format: text

text:
# FIAN/TD/01-01 The general form of the star–product on the Grassman algebra

## 1 Introduction

The noncommutative associative product of functions on a phase space (the star–product, the $``$–product in what follows) arises frequently in the physical literature. The traditional region where the $``$–product construction is conventionally used is the problem on quantizing the classical theory (i.e., the Poisson bracket) in the case where the phase space is a nontrivial manifold, the so–called geometrical or deformation quantizations (see  and references wherein). The relations of the $``$–product to quantum groups were recently found , . The gauge theories on the noncommutative spaces, the so–called noncommutative gauge theories, are formulated in terms of the $``$–product (see  and  and references wherein).

The structure and the properties of the $``$–product on the usual (even) manifolds are investigated in details ,  and . The BRST formulation of the Fedosov construction  for the $``$–product on symplectic manifolds was recently found . On the other hand, the $``$–product on supermanifolds is not sufficiently studied. It is easy to extend formally the noncommutative product proposed in  to the supercase  (see also ,  ), however, a discussion of the uniqueness of the $``$–product (the uniqueness of the ”pointwise” product deformation) is absent in the literature. In the present paper, we investigate the general form of the associative $``$–product, treated as a deformation of the ”pointwise” product, on the Grassman algebra of a finite number of generators. We show that up to a similarity transformation, only one such product exists.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2, we describe the formulation of the problem. In Sec. 3, we present the solution of the associativity equation for the $``$–product. In Sec. 4, we prove the uniqueness (up to a similarity transformation) of the $``$–product and formulate the basic results. In Sec. 5, the relation of the algebra $``$ of elements of the Grassman algebra with $``$–product as a product to the Clifford algebra is discussed.

Notation and conventions.

$`\xi ^\alpha `$, $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},n`$ are odd anticommuting generators of the Grassman algebra:

$$\epsilon (\xi ^\alpha )=1,\xi ^\alpha \xi ^\beta +\xi ^\beta \xi ^\alpha =0,_\alpha \frac{}{\xi ^\alpha },$$

$`\epsilon (A)`$ denotes the Grassman parity of $`A`$;

$$[\xi ^\alpha ]^01,[\xi ^\alpha ]^k\xi ^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}\xi ^{\alpha _k},1kn,[\xi ^\alpha ]^k=0,k>n,$$

$$[_\alpha ]^01,[_\alpha ]^k_{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}_{\alpha _k},1kn,[_\alpha ]^k=0,k>n,$$

$$[\stackrel{}{}_\alpha ]^k\stackrel{}{}_{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{}_{\alpha _k},$$

$$T_{\mathrm{}[\alpha ]_k\mathrm{}}T_{\mathrm{}\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _k\mathrm{}},T_{\mathrm{}\alpha _i\alpha _{i+1}\mathrm{}}=T_{\mathrm{}\alpha _{i+1}\alpha _i\mathrm{}},i=1,\mathrm{},k1.$$

## 2 Setting the problem

We consider the Grassman algebra $`𝒢_K`$ over the field $`K`$ $`=`$ $`𝐂`$ or $`𝐑`$ with the generators $`\xi ^\alpha `$, $`\alpha =1,2,\mathrm{},n`$. The general element $`f`$ of the algebra (a function of the generators) is

$$ff(\xi )=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{k!}f_{[\alpha ]_k}[\xi ^\alpha ]^k,f_{[\alpha ]_0}f_0,f_{[\alpha ]_k}K,k.$$

We also introduce the basis $`\{e^I\}`$ in the algebra $`𝒢_K`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}I=0,\alpha _i,\alpha _{i_1}\alpha _{i_2},\mathrm{},\alpha _{i_1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{i_k},\mathrm{},i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_k,\\ e^0=1,e^{\alpha _{i_1}\alpha _{i_2}\mathrm{}\alpha _{i_k}}=\xi ^{\alpha _{i_1}}\xi ^{\alpha _{i_2}}\mathrm{}\xi ^{\alpha _{i_k}},k=0,1,\mathrm{},n.\end{array}$$
(1)
The basis contains $`2^n`$ elements. Any element $`f`$ of the algebra $`𝒢_K`$ can be uniquely represented as

$$f=\underset{I}{}f_Ie^I,f_IK.$$
(2)
The integral over the generators is normalized as follows:

$$𝑑\xi [\xi ^\alpha ]^k=0,kn1,𝑑\xi [\xi ^\alpha ]^n=\epsilon ^{[\alpha ]_n},\epsilon (d\xi )=n(mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}).$$

$$𝑑\xi ^{}\delta (\xi \xi ^{})f(\xi ^{})=f(\xi ),\epsilon (\delta (\xi ))=n(mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}).$$

We are interested in the general form of the associative even $``$–product for arbitrary elements $`f_1,f_2`$:

$$f_3(\xi )=f_1f_2(\xi )P(\xi |f_1,f_2),$$

i.e., the general form of the bilinear mapping $`𝒢_K\times 𝒢_K𝒢_K`$ satisfying the associativity equation:

$$f_1(f_2f_3)=(f_1f_2)f_3,$$
(3)
and having the parity property

$$\epsilon (f_1f_2)=\epsilon (f_1)+\epsilon (f_2)(mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}).$$

We solve associativity equation (3) in terms of the series in the deformation parameter $`\mathrm{}`$:

$$=\underset{k=0}{}\mathrm{}^k_k,$$
(4)
where the $`_0`$–product, that is the boundary condition, is the usual ”pointwise” product:

$$f_1_0f_2(\xi )=f_1(\xi )f_2(\xi ).$$
(5)
Thus, we search for the general form of a possible even associative deformation of the ”pointwise” product on the Grassman algebra.

It is easy to verify that the $``$–product (as any bilinear mapping) can be written in the coordinate representation form:

$$f_3(\xi )=𝑑\xi _2𝑑\xi _1P(\xi |\xi _1,\xi _2)f_1(\xi _1)f_2(\xi _2),\epsilon (P(\xi |\xi _1,\xi _2))=0$$
(6)
with a certain function (the kernel) $`P(\xi |\xi _1,\xi _2)`$, or in the momentum representation form:

$$f_3(\xi )=f_1(\xi )\underset{k_1,k_2=0}{\overset{n}{}}[\stackrel{}{}_\beta ]^{k_1}P^{[\beta ]_{k_1}|[\gamma ]_{k_2}}(\xi )[_\gamma ]^{k_2}f_2(\xi ),\epsilon (P^{[\beta ]_{k_1}|[\gamma ]_{k_2}}(\xi ))=k_1+k_2(mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2})$$

with certain coefficient functions $`P^{[\beta ]_{k_1}|[\gamma ]_{k_2}}(\xi )`$.

Let some associative even $``$–product exist, and let $`T`$ be the nonsingular even linear mapping $`𝒢_K𝒢_K`$:

$$Tf(\xi )T(\xi |f)=𝑑\xi _1T(\xi |\xi _1)f(\xi _1)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}T^{[\alpha ]_k}(\xi )[_\alpha ]^kf(\xi ),$$

$$\epsilon (T(\xi |\xi _1))=n(mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}),\epsilon (T^{[\alpha ]_k}(\xi ))=k(mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}).$$

Then the $`_T`$–product

$$f_1_Tf_2(\xi )T^1\left(Tf_1Tf_2\right)(\xi )$$

is also an associative even $``$–product. We say that the $`_T`$–product and the $``$–product are related by a ($`T`$–)similarity transformation, or ($`T`$–)equivalent. We note that any nonsingular even change of the algebra generators:

$$T_\eta \xi ^\alpha =\eta ^\alpha (\xi ),T_\eta ^1\xi ^\alpha =T_\zeta \xi ^\alpha =\zeta ^\alpha (\xi ),T_\eta f(\xi )=f(\eta (\xi )),T_\eta ^1f(\xi )=T_\zeta f(\xi )=f(\zeta (\xi )),$$
(7)
where $`\zeta ^\alpha (\xi )`$ is the inverse change, $`\eta ^\alpha (\zeta (\xi ))=\xi ^\alpha `$, $`\epsilon (\eta ^\alpha )=\epsilon (\zeta ^\alpha )=1`$, induces the similarity transformation. Any nonsingular even change can be represented as

$$T=e^{u^\alpha (\xi )_\alpha }$$

with some functions $`u^\alpha (\xi )`$, $`\epsilon (u^\alpha (\xi ))=1`$.

The associativity equation for the first order deformation $`_1`$ is:

$$\left(f_1_1(f_2f_3)\right)(\xi )+f_1(\xi )\left(f_2_1f_3\right)(\xi )\left(f_1_1f_2\right)(\xi )f_3(\xi )\left((f_1f_2)_1f_3\right)(\xi )=0.$$
(8)
The trivial solution of eq. (8) is $`_{1triv}`$ that is the first order approximation to the $`_{0T}`$–product $`T`$–equivalent to the usual product with $`T=I+\mathrm{}t_1+O(\mathrm{}^2)`$, $`I`$ denotes the identical mapping. This solution is of the form

$$f_1_{1triv}f_2=(t_1f_1)f_2+f_1(t_1f_2)t_1(f_1f_2).$$
(9)
The problem is to describe all nontrivial solutions of eq. (8), which appears to be sufficient for describing all solutions of associativity equation (3).

Consider the algebra $`𝒜=\underset{}{}𝒜_k`$ of even $`k`$–linear functionals $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k(\xi |f_1,\mathrm{},f_k)𝒜_k`$ (of $`k`$–linear mappings $`(𝒢_K\times )^k`$ $``$ $`𝒢_K`$), $`\epsilon (\mathrm{\Phi }_k(\xi |f_1,\mathrm{},f_k))=\epsilon (f_1)+\mathrm{}+\epsilon (f_k)`$ $`(mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2})`$, $`k1`$, $`𝒜_0=K`$, with the (noncommutative) product (the mapping $`𝒜_k\times 𝒜_p𝒜_{k+p}`$)

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_k\mathrm{\Psi }_p(\xi |f_1,\mathrm{},f_{k+p})=\mathrm{\Phi }_k(\xi |f_1,\mathrm{},f_k)\mathrm{\Psi }_p(\xi |f_{k+1},\mathrm{},f_{k+p}).$$

In this algebra, there exists the natural grading $`g`$, $`g(\mathrm{\Phi }_k)=k`$, turning the algebra $`𝒜`$ into the graded algebra, $`g(𝒜_k)=k`$, and the linear operator $`d_H`$, the differential coboundary Hochschild operator $`𝒜_k𝒜_{k+1}`$, $`g(d_H)=1`$, acting according to the rule:

$$d_H\mathrm{\Phi }_k(\xi |f_1,\mathrm{},f_{k+1})=f_1(\xi )\mathrm{\Phi }_k(\xi |f_2,\mathrm{},f_{k+1})+$$

$$+\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(1)^i\mathrm{\Phi }_k(\xi |f_1,\mathrm{},f_{i1},f_if_{i+1},f_{i+2},\mathrm{},f_{k+1})+(1)^{k+1}\mathrm{\Phi }_k(\xi |f_1,\mathrm{},f_k)f_{k+1}(\xi ),$$

$$d_H𝒜_0=0.$$

It is easy to verify that the operator $`d_H`$ is a graded odd differentiation,

$$d_H(\mathrm{\Phi }_k\mathrm{\Psi }_p)=(d_H\mathrm{\Phi }_k)\mathrm{\Psi }_p+(1)^{g(\mathrm{\Phi }_k)}\mathrm{\Phi }_kd_H\mathrm{\Psi }_p,$$

and nilpotent,

$$d_H^2=0.$$

Equations (8) and (9) are written in terms of the operator $`d_H`$ as

$$d_H_1=0,$$
(10)
$$_{1triv}=d_Ht_1.$$
(11)
This means that $`_1`$ belongs to the second Hochschild cohomology group, while the first order trivial deformations of the ”pointwise” product are coboundaries, i.e., they belong to the zero Hochschild cohomology.

## 3 Solution of the associativity equation

We find the general solution of eq. (8) for the first order in $`\mathrm{}`$ deformation of the ”pointwise” product. We follow the method in . It is convenient to use coordinate representation (6). Associativity equation (3) for the $``$–product is reduced to the equation for the kernel:

$$𝑑\xi _4P(\xi |\xi _4,\xi _3)P(\xi _4|\xi _1,\xi _2)=(1)^n𝑑\xi _4P(\xi |\xi _1,\xi _4)P(\xi _4|\xi _2,\xi _3).$$
(12)
With the boundary condition taken into account, the kernel of the $``$–product has the following power series expansion in $`\mathrm{}`$:

$$P(\xi |\xi _1,\xi _2)=\delta (\xi \xi _1)\delta (\xi \xi _2)+\mathrm{}m_1(\xi |\xi _1,\xi _2)+O(\mathrm{}^2).$$

The equation for the kernel $`m_1`$ follows from eq. (12):

$$\delta (\xi _1)\stackrel{~}{m}_1(\xi |\xi _2,\xi _3)+\delta (\xi _3\xi _2)\stackrel{~}{m}_1(\xi |\xi _1,\xi _3)=\delta (\xi _3)\stackrel{~}{m}_1(\xi |\xi _1,\xi _2)+\delta (\xi _1\xi _2)\stackrel{~}{m}_1(\xi |\xi _1,\xi _3),$$
(13)
$$\stackrel{~}{m}_1(\xi |\xi _1,\xi _2)m_1(\xi |\xi _1+\xi ,\xi _2+\xi ).$$

Multiplying eq. (13) by $`\xi _1^\alpha `$ and integrating over $`d\xi _1`$, we obtain

$$\xi _1^\alpha \stackrel{~}{m}_1(\xi |\xi _1,\xi _2)=[(1)^n\delta (\xi _1\xi _2)\delta (\xi _2)]a_1^\alpha (\xi |\xi _1),$$
(14)
$$a_1^\alpha (\xi |\xi _1)=𝑑\xi _2\xi _2^\alpha \stackrel{~}{m}_1(\xi |\xi _2,\xi _1),\epsilon (a_1^\alpha )=n+1(mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}).$$

Multiplying relation (14) by $`\xi _1^\beta `$ and taking the antisymmetry in $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ of the l.h.s. of the resulting relation into account, we find

$$[(1)^n\delta (\xi _1\xi _2)\delta (\xi _2)](\xi _1^\alpha a_1^\beta (\xi |\xi _1)+\xi _1^\beta a_1^\alpha (\xi |\xi _1))=0,$$

whence it follows

$$\xi _1^\alpha a_1^\beta (\xi |\xi _1)+\xi _1^\beta a_1^\alpha (\xi |\xi _1)=2\delta (\xi _1)\omega _1^{\alpha \beta }(\xi ),$$
(15)
with a certain function $`\omega _1^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )`$, $`\omega _1^{\alpha \beta }=\omega _1^{\beta \alpha }`$, $`\epsilon (\omega _1^{\alpha \beta })=0`$. We represent the function $`a_1^\alpha (\xi |\xi _1)`$ as

$$a_1^\alpha (\xi |\xi _1)=\omega _1^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )\frac{}{\xi _1^\beta }\delta (\xi _1)+\overline{a}_1^\alpha (\xi |\xi _1),$$

It follows from eq. (15) that

$$\xi _1^\alpha \overline{a}_1^\beta (\xi |\xi _1)+\xi _1^\beta \overline{a}_1^\alpha (\xi |\xi _1)=0,$$

from where we find

$$\overline{a}_1^\alpha (\xi |\xi _1)=\xi _1^\alpha \overline{a}_1(\xi |\xi _1),\epsilon (\overline{a}_1)=n(mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}).$$

Substituting the obtained representation for $`a_1^\alpha `$ into relation (14), we obtain:

$$\xi _1^\alpha \stackrel{~}{m}_1(\xi |\xi _1,\xi _2)=\xi _1^\alpha [\delta (\xi _1\xi _2)\overline{a}_1(\xi |\xi _1)(1)^n\delta (\xi _2)\overline{a}_1(\xi |\xi _1)+\delta (\xi _1)\frac{\stackrel{}{}}{\xi _1^\beta }\omega _1^{\beta \gamma }(\xi )\frac{}{\xi _2^\gamma }\delta (\xi _2)],$$

whence it follows

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_1(\xi |\xi _1,\xi _2)=\delta (\xi _1\xi _2)\overline{a}_1(\xi |\xi _1)(1)^n\delta (\xi _2)\overline{a}_1(\xi |\xi _1)+\delta (\xi _1)\overline{b}_1(\xi |\xi _2)+\delta (\xi _1)\frac{\stackrel{}{}}{\xi _1^\beta }\omega _1^{\beta \gamma }(\xi )\frac{}{\xi _2^\gamma }\delta (\xi _2)],$$

with a certain function $`\overline{b}_1(\xi |\xi _2)`$, $`\epsilon (\overline{b}_1)=n(mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2})`$.

Thus, the first order deformation of the ”pointwise” product can be represented in the form

$$f_1_1f_2(\xi )=m_1(\xi |f_1,f_2)=$$

$$f_1(\xi )\stackrel{}{}_\alpha \omega _1^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )_\beta f_2(\xi )+f_1(\xi )t_1(\xi |f_2)t_1(\xi |f_1f_2)+t_1(\xi |f_1)f_2(\xi )+c_1(\xi |f_1f_2)c_1(\xi |f_1)f_2(\xi ),$$

where we introduce the notation $`t_1(\xi |\xi _1)=\overline{b}_1(\xi |\xi _1\xi )`$, $`c_1(\xi |\xi _1)=\overline{a}_1(\xi |\xi _1\xi )+\overline{b}_1(\xi |\xi _1\xi )`$, $`t_1(\xi |f)𝑑\xi _1t_1(\xi |\xi _1)f(\xi _1)`$, $`c_1(\xi |f)𝑑\xi _1c_1(\xi |\xi _1)f(\xi _1)`$. Substituting this representation for the $`_1`$–product into eq. (8) (or in eq. (13)), we find

$$f_1(\xi )[c_1(\xi |f_2f_3)c_1(\xi |f_2)f_3(\xi )]=0,$$

or

$$c_1(\xi |f_1f_2)c_1(\xi |f_1)f_2(\xi )=0.$$

The expression $`f_1(\xi )\stackrel{}{}_\alpha \omega _1^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )_\beta f_2(\xi )`$ can not be represented as $`d_Ht(\xi |f_1,f_2)`$. To prove this, we use the momentum representation for the functional $`t(\xi |f)`$:

$$t(\xi |f)=\underset{k=0}{}t^{[\alpha ]_k}(\xi )[_\alpha ]^kf(\xi ),\epsilon (t^{[\alpha ]_k})=k(mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}).$$

The summand in $`d_Ht(\xi |f_1,f_2)`$ with total order of the derivatives of the functions $`f_1(\xi )`$ and $`f_2(\xi )`$ equal to 2 can arise only from the summand in $`t(\xi |f)`$ with the coefficient $`t^{[\alpha ]_2}(\xi )`$. Choosing

$$t(\xi |f)=\frac{1}{2}t^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )_\alpha _\beta f(\xi ),t^{\alpha \beta }=t^{\beta \alpha },\epsilon (t^{\alpha \beta })=0,$$

we obtain that the equality must be true

$$f_1(\xi )\stackrel{}{}_\alpha \omega _1^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )_\beta f_2(\xi )=d_Ht(\xi |f_1,f_2)=f_1(\xi )\stackrel{}{}_\alpha t^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )_\beta f_2(\xi ),$$

or

$$\omega _1^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )=t^{\alpha \beta }(\xi ).$$

The last equality is possible only for $`\omega _1^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )=0`$ because $`\omega _1^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )`$ is a symmetric matrix while $`t^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )`$ is an antisymmetric one.

We have thus found that the general solution of eq. (8) has the form

$$f_1_1f_2(\xi )=m_1(\xi |f_1,f_2)=f_1(\xi )\stackrel{}{}_\alpha \omega _1^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )_\beta f_2(\xi )+f_1(\xi )t_1(\xi |f_2)t_1(\xi |f_1f_2)+t_1(\xi |f_1)f_2(\xi )=$$

$$=f_1(\xi )\stackrel{}{}_\alpha \omega _1^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )_\beta f_2(\xi )+d_Ht_1(\xi |f_1,f_2).$$

If we perform the similarity transformation $`T`$ of the $``$–product,

$$f_1f_2f_1_{T_1}f_2=T_1^1(T_1f_1T_1f_2),$$

with the operator111We note, that the similarity transformation $`T`$ of the ”pointwise” product $`_0`$ with $`T=1+\mathrm{}t_1+0(\mathrm{}^2)`$ is of the form
$$_{0T}=_0+d_Ht_1+O(\mathrm{}^2).$$

$$T_1=e^{\mathrm{}\widehat{t}_1},$$

then it is easy to verify that $`P_{T_1}`$ has the following power series expansion in $`\mathrm{}`$:

$$P_{T_1}(\xi |f_1,f_2)=f_1(\xi )f_2(\xi )+\mathrm{}m_1(\xi |f_1,f_2)\mathrm{}d_Ht_1(\xi |f_1,f_2)+\mathrm{}^2m_{T_12}(\xi |f_1,f_2)+O(\mathrm{}^3)=$$

$$=f_1(\xi )f_2(\xi )+\mathrm{}f_1(\xi )\stackrel{}{}_\alpha \omega _1^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )_\beta f_2(\xi )+\mathrm{}^2m_{T_12}(\xi |f_1,f_2)+O(\mathrm{}^3).$$
(16)
In what follows, we omit the index ”$`T_1`$” at the $`_{T_1}`$–product and at the kernels $`P_{T_1}`$ and $`m_{T_12}`$.

It is now useful to introduce the $``$–commutator $`[f_1,f_2]_{}(\xi )`$ for two functions $`f_1(\xi )`$ and $`f_2(\xi )`$ defined by

$$[f_1,f_2]_{}(\xi )\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}\left(f_1f_2(\xi )(1)^{\epsilon (f_1)\epsilon (f_2)}f_2f_1(\xi )\right)$$

and to define the Jacobian $`J(\xi |f_1,f_2,f_3)`$ of three functions $`f_1(\xi )`$, $`f_2(\xi )`$ and $`f_3(\xi )`$ as

$$J(\xi |f_1,f_2,f_3)(1)^{\epsilon (f_1)\epsilon (f_3)}[[f_1,f_2]_{}f_3]_{}(\xi )+\text{cycle}(1,2,3).$$
(17)
We have

$$J(\xi |f_1,f_2,f_3)=0$$
(18)
as the consequence of associativity equation (3) (the $``$–commutator satisfies the Jacobi identity).

The direct calculation of the Jacobian $`J(\xi |f_1,f_2,f_3)`$ for $``$–product (16) gives

$$J(\xi |f_1,f_2,f_3)=(1)^{\epsilon (f_2)+\epsilon (f_1)\epsilon (f_3)}\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{\alpha \beta \gamma }(\xi )_\alpha f_1(\xi )_\beta f_2(\xi )_\gamma f_3(\xi )+O(\mathrm{}),$$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{\alpha \beta \gamma }(\xi )=\omega _1^{\alpha \delta }(\xi )_\delta \omega _1^{\beta \gamma }(\xi )+\omega _1^{\gamma \delta }(\xi )_\delta \omega _1^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )+\omega _1^{\beta \delta }(\xi )_\delta \omega _1^{\gamma \alpha }(\xi ).$$

It follows from eq. (18) that the function $`\omega _1^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )`$ satisfies the Jacobi identity

$$\omega _1^{\alpha \delta }(\xi )_\delta \omega _1^{\beta \gamma }(\xi )+\omega _1^{\gamma \delta }(\xi )_\delta \omega _1^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )+\omega _1^{\beta \delta }(\xi )_\delta \omega _1^{\gamma \alpha }(\xi )=0.$$

We note that the function $`\omega ^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )`$ transforms as a tensor under a change of the generators $`\xi ^\alpha `$ $``$ $`\eta ^\alpha (\xi )`$. This means the following. Let operator $`T_\eta `$ (see eq. (7)) describes a change of the generators. The $`\mathrm{}`$ power series expansion of the $``$–product $`T_\eta ^1P(\xi |T_\eta f_1,T_\eta f_2)`$, where $`P(\xi |f_1,f_2)`$ is given by formula (16), is

$$\begin{array}{c}T_\eta ^1P(\xi |T_\eta f_1,T_\eta f_2)=f_1(\xi )f_2(\xi )+\mathrm{}f_1(\xi )\stackrel{}{}_\alpha \omega _1^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )_\beta f_2(\xi )+O(\mathrm{}^2),\\ \omega _1^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )=\xi ^\alpha \frac{\stackrel{}{}}{\zeta ^\gamma }\omega _1^{\gamma \delta }(\zeta )\frac{}{\zeta ^\delta }\xi ^\beta .\end{array}$$
(19)
Therefore, the tensor function $`\omega _1^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )`$ is the symplectic metric of the Poisson bracket. We assume that the metric $`\omega _1^{\alpha \beta }`$ is nonsingular. In this case, there exists a change of the generators $`\xi ^\alpha `$ $``$ $`\eta ^\alpha (\xi )`$ that reduces the symplectic metric to the canonical form

$$\omega _1^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )=\lambda _\alpha \delta _{\alpha \beta },$$
(20)
where $`\lambda _\alpha =1`$ in the case of the Grassman algebra over complex numbers ($`𝒢_𝐂`$) and $`\lambda _\alpha =\pm 1`$ in the case of the Grassman algebra over real numbers ($`𝒢_𝐑`$). We assume that the appropriate similarity transformation is performed such that the tensor function in formula (16) is of canonical form (20).

We represent the $``$–product as

$$P(\xi |f_1,f_2)=P_G^\mathrm{}\lambda (\xi |f_1,f_2)+\mathrm{}^2m_2^{}(\xi |f_1,f_2)+O(\mathrm{}^3),$$
(21)
where

$$P_G^\mathrm{}\lambda (\xi |f_1,f_2)f_1_{G(\mathrm{}\lambda )}f_2(\xi )=f_1(\xi )e^{\mathrm{}Q_\lambda }f_2(\xi )=f_1(\xi )f_2(\xi )+\mathrm{}f_1(\xi )\stackrel{}{}_\alpha \lambda _\alpha _\alpha f_2(\xi )+O(\mathrm{}^2),$$

$$Q_\lambda =\underset{\alpha }{}\lambda _\alpha \stackrel{}{}_\alpha _\alpha .$$
(22)
$`P_G^\mathrm{}\lambda (\xi |f_1,f_2)`$ itself satisfies the associativity equation (see Appendix). Substituting expansion (21) into eq. (12), we find that the kernel $`m_2^{}`$ satisfies just eq. (13), whence it follows

$$m_2^{}(\xi |f_1,f_2)=f_1(\xi )\stackrel{}{}_\alpha \omega _2^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )_\beta f_2(\xi )+d_Ht_2(\xi |f_1,f_2)$$

with a certain function $`\omega _2^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )=\omega _2^{\beta \alpha }(\xi )`$, $`\epsilon (\omega _2^{\alpha \beta })=0`$, and a kernel $`t_2(\xi |\xi _1)`$, $`\epsilon (t_2)=n(mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2})`$. The summand $`d_Ht_2(\xi |f_1,f_2)`$ can be transformed out by the similarity transformation with the operator $`T=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}^2\widehat{t}_2)`$. Assuming that this similarity transformation has been already performed, we obtain that the $``$–product can be represented as

$$P(\xi |f_1,f_2)=P_G^\mathrm{}\lambda (\xi |f_1,f_2)+\mathrm{}^2f_1(\xi )\stackrel{}{}_\alpha \omega _2^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )_\beta f_2(\xi )+\mathrm{}^3m_3^{}(\xi |f_1,f_2)+O(\mathrm{}^4).$$
(23)
We assume that the $``$–product can be represented as

$$P(\xi |f_1,f_2)=P_G^\mathrm{}\lambda (\xi |f_1,f_2)+\mathrm{}^kf_1(\xi )\stackrel{}{}_\alpha \omega _k^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )_\beta f_2(\xi )+\mathrm{}^{k+1}m_{k+1}(\xi |f_1,f_2)+O(\mathrm{}^{k+2}),$$
(24)
$$\omega _k^{\alpha \beta }=\omega _k^{\beta \alpha },\epsilon (\omega _k^{\alpha \beta })=0,k2,$$

after the appropriate similarity transformation.

Then the direct calculation of the Jacobian $`J(\xi |f_1,f_2,f_3)`$ for this $``$–product (24) gives

$$J(\xi |f_1,f_2,f_3)=(1)^{\epsilon (f_2)+\epsilon (f_1)\epsilon (f_3)}\mathrm{}^{k1}\mathrm{\Omega }_k^{\alpha \beta \gamma }(\xi )_\alpha f_1(\xi )_\beta f_2(\xi )_\gamma f_3(\xi )+O(\mathrm{}^k),$$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_k^{\alpha \beta \gamma }(\xi )=\lambda _\alpha _\alpha \omega _k^{\beta \gamma }(\xi )+\lambda _\gamma _\gamma \omega _k^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )+\lambda _\beta _\beta \omega _k^{\gamma \alpha }(\xi ).$$

It follows from eq. (18) that the function $`\omega _k^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )`$ satisfies the relation (the Bianchi identity)

$$\lambda _\alpha _\alpha \omega _k^{\beta \gamma }(\xi )+\lambda _\gamma _\gamma \omega _k^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )+\lambda _\beta _\beta \omega _k^{\gamma \alpha }(\xi )=0,$$

whence we find

$$\omega _k^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )=\lambda _\alpha _\alpha \omega _k^\beta (\xi )+\lambda _\beta _\beta \omega _k^\alpha (\xi ),\epsilon (\omega _k^\alpha )=1.$$

We perform the similarity transformation of $``$–product (24) with the operator $`T=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}^{k1}\omega _k^\alpha (\xi )_\alpha )`$. Taking the relations

$$e^{\widehat{t}}\left(e^{\widehat{t}}f_1(\xi )e^{\widehat{t}}f_2(\xi )\right)=f_1(\xi )f_2(\xi ),\widehat{t}=\omega ^\alpha (\xi )_\alpha ,\epsilon (\omega ^\alpha )=1,$$

$$e^{\mathrm{}^k\widehat{t}}P_G^\mathrm{}\lambda (\xi |e^{\mathrm{}^k\widehat{t}}f_1,e^{\mathrm{}^k\widehat{t}}f_2)=P_G^\mathrm{}\lambda (\xi |f_1,f_2)+$$

$$+\mathrm{}^{k+1}f_1(\xi )\stackrel{}{}_\alpha \left(\lambda _\alpha _\alpha \omega ^\beta (\xi )+\lambda _\beta _\beta \omega ^\alpha (\xi )\right)_\beta f_2(\xi )+O(\mathrm{}^{k+2}),k1,$$

into account, we obtain that the transformed $``$–product has the form (index $`T`$ is omitted)

$$P(\xi |f_1,f_2)=P_G^\mathrm{}\lambda (\xi |f_1,f_2)+\mathrm{}^{k+1}m_{k+1}^{}(\xi |f_1,f_2)+O(\mathrm{}^{k+2}),$$

and $`m_{k+1}^{}`$ satisfies eq. (13). It remains to apply the induction method.

We have thus shown that any associative $``$–product on the Grassman algebra with boundary condition (5) can be obtained from the $`_{G(\mathrm{}\lambda )}`$–product by a similarity transformation.

## 4 Uniqueness

We have established that any $``$–product with boundary condition (5) and a nonsingular metric in the first–order deformation can be reduced to the form of the $`_{G(\mathrm{}\lambda )}`$–product by the similarity transformations generated by the operators of the form

$$T=T_\eta (1+\mathrm{}t_1+O(\mathrm{}^2)),$$
(25)
$`T_\eta `$ is the operator of a nonsingular change of the generators. It is essential that it is impossible to reduce the $``$–product with a nonsingular tensor $`\omega _1^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )`$ to the ”pointwise” product by a similarity transformations of this type because $`t_1`$ does not contribute to $`\omega _1^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )`$ and $`T_\eta `$ does not violate the nonsingularity of the tensor $`\omega _1^{\alpha \beta }(\xi )`$ (see eq. (19)). The question arises whether there exists a similarity transformation generated by an operators $`T`$ of the more general form that does reduce the $`_{G(\mathrm{}\lambda )}`$–product to the ”pointwise” one? We now show that the answer to this question is in negative.

In fact, any nonsingular operator $`T`$ can be written as

$$T=T^{}(1+O(\mathrm{})),$$

with a certain nonsingular operator $`T^{}=T|_{\mathrm{}=0}`$. By virtue of the boundary condition for the $``$–product (see eqs. (4) and (5)) the $`T^{}`$–similarity transformation should leave the ”pointwise” product invariant, i.e., the operator $`T^{}`$ should satisfy the equation

$$T^{}(\xi |f_1)T^{}(\xi |f_2)=T^{}(\xi |f_1f_2).$$
(26)
We now show that the general solution of eq. (26) is a nonsingular change of the generators

$$T^{}(\xi |f)=T_\eta (\xi |f)=f(\eta (\xi )),$$

with some functions $`\eta ^\alpha (\xi )`$, $`\epsilon (\eta ^\alpha )=1`$.

Let $`f_2(\xi )=1`$, then it follows from (26) that

$$T^{}(\xi |f_1)(1T^{}(\xi |1))=0T^{}(\xi |1)=𝑑\xi ^{}T^{}(\xi |\xi ^{})=1$$

because $`T^{}`$ is assumed to be nonsingular.

We now choose $`f_1(\xi )=\mathrm{exp}(\xi ^\alpha p_\alpha )`$, $`f_2(\xi )=\mathrm{exp}(\xi ^\alpha q_\alpha )`$, where $`p_\alpha `$ and $`q_\alpha `$ are odd generators (in the wider Grassman algebra with the generators $`\xi ^\alpha `$, $`p^\alpha `$, $`q^\alpha `$), and introduce the notation

$$𝑑\xi f(\xi )e^{\xi ^\alpha p_\alpha }\stackrel{~}{f}(p).$$

It follows from relation (26) that

$$\stackrel{~}{T}^{}(\xi |p)\stackrel{~}{T}^{}(\xi |q)=\stackrel{~}{T}^{}(\xi |p+q),\stackrel{~}{T}^{}(\xi |0)=1,$$

whence we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{T}^{}(\xi |p)=e^{\eta _\alpha (\xi )p_\alpha },\eta ^\alpha (\xi )\stackrel{~}{T}^{}(\xi |p)\frac{\stackrel{}{}}{p_\alpha }|_{p=0}.$$

The inverse Fourier transform of $`\stackrel{~}{T}^{}(\xi |p)`$ is

$$T^{}(\xi |\xi ^{})=\delta (\eta (\xi )\xi ^{}).$$

Thus, we have proved the following.

Theorem

Any associative $``$–product on the Grassman algebra $`𝒢_K`$ with boundary condition (5) and the nonsingular symplectic metric in the first order deformation $`_1`$ is equivalent to (i.e., is related by a similarity transformation to) the $``$–product $`P_G^\mathrm{}\lambda (\xi |f_1,f_2)`$, which is not equivalent to the ”pointwise” product for $`\mathrm{}0`$,. We also note that the $`_{G(\mathrm{}\lambda )}`$–products with different values of the parameter $`\mathrm{}`$ can be related by a similarity transformation (generated by a scale transformation of the generators $`\xi ^\alpha `$).

## 5 Relation to the Clifford algebra

In this Section, we discuss the relation of the algebra $`_K`$, the algebra of the elements of the Grassman algebra $`𝒢_K`$ (i.e., of the functions of the generators) with the $``$–product as a product, to the Clifford algebra $`𝒦_K`$ over the field $`K`$.

We take the $`_{G(\lambda )}`$–product222In this Section, we choose $`\mathrm{}=1`$ that is equivalent to the transition to the new generators $`\xi ^\alpha =\sqrt{\mathrm{}}\xi ^\alpha `$ for a product in the algebra $`_K`$. The comment on the general $``$–product is at the end of the Section.

It is easy to verify that the $`_{G(\lambda )}`$–product has the following properties:

$$c_{G(\lambda )}f(\xi )=f_{G(\lambda )}c(\xi )=cf(\xi )$$
(27)
for any function $`f(\xi )`$ and $`c=const`$,

$$\xi ^{\alpha _1}_{G(\lambda )}\xi ^{\alpha _2}_{G(\lambda )}\mathrm{}_{G(\lambda )}\xi ^{\alpha _k}=\xi ^{\alpha _1}\xi ^{\alpha _2}\mathrm{}\xi ^{\alpha _k},\alpha _1<\alpha _2<\mathrm{}<\alpha _k.$$
(28)
The explicit calculation gives

$$\xi ^\alpha _{G(\lambda )}\xi ^\beta =\xi ^\alpha \xi ^\beta +\lambda _\alpha \delta _{\alpha \beta },$$

therefore, we have

$$\xi ^\alpha _{G(\lambda )}\xi ^\beta +\xi ^\beta _{G(\lambda )}\xi ^\alpha =2\lambda _\alpha \delta _{\alpha \beta },$$
(29)
i.e., the generators $`\xi ^\alpha `$ form the Clifford algebra with the $`_{G(\lambda )}`$–product.

Collecting together definition (1) and properties (2), (27), (28), and (29), we obtain that the following Statement is true:

The algebra $`_K`$ with the $`_{G(\lambda )}`$–product as a product is isomorphic to the Clifford algebra $`𝒦_K`$ over $`K`$ with the generators $`\gamma ^\alpha `$, $`\gamma ^\alpha \gamma ^\beta +\gamma ^\beta \gamma ^\alpha =2\lambda _\alpha \delta _{\alpha \beta }`$. The isomorphism $`_K`$ $``$ $`𝒦_K`$ is given by

$$_Kf(\xi )=\underset{I}{}f_Ie^IK_f=\underset{I}{}f_I\mathrm{\Gamma }^I𝒦_K,$$
(30)
$$f_1_{G(\lambda )}f_2(\xi )K_{f_1}K_{f_2},$$

where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^0=1,\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha =\gamma ^\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\alpha _1\alpha _2\mathrm{}\alpha _k}=\gamma ^{\alpha _1}\gamma ^{\alpha _2}\mathrm{}\gamma ^{\alpha _k},k2.$$

We note that there is the natural $`Z_2`$–grading $`g`$ in this algebra, namely, $`g(f)`$, where $`f`$ is considered an element of the algebra $`_K`$, coincides with the Grassman parity $`\epsilon (f)`$, where $`f`$ is considered an element of the algebra $`𝒢_K`$. If we introduce the $`Z_2`$–grading $`g`$ in the Clifford algebra,

$$g(\mathrm{\Gamma }^I)=k(mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}),I=\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _k,$$

then isomorphism (30) preserves the grading.

What we can say about the representations of the algebra $`_K`$, which are simultaneously the representations of the Clifford algebra? It is natural to consider the exact representations.

As is well known, the algebras $`𝒦_𝐂`$ and $`𝒦_𝐑`$ of even dimension $`n=2m`$ and the algebra $`𝒦_𝐑`$ of odd dimension $`n=2m+1`$ with $`\delta \lambda _{(n)}\underset{\alpha }{}\lambda _\alpha =3(mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}4})`$333The property $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{12\mathrm{}n})^2=1`$ holds for this algebra $`𝒦_𝐑`$. have only one irreducible representation (for fixed $`n`$ and $`\delta \lambda _{(n)}`$), the representation being exact444The matrices realizing the basis $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^I`$ are linearly independent.. In these cases, the algebra $`_K`$ has a unique exact irreducible representation coinciding with the irreducible representation of the algebra $`𝒦_K`$.

The algebra $`𝒦_𝐂`$ of odd dimension $`n=2m+1`$ and the algebra $`𝒦_𝐑`$ of odd dimension $`n=2m+1`$ and $`\delta \lambda _{(n)}=1(mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4})`$555The property $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{12\mathrm{}n})^2=1`$ holds for this algebra $`𝒦_𝐑`$. are decomposed into a direct sum of two simple subalgebras. One of these subalgebras is realized by zero in the irreducible representations. Therefore the irreducible representations of the Clifford algebra can not be the exact representations of the algebra $`_K`$ (and of the algebra $`𝒦_K`$). The minimum exact representation $`V`$ of the algebra $`_K`$ is decomposed into a direct sum of two irreducible nonequivalent representations, $`V=V_++V_{}`$, the projectors $`P_\pm `$ on $`V_\pm `$ are $`P_\pm =(1\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }^{12\mathrm{}n})/2`$.

Finally, we consider the general $``$–product. Let $`T`$ be the operator generating the similarity transformation of the $``$–product to the $`_{G(\lambda )}`$–product:

$$f_1f_2=T^1\left(Tf_1_{G(\lambda )}Tf_2\right).$$

Then the isomorphism $`_K`$ $``$ $`𝒦_K`$ is given by

$$_Kf(\xi )=\underset{I}{}f_Ie^IK_f=\underset{I}{}f_IT_J^I\mathrm{\Gamma }^J𝒦_K,$$
(31)
$$f_1f_2(\xi )K_{f_1}K_{f_2},$$

where the matrix $`T_J^I`$ is defined by

$$Te^I=T_J^Ie^J.$$

Isomorphism (31) of the algebras $`𝒢_K`$ and $`𝒦_K`$ preserves the above–introduced grading because we consider only even operators $`T`$.

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Tipunin I. and Voronov B. for useful discussions and RFBR, contract 99–02–17916 and school–contract 00–15–96566, for support.

## Appendix

For completeness, we prove the statement that $`_{G(\lambda )}`$–product (3) with arbitrary $`\lambda _\alpha `$ ($`\mathrm{}=1`$) satisfies associativity equation (3). In what follows, we omit the bottom index “$`G(\lambda )`$” and write the top index “$`(n)`$” at the $``$–product symbols, where $`n`$ is the number of the generators of the Grassman algebra. Similarly, we also omit the bottom index “$`\lambda `$” and write the top index “$`(n)`$” at the operator $`Q`$ in the definition of the $`_G`$–product. The operator $`Q^{(n)}`$ satisfies the relations

$$Q^{(n)}=Q^{(n1)}+\lambda _n\stackrel{}{}_n_n,$$

$$e^{Q^{(n)}}=(1+\lambda _n\stackrel{}{}_n_n)e^{Q^{(n1)}}.$$

We prove the statement by induction in the number $`n`$ of the generators.

Let $`\phi (\xi )`$ and $`\overline{\phi }(\xi )`$ be the elements of the Grassman algebra that are independent of the generator $`\xi ^n`$:

$$\frac{}{\xi ^n}\phi (\xi )0,\frac{}{\xi ^n}\overline{\phi }(\xi )0.$$

Any element $`f(\xi )`$ can be represented as

$$f(\xi )=\phi (\xi )+\xi ^n\overline{\phi }(\xi ),\epsilon (\phi )=\epsilon (f),\epsilon (\overline{\phi })=\epsilon (f)+1(mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}).$$

The $`^{(n)}`$–product is represented in terms of $`\phi `$ and $`\overline{\phi }`$ as follows:

$$f_1^{(n)}f_2(\xi )=\phi _{12}(\xi )+\xi ^n\overline{\phi }_{12}(\xi ),$$

$$\phi _{12}(\xi )=\phi _1^{(n1)}\phi _2(\xi )+\lambda _n(1)^{\epsilon (\overline{\phi }_1)}\overline{\phi }_1^{(n1)}\overline{\phi }_2(\xi ),$$

$$\overline{\phi }_{12}(\xi )=\overline{\phi }_1^{(n1)}\phi _2(\xi )+(1)^{\epsilon (\phi _1)}\phi _1^{(n1)}\overline{\phi }_2(\xi ).$$

The associator of the $`^{(n)}`$–product is

$$(f_1^{(n)}f_2)^{(n)}f_3(\xi )f_1^{(n)}(f_2^{(n)}f_3)(\xi )=\phi (\xi )+\xi ^n\overline{\phi }(\xi ),$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \phi =\phi _{(12)3}\phi _{1(23)}=[(\phi _1^{(n1)}\phi _2)^{(n1)}\phi _3\phi _1^{(n1)}(\phi _2^{(n1)}\phi _3)]+\\ \hfill +\lambda _n(1)^{\epsilon (\overline{\phi }_1)}[(\overline{\phi }_1^{(n1)}\overline{\phi }_2)^{(n1)}\phi _3\overline{\phi }_1^{(n1)}(\overline{\phi }_2^{(n1)}\phi _3)]+\\ \hfill +\lambda _n(1)^{\epsilon (\overline{\phi }_1)+\epsilon (\phi _2)}[(\overline{\phi }_1^{(n1)}\phi _2)^{(n1)}\overline{\phi }_3\overline{\phi }_1^{(n1)}(\phi _2^{(n1)}\overline{\phi }_3)]+\\ \hfill +\lambda _n(1)^{\epsilon (\overline{\phi }_2)}[(\phi _1^{(n1)}\overline{\phi }_2)^{(n1)}\overline{\phi }_3\phi _1^{(n1)}(\overline{\phi }_2^{(n1)}\overline{\phi _3})],\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \overline{\phi }=\overline{\phi }_{(12)3}\overline{\phi }_{1(23)}=[(\overline{\phi }_1^{(n1)}\phi _2)^{(n1)}\phi _3\overline{\phi }_1^{(n1)}(\phi _2^{(n1)}\phi _3)]+\\ \hfill +(1)^{\epsilon (\phi _1)}[(\phi _1^{(n1)}\overline{\phi }_2)^{(n1)}\phi _3\phi _1^{(n1)}(\overline{\phi }_2^{(n1)}\phi _3)]+\\ \hfill +(1)^{\epsilon (\phi _1)+\epsilon (\phi _2)}[(\phi _1^{(n1)}\phi _2)^{(n1)}\overline{\phi }_3\phi _1^{(n1)}(\phi _2^{(n1)}\overline{\phi }_3)]+\\ \hfill +\lambda _n(1)^{\epsilon (\overline{\phi }_2)}[(\overline{\phi }_1^{(n1)}\overline{\phi }_2)^{(n1)}\overline{\phi }_3\overline{\phi }_1^{(n1)}(\overline{\phi }_2^{(n1)}\overline{\phi _3})].\end{array}$$

We can see from these formulas that if the $`^{(n1)}`$–product is associative, then the $`^{(n)}`$–product is also associative. In addition, it is easy to see from the same formulas that the $`^{(1)}`$–product is associative (all $`\phi _i`$ and $`\overline{\phi }_i`$ are numbers, $`\epsilon (\phi _i)=\epsilon (\overline{\phi }_i)=0`$ and the $`^{(0)}`$–product is the usual product of numbers). $`\mathrm{}`$


text:
# How does the Eurodollar Interest Rate behave?

## I Introduction

The last twenty years have seen a wide development of studies on the interest rates curves. So far, most of the efforts in Finance have been devoted to the study of stock prices, where one is dealing with a single object affected by stochastic fluctuations. On contrast, the interest rates case deals with several objects that follow similar trends and can be thought as a curve whose shape is varying in time. This makes the subject very challenging since one is no more dealing with the statistics of single objects but with the motion of a whole complex set.

Nowadays, these studies are becoming very attractive and are approached from many different perspectives . Several theoretical models have been proposed . These models often assume the fluctuations to be Gaussian, neglecting therefore the ‘fat tail’ effects . This is in contrast with the empirical observations . The inadequacies of the Gaussian models in financial analysis have been reported for a long time , but the availability of enormous sets of financial data and the capability to treat them, has recently renewed the interest in the subject . While the fat-tail property of the empirical distribution of stocks price changes has been widely documented, the interest rates have been less investigated . Moreover, the studies of interest rates are often limited to only few maturity dates (3 and 6 months cash rates in , Bund futures in ). The paper , is an exception as the US forward rate curve with maturity dates up to four years is modelled.

In the present paper, we perform an empirical analysis of time series based on daily prices of Eurodollar future contracts in the time period 1990-1996. The data are described in Section II (more details can be found in the paper of Bouchaud et al. ). Our study is mainly focused on the ‘tail’ regions of the fluctuations probability distributions and on the correlations among time series at different maturity dates. The results concerning the probability distribution and the Power Spectral Density of interest rates fluctuations are presented in Section III and in Section IV, respectively. In Section V, the correlations are analyzed in terms of an original clustering linkage. Finally, some remarks are reported in the last Section.

## II Empirical data

An Eurodollar is a dollar deposited in a bank outside the United States by another bank. The Eurodollar future contract is a future contract on an interest rate. These contracts are traded on an exchange. The three-month Eurodollar futures traded on the Chicago Merchantile Exchange (CME) is the most popular of the futures contract on short-term interest rates. These contracts trade with delivery months of March, June, September, and December up to ten years into the future. The variable underlying the contract is the Eurodollar interest rate applicable to a $`90`$-days period beginning on the third Wednesday of the delivery month. When the delivery date is reached, and the actual interest rate for the $`90`$-day period is known, the contract is settled in cash. The three-month Eurodollar interest rate is the same as the three-month Libor (London Interbank Offered Rate), that is the rate at which large international banks found much of their activities. Specifically, Libor is the rate at which one large bank is willing to lend money to another large bank . All these rates are determined in trading between banks and change as economic conditions change.

Following the line of Bouchaud et al. , we consider three-months future rates as instantaneous forward rates so obtaining daily values for the forward interest rate curve $`f(\theta ,t)`$, where $`t`$ is the current date and $`\theta `$ is the maturity date. In the time period analyzed 1990-1996, the variable $`t`$ counts incrementally the trading days between 1 and $`T=`$ 1831. On this time period we have $`16`$ different time series corresponding to several maturity dates ranging from $`\theta =3`$ to $`48`$ months with a step of three months. The behaviour of $`f(\theta ,t)`$ as function of $`t`$ is shown in Fig.1 where, for a better visualisation of the plot, we report only those values corresponding to the following maturity values: $`\theta =3,15,30,48`$ months. The interest rates behaviours for the other maturity dates follow very similar trends in time, and stay mostly inside the shape traced by the two extreme maturity values, namely $`\theta =3`$ and $`\theta =48`$ months.

The interest rate fluctuations are analyzed by studying the changes from one day to the following day:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }f(\theta ,t)=f(\theta ,t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)f(\theta ,t),$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=1`$ day. In Fig.2 these fluctuations are reported as a function of $`t`$ for $`f(\theta =3,t)`$. All the others at different maturity dates have similar behaviours characterised by stochastic fluctuations around the zero.

## III Probability distributions

To investigate the nature of the stochastic process underlying the interest rates changes, we first analyze the probability distribution of the daily changes in the interest rates.

Let us start by the computation of the standard deviation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }f(\theta ,t)`$, which is defined as:

$$\sigma (\theta )=\sqrt{\frac{1}{T_2T_1}\underset{t=T_1}{\overset{T_2}{}}(\mathrm{\Delta }f(\theta ,t)<\mathrm{\Delta }f>)^2},$$
(2)
where $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ delimit the range of $`t`$, and $`<\mathrm{\Delta }f>`$ is the average over time of $`\mathrm{\Delta }f(\theta ,t)`$ (which tends to zero for $`T_2T_1\mathrm{}`$). In the whole period 1990-1996, $`\sigma (\theta )`$ v.s. $`\theta `$ has a minimum value of $`0.063`$ at $`\theta =3`$ months, then increases up to a maximum value of $`0.087`$ at $`\theta =`$ 1 year, once reached this maximum the value slowly decreases until $`\sigma (\theta )=0.062`$ at $`\theta =4`$ years.

We compare the Eurodollar standard deviation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ for each single year between 1990-1996 with the one of the Libor data corresponding to a longer time period from 1984 to 1998. In Fig.3 the values of $`\sigma (\theta )`$ in the different years are plotted for several maturity dates. The standard deviations for both Eurodollar and Libor series with the same maturity dates $`\theta =`$3 and 6 months, have similar values and show decreasing trends between 1984 to 1998.

The statistical distributions of the daily changes in the interest rates are better analyzed by computing their complementary cumulative distributions $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{\Delta }f)`$, that tell us the probability to find a daily change which is *larger than* $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{\Delta }f)=1_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{\Delta }f}p(\xi )𝑑\xi ;$$
(3)
with $`p(\xi )`$ being the probability density distributions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }f(\theta ,t)`$.

We find that our time series are highly leptokurtic for all the maturity dates and are characterized by non-Gaussian profiles for large interest rates changes. The results for $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{\Delta }f)`$ are reported in Fig.4 for the tails regions for positive changes of $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ with $`\theta =3,15,30,48`$ months. These curves show, in a log-log scale, three distinct parts characterised by different decreasing trends: i) a first region ($`0.01<|\mathrm{\Delta }f|<0.05`$) with slopes between $`0.4÷0.6`$; ii) an intermediate region ($`0.05<|\mathrm{\Delta }f|<0.2`$) with a faster decreasing behaviour (slopes $`1.6÷2.7`$); iii) a final region ($`|\mathrm{\Delta }f|>0.2`$) which is characterized by larger slopes (between -2.3 up to -10). Comparable results are obtained for all the time series at different maturity dates.

In Fig.5, we plot the tail region of $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{\Delta }f)`$ at $`\theta =3`$ months as function of both positive and negative changes of $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$. We observe that the probability distributions are slightly asymmetric with negative changes that are slightly more probable than the positive ones. On the other hand, the large variations result more probable for the positive changes, and the overall distribution leads -correctly- to a zero mean value for $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$. In the same figure the two empirical curves for the Eurodollars are compared with the two curves for the Libor at $`\theta =3`$ months. Large fluctuations in Eurodollar and Libor data show very similar behaviours with comparable probability values. In these distributions the tails are non-Gaussian: they are fatter than the Gaussian ones.

Instead that with the Gaussian distribution, a more appropriate comparison should be performed with the general class of Lévy, Khinthine stable distributions . A symmetric stable distribution with zero mean can be written as :

$$P_L(x)\frac{1}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{\gamma q^\alpha }\mathrm{cos}(qx)𝑑q,$$
(4)
where $`0<\alpha 2`$ and $`\gamma `$ is a positive scale factor. For $`\alpha =2`$ and $`\gamma =\sigma ^2/2`$, $`P_L`$ is a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and standard deviation equal to $`\sigma `$; whereas for $`\alpha =1`$, $`P_L`$ is the Lorentzian distribution.

In Fig.5 we compare the Eurodollar empirical data with a symmetric stable distribution, given by Eq.(4), having $`\alpha =1.45`$. One can note that these curves have a tail region that seems to follow a Lévy stable distribution. But we may expect a faster decrease to zero for larger fluctuations of $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$, as for instance the one described by the truncated Lévy distribution . A deeper analysis on this aspect will be done in a future work. Let note that all time series at different maturity dates show behaviours analogous to the one at $`\theta =3`$ months.

Fig.6 reports $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{\Delta }f)`$ for the Libor non-overlapping $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ time series with $`\theta =3`$ month and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ values ranging between $`1`$ and $`10`$ (see Eq.(1)). Note that the Gaussian behaviour tends to appear in the tail regions when the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ increases.

## IV Spectrum analysis

In this section we investigate the statistical properties of our time series in the frequency domain. To this end we compute the power spectral density (PSD)  of our random variables by using the periodogram approach to PSD estimation, that is currently one of the most popular and computationally efficient PSD estimator. This periodogram spectral estimate is obtained as the squared magnitude of the output values from an FFT performed directly on the data set. The power spectrum analysis for $`f(\theta ,t)`$ indicates a stocastic signal with spectral components which are decreasing as a power law:

$$S(\omega )\omega ^\beta ,$$
(5)
with $`\beta 1.8`$. Fig.7 shows the power spectrum of the spot interest rate $`r(t)=f(\theta =3,t)`$ on a log-log scale. The slope of the linear fit is $`\beta =1.77\pm 0.01`$ and, within the error, it is the same for all the other Eurodollar interest rates at different maturity values, and it is in good agreement with the Libor at $`\theta =1`$, $`3`$, and $`6`$ months which have $`\beta =1.80\pm 0.01`$.

The same analysis for $`\mathrm{\Delta }f(\theta ,t)`$ (see Fig.8) shows a flat spectrum, from which we can infer that the interest rates changes are “pair wise uncorrelated” and the stochastic process is approximately a white noise.

## V Correlations

In order to investigate the correlations among the interest rates daily changes at different maturity dates, let us here define the cross-correlation matrix:

$$c_{i,j}=\frac{<\mathrm{\Delta }f_i\mathrm{\Delta }f_j><\mathrm{\Delta }f_i><\mathrm{\Delta }f_j>}{\sigma _i\sigma _j},$$
(6)
where $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},16`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_i`$ indicates the interest rate daily changes for maturity $`\theta _i=3i`$ months, and $`\sigma _i`$ is the standard deviation of interest rates changes $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_i`$. The symbol $`<\mathrm{}>`$ denotes a time average performed over all the days of the investigated period. The correlation coefficients are computed between all the pairs of indices labelling our Eurodollar series. Therefore we have a $`16\times 16`$ symmetric matrix with $`c_{i,i}=1`$ on the diagonal.

The daily changes in the interest rates are highly correlated with coefficients in the range $`0.48c_{i,j}0.98`$ (for $`ij`$). These strong correlations between the interest rates fluctuations suggest that one can consider their behaviour as a collective motion of a set of quantities joined together with some interaction force.

The correlation coefficients $`c_{i,j}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_i=\mathrm{\Delta }f(\theta _i,t)`$ are shown in Fig.9 together with the correlation coefficients for $`f(\theta _i,t)`$ (which are obtained substituting $`\mathrm{\Delta }f(\theta _i,t)`$ with $`f(\theta _i,t)`$ in Eq.(6)). The plot reads in the following way: the vertical lines group together the correlation coefficients $`c_{i,j}`$ for a fixed value of $`i`$ and $`j`$ ranging between $`i+1`$ to $`16`$. Looking at the plot from left to right, $`i`$ increases its value from $`i=1`$ up to $`i=15`$. The coefficients $`c_{i,j}`$ have decreasing trends with $`j`$. This corresponds to the intuitive fact that interest rates with close maturity dates are more correlated than interest rates with distant maturity (e.g. $`c_{1,2}>c_{1,4}>c_{1,8}>c_{1,16}`$). Such decreasing trends support the idea that interest rates are directly interacting between neighbours only (which means that the maturity $`\theta _i`$ has direct interactions with maturity $`\theta _{i\pm 1}`$), so making a sort of ‘string’ .

A closer look at Fig.9 shows that the decreasing trend in the correlation coefficients for $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_i`$, is not perfectly monotonic. In particular, one can observe deviations from the monotonic trend for correlation coefficients involving $`j8`$ (i.e. maturity dates $`\theta _j2`$ years).

To understand the geometrical and topological structure of the correlation coefficients, we introduce the metric distance $`d_{i,j}`$  between the series $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_j`$ which is defined as:

$$d_{i,j}=\sqrt{2(1c_{i,j})}.$$
(7)
By definition, $`c_{i,j}`$ is equal to zero if the interest rates series $`i`$ and $`j`$ are totally uncorrelated, whereas $`c_{i,j}=\pm 1`$ in the case of perfect correlation/anti-correlation. Therefore,

$`d_{i,j}`$ $`=0`$ $`ifc_{i,j}=1`$ (8)
$`d_{i,j}`$ $`=\sqrt{2}`$ $`ifc_{i,j}=0`$ (9)
$`d_{i,j}`$ $`=2`$ $`ifc_{i,j}=1.`$ (10)
Note that this metric distance fulfils the three axioms of a metric: 1) $`d_{i,j}=0`$ if and only if $`i=j`$; 2) $`d_{i,j}=d_{j,i}`$; 3) $`d_{i,j}d_{i,k}+d_{k,j}`$. Indeed, $`d_{i,j}`$ is the Euclidean distance, in a $`T`$-dimensional space, between the two vectors with components $`[\mathrm{\Delta }f(\theta _i,1),`$$`\mathrm{\Delta }f(\theta _i,2),`$$`\mathrm{}..,`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }f(\theta _i,T)]/\sigma _i`$ and $`[\mathrm{\Delta }f(\theta _j,1),`$$`\mathrm{}.,`$$`\mathrm{\Delta }f(\theta _j,T)]/\sigma _j`$. These vectors have unitary lengths. Therefore, they connect the centre of a unit sphere, in a $`T`$-dimensional space, with points on its surface. Similar behaviours of the interest rate changes correspond to two close points on the sphere ($`d_{i,j}1`$). Uncorrelated behaviours correspond to two vectors pointing toward perpendicular directions ($`d_{i,j}=\sqrt{2}`$). Whereas anti-correlated behaviours are associated to two vectors pointing toward two opposite directions ($`d_{i,j}=2`$= sphere diameter).

We study the geometrical and topological arrangements of Eurodollar interest rates by introducing the ultra-metric distance $`\widehat{d}_{i,j}`$ which satisfies the first two properties of the metric distance and replaces the triangular inequality with the stronger condition: $`\widehat{d}_{i,j}max[\widehat{d}_{i,k},\widehat{d}_{k,j}]`$, called ‘ultra-metric inequality’. Once the metric distance $`d_{i,j}`$ between our interest rates fluctuations is known, one can introduce several ultra-metric distances.

Mantegna et. al have used the ‘subdominant ultra-metric’, obtained by calculating the minimum spanning tree  connecting the stock indices . In this paper we consider a different ultra-metric space that emphasizes the cluster-structure of the data.

In our case, a “cluster” is a set of elements with relative distances $`d_{i,j}`$ which are smaller than a given threshold distance $`\overline{\delta }`$, whereas disjoined clusters have some elements which are at distances larger than $`\overline{\delta }`$. Let us define the *size* of a cluster as the number of elements that it contains, and its *diameter* as the maximum relative distance between them. Therefore, an isolated element can be considered a cluster of size 1 and zero diameter.

We define the *ultra-metric distance* $`\widehat{d}_{i,j}`$ between two elements $`i,j`$ belonging to two different clusters as the maximum metric distance between all the couples of elements in the two clusters. Therefore, the ultra-metric distance between two isolated elements (clusters of size $`1`$) coincides with the metric distance. Whereas, the ultra-metric distance between two elements inside the same cluster is equal to the cluster diameter.

The linkage procedure that we adopt is described in details in Appendix A. This procedure yields to a set of clusters which have diameters which are smaller or equal than the threshold distance $`\overline{\delta }`$, and have relative ultra-metric distances $`\widehat{d}`$ which are larger than $`\overline{\delta }`$.

The result of this recursive linkage procedure, for the $`16`$ maturity dates ($`\theta =3,..,48`$) in the whole time period $`1990`$-$`1996`$, is reported in the hierarchical tree shown in Fig.10. The clustering begins with maturities $`39`$-$`45`$ that gather together at $`\overline{\delta }=0.185`$; at a little larger value $`\overline{\delta }=0.186`$, the couple $`42`$-$`48`$ makes another cluster and the couple $`30`$-$`36`$ merges at the $`\overline{\delta }`$= 0.206; then the maturity $`33`$ joins the first cluster at a $`\overline{\delta }=0.216`$. The clustering process goes on (see Fig.10) and ends when only one large cluster is formed at $`\overline{\delta }=1.02`$.

This mechanism of nucleation, growth, and coalescence is better visualised in Fig.11 where the clusters are explicitly drawn with different grey-tones for $`6`$ distinct ranges of $`\overline{\delta }`$ ($`0÷0.2`$; $`0.2÷0.4`$; $`0.4÷0.6`$; $`0.6÷0.8`$; $`0.8÷1`$; $`1÷1.2`$). It is evident from Figs.10 and 11 that, for ultra-metric distances $`\overline{\delta }`$ in the range between $`0.4`$ and $`0.6`$, the data set is gathered into $`3`$ main clusters: $`Cls_1=\{3,6\}`$, $`Cls_2=\{9,12,15,18,21\}`$, $`Cls_3=\{24,27,\mathrm{}.,45,48\}`$, with diameters $`\widehat{d}=`$ 0.553, 0.411, 0.433, respectively. The first cluster ($`Cls_1`$) gathers together $`\mathrm{\Delta }f(\theta ,t)`$ with maturity shorter than $`1`$ year; $`Cls_2`$ contains those with maturity dates between $`1`$ year and $`2`$ years; whereas $`Cls_3`$ has those with maturity dates which are larger than $`2`$ years.

Let us now proceed looking at the clusters arrangement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }f(\theta ,t)`$ for each single year between $`1990`$ to $`1996`$. We find that the cluster arrangement in each single year is similar to the one observed in Figs.10, 11 where the whole time period is considered. First we have the nucleation of a couple of maturity dates at distances $`\overline{\delta }=\delta _n`$ whose values are between $`0.109`$ and $`0.210`$ (see Fig.12, where these nucleation distances are plotted for each year). Then we observe the growth of several clusters, that in the distances range between $`0.3`$ to $`0.6`$, makes a structure of four well identifiable clusters. The first one is composed by the maturity $`\theta =3`$ and sometime $`\theta =6`$. The second includes time series with maturity date values around $`1`$ year ($`\theta =6÷15`$). The third gathers maturity dates between 2 and 2.5 years ($`\theta =12÷33`$) and the fourth the largest maturity dates $`>2`$ years ($`\theta =27÷48`$). Finally, these clusters coalesce into a single one at distances $`\overline{\delta }=\delta _p`$, whose values (ranging between $`0.852`$ and $`1.131`$) are plotted in Fig.12 for each year. Note that the values of $`\delta _n`$ and $`\delta _p`$, calculated for the whole time period (1990-1996), are within the range of the values plotted in Fig.12.

## VI Conclusions

We have empirically analyzed Eurodollar interest rates at different maturity dates in the time period 1990-1996. We observed that the tail region has an evident non-Gaussian behaviour - a crucial feature for the risk management analysis. Therefore, by using a Gaussian probability density function one underestimates the probability of large interest rates fluctuations. These results are confirmed by the same analysis done on Libor time series in the longer time period from $`1984`$ to $`1999`$. Moreover, a power spectrum analysis has been carried out in order to give some insights into the stochastic process underlying the examined interest rates time series. The power spectrum for the interest rates fluctuations shows a white-noise-like flat behaviour. Whereas, the one for the interest rates has a power law spectrum with exponent $`1.77`$ (Eurodollar), and $`1.80`$ (Libor) for all the different maturity dates.

We have also analyzed the correlations between interest rates fluctuations at different maturity dates by using a linkage procedure that emphasizes the cluster structure. In the time period 1990-1996, we have found the formation of three clusters joining together time series corresponding to three maturity dates periods: shorter than 1 year, between 1 to 2 years, larger than 2 years. A cluster structure with similar features have been found for each single year. The high correlation values that we have found, confirm that the interest rates fluctuations behaviour at different maturity dates must be seen as a collective motion. On the other hand, the result from the clustering linkage procedure indicates that the deviations from this collective behaviour can be gathered in some maturity-groups. This might suggest that theoretical models for the interest rates behaviours should usefully consider different kinds of interactions in different sub-groups of maturity dates.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, Michel Dacorogna, Rosario Mantegna, for providing us the data, and for many helpful discussions, comments and indications. T. Di Matteo wishes to thank Sandro Pace for fruitful discussions and support. T. A. acknowledges the logistic support from AAS (Genova).

## A Linkage procedure

At the starting point of our linkage procedure we have a set of $`N`$($`=16`$) isolated elements which can be considered as $`N`$ clusters of size equal to $`1`$ and diameter equal to zero. We define the ultra-metric distance $`\widehat{d}_{i,j}`$ between two elements $`i,j`$ belonging to two different clusters as the maximum metric distance between all the couples of elements in two clusters. Whereas, the ultra-metric distance between two elements inside the same cluster is equal to the cluster diameter.

The first step of the linkage procedure finds the couple of elements $`i,j`$ which are at the smallest distance $`\widehat{d}_{i,j}`$. This couple is linked together in a new cluster of size $`2`$ and diameter $`\widehat{d}_{i,j}`$. Then we seek for the pair of elements with the next-smallest ultra-metric distance, and we generate a new cluster, or we enlarge the previous one if one of the two clusters belongs to that cluster. This procedure is recursively iterated for increasingly larger distances by joining isolated elements to clusters or by merging together larger clusters. The procedure terminates when all the elements are jointed together in a sole cluster. This ending diameter coincides with the largest metric distance between two elements in the data set.