{}`$-module $`V,`$ equipped with the $`A^{}`$-action (6.44), to a 1-dimensional representation of $`A^{}.`$

In the next subsection we will develop this idea from a categorical point of view and relate it to the notion of quantum traces for $`A^{}`$-modules. In analogy, the defined more general morphisms will be called quantum quasi-traces. Subsections 6.3 and 6.4 construct such morphisms for the irreducible $``$-representations of the quantized algebras of functions $`(_q[G],).`$

### 6.2. Definitions

Let $`𝒞`$ be a $``$-linear, rigid, monoidal category with identity object $`\mathrm{𝟏}.`$ Recall that $`𝒞`$ is called balanced if for each object $`V\mathrm{Ob}(𝒞)`$ there exists an isomorphism

$$b_V:V\stackrel{}{}V^{}$$

such that

(6.45)
$$b_{V_1}b_{V_2}=b_{V_1V_2},$$

(6.46)
$$b_V^{}=(b_V^{})^1,$$

(6.47)
$$b_\mathrm{𝟏}=\mathrm{id}_\mathrm{𝟏}.$$

Given a Hopf algebra $`C`$ over the field $``$ let $`\mathrm{rep}_C`$ denote the category of its finite dimensional modules equipped with the left dual object $`V^{}`$ of $`V\mathrm{Ob}(𝒞)`$ defined by

(6.48)
$$c.\xi ,v=\xi ,S(a).v,\xi V^{},vV.$$

The spaces $`\mathrm{Hom}_{}(V_1,V_2),`$ $`V_1,V_2\mathrm{Ob}(𝒞)`$ can be equipped with the canonical $`C`$-action

(6.49)
$$c.L=\pi _{V_1}(c_{(1)})L\pi _{V_2}(S(c_{(2)})),L\mathrm{Hom}_{}(V_1,V_2).$$

Here the Hopf algebra $`C`$ plays the role of the Hopf algebra $`A^{}`$ from the motivation in the previous subsection, cf. (6.44) and its derivation from the quantum dressing action.

Clearly

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{}(V_1,V_2)V_2V_1^{}$$

as $`C`$-modules. In particular, for this action $`\mathrm{Hom}_{}(V,ϵ)`$ is canonically isomorphic to $`V^{}`$ where, by abuse of notation, $`ϵ`$ denotes the 1-dimensional representation of $`C`$ defined by its counit.

Reshetikhin and Turaev  defined the following notion of quantum trace for a finite dimensional $`C`$-module $`V.`$

###### Definition 6.1.

A quantum trace for a finite dimensional $`C`$-module $`V`$ is a homomorphism

$$\mathrm{qtr}_V:\mathrm{End}_{}(V)ϵ$$

of $`C`$-modules for the action of $`C`$ on $`\mathrm{End}_{}(V)`$ defined in (6.49).

The pairing

$$\mathrm{End}_{}(V)VV^{}$$

is not a homomorphism of $`C`$-modules where $``$ is given the structure of the $`C`$-module corresponding to the counit $`ϵ.`$ At the same time the opposite pairing

$$V^{}V$$

has this property. If $`\mathrm{rep}_C`$ is balanced each $`V\mathrm{Ob}(𝒞)`$ has a quantum trace defined by the composition

$$\mathrm{End}_{}(V)VV^{}\stackrel{b_V\mathrm{id}}{}V^{}V^{}ϵ$$

or explicitly

$$\mathrm{qtr}_V(L)=\mathrm{tr}_V(b_VL),L\mathrm{End}(V).$$

Here $`b_V`$ is considered as a linear endomorphism of $`V`$ using the canonical identification of $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ as vector spaces.

The properties (6.45)–(6.46) of the balancing morphisms $`b_V`$ imply the following properties of the quantum traces $`\mathrm{qtr}_V`$

(6.50)
$$\mathrm{qtr}_{V_1V_2}(L_1L_2)=\mathrm{qtr}_{V_1}(L_1)\mathrm{qtr}_{V_2}(L_2),$$

(6.51)
$$\mathrm{qtr}_V^{}(L^{})=\mathrm{qtr}_V(L)$$

for all $`L_i\mathrm{End}_{}(V_i).`$

In  it was proved that the category of finite dimensional type 1 $`U_q𝔤`$-modules is balanced and this was used for constructing invariants of links and 3-dimensional manifolds.

We would like to incorporate in Definition 6.1 the possibility for an invariant up to a character “quantum measure”, as explained in the previous section, and the general case of an infinite dimensional $`C`$-module $`V.`$ We will restrict ourselves to representations of $`C`$ $`\pi :C(V)`$ by bounded operators in a Hilbert space $`V`$ and will call them bounded representations of $`C.`$ The Hermitian inner product in $`V`$ is not assumed to posses any invariance properties and the linear operators $`\pi (c),`$ $`cC,`$ in $`V`$ are not assumed to be uniformly bounded. The dual $`V^{}`$ of such a bounded representation $`\pi :C(V)`$ is defined in the Hilbert space $`V^{}`$ of bounded functionals on $`V`$ by formula (6.48). Obviously it is again a bounded representation.

###### Definition 6.2.

Two bounded representations of a Hopf algebra $`C`$ $`\pi _i:C(V_i)`$ in the Hilbert spaces $`V_i,`$ $`i=1,2,`$ will be called weakly equivalent if $`V_i`$ contain dense $`C`$-stable subspaces $`W_iV_i`$ which are equivalent as $`C`$-modules.

The point here is that the equivalence can be given by an unbounded operator $`b:W_1\stackrel{}{}W_2`$ which therefore does not extend to the full space $`V_1.`$

###### Definition 6.3.

A bounded representation $`\pi :C(V)`$ of a Hopf algebra $`C`$ in a Hilbert space $`V`$ will be called quasi-balanced if there exists a multiplicative character $`\chi `$ of $`C`$ for which $`V`$ and $`\chi V^{}`$ are weakly equivalent.

By abuse of notation we denote by $`\chi `$ the 1-dimensional $`C`$-module corresponding to the multiplicative character $`\chi `$ of $`C.`$

In other words the bounded $`C`$-module $`V`$ is balanced if there exists an invertible linear operator $`b_V`$ in $`V`$ with dense domain and range such that $`\mathrm{Dom}b_V`$ is $`C`$-stable and

(6.52)
$$b_V\pi (c)=\chi (c_{(1)})\pi (S^2(c_{(2)}))b_V,cC.$$

(Here we use the canonical identification of $`V^{}`$ and $`V`$ as Hilbert spaces.)

###### Remark 6.4.

Often $`V`$ is the Hilbert space completion of a $`C`$-module $`W,`$ equipped with a Hermitian inner product, which is a direct sum of mutually orthogonal finite dimensional submodules $`W_\mu `$ for a Hopf subalgebra $`B`$ of $`C`$

(6.53)
$$W=_\mu W_\mu .$$

The restricted dual of such a module $`W`$ with respect to the decomposition (6.53) as a direct sum of finite dimensional subspaces is naturally a $`C`$-module of the same type. The double restricted dual $`W^{}`$ of $`W`$ is canonically isomorphic to $`W`$ as a vector space.

If $`W\chi W^{}`$ as $`C`$-modules then the modules $`V`$ and $`\chi V^{}`$ are weakly equivalent and $`V`$ is a quasi-balanced $`C`$-module.

Let $`\pi :C(V)`$ be a quasi-balanced representation as above. We call the subspace of the space of linear operators in $`V`$ with dense domains

$$_1^q(V):=_1(V)b_V^1$$

a space of quantum trace class operators in the $`C`$-module $`V.`$ Here $`_1(V)`$ stands for the standard trace class in $`V.`$ It is naturally a $`C`$-module by

$$c.L=\pi (c_{(1)})L\pi (S(a_{(c)}))$$

because $`C`$ acts in $`V`$ by bounded operators. The linear map $`\mathrm{qtr}_V:_1^q(V)`$ given by

$$\mathrm{qtr}_V(L):=\mathrm{tr}_V(Lb_V)$$

is a well defined homomorphism of $`C`$-modules

$$\mathrm{qtr}_V:_1^q(V)\chi .$$

It will be called a quantum quasi-trace for the module $`V.`$

###### Remark 6.5.

One can as well use the space

$$\stackrel{~}{}_1^q(V):=b_V^1_1(V)$$

instead of $`_1^q(V).`$ When $`b_V^1`$ is not defined on the full space $`V`$ the composition $`b_V^1L_0,`$ $`L_0_1(V)`$ need not have a dense domain in $`V.`$ Because of this, it is convenient to use the space $`\stackrel{~}{}_1^q(V)`$ only when $`b_V^1`$ has full domain. In that case the space $`\stackrel{~}{}_1^q(V)`$ is also a $`C`$-module and the following map

$$\mathrm{qtr}_V:\stackrel{~}{}_1^q(V)\chi ,\mathrm{qtr}_V(L):=\mathrm{tr}(b_VL)$$

is a homomorphism of $`C`$-modules.

###### Remark 6.6.

It is natural to look for a quasi-balancing map $`b_V\mathrm{End}_{}(V)`$ for a bounded representation $`\pi :C(V)`$ of the form

$$b_V=\pi (a_V)$$

for some $`a_VC.`$ The definition (6.52) implies that such a map $`\pi (a_V)`$ provides a quasi-balancing endomorphism if $`\pi (a_V)`$ is an invertible linear operator in $`V`$ with a dense range satisfying

(6.54)
$$a_Vc\chi (c_{(1)})S^2(c_{(2)})a_V\mathrm{Ker}\pi ,cC$$

for some multiplicative character $`\chi `$ of $`A.`$

Thus quasi-balancing of the modules of a Hopf algebra $`A`$ is related to the properties of the the square of the antipode $`S`$ of $`A.`$ This is analogous to the usual case of balancing when $`\chi =ϵ`$ and (6.54) reduces to

$$a_Vc=S^2(c)a_V\mathrm{Ker}\pi ,cC,$$

see .

Similarly

$$b_V=\pi _V(a_V)^1$$

is a quasi-balancing map for the $`C`$-module $`V`$ if $`\pi _V(a_V)`$ is an invertible operator in $`V`$ with a dense range such that

(6.55)
$$ca_V\chi (c_{(1)})a_VS^2(c_{(2)})\mathrm{Ker}\pi ,cC.$$

### 6.3. Main construction

In this subsection we construct quasi-balancing morphisms for the $`_q[G]`$-modules $`V_{w,t}.`$ As was pointed out in Section 3.4 they are bounded $`_q[G]`$-modules in the terminology from the previous subsection.

Set

$$2\rho =\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_+}{}\alpha =\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}p_i\alpha _i$$

for some positive integers $`p_i`$ and denote

(6.56)
$$q^{2\rho }=\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}K_i^{p_i}U_q𝔤.$$

Its commutation with the generators $`X_i^\pm `$ of $`U_q𝔤`$ is given by

$$q^{2\rho }X_i^\pm q^{2\rho }=q^{\pm (2\rho ,\alpha _i)}X_i^\pm ,i=1,\mathrm{},l.$$

As it is well known the square of the antipode in $`U_q𝔤`$ is given by the following lemma.

###### Lemma 6.7.

For all $`xU_q𝔤`$

$$S^2(x)=q^{2\rho }xq^{2\rho }.$$

For an arbitrary element $`\nu =_im_i\alpha _i^{}`$ of the coroot lattice $`Q^{}`$ of $`𝔤`$ we set

(6.57)
$$q^\nu :=(q^{m_1},\mathrm{},q^{m_l})(^\times )^l$$

and consider the multiplicative character $`\chi _{q^\nu }`$ of $`_q[G].`$ It is explicitly given by

$$\chi _{q^\nu }(c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda })=q^{(\nu ,\mu )}l,v,lL(\mathrm{\Lambda })_\mu ^{},$$

recall (3.17).

From Lemma 6.7 we deduce the following properties of $`S^2`$ in $`_q[G].`$

###### Lemma 6.8.

(i) If $`vL(\mathrm{\Lambda })_\lambda `$ and $`lL(\mathrm{\Lambda })_\mu ^{}`$ then

(6.58)
$$S^2(c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda })=q^{2(\rho ,\lambda \mu )}c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$

(ii) For all elements $`wW`$

$$ca_{\rho ,w}a_{\rho ,w}^{}\chi _{q^{2(w\rho \rho )}}(c_{(1)})a_{\rho ,w}a_{\rho ,w}^{}S^2(c_{(2)})I_w,c_q[G],$$

recall (3.20).

###### Proof.

(i) By a straightforward computation, for all $`xU_q𝔤`$

$$S^2(c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda }),x=c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda },S^2(x)=c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda },q^{2\rho }xq^{2\rho }=q^{2(\rho ,\lambda \mu )}c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda },x.$$

(ii) Combining part (i) with the identities (4.24) and (4.25) gives

$$c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda }a_{\rho ,w}a_{\rho ,w}^{}q^{2(w\rho \rho ,\mu )}a_{\rho ,w}a_{\rho ,w}^{}S^2(c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda })I_w,lL(\mathrm{\Lambda })_\mu ^{},vL(\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$

which implies (6.58) in view of (3.11). ∎

Let us fix an element $`wW,`$ a reduced decomposition $`w=s_{i_1}\mathrm{}s_{i_n}`$ of it, and an element $`t(S^1)^l.`$ Consider the $`(_q[G],)`$-module $`V_{w,t}.`$ We will make use of the notation (4.29)

$$w_j=s_{i_{j+1}}\mathrm{}s_{i_n},j=0,\mathrm{},n1,w_n=1$$

and of the basis $`e_{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n},`$ $`k_j`$ of $`V_{w,t}`$ from (3.19).

Formula (4.31) implies that the space $`V_{w,t}`$ decomposes as a sum of weight subspaces with respect to the action of the commutative subalgebra of $`_q[G]`$ spanned by $`a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w},`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }P_+`$ (recall part (ii) of Proposition 4.1) as

(6.59)
$$V_{w,t}=\underset{\mu Q_+}{}\mathrm{span}\{e_{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(k_j+1)w_j^1\alpha _{i_j}=\mu \}.$$

All weight subspaces of $`V_{w,t}`$ are finite dimensional and we can identify the corresponding double restricted dual $`V_{w,t}^{}`$ with $`V_{w,t}`$ as a vector space.

Part (ii) of Lemma 6.8 and the fact that the ideal $`I_w`$ contains the annihilation ideal of $`V_{w,t},`$ see (3.21), imply that $`\pi _{w,t}(a_{\rho ,w}a_{\rho ,w}^{})^1:V_{w,t}V_{w,t}`$ induces an isomorphism of the $`_q[G]`$-modules $`V_{w,t}`$ and $`\chi V_{w,t}^{}.`$ In view of Remark 6.4, $`b_{w,t}=\pi _{w,t}(a_{\rho ,w}a_{\rho ,w}^{})^1`$ defines a quasi-balancing map for the $`_q[G]`$-module $`\overline{V}_{w,t}.`$ Explicitly in the basis (3.19) of $`V_{w,t},`$ $`\pi _{w,t}(a_{\rho ,w}a_{\rho ,w}^{})^1`$ acts diagonally by

(6.60)
$$\pi _{w,t}(a_{\rho ,w}a_{\rho ,w}^{})^1.e_{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}q^{2(k_j+1)(w_j\rho ,\alpha _{i_j})}e_{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n},$$

recall (4.31).

Define the set of quantum trace class operators in the $`_q[G]`$-module $`\overline{V}_{w,t}`$ by

(6.61)
$$_1^q(\overline{V}_{w,t})=_1(\overline{V}_{w,t})\pi _{w,t}(a_{\rho ,w}a_{\rho ,w}^{}).$$

It is clear from (6.60) that $`\pi _{w,t}(a_{\rho ,w}a_{\rho ,w}^{})`$ is a compact operator and thus

$$_1^q(\overline{V}_{w,t})_1(\overline{V}_{w,t}).$$

Using Proposition 4.1, observe that

(6.62)
$$\pi _{w,t}(a_{2\rho ,w}a_{2\rho ,w}^{})=\pi _{w,t}(a_{\rho ,w}a_{\rho ,w}^{})^2.$$

Finally define the quantum quasi-trace functional $`\mathrm{qtr}_{\overline{V}_{w,t}}:_1^q(\overline{V}_{w,t})`$ by

(6.63)
$$\mathrm{qtr}_{\overline{V}_{w,t}}(L)=\mathrm{const}_w\mathrm{tr}_{\overline{V}_{w,t}}(L\pi _{w,t}(a_{\rho ,w}a_{\rho ,w}^{})^1)$$

where

(6.64)
$$\mathrm{const}_w=\underset{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_+w^1\mathrm{\Delta }_{}}{}(q^{(2\rho ,\beta )}1).$$

###### Proposition 6.9.

The $`_q[G]`$-modules $`\overline{V}_{w,t}`$ are quasi-balanced with multiplicative characters $`\chi _{2(w\rho \rho )}`$ and quasi-balancing morphisms $`b_{w,t}=\pi _{w,t}(a_{\rho ,w}a_{\rho ,w}^{})^1.`$ The space of quantum trace class operators in $`\overline{V}_{w,t}`$ and quantum quasi-trace morphisms

$$\mathrm{qtr}_{\overline{V}_{w,t}}:_1^q(\overline{V}_{w,t})\chi _{2(w\rho \rho )}$$

are given by (6.61) and (6.63). The morphisms $`\mathrm{qtr}_{\overline{V}_{w,t}}`$ are normalized by

(6.65)
$$\mathrm{qtr}_{\overline{V}_{w,t}}(\pi _{w,t}(a_{2\rho ,w}a_{2\rho ,w}^{}))=1.$$

To check (6.65) it is sufficient to check that

$$\mathrm{tr}_{\overline{V}_{w,t}}(\pi _{w,t}(a_{\rho ,w}a_{\rho ,w}^{}))=\underset{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_+w^1\mathrm{\Delta }_{}}{}(q^{(2\rho ,\beta )}1)^1,$$

recall (6.62). This easily follows from (6.60) using the standard fact

(6.66)
$$\{w_j^1\alpha _{i_j}\}_{j=1}^n=\mathrm{\Delta }_+w^1\mathrm{\Delta }_{}$$

in the notation of (4.29), see for instance .

###### Remark 6.10.

Consider again the compact group $`K`$ equipped with the standard Poisson structure, see the introduction and Section 5.6. Recall the notation $`N_w=NwN_{}w^1`$ and $`N_w^+=NwNw^1,`$ $`wW,`$ where $`N_{}`$ is the unipotent subgroup of $`G`$ which is dual to $`N`$ with respect to the fixed complex torus $`TA`$ of $`G.`$ The symplectic leaf $`𝒮_w.t`$ of $`K,`$ considered as an $`AN`$ homogeneous space under the dressing action, is isomorphic to $`AN/AN_w^+.`$ We choose as a base point of $`𝒮_w.t`$ the point $`\dot{w}.t.`$

Denote by $`\mu _{w,t}`$ the Liouville volume form on the leaf $`𝒮_w.t.`$ The diffeomorphisms

(6.67)
$$𝒮_w.tAN/AN_w^+N_w$$

induce a measure $`dn_w`$ on $`𝒮_w.t`$ from the Haar measure on $`N_w.`$ The second one comes from the factorization $`AN=N_wAN_w^+.`$ The measure $`dn_w`$ will be normalized by

$$|a_{w,2\rho }|_{𝒮_w.t}|^2dn_w=1,$$

cf. Section 5.6.

The relation between the volume forms $`\mu _{w,t}`$ and $`dn_w`$ on $`𝒮_w.t`$ was found by Lu . It is given by

(6.68)
$$dn_w=\underset{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_+w^1\mathrm{\Delta }_{}}{}\left(\frac{(\rho ,\beta )}{\pi }\right)|a_{w,\rho }|_{𝒮_w.t}|^2\mu _{w,t}.$$

It is easy to compute that the measure $`dn_w`$ on $`𝒮_w.t`$ transforms under the dressing action of $`AN=K^{}`$ by

$$\delta _{an}\left(dn_w\right)=a^{2(\rho w\rho )}dn_w.$$

The quantum quasi-trace morphisms

$$\mathrm{qtr}_{\overline{V}_{w,t}}:_1^q(\overline{V}_{w,t})\chi _{2(w\rho \rho )}$$

are quantum analogs of the measures $`dn_w`$ on $`𝒮_w.t`$ and thus also of the Haar measures on the unipotent subgroups $`N_w`$ of $`G.`$ The traces in the modules $`V_{w,t}`$ can be considered as quantizations of the Liouville volume forms $`\mu _{w,t}`$ on the leaves $`𝒮_w.t.`$ The relation (6.63) is a quantum version of Lu’s relation (6.68).

### 6.4. Tensor product properties of the quasi-balancing morphisms $`b_{w,t}`$

When $`w,w^{}W`$ are such that $`l(ww^{})=l(w)+l(w^{})`$ the tensor product of $`(_q[G],)`$-modules $`V_{w,t}V_{w^{},t^{}}`$ is again an irreducible $`(_q[G],)`$-module, see Lemma 6.12 below. Here we discuss the relation between the corresponding quasi-balancing morphisms constructed in the previous subsection.

For an element $`t=(t_1,\mathrm{},t_l)(^\times )^l`$ denote its $`j`$-th component by $`(t)_j:=t_j.`$ Define an action of the Weyl group $`W`$ of $`𝔤`$ on the torus $`(^\times )^l`$ by

$$(w(t))_i:=\underset{j}{}t_j^{m_{ij}}\text{where}w^1\alpha _j^{}=\underset{i}{}m_{ij}\alpha _i^{}.$$

It can be easily identified with the conjugation action of $`W`$ on a complex torus of $`G.`$ It is straightforward to check that

$$\chi _{w(t)}(c_{l,v}^\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}t_i^{(\lambda ,w^1\alpha _i^{})}l,v,$$

cf. (3.17).

Fix $`wW`$ and a reduced decomposition $`w=s_{i_1}\mathrm{}s_{i_n}`$ of it. The representation space $`V_{w,t},`$ recall Theorem 3.3, is canonically identified with the vector space

$$V_w=V_{s_1}\mathrm{}V_{s_n}$$

for all $`t(^\times )^l.`$ (As earlier we will not show explicitly the dependence on the choice of a reduced decomposition of $`w.)`$ Under this identification the basis (3.19) of $`V_{w,t}`$ corresponds to the basis

(6.69)
$$e_{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n}=e_{k_1}\mathrm{}e_{k_n},n=l(w),k_1,\mathrm{},k_n$$

of $`V_w.`$

In the notation (4.29) define the linear operator $`J_{w,t}`$ in $`V_w`$ acting diagonally in the above basis of $`V_w`$ by

(6.70)
$$J_{w,t}.e_{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(w_{j1}(t)w_j(t^1))_{i_j}^{k_j+1}e_{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n}.$$

###### Lemma 6.11.

For all $`wW,`$ and $`t,t^{}(^\times )^l`$ the operator $`J_{w,t^{}}`$ defines an isomorphism of the $`_q[G]`$-representations $`\chi _{w(t^{})}\pi _{w,t}`$ and $`\pi _{w,t}\chi _t^{}\pi _{w,tt^{}}`$ in the natural identification of their representation spaces with $`V_w.`$

Lemma 6.11 is checked directly in the case of $`G=SL_2`$ using the defining identities (3.15)–(3.16) for the $`_q[SL_2]`$-module $`\pi ,`$ see Section 3.3. This implies the lemma when $`w`$ is a simple reflection and the general case is proved by induction on $`l(w).`$

###### Lemma 6.12.

Let $`w,w^{}W`$ be such that $`l(ww^{})=l(w)+l(w^{})`$ and $`t,t^{}(S^1)^l.`$ The linear operator $`J_{w^{},(w^{})^1(t)}`$ induces the unitary equivalence of $`(_q[G],)`$-modules

(6.71)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{w,t;w^{},t^{}}:\overline{V}_{w,t}\overline{V}_{w^{},t^{}}\overline{V}_{ww^{},(w^{})^1(t)t^{}}$$

by identifying the spaces $`V_{w,t}V_{w^{},t^{}}V_wV_w^{}V_{ww^{}}V_{ww^{},(w^{})^1(t)t^{}}.`$ (The product of two reduced decompositions of $`w`$ and $`w^{}`$ is used as a reduced decomposition of $`ww^{}.`$)

In the setting of Lemma 6.12 the $`_q[G]`$-module $`\overline{V}_{ww^{},(w^{})^1(t)t^{}}`$ admits a quasi-balancing morphism constructed from the quasi-balancing morphisms $`b_{w,t}`$ and $`b_{w^{},t^{}}`$ for the modules $`\overline{V}_{w,t}`$ and $`\overline{V}_{w^{},t^{}}.`$ It is given by the composition

(6.72) $`V_{ww^{},(w^{})^1(t)t^{}}\stackrel{\mathrm{\Pi }_{w,t;w^{},t^{}}^1}{}V_{w,t}V_{w^{},t^{}}\stackrel{\mathrm{id}b_{w^{},t^{}}}{}`$
$`V_{w,t}\chi _{q^{2(w^{}\rho \rho )}}V_{w^{},t^{}}^{}\stackrel{J_{w,q^{2(w^{}\rho \rho )}}^1\mathrm{id}}{}\chi _{q^{2w(w^{}\rho \rho )}}V_{w,t}V_{w^{},t^{}}^{}\stackrel{b_{w,t}\mathrm{id}}{}`$
$`\chi _{q^{2w(w^{}\rho \rho )}}\chi _{q^{2(w\rho \rho )}}V_{w,t}^{}V_{w^{},t^{}}^{}\stackrel{\mathrm{\Pi }_{w,t;w^{},t^{}}^{}}{}\chi _{q^{2(ww^{}\rho \rho )}}V_{ww^{},(w^{})^1(t)t^{}}^{}.`$
The restricted duals of the modules $`V_{w,t}`$ and $`V_{w^{},t^{}}`$ are taken with respect to the weight space decomposition (6.59) for the commutative subalgebras of $`_q[G]`$ spanned by $`a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}`$ and $`a_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w^{}},`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }P_+,`$ respectively. Recall also the notation (6.57).

###### Proposition 6.13.

If $`w,w^{}W`$ are such that $`l(ww^{})=l(w)+l(w^{})`$ and $`t,t^{}(S^1)^l`$ then the quasi-balancing map for the $`_q[G]`$-module $`\overline{V}_{ww^{},(w^{})^1(t)t^{}}`$ given by the composition (6.72) coincides with the quasi-balancing map $`b_{ww^{},(w^{})^1(t)t^{}}.`$

To prove Proposition 6.13 observe that in the natural identification of the representation spaces in (6.72) with $`V_wV_w^{}`$ the composition is simply

$$b_{w,t}J_{w,q^{2(w^{}\rho \rho )}}^1b_{w^{},t^{}}.$$

(We use again the product of two reduced decompositions of $`w`$ and $`w^{}`$ as a reduced decomposition of $`ww^{}.)`$ Now the proposition easily follow from (6.60) and the following formula for the action of $`J_{w,q^{2(w^{}\rho \rho )}}^1`$ in the basis (6.69) of $`V_{w,t}`$ which is a direct consequence from (6.70)

$$J_{w,q^{2(w^{}\rho \rho )}}^1.e_{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{l(w)}{}}q^{2(k_j+1)(w_j(w^{}\rho \rho ),\alpha _{i_j})}e_{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n}.$$

This computation implies also the following connection between the spaces $`_1^q(\overline{V}_{w,t}),`$ $`_1^q(\overline{V}_{w^{},t^{}})`$ and $`_1^q(\overline{V}_{ww^{},(w^{})^1(t)t^{}})`$ when $`l(ww^{})=l(w)+l(w^{}).`$

###### Corollary 6.14.

If $`L_1^q(\overline{V}_{w,t})`$ and $`L^{}_1^q(\overline{V}_{w^{},t^{}})`$ in the setting of Proposition 6.13, then

$$LJ_{w,q^{2(w^{}\rho \rho )}}L^{}_1^q(\overline{V}_{ww^{},(w^{})^1(t)t^{}})$$

and

$$\mathrm{qtr}_{\overline{V}_{ww^{},(w^{})^1(t)t^{}}}(LJ_{w,q^{2(w^{}\rho \rho )}}L^{})=\frac{\mathrm{const}_{ww^{}}}{\mathrm{const}_w\mathrm{const}_w^{}}\mathrm{qtr}_{\overline{V}_{w,t}}(L)\mathrm{qtr}_{\overline{V}_{w^{},t^{}}}(L^{})$$

where $`\mathrm{const}_w`$ is given by (6.64).

## 7. An application: quantum Harish-Chandra $`c`$-functions

Denote by 1 the identity element $`(1,\mathrm{},1)`$ of the real torus $`(S^1)^l.`$ According to (4.31) the linear operators $`\pi _{w,1}(a_{\omega _i,w})`$ in $`\overline{V}_{w,1}`$ are compact, selfadjoint with spectrum contained in $`[0,\mathrm{}).`$ For different values of $`i`$ they mutually commute.

Hence for each $`\lambda 𝔥`$ we can define the linear operator in $`\overline{V}_{w,1}`$

$$d_{\lambda ,w}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}\pi _{w,1}(a_{\omega _i,w})^{\lambda _i}$$

where $`\lambda _i=(\lambda ,\alpha _i^{}),`$ i.e. $`\lambda =\lambda _i\omega _i.`$ It is obvious that

(7.73)
$$d_{\lambda ,w}=\pi _{w,1}(a_{\lambda ,w})\text{when}\lambda P_+𝔥$$

and

(7.74)
$$d_{\lambda _1,w}d_{\lambda _2,w}=d_{\lambda _1+\lambda _2,w},\lambda _1,\lambda _2𝔥.$$

###### Lemma 7.1.

The linear operator $`d_{i\lambda +2\rho ,w}`$ in $`\overline{V}_{w,1}`$ is quantum trace class (belongs to $`_1^q(\overline{V}_{w,1}))`$ if and only if

$$\mathrm{Im}(\lambda ,\beta )<0,\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_+w^1\mathrm{\Delta }_{}.$$

###### Proof.

The operator $`d_{i\lambda +2\rho ,w}`$ in $`\overline{V}_{w,1}`$ belongs to $`_1^q(\overline{V}_{w,1})`$ if and only if

$$d_{i\lambda ,w}_1(\overline{V}_{w,1})$$

because of (7.73), (7.74), and the the selfadjointness of $`\pi _{w,1}(a_{\rho ,w}).`$ The operator $`d_{i\lambda ,w}`$ is diagonal in the orthonormal basis (3.19) of $`\overline{V}_{w,1}`$ and according to (4.31) acts by

(7.75)
$$d_{i\lambda ,w}.e_{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}q^{i(k_j+1)(w_j\lambda ,\alpha _{i_j})}e_{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n},$$

recall the notation (4.29). It is clear that the linear operator $`d_{i\lambda ,w}`$ in $`\overline{V}_{w,1}`$ is trace class if and only if $`\mathrm{Re}(i\lambda ,w_j^1\alpha _{i_j})>0`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n=l(w)`$ which implies the statement because of (6.66). ∎

###### Definition 7.2.

The function

(7.76)
$$c_{w^1}^q(\lambda )=\mathrm{qtr}_{\overline{V}_{w,1}}(d_{i\lambda +2\rho ,w})=\mathrm{tr}_{\overline{V}_{w,1}}(d_{i\lambda ,w})$$

in the domain $`\{\lambda 𝔥\mathrm{Im}(\lambda ,\beta )<0,\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_+w^1\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\}`$ will be called quantum Harish-Chandra $`c`$-function associated to the element $`w^1`$ of the Weyl group $`W`$ of $`𝔤.`$

###### Proposition 7.3.

For all $`wW`$ the quantum Harish-Chandra $`c`$-function $`c_w^q(\lambda )`$ is given by

$$c_w^q(\lambda )=\underset{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_+w\mathrm{\Delta }_{}}{}\frac{q^{(2\rho ,\beta )}1}{q^{(i\lambda ,\beta )}1}$$

This proposition follows from (7.75) and (6.66) similarly to the proof of the normalization (6.65).

###### Remark 7.4.

Proposition 7.3 is a quantum analog of the Harish-Chandra formula for the $`c`$-function in the case of complex simple Lie groups, generalized later by Gindikin and Karpelevich to arbitrary real reductive groups.

Recall the setting of Section 5.6 and Remark 6.10. Let $`dn_w`$ denote the Haar measure on the unipotent subgroup $`N_w`$ of $`G.`$ The classical Harish-Chandra $`c`$-function associated to the element $`w^1W`$ is given by the integral formula

$$c_{w^1}(\lambda )=_{N_w}a_w(n)^{(i\lambda +2\rho )}𝑑n_w,\lambda 𝔥,\mathrm{Im}(\lambda ,\beta )<0,\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_+w^1\mathrm{\Delta }_{},$$

recall the definition (5.39) of the map $`a_w:NA.`$ We refer to  for a detailed treatment of spherical functions and to  for an interpretation of the $`c`$-function in terms of the Poisson geometry of $`K,`$ see in particular Example 2.8 in .

The linear operators $`d_{i\lambda +2\rho }`$ in the modules $`\overline{V}_{w,1}`$ can be thought of as quantizations of the pushforwards of the functions $`a_w(n)^{(i\lambda +2\rho )}`$ on $`N_w`$ to the symplectic leaves $`𝒮_w`$ by the dressing action, using the base points $`\dot{w}𝒮_w`$ (i.e. using the diffeomorphisms (6.67)). As was explained in Remark 6.10 the quantum quasi-traces $`\mathrm{qtr}_{\overline{V}_{w,1}}`$ in the $`_q[G]`$-modules $`\overline{V}_{w,1}`$ are quantizations of the pushforwards of the Haar measures on $`N_w`$ to the symplectic leaves $`𝒮_w.`$

The classical Harish-Chandra formula

$$c_w(\lambda )=\underset{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_+w\mathrm{\Delta }_{}}{}\frac{(2\rho ,\beta )}{(i\lambda ,\beta )},\lambda 𝔥,\mathrm{Im}(\lambda ,\beta )<0,\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_+w^1\mathrm{\Delta }_{}$$

is proved by induction on the length of $`w,`$ see \[3, Chapter IV, §6\]. Lu  found that this argument is essentially based on the product formula (5.41) for the leaves $`𝒮_w.`$ Our computation relies on its quantum counterpart – the tensor product formula (3.18) for the representations $`\pi _{w,t},`$ cf. also Section 6.4.


format: text

text:
# 1 The diagrams that generate the triscalar coupling 𝐴_𝑢 (left), and the gluino mass (right).

UCRHEP-T297

TPI-MINN-01/01

UMN-TH-1933

January 2001

Realistic Gluino Axion Model Consistent with
Supersymmetry Breaking at the TeV Scale
D. A. Demir1 and Ernest Ma2
1 Theoretical Physics Institute, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455
2 Physics Department, University of California, Riverside, California 92521

## Abstract

The recently proposed model of using the dynamical phase of the gluino to solve the strong CP problem is shown to admit a specific realization in terms of fundamental singlet superfields, such that the breaking of supersymmetry occurs only at the TeV scale, despite the large axion scale of $`10^9`$ to $`10^{12}`$ GeV. Phenomenological implications are discussed.

The strong CP problem is the problem of having the instanton-induced term

$$_\theta =\theta _{QCD}\frac{g_s^2}{64\pi ^2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }G_a^{\mu \nu }G_a^{\alpha \beta }$$
(1)
in the effective Lagrangian of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), where $`g_s`$ is the strong coupling constant, and

$$G_a^{\mu \nu }=^\mu G_a^\nu ^\nu G_a^\mu +g_sf_{abc}G_b^\mu G_c^\nu $$
(2)
is the gluonic field strength. If $`\theta _{QCD}`$ is of order unity, the neutron electric dipole moment is expected  to be $`10^{10}`$ times its present experimental upper limit ($`0.63\times 10^{25}e`$ cm) . This conundrum is most elegantly resolved by invoking a dynamical mechanism  to relax the above $`\theta _{QCD}`$ parameter (including all contributions from colored fermions) to zero. However, this necessarily results  in a very light pseudoscalar particle called the axion, which has not yet been observed .

To reconcile the nonobservation of an axion in present experiments and the constraints from astrophysics and cosmology , two types of “invisible” axions are widely discussed. The DFSZ solution  introduces a heavy singlet scalar field as the source of the axion but its mixing with the doublet scalar fields (which couple to the usual quarks) is very much suppressed. The KSVZ solution  also has a heavy singlet scalar field but it couples only to new heavy colored fermions.

Consider now the incorporation of supersymmetry into the Standard Model (SM) of particle interactions. The list of colored fermions consists of not only the usual quarks, but also the gluinos. The parameter $`\theta _{QCD}`$ of Eq. (1) is then replaced by

$$\overline{\theta }=\theta _{QCD}ArgDetM_uM_d3ArgM_{\stackrel{~}{g}},$$
(3)
where $`M_u`$ and $`M_d`$ are the respective mass matrices of the charge 2/3 and $`1/3`$ quarks, and $`M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ is the gluino mass. Our recent proposal  is to relax $`\overline{\theta }`$ to zero with the dynamical phase of the gluino, instead of the quarks as in the DFSZ model or other unknown colored fermions as in the KSVZ model. The source of this axion is again a heavy singlet scalar field, but since its vacuum expectation value (VEV) is supposed to be in the range $`10^9`$ to $`10^{12}`$ GeV to satisfy the astrophysical and cosmological bounds , supersymmetry is expected to be broken at that scale as well, and not at 1 TeV as desired. This is of course also a problem in the supersymmetric versions of the DFSZ and KSVZ models. In the following we will show how it gets resolved in a specific realization of the gluino axion model .

Our first key observation is the identification of the anomalous global symmetry $`U(1)_R`$ of supersymmetric transformations as the $`U(1)_{PQ}`$ symmetry which solves the strong CP problem and generates the axion. Under $`U(1)_R`$, the scalar components of a chiral superfield transform as $`\varphi e^{i\theta R}\varphi `$, whereas the fermionic components transform as $`\psi e^{i\theta (R1)}\psi `$. In the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM), the quark and lepton superfields $`\widehat{Q}`$, $`\widehat{u}^c`$, $`\widehat{d}^c`$, $`\widehat{L}`$, $`\widehat{e}^c`$ have $`R=+1`$, whereas the Higgs superfields $`\widehat{H}_u`$, $`\widehat{H}_d`$ have $`R=0`$. The superpotential

$$\widehat{W}=\mu \widehat{H}_u\widehat{H}_d+h_u\widehat{H}_u\widehat{Q}\widehat{u}^c+h_d\widehat{H}_d\widehat{Q}\widehat{d}^c+h_e\widehat{H}_d\widehat{L}\widehat{e}^c$$
(4)
has $`R=+2`$ except for the $`\mu `$ term (which has $`R=0`$). Hence the resulting Lagrangian breaks $`U(1)_R`$ explicitly, leaving only a discrete remnant, i.e. the usual $`R`$ parity: $`R=(1)^{3B+L+2J}`$. The gluino axion model  replaces $`\mu `$ with a singlet superfield of $`R=+2`$ and requires the entire theory to be invariant under $`U(1)_R`$, which is then spontaneously broken. The reason that $`U(1)_R`$ is a natural choice for $`U(1)_{PQ}`$ is that the gauginos of the MSSM have $`R=+1`$, hence the phase of the gluino mass must be dynamical and contributes to $`\overline{\theta }`$ of Eq. (3). In fact, all SM particles have $`R=0`$ (i.e. even $`R`$ parity) and all superparticles have $`R=\pm 1`$ (i.e. odd $`R`$ parity), but the only colored fermions with $`R0`$ are the gluinos. In the minimal SM with only one Higgs doublet, there is no $`U(1)_{PQ}`$, hence both the DFSZ and KSVZ models require additional particles. In the MSSM, there is also no $`U(1)_{PQ}`$, but if the $`\mu `$ term and the soft supersymmetry breaking $`A`$ terms and gaugino masses are removed, then the $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry is available for us to identify as the $`U(1)_{PQ}`$ symmetry for solving the strong CP problem. Of course, we still need to implement this idea with a specific choice of additional particles. However, no matter what we do, we are faced with a fundamental problem (which also exists if we want to consider supersymmetric versions of the DFSZ and KSVZ models): if the superfield containing the axion is spontaneously broken at $`10^9`$ to $`10^{12}`$ GeV, how is the supersymmetry preserved down to the order of 1 TeV?

Our second key observation has to do with the consequence of the spontaneous breaking of a global symmetry without breaking the supersymmetry. Because the supersymmetry is not broken, there has to be a massless superfield, the scalar component of which is complex. In addition to the usual phase degree of freedom, there is now also a scale degree of freedom, hence such models always contain an indeterminate mass scale . The trick then is to construct a realistic gluino axion model using this ambiguity of scale so that the subsequent soft breaking of supersymmetry occurs at 1 TeV, but the vacuum expectation value of the scalar field containing the axion is $`10^9`$ to $`10^{12}`$ GeV.

Following Ref., we introduce again three singlet superfields $`\widehat{S}_2`$, $`\widehat{S}_1`$, and $`\widehat{S}_0`$, with $`R=2,1,0,`$ respectively and impose the $`Z_3`$ discrete symmetry under which $`\widehat{S}_1`$ and $`\widehat{S}_0`$ transform as $`\omega `$ and $`\widehat{S}_2`$ as $`\omega ^2`$, with $`\omega ^3=1`$. The most general superpotential with $`R=2`$ containing these superfields is then given by

$$\widehat{W}=m_2\widehat{S}_2\widehat{S}_0+f_1\widehat{S}_1\widehat{S}_1\widehat{S}_0.$$
(5)
Let $`\widehat{S}_{2,1,0}`$ be replaced by $`v_{2,1,0}+\widehat{S}_{2,1,0}`$, then

$`\widehat{W}`$ $`=`$ $`m_2v_0\widehat{S}_2+2f_1v_1v_0\widehat{S}_1+(m_2v_2+f_1v_1^2)\widehat{S}_0`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`f_1v_0\widehat{S}_1\widehat{S}_1+(m_2\widehat{S}_2+2f_1v_1\widehat{S}_1)\widehat{S}_0+f_1\widehat{S}_1\widehat{S}_1\widehat{S}_0.`$
Hence the minimum of the corresponding scalar potential is given by

$$V_{min}=|m_2v_0|^2+4|f_1v_1v_0|^2+|m_2v_2+f_1v_1^2|^2.$$
(7)
To preserve supersymmetry, we need $`V_{min}=0`$. Hence

$$v_0=0,v_2=\frac{f_1v_1^2}{m_2}.$$
(8)
If $`v_{1,2}0`$, then $`U(1)_R`$ is spontaneously broken, but the scale of symmetry breaking is indeterminate  because only the ratio $`v_1^2/v_2`$ is constrained. Moreover, since $`m_2`$ is presumably very large, say of the order of some unfication scale,

$$v_2<<v_1$$
(9)
is predicted, unless of course both $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ are of order $`m_2`$. (Exactly what value each actually takes will depend on the subsequent soft breaking of the supersymmetry as we will show later.) With this solution,

$$\widehat{W}=\frac{m_2}{v_1}(v_1\widehat{S}_22v_2\widehat{S}_1)\widehat{S}_0+f_1\widehat{S}_1\widehat{S}_1\widehat{S}_0,$$
(10)
which shows clearly that the linear combination

$$\frac{v_1\widehat{S}_1+2v_2\widehat{S}_2}{\sqrt{|v_1|^2+4|v_2|^2}}$$
(11)
is a massless superfield. Hence the axion is mostly contained in $`S_1`$, but since only $`S_2`$ couples to the MSSM particles, the effective axion coupling to gluinos is $`(v_2/v_1)v_2^1=v_1^1`$ as desired.

Consider now the breaking of the supersymmetry by soft terms at the TeV scale which preserve the $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry but are allowed to break the $`Z_3`$ discrete symmetry . We start with the original superpotential of Eq. (5), write down its corresponding scalar potential, and add all such soft terms regardless of whether or not they are holomorphic, i.e.

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`|m_2S_0|^2+4|f_1S_0S_1|^2+|m_2S_2+f_1S_1^2|^2`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`\mu _0^2|S_0|^2+\mu _1^2|S_1|^2+\mu _2^2|S_2|^2`$
$`+`$ $`[\mu _{12}S_1^2S_2^{}+\mu _{00}S_0|S_0|^2+\mu _{01}S_0|S_1|^2+\mu _{02}S_0|S_2|^2+h.c.]`$
The minimum of $`V`$ is now determined by

$`v_0{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{01}v_1^2}{m_2^2}},`$ (13)
$`v_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _1^2m_2}{4f_1\mu _{12}}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{12}}{2f_1m_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{f_1\mu _2^2}{2m_2\mu _{12}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _2^2}{m_2^2}}\right],`$ (14)
$`v_2{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _1^2}{4\mu _{12}}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{12}}{f_1m_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{f_1\mu _2^2}{2m_2\mu _{12}}}\right].`$ (15)
Hence $`v_0<<v_2<<v_1`$ and the supersymmetric solution of Eq. (8) remains valid to a very good approximation. (In Ref., $`\mu _{12}`$ was written as $`\lambda m_2`$ with the implicit assumption that it is of order $`m_2`$, hence $`\mu _1`$ in that case is of order $`v_1`$.) We now realize the important fact that all soft supersymmetry breaking parameters ($`\mu _1,\mu _{12},etc.`$) can be of order 1 TeV so that $`v_2`$ is of order 1 TeV as shown by Eq. (15), and yet $`v_1`$ is larger than $`v_2`$ by a factor of order $`\sqrt{m_2/v_2}`$.

Consider now the physical masses of $`S_{2,1,0}`$ and their fermionic partners. The linear combination given by Eq. (11) still contains the axion, but because supersymmetry (as well as $`Z_3`$) is broken at the TeV scale, its fermionic component (axino) is allowed to have a Majorana mass of that magnitude. The phase of its bosonic component is the axion, but the magnitude (maxion) is a scalar field of mass $`\sqrt{2\mu _1^2}`$ (instead of zero). The orthogonal combination to that given by Eq. (11) combines with $`\widehat{S}_0`$ to form a heavy superfield containing two complex scalars and a Dirac fermion of mass $`m_2`$ as expected. Hence the low-energy particle content of our model consists of ($`i`$) a Majorana fermion at the TeV scale, ($`ii`$) a real scalar field also at the TeV scale, and ($`iii`$) an axion which couples only to superparticles. Since all the above particles come from mostly $`\widehat{S}_1`$ but only $`\widehat{S}_2`$ interacts directly with the MSSM particles, their effects are generally suppressed by the factor $`v_2/v_1`$.

Our third key observation has to do with how gauginos acquire mass in the presence of $`U(1)_R`$. In Refs., the explicit arbitrary supersymmetry-breaking term $`S_2^{}\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is assumed. Since this is not a soft term, it is not clear how it can be justified rigorously. Here we show that it is actually generated through loop corrections. The so-called $`A`$ terms are also generated through their effective couplings to $`S_2`$. Both gaugino masses and $`A`$ terms are forbidden by $`U(1)_R`$ invariance, but are allowed as $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ become nonzero.

The MSSM superpotential of Eq. (4) is now replaced by

$`\widehat{W}`$ $`=`$ $`h_2\widehat{S}_2\widehat{H}_u\widehat{H}_d+h_u\widehat{H}_u\widehat{Q}\widehat{u}^c+h_d\widehat{H}_d\widehat{Q}\widehat{d}^c+h_e\widehat{H}_d\widehat{L}\widehat{e}^c`$ (16)
$`+`$ $`m_2\widehat{S}_2\widehat{S}_0+f_1\widehat{S}_1\widehat{S}_1\widehat{S}_0,`$
where we have assumed that $`\widehat{H}_u,\widehat{H}_d`$ transform as $`\omega ^2`$, $`\widehat{Q},\widehat{L}`$ as $`\omega `$ and $`\widehat{u}^c,\widehat{d}^c,\widehat{e}^c`$ as 1 under $`Z_3`$. The breaking of supersymmetry is achieved by the soft terms of Eq. (12) together with

$`V_{soft}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{Q}^{}M_Q^2\stackrel{~}{Q}+\stackrel{~}{u}^cM_{u^c}^2\stackrel{~}{u}^c+\stackrel{~}{d}^cM_{d^c}^2\stackrel{~}{d}^c+\stackrel{~}{L}^{}M_L^2\stackrel{~}{L}+\stackrel{~}{e}^cM_{e^c}^2\stackrel{~}{e}^c`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`M_{H_u}^2|H_u|^2+M_{H_d}^2|H_d|^2+(M_{ud}^2H_uH_d+h.c.)`$
This differs from that of the MSSM only in that the $`A`$ terms and the gaugino masses are absent because they are not invariant under $`U(1)_R`$. The usual $`\mu B`$ term of the MSSM is denoted as $`M_{ud}^2`$ here because the parameter $`\mu `$ is now absent.

From Eq. (16), we find the following terms,

$$|h_2S_2H_d+h_u\stackrel{~}{Q}\stackrel{~}{u}^c|^2+|m_2S_0+h_2H_uH_d|^2,$$
(18)
in the Lagrangian of our model. Together with the $`H_uH_d`$ term in Eq. (17), we obtain an effective interaction (see Fig. 1, left window) given by

$$\left(M_{ud}^2+\frac{h_2}{f_1}v_2\mu _{01}\right)\frac{h_2^{}h_u}{M_{H_d}^2}S_2^{}H_u\stackrel{~}{Q}\stackrel{~}{u}^c,$$
(19)
where Eqs. (13) to (15) have been used. This means that an effective $`A`$ term is generated as $`S_2`$ is replaced by its VEV, i.e.

$$A_u=\frac{h_2^{}h_uv_2}{M_{H_d}^2}\left(M_{ud}^2+\frac{h_2}{f_1}v_2\mu _{01}\right),$$
(20)
which has the desirable feature of being proportional to $`h_u`$ and thus the automatic suppression of flavor-changing neutral currents from the supersymmetric scalar sector.

Using Eq. (18), we also obtain the effective interaction (see Fig. 1, right window) given by

$$\frac{g_s^2}{16\pi ^2}h_2^{}h_u\frac{v_dm_u}{M_{eff}^2}S_2^{}\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g},$$
(21)
which generates a gluino mass proportional to $`v_2`$, together with a dynamical phase from $`S_2`$. This solves the strong CP problem as proposed in Ref.. However, the generated mass itself is very small. Even with $`m_t=174`$ GeV, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ is at most a few GeV. On the other hand, such a light gluino is not completely ruled out experimentally and may yet be discovered . To obtain a heavy gluino (with mass greater than 250 GeV), some new physics at the TeV scale will be required. For example, consider the addition of a neutral singlet $`\widehat{\chi }`$ with $`R=0`$ and colored triplets $`\widehat{\psi }`$ and $`\widehat{\psi }^c`$ with $`R=1`$. All are assumed to transform as $`\omega ^2`$ under $`Z_3`$. Then the extra terms in the superpotential, i.e.

$$f_2\widehat{S}_2\widehat{\chi }\widehat{\chi }+f_0\widehat{\chi }\widehat{\psi }\widehat{\psi }^c,$$
(22)
will generate a gluino mass given by

$$M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=\frac{g_s^2}{8\pi ^2}f_2v_2,$$
(23)
where the masses of $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }^c`$ and the Dirac fermion formed out of $`\psi `$ and $`\psi ^c`$ are all taken to be $`f_0\chi `$. In Eq. (15), let $`|\mu _1|=4`$ TeV, $`\mu _{12}=0.4`$ TeV, then $`v_2=10`$ TeV. Now let $`f_2=1.3`$, then $`M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=250`$ GeV.

The usual incorporation of the axion into a supersymmetric model assumes the original Peccei-Quinn symmetry  for the corresponding superfields, i.e. +1/2 for $`\widehat{Q}`$, $`\widehat{u}^c`$, $`\widehat{d}^c`$, $`\widehat{L}`$, $`\widehat{e}^c`$, and $`1`$ for $`\widehat{H}_u`$, $`\widehat{H}_d`$. This assignment forbids the $`\mu `$ term in the MSSM superpotential, as well as the $`B`$ term in $`V_{soft}`$. Assuming supergravity, the $`U(1)_{PQ}`$ symmetry is then broken together with local supersymmetry in the Kähler potential at the axion scale $`f_a`$. The effective scale of global supersymmetry breaking becomes of order $`f_a^2/M_{Planck}`$. The singlet superfield carrying the axion is here some kind of “messenger” field which communicates between the MSSM and the hidden sector. In our case, the axion comes from a superfield which lives entirely in our world. The origin of soft supersymmetry breaking at the TeV scale is not specified, only that it has to preserve $`U(1)_R`$. Given such a structure and with the help of a $`Z_3`$ discrete symmetry which is softly broken also at the TeV scale, we find that the $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry is actually broken spontaneously at a scale much larger than $`M_{SUSY}`$. In fact, this mechanism also works if we use the original $`U(1)_{PQ}`$ instead of $`U(1)_R`$. In that case, $`\widehat{S}_{2,1,0}`$ should have $`PQ`$ charges of +2, -1, and $`2`$ respectively. Hence the superpotential of Eq. (8) is obtained without using the $`Z_3`$ discrete symmetry .

In conclusion, we have succeeded in formulating a realistic supersymmetric model with a spontaneously broken $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry as the natural solution of the strong CP problem. The soft breaking of the supersymmetry at the TeV scale induces an axion scale of order $`\sqrt{m_2M_{SUSY}}`$, where $`m_2`$ is some unification scale, such as the string scale or the Planck scale. We have thus a first example of the unusual situation where the mass of the physical field ($`S_1`$) is much smaller than its VEV. This is in contrast to the less uncommon occurrence  where the mass of the physical field ($`S_2,S_0`$) is much greater than its VEV.

The resulting model resembles closely the MSSM, with the following distinctions. (1) The $`\mu `$ parameter is replaced by $`h_2\widehat{S}_2`$ in the superpotential, thus solving the so-called $`\mu `$ problem. (2) Although the breaking of $`U(1)_R`$ by $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ also breaks $`R`$ parity, the latter is effectively conserved as far as the MSSM particles are concerned because its violation is suppressed by $`v_2/v_1`$. (3) Supersymmetric scalar masses and the equivalent $`B`$ term are as in the MSSM. However, $`U(1)_R`$ invariance forbids $`A`$ terms and gaugino masses. (4) The spontaneous breaking of $`U(1)_R`$ leads to $`A`$ terms proportional to $`v_2`$ and to the corresponding Yukawa coupling matrix, thereby suppressing flavor-changing neutral currents automatically. (5) Gaugino masses are generated radiatively but are probably too small to be realistic. They can be made larger by the addition of new particles at the TeV scale. (6) In contrast to the DFSZ and KSVZ models, the new particles associated with the axion, i.e. those of Eq. (11), are now at the TeV scale. However, their couplings with the MSSM particles are all suppressed by $`v_2/v_1`$, so they are effectively unobservable at future colliders .

This work was supported in part by the U. S. Department of Energy under Grants No. DE-FG03-94ER40837 (E.M.) and No. DE-FG02-94ER40823 (D.A.D.)