format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The problem of asymptotic111The word ‘asymptotic’ is also usually applied to perturbative series with zero radius of convergence. For expansions of Feynman integrals in momenta and masses, this word just means that the remainder of an asymptotic expansion satisfies a desired estimate provided we pick up a sufficiently large number of first terms of the expansion. It should be stressed that the radius of convergence of any series in the right-hand side of any expansion in momenta and masses is non-zero. This is not a rigorously proven mathematical theorem but at least examples where such a radius of convergence is zero are unknown for the moment. expansions of Feynman integrals in momenta masses is very important and has been analyzed in a large number of papers. For limits typical for Euclidean space, an adequate solution has been found  (see a brief review in ) and mathematically proven. It is expressed by a simple formula with summation in a certain family of subgraphs of a given graph so that let us refer to it as ‘the strategy of subgraphs’. For limits typical for Minkowski space, the strategy of subgraphs has not yet been rigorously developed.

Quite recently a new method for expanding Feynman integrals in limits of momenta and masses has been suggested . It is based on the analysis of various regions in the space of loop momenta of a given diagram and denoted as ‘the strategy of regions’. The purpose of this talk is to review and illustrate this strategy through numerous examples. First, the problem of asymptotic expansion in limits of momenta and masses is characterized. Then the two basic strategies are formulated and compared for limits typical for Euclidean space. For regimes typical for Minkowski space, the strategy of regions is checked through typical examples, up to two-loop level, in the case of threshold limit, Sudakov limit and Regge limit. Finally, the present status of the strategy of regions is characterized.

## 2 Limits of momenta and masses

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a graph and $`F_\mathrm{\Gamma }(m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},q_1,q_2,\mathrm{})`$ the corresponding Feynman integral constructed according to Feynman rules and depending on masses $`m_i`$ and external momenta $`q_j`$. It can be represented as a linear combination of tensors composed of the external momenta with coefficients which are scalar Feynman integrals that depend on the masses and kinematical invariants $`s_{ij}=q_iq_j`$.

The problem of asymptotic expansion of Feynman integrals in some limit of momenta and masses is of the physical origin and arises quite naturally. If one deals with phenomena that take place at a given energy scale it is natural to consider large (small) all the masses and kinematical invariants that are above (below) this scale. Therefore a limit (regime) is nothing but a decomposition of the given family of these parameters into small and large ones.

For limits typical for Euclidean space, an external momentum is called large if at least one of its components is large and small if all its four components are large. Thus such a limit is characterized by a decomposition $`\{m_i\},\{q_i\}\{m_i\},\{q_i\};\{M_i\},\{Q_i\}`$, with $`m_i,|q_j|M_i^{},|Q_j^{}|`$, where $`|q_j|`$ is understood in the Euclidean sense.

For limits typical for pseudo-Euclidean space, it is impossible to characterize the external momenta in this way and one turns to a decomposition written through kinematical invariants: $`\{m_i\},\{s_{jj^{}}\}\{m_i\},\{s_{jj^{}}\};\{M_i\},\{S_{jj^{}}\}`$, with $`m_i,|s_{jj^{}}|M_i^{},|S_{jj^{}}|`$. However, instead of the kinematical invariants themselves, some linear combinations can be used (for example, in the case of the threshold limit).

Feynman integrals are generally quite complicated functions depending on a large number of arguments. When a given Feynman integral is considered in a given limit it looks natural to expand it in ratios of small and large parameters and then replace the initial complicated object by a sufficiently large number of first terms of the corresponding asymptotic expansion. Experience shows that Feynman integrals are always expanded in powers and logarithms of the expansion parameter which is a ratio of the large and the small scales of the problem. In particular, when a given Feynman integral depends only on a small mass squared and a large external momentum squared, $`m^2q^2`$, we have

$$F_\mathrm{\Gamma }(q^2,m^2)(q^2)^\omega \underset{n=n_0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{2h}{}}C_{nj}\left(\frac{m^2}{q^2}\right)^n\mathrm{ln}^j\left(\frac{m^2}{q^2}\right),$$
(1)
where $`h`$ is the number of loops of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\omega `$ ultraviolet (UV) degree of divergence. The maximal power of the logarithm equals the number of loops for typically Euclidean limits and is twice the number of loops for limits typical for Minkowski space.

To expand Feynman diagrams one can either

1. Take a given diagram in a given limit and expand it by some special technique, or,
2. Formulate prescriptions for a given limit and then apply them to any diagram (e.g. with 100 loops).

Of course, the second (global) solution is preferable because

* no analytical work is needed when applying it to a given diagram: just follow formulated prescriptions and write down a result in terms of Feynman integrals (with integrands expanded in Taylor series in some parameters);
* a natural requirement can be satisfied: individual terms of the expansion are homogeneous (modulo logs) in the expansion parameter.

Two kinds of such global prescriptions are known:

* Strategy of Subgraphs and
* Strategy of Regions

We shall now formulate both strategies in the case of limits typical for Euclidean space.

## 3 Strategy of subgraphs and strategy of regions for limits typical for Euclidean space

For limits typical for Euclidean space, the solution of the problem of asymptotic expansion is described  by the following simple formula, with summation in subgraphs, supplied with some explanations:

$$F_\mathrm{\Gamma }\underset{\gamma }{}F_{\mathrm{\Gamma }/\gamma }𝒯_\gamma F_\gamma ,$$
(2)
where the sum runs in a certain class of subgraphs $`\gamma `$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For example, in the off-shell (Euclidean) limit $`m^2q^2`$ (when $`q`$ is considered large in Euclidean sense), one can distribute the flow of $`q`$ through all the lines of $`\gamma `$. (This is a ‘physical’ definition.) Moreover $`F_\gamma `$ and $`F_{\mathrm{\Gamma }/\gamma }`$ are the Feynman integrals respectively for $`\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\gamma `$ (the reduced graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\gamma `$ is obtained from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by collapsing $`\gamma `$ to a point). The operator $`𝒯_\gamma `$ expands the integrand of $`F_\gamma `$ in Taylor series in its small masses and small external momenta which are either the small external momenta of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, or loop momenta of the whole graph that are external for $`\gamma `$ (they are by definition small). The symbol $``$ denotes insertion of the second factor (polynomial) into $`F_{\mathrm{\Gamma }/\gamma }`$ (like an insertion of a counterterm within dimensional renormalization).

All quantities are supposed to be dimensionally regularized  by $`d=42\epsilon `$. Even if the initial Feynman integral is UV and IR finite, the regularization is necessary because individual terms in the right-hand side become divergent starting from some minimal order of expansion. The necessity to run into divergences is a negligible price to have the simplest prescription for expanding Feynman integrals. Moreover the cancellation of divergences in the right-hand side of expansions of finite Feynman integrals is a very crucial practical check of the expansion procedure.

Operator analogs of limits typical for Euclidean space (the off-shell large momentum limit and the large mass limit) are operator product expansion and large mass expansion described by an effective Lagrangian — see a review with applications in .

Consider, for example, the scalar diagram shown in Fig. 1 in the off-shell limit $`m^2q^2`$ which can treated as a Euclidean limit with the external momentum $`q`$ large in the Euclidean sense.

The propagator of the dashed line is massless and the dot on the solid line denotes the second power of the massive propagator. The corresponding Feynman integral is

$$F_\mathrm{\Gamma }(q^2,m^2;\epsilon )=\frac{\text{d}^dk}{(k^2m^2)^2(qk)^2}.$$
(3)
The causal $`i0`$ in the propagators $`k^2m^2+i0`$, etc. are omitted for brevity.

According to (2) two subgraphs give non-zero contributions. The graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ itself generates Taylor expansion of the integrand in $`m`$, with resulting massless integrals evaluated (e.g. by Feynman parameters) in gamma functions for general $`\epsilon `$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^dk}{(qk)^2}𝒯_m\frac{1}{(k^2m^2)^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^dk}{(k^2)^2(qk)^2}}2m^2{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^dk}{(k^2)^3(qk)^2}}+\mathrm{}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi ^{d/2}}{(q^2)^{1+\epsilon }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\epsilon )^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\epsilon )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(12\epsilon )}}\left[1+2\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{q^2}}+\mathrm{}\right].`$
The second contribution originates from the subgraph $`\gamma _1`$ which is the upper line. It is given by Taylor expansion of its propagator in the loop momentum $`k`$ which is external for this subgraph, with resulting massive vacuum integrals also evaluated in gamma functions for general $`\epsilon `$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^dk}{(k^2m^2)^2}𝒯_k\frac{1}{(qk)^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^dk}{(k^2m^2)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(q^2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2qkk^2)\text{d}^dk}{(k^2m^2)^2}}+\mathrm{}`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi ^{d/2}}{q^2(m^2)^\epsilon }}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\epsilon )\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{1+\epsilon }}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{q^2}}+\mathrm{}\right].`$
The contribution of another subgraph consisting of two lower lines generates a zero contribution because this is a massless vacuum diagram:

$$\frac{\text{d}^dk}{k^2}𝒯_{k,m}\frac{1}{((qk)^2m^2)^2}=\frac{1}{(q^2)^2}\frac{\text{d}^dk}{k^2}+\mathrm{}=0.$$

This contribution would be however non-zero in the case of a non-zero mass in the lower lines.

When $`\epsilon 0`$, infrared (IR) poles in the first non-zero contribution are canceled against ultraviolet (UV) poles in the second one, with the finite result

$$F_\mathrm{\Gamma }(q^2,m^2;0)\frac{i\pi ^2}{q^2}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{q^2}{m^2}\right)\frac{m^2}{q^2}+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(6)
It turns out that at present there are no simple generalizations of the strategy of subgraphs to typical Minkowskian regimes.222 With the exception of the large momentum off-shell limit and one of the versions of the Sudakov limit — see . Before formulating what the strategy of regions is let us remind that a (standard) strategy of regions was used for many years for analyzing leading power and (sub)leading logarithms. It reduces to the following prescriptions:

* Consider various regions of the loop momenta and expand, in every region, the integrand in a Taylor series with respect to the parameters that are considered small in the given region;
* pick up the leading asymptotic behaviour generated by every region.

Let us stress that cut-offs that specify the regions are not removed within this strategy. In fact, it was sufficient to analyze rather limited family of regions because the leading asymptotics are generated only by specific regions.

The (generalized) strategy of regions has been suggested in  (and immediately applied to the threshold expansion):

* Consider various regions …
* Integrate the integrand expanded, in every region in its own way, over the whole integration domain in the loop momenta;
* Put to zero any integral without scale.

Let us stress that, for typically Euclidean limits, integrals without scale (tadpoles) are automatically put to zero. For general limits, this is an ad hoc prescription.

An experimental observation tell us that this strategy of regions gives asymptotic expansions for any diagram in any limit. In particular, it has been checked in numerous examples when comparing results of expansion with existing explicit analytical results. We have also an indirect confirmation because, for limit typical for Euclidean space, the strategy of regions leads to the same prescriptions as the strategy of subgraphs. To see this it is in fact sufficient to take any loop momentum to be either

$`large:`$ $`kq,\text{or}`$
$`small:`$ $`km`$
and then observe that one obtains eq. (2).

Still to see how the strategy of regions works let us consider the previous example of Fig. 1. We consider the loop momentum $`k`$ to be either large or small and obtain

$`k\text{large:}`$ $``$ $`𝒯_m{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k^2m^2)^2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$
$`k\text{small:}`$ $``$ $`𝒯_k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(qk)^2}}\gamma _1`$
Thus the region of the large momenta reproduces the contribution of the subgraph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the region of the small momenta reproduces the contribution of the subgraph $`\gamma _1`$ present according to the strategy of subgraphs (2).

From now on we turn to various examples of limits typical for Minkowski space.

## 4 Strategy of regions for limits typical for Minkowski space

### 4.1 Threshold expansion

Consider first the threshold limit when an external momentum squared tends to a threshold value. Our primary task is to see what kinds of regions are relevant here. Let us consider the same example of Fig. 1 but in the new limit, $`q^2m^2`$. In this case, it is reasonable to choose the loop momentum in another way to make explicit the dependence on the expansion parameter:

$$F_\mathrm{\Gamma }(q^2,y;\epsilon )=\frac{\text{d}^dk}{k^2((qk)^2m^2)^2}=\frac{\text{d}^dk}{k^2(k^22qky)^2}.$$
(7)
So we have turned to the new variables $`(q^2,m^2)(q^2,y)`$ with $`y=m^2q^20`$ the expansion parameter of the problem.

Let us look for relevant regions. The region of large (let us from now on use the term hard instead) momenta, $`kq`$, always contributes. It gives

$$\frac{\text{d}^dk}{k^2}𝒯_y\frac{1}{(k^22qky)^2}=\frac{\text{d}^dk}{k^2(k^22qk)^2}+\mathrm{}=\frac{i\pi ^{d/2}}{(q^2)^{1+\epsilon }}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\epsilon )}{2\epsilon }+\mathrm{},$$
(8)
where each integral is evaluated in gamma functions for general $`\epsilon `$.

If we consider the region of small loop momenta, $`k\sqrt{y}`$ (which from now on we will call soft) we shall obtain an integral without scale which we put to zero according to one of the prescriptions of the strategy of regions:

$$\frac{\text{d}^dk}{k^2(2qk)^2}+\mathrm{}=0.$$

It is the ultrasoft (us) region, $`ky/\sqrt{q^2}`$, which gives here the second non-zero contribution:

$$\frac{\text{d}^dk}{k^2}𝒯_{k^2}\frac{1}{(k^22qky)^2}=\frac{\text{d}^dk}{k^2(2qky)^2}+\mathrm{}=i\pi ^{d/2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\epsilon )}{(q^2)^{1\epsilon }y^{2\epsilon }}.$$

Only the leading term survives because, in the next terms the factor $`k^2`$ resulting from expansion cancels the massless propagator so that a scaleless integral appears.

If we combine the hard and ultrasoft contributions we shall obtain, in the limit $`\epsilon 0`$, the known explicit result for the given diagram expanded at threshold:

$$\frac{i\pi ^{d/2}}{q^2}\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{y}{q^2}\frac{y}{q^2}+\mathrm{}\right].$$

It turns out that for diagrams consisting of massless and massive (with the same mass $`m`$) lines and having thresholds only with one massive line, i.e. at $`q^2=m^2`$, only hard and ultrasoft regions are relevant. To find other characteristic regions we turn to an example with two massive lines — see Fig. 2.

We have

$$F_\mathrm{\Gamma }(q^2,y;\epsilon )=\frac{\text{d}^dk}{(k^2m^2)((qk)^2m^2)}=\frac{\text{d}^dk}{(k^2+qky)(k^2qky)},$$
(9)
where the loop momentum in again chosen in another way, and we have turned to the new variables: $`(q^2,m^2)(q^2,y)`$ where $`y=m^2q^2/40`$ is the small parameter of the problem. Keeping in mind the non-relativistic flavour of the problem we choose the frame $`q=\{q_0,\stackrel{}{0}\}`$.

Let us look for relevant regions. The hard region, $`kq`$, gives

$`{\displaystyle \text{d}^dk𝒯_y\frac{1}{(k^2+q_0k_0y)(k^2q_0k_0y)}}+\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \text{d}^dk\frac{1}{(k^2+q_0k_0)(k^2q_0k_0)}}+\mathrm{}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`i\pi ^{d/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{q^2}}\right)^\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\epsilon )}{12\epsilon }}+\mathrm{}`$
The soft and ultrasoft regions generate zero contributions because of the appearance of scaleless integrals:

$$\frac{1}{q^2}\frac{\text{d}^dk}{k_0^2}+\mathrm{}=0,\frac{1}{q^2}\frac{\text{d}k_0\text{d}^d\stackrel{}{k}}{(q_0k_0y+i0)(q_0k_0+yi0)}+\mathrm{}=0.$$
(11)
It turns out that the missing non-zero contribution here comes from the potential (p)  region, $`k_0y/q_0,\stackrel{}{k}\sqrt{y}`$. It generates Taylor expansion in $`k_0^2`$ and is evaluated by closing the integration contour in $`k_0`$ and taking a residue, e.g. in the upper half-plane, and then evaluating $`(d1)`$-dimensional integral in $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ using Feynman parameters. Here again only the leading term survives because the next terms involve scaleless integrals:

$`{\displaystyle \text{d}k_0\text{d}^{d1}\stackrel{}{k}𝒯_{k_0^2}\frac{1}{(k^2+q_0k_0y+i0)(k^2q_0k_0y+i0)}}`$ (12)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}k_0\text{d}^{d1}\stackrel{}{k}}{(\stackrel{}{k}^2q_0k_0+yi0)(\stackrel{}{k}^2+q_0k_0+yi0)}}+\mathrm{}=i\pi ^{d/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\epsilon 1/2)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi y}{q^2}}}y^\epsilon .`$
The sum of the hard and potential contributions successfully reproduces the known analytical result for the given diagram.

The next example is given by the triangle diagram with two non-zero masses in the threshold — see Fig. 3.

It is considered at $`q=p_1+p_2,p=(p_1p_2)/2,p_1^2=p_2^2=m^2`$ and is given by the following Feynman integral:

$$\frac{\text{d}^dk}{(k^2+qky)(k^2qky)(kp)^2},$$
(13)
where again $`y=m^2q^2/40`$ and $`q=\{q_0,\stackrel{}{0}\}`$.

The situation is quite similar to the previous diagram. There are two non-zero contributions generated by the hard and potential regions : the (h) contribution

$$\text{d}^dk\frac{1}{(k^2+q_0k_0)(k^2q_0k_0)(kp)^2}=i\pi ^{d/2}\left(\frac{4}{q^2}\right)^{1+\epsilon }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\epsilon )}{2(1+2\epsilon )}+\mathrm{}$$
(14)
and the (p) contribution

$$\frac{\text{d}k_0\text{d}^{d1}\stackrel{}{k}}{(\stackrel{}{k}^2q_0k_0+yi0)(\stackrel{}{k}^2+q_0k_0+yi0)((\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{p})^2)}=i\pi ^{d/2}\frac{y^\epsilon }{\sqrt{q^2y}}\frac{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\epsilon +1/2)}{2\epsilon }.$$
(15)
One can check that their sum equals the whole analytical result for the given diagram.

It turns out that we have already seen the whole list of regions relevant to the threshold expansion, with the qualification that soft regions did not yet contribute in the examples. We refer for two-loop examples to . For example, the threshold expansion of Fig. 4 at $`y=m^2q^2/40`$ consists of

contributions generated by the following regions: (h-h), (h-p)=(p-h), (p-p), (p-us) (where two loop momenta are characterized, and the ultrasoft momentum in the last contribution refers to the momentum of the middle line).

Similarly, the threshold expansion of Fig. 5 at $`y=m^2q^2/40`$

consists of (h-h), (h-p), (p-h), (p-p), (p-s) (where the loop momentum of the box subgraph is soft) and (p-us) (where the momentum of the middle line is ultrasoft) contributions — see details in .

It should be stressed that the knowledge about expansions of individual Feynman diagram gives the possibility to derive expansions at the operator level. The threshold expansion with one zero (small) and one non-zero mass in the threshold leads to HQET (see  for review), while the situation with two non-zero masses in the threshold provides the transition from QCD to NRQCD  and then further to pNRQCD . Historically, the development of HQET was performed without the knowledge of the corresponding diagrammatical expansion. This can be explained by the combinatorial simplicity of HEQT with the structure similar to that of the large mass expansion, where there are only two scales in the problem.

The case of the threshold expansion with two non-zero masses in the threshold is much more complicated. At the diagrammatical level, this is described by the multiplicity of relevant regions in the problem which correspond to three different scales: $`m`$ (mass of the quark), the momentum $`mv`$, where $`v`$ is relative velocity of the quarks (straightforwardly expressed through the variable $`y`$ in the above examples), and the energy $`mv^2`$. An adequate description of the transition from NRQCD (which is obtained from QCD by ‘integrating out’ the hard scale, $`m`$) to pNRQCD has been obtained not so easily (see a discussion from the point of view of 1997 in ), and the development of the diagrammatical threshold expansion helped to unambiguously identify all relevant scales in the problem and the form of the corresponding terms in the effective Lagrangian.

The threshold expansion resulted in a number of applications. The first of them was analytical evaluation of the two-loop matching coefficients of the vector current in NRQCD and QCD . Another class of important results was the two-loop description of the $`t\overline{t}`$ production in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation near threshold — see .

### 4.2 Sudakov limit

There are three different versions of the Sudakov limit $`m^2Q^2s=(p_1p_2)^2`$ or $`M^2s`$ which are exemplified by scalar triangle diagram in Fig. 6, where dashed lines denote massless propagators.

Within the ‘standard’ strategy of regions, summing up (sub)leading logarithms (at the leading power) using evolution equations has been analyzed in a large number of papers .

Let us expand the triangle diagram in Limit A by the strategy of regions. With the standard choice $`p_{1,2}=(Q/2,0,0,Q/2)`$, we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^dk}{(k^22p_1k)(k^22p_2k)(k^2m^2)}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}k_+\text{d}k_{}\text{d}^{d2}\underset{¯}{k}}{(k_+k_{}\underset{¯}{k}^2Qk_+)(k_+k_{}\underset{¯}{k}^2Qk_{})(k_+k_{}\underset{¯}{k}^2m^2)}},`$
where $`k_\pm =k_0\pm k_3,\underset{¯}{k}=(k_1,k_2)`$, with $`2p_{1,2}k=Qk_\pm `$.

Let us look for relevant regions. The hard region, $`kq`$, generates Taylor expansion of the integrand in $`m^2`$

$$\frac{\text{d}^dk}{(k^22p_1k)(k^22p_2k)k^2}+\mathrm{}=i\pi ^{d/2}\frac{1}{(Q^2)^{1+\epsilon }}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\epsilon )^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(12\epsilon )}+\mathrm{}.$$
(16)
The soft ($`km`$) and ultrasoft ( $`km^2/Q`$) regions generate scaleless integrals which are zero:

$$\frac{\text{d}^dk}{(2p_1k)(2p_2k)k^2}+\mathrm{}=0,\frac{\text{d}^dk}{(2p_1k)(2p_2k)(m^2)}+\mathrm{}=0.$$
(17)
What is yet missing is the contribution of collinear regions333introduced within the ‘standard strategy of regions’ :

1-collinear (1c): $`k_+m^2/Q,k_{}Q,\underset{¯}{k}m,`$
2-collinear (2c): $`k_+Q,k_{}m^2/Q,\underset{¯}{k}m.`$
The (1c) region generates Taylor expansion of propagator 2 in $`k^2`$:

$$\frac{\text{d}^dk}{(k^22p_1k)(2p_2k)(k^2m^2)}+\mathrm{},$$
(18)
and the (2c) contribution is symmetrical. These contributions are not however individually regularized by dimensional regularization. A natural way to overcome this obstacle is to introduce an auxiliary analytic regularization , calculate (1c) and (2c) contributions and switch it off in the sum. Then the (1c) and (2c) regions give, in the leading power,

$$i\pi ^{d/2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\epsilon )}{Q^2(m^2)^\epsilon }\left[\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/m^2)+\psi (\epsilon )\gamma _\mathrm{E}2\psi (1\epsilon )\right]+\mathrm{}$$
(19)
After we combine the (h) and (c) contributions we shall see that IR/collinear poles in the (h) contribution and UV/collinear poles in (c) contribution are canceled, and at $`\epsilon 0`$ we obtain

$$\frac{i\pi ^2}{Q^2}\left[\text{Li}_2(x)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}^2x+\mathrm{ln}x\mathrm{ln}(1x)\frac{\pi ^2}{3}\right],$$
(20)
where $`\text{Li}_2(x)`$ is dilogarithm and $`x=m^2/Q^2`$.

The triangle diagrams of Fig. 5 in Limits B and C are similarly expanded. In Limit B one meets (h), (1c), (2c) and (us) regions, and, in Limit C, one has (h), (1c) and (2c) regions.

Two-loop examples for the Sudakov limit, within the strategy of regions, can be found in .

For example, the following regions contribute to the expansion of Fig. 7 in Limit A: (h-h), (1c-h)$`+`$(2c-h), (1c-1c)$`+`$(2c-2c), and (h-s) where the soft momentum refers to the middle line. For Limit B, one has (h-h), (1c-h)$`=`$(2c-h), (1c-1c)$`=`$(2c-2c), (us-h), (us-1c), (us-2c), (us-us).

For the diagram of Fig. 5 (considered above in the threshold limit), with $`p_{1,2}=\stackrel{~}{p}_{1,2}+(m^2/Q^2)\stackrel{~}{p}_{2,1},`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{p}_{1,2}=(Q/2,0,0,Q/2)`$, obvious regions (h-h), (1c-h)$`=`$(2c-h), (1c-1c)$`=`$(2c-2c) are not sufficient because the poles of the fourth order do not cancel. It turns out that it is necessary to consider also ultracollinear regions:

(1uc): $`k_+m^4/Q^3,k_{}m^2/Q,\underset{¯}{k}m^3/Q^2,`$
(2uc): $`k_+m^2/Q,k_{}m^4/Q^3,\underset{¯}{k}m^3/Q^2.`$
After one adds contributions of the (1uc-2c) and (1c-2uc) regions the leading power of expansion satisfies the check of poles .

The (generalized) strategy of regions combined with evolution equations derived within the ‘standard’ strategy of regions has been applied to summing up next-to-leading logarithms for Abelian form factor and four-fermion amplitude in the $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory .

### 4.3 Regge limit

The Regge limit for scattering diagrams is characterized as $`|t||s|`$, where $`s=(p_1+p_2)^2`$ and $`t=(p_1+p_3)^2`$ are Mandelstam variables.

Let us expand, using the strategy of regions, the box diagram shown in Fig. 8. The Feynman integral is

$$\frac{\text{d}^dk}{(k^2+2p_1k)(k^22p_2k)k^2(k+p_1+p_3)^2}.$$
(21)
Let $`s=Q^2`$, $`t=T`$, and let us choose $`p_{1,2}=(Q/2,0,0,Q/2)`$, and $`p_1+p_3=(T/Q,0,\sqrt{T+T^2/Q^2},0)`$. It turns out that in the Regge limit one meets contributions of (h) and (c) regions. The collinear regions are now characterized as

$$\text{(1(2)c):}k_\pm T/Q,k_{}Q,\underset{¯}{k}\sqrt{T}.$$

The sum of (1c) and (2c) gives, in the leading power, $`1/t`$,

$$i\pi ^{d/2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\epsilon )^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\epsilon )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\epsilon )s(t)^{1+\epsilon }}\left[\mathrm{ln}(t/s)+\psi (\epsilon )2\psi (1+\epsilon )+\gamma _\mathrm{E}\right].$$
(22)
The hard contribution starts from the NLO. If we sum up the (h) and (c) contributions we shall see that, at $`\epsilon 0`$, only the LO (c) contribution survives and gives

$$\frac{i\pi ^{d/2}e^{\gamma _\mathrm{E}\epsilon }}{st}\left[\frac{4}{\epsilon ^2}\left(\mathrm{ln}(s)+\mathrm{ln}(t)\right)\frac{2}{\epsilon }+2\mathrm{ln}(s)\mathrm{ln}(t)\frac{4\pi ^2}{3}\right].$$
(23)
In the case of on-shell massless double box, $`p_i^2=0`$,

given by the integral

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^dk\text{d}^dl}{(l^2+2p_1l)(l^22p_2l)(k^2+2p_1k)(k^22p_2k)}}`$ (24)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2(kl)^2(l+r)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(i\pi ^{d/2}e^{\gamma _\mathrm{E}\epsilon }\right)^2}{(s)^{2+2\epsilon }(t)}}K(t/s;\epsilon ),`$
there are (h-h), (1c-1c) and (2c-2c) contributions in the Regge limit. The (h-h) contribution starts from the NLO, $`t^0`$, and the (c-c) contribution from LO, $`t^1`$. This is a result for the sum of the LO and NLO contributions

$`K(x,\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\epsilon ^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5\mathrm{ln}x}{\epsilon ^3}}\left(2\mathrm{ln}^2x{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\pi ^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}}`$ (25)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{ln}^3x+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{2}}\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}x{\displaystyle \frac{65}{3}}\zeta (3)\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\mathrm{ln}^4x+6\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}^2x{\displaystyle \frac{88}{3}}\zeta (3)\mathrm{ln}x+{\displaystyle \frac{29}{30}}\pi ^4`$
$`+2x[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}(\mathrm{ln}^2x2\mathrm{ln}x+\pi ^2+2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(4\mathrm{ln}^3x+3\mathrm{ln}^2x`$
$`+(5\pi ^236)\mathrm{ln}x+2(33+5\pi ^23\zeta (3)))]+O(x^2\mathrm{ln}^3x).`$
The on-shell double box has provided a curious example of a situation when the evaluation of large number terms of the expansion is rather complicated while an explicit analytical result444See  for a review of recent results on the evaluation of double box diagrams.  is known:

$`K(x,\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\epsilon ^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5\mathrm{ln}x}{\epsilon ^3}}\left(2\mathrm{ln}^2x{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\pi ^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}}`$ (26)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{ln}^3x+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{2}}\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}x{\displaystyle \frac{65}{3}}\zeta (3)\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\mathrm{ln}^4x+6\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}^2x{\displaystyle \frac{88}{3}}\zeta (3)\mathrm{ln}x+{\displaystyle \frac{29}{30}}\pi ^4`$
$`\left[2\text{Li}_3\left(x\right)2\mathrm{ln}x\text{Li}_2\left(x\right)\left(\mathrm{ln}^2x+\pi ^2\right)\mathrm{ln}(1+x)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\epsilon }}`$
$`4\left(S_{2,2}(x)\mathrm{ln}xS_{1,2}(x)\right)+44\text{Li}_4\left(x\right)4\left(\mathrm{ln}(1+x)+6\mathrm{ln}x\right)\text{Li}_3\left(x\right)`$
$`+2\left(\mathrm{ln}^2x+2\mathrm{ln}x\mathrm{ln}(1+x)+{\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}\pi ^2\right)\text{Li}_2\left(x\right)`$
$`+\left(\mathrm{ln}^2x+\pi ^2\right)\mathrm{ln}^2(1+x){\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left(4\mathrm{ln}^3x+5\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}x6\zeta (3)\right)\mathrm{ln}(1+x).`$
Still the evaluation of those first two terms of the expansion was used as a very crucial check of (26). Observe that the asymptotic expansion within the strategy of regions was successfully applied in  also to double boxes with one leg off shell.

## 5 Present status of the strategy of regions

To characterize the present status of the strategy of regions let us first point out that at present there are no mathematical proofs, similar to the case of the strategy of subgraphs (applied only to the limits typical for Euclidean space), although this looks to be a very good mathematical problem. (Moreover, the very word ‘region’ is understood in the physical sense so that one does not bother about ‘the decomposition of unity’.) Its solution is expected to be specific for each concrete regime typical for Minkowski space. Another reasonable problem is to develop the strategy of regions for phase space integrals arising in evaluation of real radiation processes.

Let us conclude with advice that could be useful when studying a new limit:

* Look for regions, typical for the limit (probably, they are similar to regions connected with known limits555As a recent example of using the strategy of regions in a new situation let us refer to ref.  where non-relativistic integrals describing bound states within NRQCD were further expanded in the ratio of the small and the large mass $`m/M`$. The relevant regions turned out to be (non-relativistic) hard and soft regions of three-dimensional momenta.);
* Test one- and two-loop examples by comparison with explicit results;
* Check poles in $`\epsilon `$; if this check is not satisfied look for missing regions;
* Check expansion numerically;
* Use the strategy of regions formulated in $`\alpha `$-parameters , e.g., to avoid double counting;
* Stay optimistic because, up to now, the strategy of regions successfully worked in all known examples!

Acknowledgments

I am thankful to S. Brodsky, L. Dixon, H. Haber and K. Melnikov for support and kind hospitality at the symposium.


text:
# The Kalman–Tran-D’Souza Model and the Semileptonic Decay Rates of Heavy Baryons The invited talk presented by C.S.K. at the 4th International Conference on Hyperons, Charm and Beauty Hadrons, Valencia, June 27–30, 2000. The work by P.Yu.K. and I.M.N. was supported in part by the RFBR grants, ref. No 00–02–16363 and 00-15–96786

## 1  Introduction

The investigation of inclusive semileptonic $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ decays can provide relevant information on the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa ($`CKM`$) parameters $`|V_{cb}|`$ and $`|V_{ub}|`$ as well as on the internal non-perturbative structure of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ baryon. The first evidence of semileptonic $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ decays had been reported by ALEPH and OPAL collaborations who had seen an excess of correlated $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s\mathrm{}^{}`$ pairs over $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s^+`$ pairs from $`Z`$ decays , . More recently, the CDF collaboration  measured the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ lifetime using its semileptonic decay mode. It is therefore important to study theoretical models for the semileptonic $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ decays.

As far as the theoretical point of view is concerned, the $`QCD`$ -based operator product expansion ($`OPE`$) combined with the heavy quark expansion is widely recognized as a consistent dynamical approach for investigating inclusive heavy-flavour decays . Existing theoretical predictions for inclusive weak decays are in reasonable agreement, within the expected range of uncertainty, with the data on decays of charmed and beauty particles. However, the result of the OPE approach for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ lifetime is puzzling because it predicts that $`(\tau _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}/\tau _B)_{OPE}=0.98+𝒪(1/m_b^2)`$, whereas the experimental finding suggest a very much reduced fraction $`(\tau _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}/\tau _B)_{exp}=0.8\pm 0.04`$. It is not clear whether the present contradiction between the theory and the data on $`\tau _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}/\tau _B`$ is a temporary difficulty, or evidence for the fundamental flaws in the OPE approach. In spite of great efforts of theoretical activity the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ lifetime remains significantly low which continues to spur theoretical activity. In this respect, the use of phenomenological models, like the constituent quark model, could be of great interest as a complementary approach to the $`OPE`$ method.

What criteria should be used in determining an appropriate constituent quark model for the baryons? There is now a vast amount of data on the spectrum of baryons. Many quark model calculations of the spectrum attempt to account for the masses, spin etc., without studying the decays. A serious drawback to this approach is that it is difficult to assign predicted baryons to experimentally known particles on the basis of spectrum alone. In this sense this paper is a continuation of the work of Kalman and Tran  to produce a complete picture of the spectrum and decays of the baryons. This model is based upon the following principles: i) consistency with the model of the mass calculation - A change of some feature of the mass calculation in the decay model may compromise the purpose; ii) The decay calculation should be mainly determined by the mass calculation. For instance, if there are too many parameters in the decay model it is difficult to relate the results obtained to the particles considered in the model, used in the mass calculation. The decay calculations were based upon the quark pair creation model of Le Yaouanc et. al.  They studied the decay processes $`N,\mathrm{\Delta }N\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }N\overline{K}.`$ The pair creation strength $`\gamma `$ is replaced by kγ. Besides the meson radius, these are the only parameters of the model. The results are in good agreement with the data. To calculate decay widths in their model, Kalman and Tran had to re-correct the originally calculated parameters $`\alpha _\rho `$ and $`\alpha _\lambda `$ by approximately 0.05 GeV from the values determined from their spectrum calculation, in order to make the decay widths match experimental data. The resulting change in $`\alpha _\rho `$ and $`\alpha _\lambda `$ causes a shift in the originally calculated mass spectrum. It is these values that must be used if the decay widths are to be correct.

At the time that the Kalman-Tran model was introduced, there was little data available for the b and c sectors. The model cannot fit these sectors properly without the modifications performed in the Kalman and D’Souza model . The essential modification is that the coupling constant of the interaction is made to be scale dependent in a manner that does not require knowledge of the behaviour at low energy scales and does not introduce any new parameter. The calculations of the inclusive semileptonic widths and the corresponding branching ratios found here introduce no new parameters. It is based solely upon the eigenfunctions for baryon states found by Kalman and D’Souza

In what follows we assume that, instead of QCD with its complicated dynamics of infinite number of degrees of freedom in the light cloud, we consider a constituent bound–state problem of a heavy quark interacting with a lighter ones via a potential. Then, using the formalism of the light-front (LF) relativistic quantum mechanics it is possible to encode all the nonperturbative QCD effects in a LF quark model wave function $`\psi (x,p_t^2)`$ of a heavy hadron. The internal motion of a heavy $`Q`$–quark inside the heavy flavor meson is described by the distribution function $`|\psi (x,p_t^2)|^2`$, which represents the probability to find a heavy quark carrying a LF fraction x=p$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{Q}{}^{}`$/P$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{H_Q}{}^{}`$ of the meson momentum and a transverse relative momentum squared p$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{t}{}^{}`$=p$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{t}{}^{}`$. In Ref.  this formalism has been used to establish a simple quantum mechanical relation between the inclusive semileptonic decay rate of the heavy hadron and that of a free heavy quark. In this paper we shall compute the preasymptotic effects for the inclusive semileptonic decays of the heavy baryons HQ in the framework of the LF quark model, which is a relativistic constituent quark model based on the LF formalism.

## 2 Basic formulae

The approach of  relies on the idea of duality in summing over the final hadronic states. It has been assumed that the sum over all possible charm final states $`X_Q^{}`$ can be modelled by the decay width of an on–shell $`Q`$ quark into an on–shell $`Q^{}`$ quark folded with the $`Q`$–quark distribution function $`f_{H_Q}^Q(x,p_t^2)=|\phi _{H_Q}^Q(x,p_t^2)|^2`$ The latter represents the probability to find a $`Q`$ quark carrying a LF fraction $`x`$ of the hadron momentum and a transverse relative momentum squared $`p_t^2`$. For the semileptonic rates the above mentioned relation takes the form

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}(H_Q)}{dt}=\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}^Q}{dt}R_{H_Q}(t),$$
(1)
where $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}^Q/dt`$ is the free quark differential decay rate, $`t=q^2/m_Q^2`$, $`q`$ being the 4–momentum of the $`W`$ boson, and $`R_{H_Q}(t)`$ incorporates the nonperturbative effects related to the Fermi motion of the heavy quark inside the hadron. The expression for $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}^Q/dt`$ for the case of non–vanishing lepton masses is given e.g. in . $`R_{H_Q}(t)`$ in (1) is obtained by integrating the bound–state factor $`\omega (t,s)`$ over the allowed region of the invariant hadronic mass $`M_{X_Q^{}}`$ ($`Q^{}`$ $`=`$ c or s) for the underlying transitions $`QQ^{}`$ :

$$R_{H_Q}(t)=\underset{s_{min}}{\overset{s_{max}}{}}𝑑s\omega _{H_Q}(t,s),$$
(2)
where $`s=M_{X_c}^2/m_b^2`$ and

$`\omega _{H_Q}(t,s)`$ $`=`$ $`m_Q^2x__0{\displaystyle \frac{\pi m_b}{q^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left|𝐪\right|}{\left|\stackrel{~}{𝐪}\right|}}`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{x_1}{\overset{\mathrm{min}[1,x_2]}{}}}dx|\phi _{H_Q}^Q(x,p_t^2)|^2.`$
In Eq. (3) $`x_0=m_Q/M_{H_Q}`$, $`x_{1,2}=x_0q^+/\stackrel{~}{q}^\pm `$, where $`q^+=q_0+|𝐪|`$ is defined in the $`H_b`$ rest frame and $`\stackrel{~}{q}^\pm =\stackrel{~}{q}_0\pm |\stackrel{~}{𝐪}|`$ are defined in the $`Q`$ quark rest frame. In Eq. (2) the region of integration is defined through the condition $`x_1min[1,x_2]`$, i.e. $`s_{min}=\rho =(m_Q^{}/m_Q)^2`$, $`s_{max}=x_0^2(1x_0\sqrt{t})^2`$. For other details see .

The structure of Eq. (1) suggests that in the limit of heavy quarks with infinite mass (i.e., $`m_Q\mathrm{}`$ and $`m_Q^{}\mathrm{}`$) one has

$$𝑑q_0\omega (q^2,q_0)=1.$$
(4)
which means that the total inclusive width of the hadron is the same as the total inclusive width at the free quark level. The corrections to the free-quark decay picture are mainly due to the difference between the quark mass $`m_Q`$ and the hadron mass $`M_{H_Q}`$ as well as to the primordial motion of the $`Q`$-quark inside $`H_Q`$. These non-perturbative corrections vanish in the heavy-quark limit $`m_Q\mathrm{}`$, but at finite values of the $`b`$-quark mass a new parton description of inclusive semileptonic decays, based on the constituent quark model, has been derived. Note that the quark mass $`m_Q`$ appearing in3 is the constituent quark mass that differs from the pole quark mass $`m_{Q,pole}`$ that enters the OPE result for the inclusive widths. As a consequence, Eq.1 generally contains the correction to first order in 1/$`m_Q`$ expansion to the free quark decay width. In principle, it is always possible to redefine the constituent quark mass $`m_Q`$ in such a way that the 1/$`m_Q`$ correction is eliminated from the total semileptonic width in accordance with the general statement of the OPE method. This is completely analogous to the way used to eliminate 1/$`m_Q`$ corrections from the ACCMM model  and has been discussed within the considered approach in  for a particular case of the $`BX_s\gamma `$ decay width.

A priory, there is no connection between the equal–time (ET) wave function $`w(𝐤_i)`$ of a constituent quark model and LF wave function $`\psi (x_i,p_{it}^2)`$. The former depends on the center–of–mass momenta $`𝐤_i`$, while the latter depends on the LF variables $`x_i`$ and $`𝐩_{it}`$. However, there is a simple operational connection between ET and LF wave functions . The idea is to find a mapping between the variables of the wave functions that will turn a normalized solution of the ET equation of motion into a normalized solution of the different looking LF equation of motion. That will allows us to convert the ET wave function, and all the labor behind it, into a usable LF wave function. This procedure amounts to a series of reasonable (but naive) guesses about what the solution of a relativistic theory involving confining interactions might look like.

We convert from ET to LF momenta by leaving the transverse momenta unchanged, $`𝐩_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐭}}=𝐤_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐭}}`$, and letting $`x_i=\frac{p_i^+}{P^+}`$, where $`P^+=\underset{i}{}p_i^+`$. In the center–of–mass frame $`P^+=M_0`$, where $`M_0`$ is the free mass operator, $`M_0=\underset{i}{}\omega _i`$ with $`\omega _i=\sqrt{p_{it}^2+p_{iz}^2+m_i^2}`$ and

$$p_{iz}=\frac{1}{2}(x_i\frac{p_t^2+m_i^2}{x_iM_0^2})M_0$$
(5)
The momentum fractions and the transverse momenta obey the conservation law

$$x_1+x_2+x_3=1,𝐩_{1t}+𝐩_{2t}+𝐩_{3t}=0$$
(6)
Now we obtain the LF wave function from

$$\psi (x_i,𝐩_{it})=\frac{(k_{1z},k_{2z},k_{3z})}{(x_1,x_2,x_3)}w(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,𝐤_3),$$
(7)
The straightforward calculation yields

$$\frac{(k_{1z},k_{2z},k_{3z})}{(x_1,x_2,x_3)}=\frac{\omega _1\omega _2\omega _3}{x_1x_2x_3M_0}$$
(8)
with

$$\frac{\omega _i}{x_i}=\frac{1}{2}\left(M_0+\frac{p_{it}^2+m_i^2}{x_i^2M_0}\right)$$
(9)
It can be easily verified that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}\left[dx_i\right]{\displaystyle \left[dp_{it}\right]|\psi (x_i,𝐩_{it})|^2}`$
$`\delta ({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}x_i1)\delta ({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}𝐩_i)=1`$ (10)
where

$`\left[dx_i\right]`$ $`=`$ $`dx_1dx_2dx_3\delta ({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}x_i1),`$
$`\left[dp_{it}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`d^2p_{1t}d^2p_{2t}td^2p_{3t}t\delta ({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}𝐩_{it})`$ (11)
provided

$`{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Pi }_i𝑑𝐤_i|w(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,𝐤_3)|^2}`$
$`\delta (𝐤_1+𝐤_2+𝐤_3)=1.`$ (12)
Wave functions made kinematically relativistic in this fashion are used to calculate the form factors of heavy–to–heavy and heavy–to–light exclusive transitions .

## 3 The Kalman–d’Souza model

As was mentioned above, we consider the problem of a constituent bound state formed by a heavy quark interacting with the lighter ones. Specifically, we consider the Kalman–D’Souza model for heavy baryons .

The constituent quark masses are

$`m_u`$ $`=`$ $`m_d=0.23\mathrm{GeV},m_s=0.605\mathrm{GeV}`$
$`m_c`$ $`=`$ $`1.961\mathrm{GeV},m_b=5.637\mathrm{GeV}`$ (13)
We denote the light quarks (u,d, or s) by the labels 1,2 and the heavy quark (c or b) by the label 3. For the cases of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ baryons where two of three quarks have equal masses we introduce the Jacobi relative coordinates

$$\rho =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(𝐫_1𝐫_2),\lambda =\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\left(\frac{m_1r_1+m_2r_2}{m_1+m_2}r_3\right)$$
(14)
For the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ baryons in the ground state, the predominant configurations ($`95\%`$) of the heavy baryon wave functions contain no excitations in $`\rho `$ and $`\lambda `$. Hence

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(\rho ,\lambda )\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\rho }{\sqrt{\pi }}}\right)^{3/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\lambda }{\sqrt{\pi }}}\right)^{3/2}`$
$`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha _\rho ^2\rho ^2\right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha _\lambda ^2\lambda ^2\right),`$ (15)
where the factors $`\alpha _\gamma `$ ($`\gamma =\rho ,\lambda `$) are given by

$$\alpha _\gamma =\alpha _\gamma ^{(0)}\left(\frac{\mu _\gamma }{m_1}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}},$$
(16)
with

$$\mu _\rho =2\frac{m_1m_2}{m_1+m_2},\mu _\lambda =\frac{3m_3\left(m_1+m_2\right)}{2\left(m_1+m_2+m_3\right)},$$
(17)
and

$$\alpha _\rho ^{(0)}=0.29\mathrm{GeV},\alpha _\lambda ^{(0)}=0.32\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(18)
In Table 1, we compare the theoretical predictions of the Kalman-D’Souza model with the experimental data.

Table 1. The theoretical and experimental masses of the heavy baryons and the parameters $`x_0`$, $`\alpha _\rho `$, and $`\alpha _\lambda `$ used in the calculations. The theoretical masses are taken from , while the experimental ones are taken from  (for $`H_c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$) and from  for $`\mathrm{\Xi }_b`$

| $`H_Q`$ | $`M_{th}`$ | $`M_{exp}`$ | $`x_0`$ | $`\alpha _\rho `$ | $`\alpha _\lambda `$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ | 2.280 | $`2.285\pm 0.0006`$ | 0.86 | 0.29 | 0.40 |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ | 2.454 | $`2.453\pm 0.0006`$ | 0.80 | 0.29 | 0.40 |
| $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c`$ | 2.461 | $`2.466\pm 0.0014`$ | 0.80 | 0.29 | 0.40 |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ | 5.640 | $`5.624\pm 0.009`$ | 1.00 | 0.29 | 0.41 |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b`$ | 5.960 |  | 0.95 | 0.29 | 0.41 |
| $`\mathrm{\Xi }_b`$ | 6.045 |  | 0.93 | 0.29 | 0.41 |

We now introduce the charge conjugate momenta

$$𝐤_\rho =\frac{1}{2}(𝐤_1𝐤_2),𝐤_\lambda =\frac{m_Q(𝐤_1+𝐤_2)2m_q𝐤_3}{2m_q+m_Q},$$
(19)
then the momentum space wave function $`\psi (𝐤_\rho ,𝐤_\lambda )`$ normalized according to (3) is given by

$`\psi (𝐤_\rho ,𝐤_\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\rho \sqrt{\pi }}}\right)^{3/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\lambda \sqrt{\pi }}}\right)^{3/2}`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐤_\rho ^2}{2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\rho ^2}}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐤_\lambda ^2}{2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\lambda ^2}}\right)`$
with

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\rho =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\alpha _\rho ,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\lambda =\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\alpha _\lambda $$
(21)
## 4 The heavy baryon light–front wave functions

We denote x=x3, y=x1, p3= pQ, then

$`|\phi (x,𝐩_t)|^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1x}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐩_{1t}}`$
$`\left(M_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\text{p}_{Qt}^2+m_Q^2}{x^2M_0}}\right)\left(M_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\text{p}_{1t}^2+m_1^2}{y^2M_0}}\right)`$
$`\left(M_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\text{p}_{Qt}+\text{p}_{1t}\right)^2+m_2^2}{\left(1xy\right)^2M_0}}\right)\left|\psi (𝐤_\rho ,𝐤_\lambda )\right|^2`$ (22)
where

$$k_\rho ^2=\left(𝐩_1+\frac{m_1}{m_1+m_2}𝐩_Q\right)^2$$
(23)
$$k_\lambda ^2=𝐩_Q^2=𝐩_t^2+\frac{1}{4}\left(\mathrm{𝐱𝐌}_0+\frac{𝐩_t^2+m_Q^2}{\mathrm{𝐱𝐌}_0}\right)^2$$
(24)
In Fig.1 we show the two dimensional plot of the distribution function f$`{}_{}{}^{b}{}_{\lambda _b}{}^{}`$(x,p$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{t}{}^{}`$). In Fig.2 are shown the one dimensional distribution functions F$`_{H_Q}`$(x), x=x3.

$`F_{H_Q}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x_1{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x_2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}dp_{it}}`$ (25)
$`|\psi _{H_Q}(x_i,𝐩_{it})|^2`$
$`\delta ({\displaystyle 𝐩_{it}})\delta ({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}x_i1).`$
for H=$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$,$`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and Q=b,c.

As illustrated in Fig.2 the distributions f$`_{\mathrm{\Xi }_c}`$ and f$`_{\mathrm{\Xi }_b}`$are modified by the presence of the s quark instead of u(d) one. In Fig. 3 we show the non–perturbative factor R$`_{H_Q}`$(t) for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$,$`\mathrm{\Xi }_b,\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$,and $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c`$baryons.

## 5 The results

We have evaluated Eqs.(1-3) in case of the inclusive semileptonic decays $`H_QH_Q^{}\mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ adopting the heavy quark distribution function $`F_{H_Q}(x)`$ from (25) with the Gaussian ansäts of the three-quark wave function (15), that corresponds to the constituent quark model of ref. . The parameters in (15) have been taken from Table 1. Our results for the SL decay widths of $`H_c`$ and $`H_b`$ baryons and electron branching ratios $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}(H_Q)/\mathrm{\Gamma }^{tot}(H_Q)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{tot}(H_Q)=1/\tau (H_Q)`$ is the total width of $`H_Q`$ baryon, are collected in Table 2. For the lifetimes we take the values from the recent PDG publication  $`\tau (\mathrm{\Lambda }_c)=0.206\pm 0.012\mathrm{ps}^1`$, $`\tau (\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+)=0.33_{0.04}^{+0.06}\mathrm{ps}^1`$, $`\tau (\mathrm{\Lambda }_b)=1.229\pm 0.08\mathrm{ps}^1`$, $`\tau (\mathrm{\Xi }_b)=1.39\pm 0.3\mathrm{ps}^1`$.

For the $`c`$–flavored baryons, there exists only one inclusive value for the semileptonic branching ratio $`\mathrm{BR}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_cX_se\nu )=4.5\pm 1.7\%`$, the corresponding exclusive semileptonic branching $`\mathrm{BR}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\mathrm{\Lambda }e\nu )`$ being $`2.0\pm 0.6\%`$ . For $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+\mathrm{\Xi }^0e\nu `$ there exists only exclusive branching ratio $`2.3_{0.9}^{+0.7}\%`$. For the $`b`$-flavored baryons, there exists the semileptonic branching ratio $`\mathrm{BR}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}}+anything)=7.9\pm 1.9\%`$ which is dominated by the charm baryons. In Table 2, in parentheses are also shown the results obtained using OPE with the pole quark masses $`m_c=1.6\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_b=4.8\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`|V_{cb}|=0.039`$ . We should mention a rather good agreement with the OPE predictions for the semileptonic rates in spite of the large difference of the constituent and pole quark masses that produces the large difference in $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}^Q/dtm_Q^4`$. This difference is compensated by a factor $`R(q^2)`$ in Eq. (2).

Table 2. The predicted value of the inclusive semileptonic widths (in units of ps-1) and the corresponding branching ratios in $`\%`$. The experimental data are from . $`|V_{cb}|=0.04`$, $`|V_{sc}|=1.00`$.

| $`H_Q`$ | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(X_Q^{}e\nu _e)`$ | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(X_Q^{}\tau \nu _\tau )`$ | $`BR(X_Q^{}e\nu _e)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ | 0.267 (0.233) |  | 5.50 |
| $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c`$ | 0.236 (0.233) |  | 7.79 |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ | 0.086 (0.070) | 0.019 | 10.57 |
| $`\mathrm{\Xi }_b`$ | 0.092 (0.070) | 0.021 | 12.79 |

## 6 Conclusions

This is the most consistent quark model to-date describing baryons in the sense that a single set of parameters is used for the whole spectra and then subjecting all of their properties namely the masses, radii and their wavefunction structures to a strict test by a decay model. The spectroscopy is successfully calculated using far less parameters than any other model . Decays of baryons are calculated . Now in this paper we have successfully computed the inclusive semileptonic decays of the heavy baryons $`H_Q`$ by incorporating the LF formalism of .


text:
# Quantized Algebras of Functions on Affine Hecke Algebras11footnote 1The work was supported in part by National Foundation for Research in Fundamental Sciences, Vietnam, Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Germany, and was completed during the visit of the author at the Department of Mathematics, The University of Iowa, U.S.A.

## Introduction

The algebras of functions on groups define the structure of the groups themselves: the algebras of continuous functions on topological groups define the structure of the topological groups. This essentially is the so called Pontryagin duality for Abelian locally compact groups and the Tannaka-Krein duality theory for compact groups. The smooth functions on Lie groups define the structure of Lie groups. It is the essential fact that in this case we can produce the harmonique analysis on genral Lie groups. The quantized algebras of functions on quantum groups defined the structure of quantum groups etc. In the same sense we define quantized algebras of functions which define the structure of quantum affine Hecke algebras. Let us discuss a little bites in more detail. Let us denote by $`𝔤`$ a Lie algebra over the field of complex numbers, $`U(𝔤)`$ its universal eveloping algebra, $`\lambda P^{}`$ a positive highest weight, $`V_v(\lambda )`$ the associated representation of type I, i.e. with a positive defined Hermite form $`(.,.)`$ and $`(xv_1,v_2)=(v_1.x^{}v_2),v_1,v_2V_v(\lambda )`$, of the quantized universal enveloping algebra $`U_v(𝔤)`$. Let $`\{v_\mu ^\nu \}`$ be an othogonal basis of $`V_v(\lambda )`$. Consider the matrix elements of the representation defined by

$$C_{\nu ,s;\mu ,r}^\lambda (x):=(xv_\mu ^r,v_\nu ^s)$$

and the linear span $`_v(G):=C_{\nu ,s;\mu ,r}^\lambda `$. It was shown in L. Korogodski and Y. Soibelman \[KS\] that indeed it is equipped with a structure of an Hopf algebra, the so called the quantized algebra of functions on the quantum group corresponding to $`G`$. It was shown also that this algebra is generalized by the matrix coefficients of the standard representation of $`G`$ in the case $`G=SL_2`$, i.e. the algebra of functions on quantum group $`SL_2`$ is generalized by the matrix coefficients $`t_{11},t_{12},t_{21},t_{22}`$ with the relations

$$\begin{array}{cc}t_{11}t_{12}=v^2t_{12}t_{11},\hfill & t_{11}t_{21}=v^2t_{21}t_{11}\hfill \\ t_{12}t_{22}=v^2t_{22}t_{12},\hfill & t_{21}t_{22}=v^2t_{22}t_{21}\hfill \\ t_{12}t_{21}=t_{21}t_{12},\hfill & t_{11}t_{22}t_{22}t_{11}=(v^2v^2)t_{12}t_{21}\hfill \\ & t_{11}t_{12}v^2t_{12}t_{21}=1\hfill \end{array}$$

From this presentation of the algebra, L. Korogodski and Y. Soibelman \[KS\] obtained the description of all the irreducible (infinite-dimensional) unitarizable representations of the quantized algebra of functions $`_v(G)`$: For the particular case of $`_v(SL_2())`$, its complete list of irreducible unitarizable representations consists of:

* One dimensional representations $`\tau _t,t𝕊^1`$, defined by $`\tau _t(t_{11})=t,\tau _t(t_{22})=t^1,\tau _t(t_{12})=0,\tau (t_{21})=0.`$
* Infinite-dimensional unitarizable $`_v(SL_2())`$-modules $`\pi _t,t𝕊^1`$ in $`\mathrm{}^2()`$, with an orthogonal basis $`\{e_k\}_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$, defined by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\pi _t(t_{11}):\hfill & \{\begin{array}{cc}e_00,\hfill & \\ e_k\sqrt{1v}e_{k1},\hfill & k>0,\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \pi _t(t_{22}):\hfill & \begin{array}{cc}e_k\sqrt{1v}e_{k+1},\hfill & k0\hfill \end{array},\hfill \\ \pi _t(t_{12}):\hfill & \begin{array}{cc}e_ktv^{2k}e_k,\hfill & k0\hfill \end{array},\hfill \\ \pi _t(t_{21}):\hfill & \begin{array}{cc}e_kt^1v^{2k+1}e_k,\hfill & k0\hfill \end{array}.\hfill \end{array}$$

For the general case of $`_v(G)`$ , consider the algebra homomorphism $`_v(G)_v(SL_2())`$, dual to the canonical inclusion $`SL_2()G_{}`$. Then every irreducible unitarizable representation of the quantized algebra of functions $`_v(G)`$ is equivalent to one of the representations from the list:

* The representations $`\tau _t,t=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \sqrt{1}x)𝕋=𝕊^1`$,

$$\tau _t(C_{\nu ,s;\mu ,r}^\lambda )=\delta _{r,s}\delta _{\mu ,\nu }\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \sqrt{1}\mu (x)).$$
* The representations $`\pi _i=\pi _{s_{i_1}}\mathrm{}\pi _{s_{i_k}},`$ if $`w=s_{i_1}\mathrm{}s_{i_k}`$ is the reduced decomposition of the element $`w`$ into a product of reflections, where the representations $`\pi _{s_i}`$ is the composition of the homomorphisms

$$\pi _{s_i}=\pi _1p:F_v(G)_v(SL_2())End\mathrm{}^2()$$

The purpose of this paper is to obtain the same kind results for the quantized algebras of functions on affine Hecke algebras and quantum Schur-Weyl algebras. \[Remark that it should be more reasonable to name them as the quantized algebras of functions on quantum affine Weyl groups, but the “non-affine counterpart” - the quantum Weyl group terminology was reserved by L. Korogodski and Y. Soibelman for some objects of different kind - the algebras generated not only by the quantized reflections but also the quantized universal algebra.\]

We start from the following fundamental remarks:

* The affine Hecke algebras $`(v,W_{aff}^r)`$ and the $`v`$-Schur algebras $`𝕊_{n,r}(v)`$ are in a complete Schur-Weyl duality. It is therefore easy to conclude that the corresponding quantized algebras of functions, what we are going to define are also in a complete Schur-Weyl duality.
* The negative universal enveloping algebras $`U_v^{}(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_n)_AR`$, where $`A=[v,v^1]`$, $`R`$ is the center of $`U_v^{}(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_n)`$, is isomorphic to the Hall algebras $`U_n^{}((v,W_{aff}^r))`$ and there is a natural map $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ from the last onto the $`v`$-Schur algebra $`𝕊_{n,r}(v)`$. From this we then have some maps between the quantized algebras of functions

$$(𝕊_{n,r}(v))(U_v^{}(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_n))(U_v(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_n)).$$

The irreducible representations of $`(𝕊_{n,r}(v))`$ could be found in the set of restrictions of irreducible untarizable representations of the quantized algebras $`[SL_r]_q,0<q<1`$, of functions on the quantum group of type $`SL_r`$.
* For complex algebraic groups $`G`$ the irreducible unitarizable $`[G]_q`$-modules are completely described \[KS\] for $`0<q<1`$.

Our main result describes the complete set of irreducible unitarizable $`((v,W_{aff}^r))`$-modules and $`_v(𝕊(n,d))`$-modules, Theorems 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2.

Let us describe the paper in more detail: Section 1 is a short introduction to the related subjects and we define the quantized algebras of functions $`_v(W_{aff}^r)=((v,W_{aff}^r))`$ and $`_v(𝕊(n,d)):=(𝕊_{n,r}(v))`$. In §2 we give a full description of all irreducible unitarizable representations of $`_v(W_{aff}^r)`$. In §3 we do the same for the $`v`$-Schur algebras $`(𝕊_{n,r}(v))`$.

Notation. Let us fix some conventions of notation. Denote $`F`$ a ground local field of characteristic $`p`$, $``$ the field of complex numbers, $``$ the ring of integers, $`SL_r`$ the special linear groups of matrices of sizes $`r\times r`$ with determinant $`1`$, $`𝔾`$ an algebraic group, $`G=𝔾(F)`$ the group of rational $`F`$-points, $`𝕋`$ some maximal torus in $`G`$, $`X^{}(𝕋)`$ the root lattice, $`X_{}(𝕋)`$ the co-root lattice, $`[G]_q`$ the quantized algebra of complex-valued functions on quantum group associated to $`G`$, $`𝕊_{n,r}(q)`$ the $`q`$-Schur algebra, $`𝕊_{n,r}(v)`$ the $`v`$-Schur algebra, $`((v,W_{aff}^r))`$ the quantized algebra of functions on affine Hecke algebra, $`(𝕊_{n,r}(v))`$ the quantized algebra of functions on quantum $`v`$-Schur algebra.

## 1 Definition of the quantized algebras of functions

We introduce in this section the main objects - the quantized algebras $`_v(W_{aff}^r)`$ of functions on affine Hecke algebras. As remarked in the introduction, it should be better to name the quantized algebras of functions on quantum affine Weyl groups, but we prefer in this paper this terminology in order to avoid any confusion with the terminology from L. Korogodski and Y. Soibelman \[KS\].

### 1.1

#### 1.1.1 p-adic presentation

Let us first recall the definition of Iwahori-Hecke algebras. Let $`F`$ be a $`p`$-adic field, i.e. a finite extension of $`_q`$, which is by definition the completion with respect to the ultra-metric norm of the rational field of the ring $`_p:=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}/p^n`$. Denote $`𝒪`$ the ring of integers in $`F`$, $`𝒪^\times `$ the group of units in $`𝒪`$, $`G=SL_2(F)`$, $`B=\{\left[\begin{array}{cc}x& y\\ 0& x^1\end{array}\right];x,yF,x0\}`$ the Borel subgroup of $`G`$, $`T=\{\left[\begin{array}{cc}x& 0\\ 0& x^1\end{array}\right];x𝒪^\times \}`$ the maximal torus, and $`N=\{\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& y\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right];y𝒪\}`$ the unipotent radical of $`G`$. It is easy to check that $`B=TN`$. Define the so called Iwahori-Hecke subgroup

$$I=\{\left[\begin{array}{cc}x& y\\ \varpi z& w\end{array}\right];x,w𝒪^\times ,y,z𝒪\},$$

where $`\varpi `$ is the generic presentative in the presentation of the principal ideal $`𝒫=\varpi 𝒪`$. Let us denote $`\mu (x)`$ the Haar measure on the locally compact group $`G=SL_2(F)`$, $`\mu (I)=vol(I)`$ the volume of $`I`$ with respect to this Haar measure, $`\chi _I`$ the characteristic function of the set $`I`$, $`e_I:=\frac{1}{\mu (I)}\chi _I`$ the idempotent, $`e_I^2=e_I=e_I`$, defining a projector. The Iwahori-Hecke algebra $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐇}(G,I)`$ is defined as

$$\mathrm{𝐈𝐇}(G,I)=e_I𝐇(G)e_I=$$

$$=\{f:SL_2(F);f(hxk)f(x),h,kI,f𝐇(G):=C_c^{\mathrm{}}(G)\},$$

where $`(G):=C_c^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$ is the involutive algebra of smooth (i.e. locally constant) functions on $`SL_2(F)`$ with compact support, with the well-known convolution product

$$(fg)(x):=_Gf(y)g(y^1x)𝑑\mu (y)$$

and involution as usually. Recall that the affine Weyl group $`W_{aff}^1`$ is defined as $`\stackrel{~}{W}/\{\pm 1\}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{W}=D,Dw`$, the group generated by two generators $`w:=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right]`$ and $`D:=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\varpi & 0\\ 0& \varpi ^1\end{array}\right]`$. It is coincided with the dihedral group. Let us choose the following generators $`w_1=w=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right]`$ and $`w_2=\mathrm{\Pi }:=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& \varpi ^1\\ \varpi & 0\end{array}\right]`$. It is well-known the relations

$$w_1w_2w_1^1=w_2^1,w_1^2=1,w_2^2=1,$$

or the standard braid relations

$$w_1w_2w_1=w_2w_1w_2,w_1^2=1,w_2^2=1.$$

The group $`W_{aff}^1`$ is discrete and infinite, and every element of $`W_{\mathrm{a}ff}^1`$ can be presented as a reduced word in $`w_1`$ and $`w_2`$ , namely $`w=w_{i_1}\mathrm{}w_{i_k}`$. The group $`G`$ can be presented as the union of the double coset classes $`G=I.W_{aff}^1.I`$. Let us denote $`f_w`$ the characteristic function of the coset class $`IwI,wW_{aff}`$. If $`w=w_{i_1}\mathrm{}w_{i_k}`$ is a reduced presentation of $`wW_{aff}^1`$ then $`f_{w_{i_1}}\mathrm{}f_{w_{i_k}}`$ is independent of the reduced presentation of $`w`$ and $`f_w=f_{w_{i_1}}\mathrm{}f_{w_{i_k}}`$. Let us denote $`f_i=f_{w_i},i=1,2`$. We have therefore a correspondence

$$wW_{aff}^1f_w\mathrm{𝐈𝐇}(G,I),$$

subject to the relations

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill f_if_jf_i& =& f_jf_if_j\hfill \\ \hfill f_i^2& =& (q1)f_i+q,\text{ with }q=(𝒪:𝒫).\hfill \end{array}$$

Let us do a change of variable $`v:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{q}}`$ then we have

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill f_if_jf_i& =& f_jf_if_j\hfill \\ \hfill (f_i+1)(f_iv^2)& =& 0.\hfill \end{array}$$

This is the so called Coxeter presentation of the Iwahori-Hecke algebra in $`SL_2`$ case.

For rank $`r`$ groups of type $`A`$, i.e. $`SL_r`$ we have the same picture, see for example \[CG\]. Let us consider also the Hecke algebra $`𝐇(G)=C_c^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$, of smooth (i.e. locally constant) functions on $`G`$ with compact support, under convolution product and involution. Corresponding to the map of rings

$$𝔽_q𝒪F,\text{ with }q=p^{\mathrm{}}=(𝒪:𝒫),\text{ for some integer }\mathrm{}$$

we have the maps of the groups of rational points

$$𝔾(𝔽_q)𝔾(𝒪)𝔾(F).$$

The preimage in $`𝔾(𝒪)`$ of the Borel subgroup $`B(𝔽_q)`$ is called the Iwahori subgroup. It was shown that $`G=𝔾(F)=I.W_{aff}^r.I`$. The Iwahori-Hecke algebra $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐇}(G,I)`$ is defined as the algebra of smooth $`I`$-bi-invariant functions with compact support on $`𝔾(F)`$ under convolution and involution as a sub-algebra of the Hecke algebra $`𝐇(G)=C_c^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$. Denote by $`f_{s_i}`$ the characteristic function of the double coset class $`I.s_i.I`$ in $`G=_{wW_{aff}^r}I.w.I`$, and normalize as in the rank one case we also obtain the relations

$$f_{s_i}f_{s_j}f_{s_i}=f_{s_j}f_{s_i}f_{s_j},$$

$$(f_{s_i}+1)(f_{s_i}v^2)=0,\text{ where }v=\frac{1}{\sqrt{q}},q=p^l=(𝒪:𝒫),$$

$$f_\sigma f_\gamma =f_{\sigma \gamma }\text{ if }\mathrm{}(\sigma \gamma )=\mathrm{}(\sigma )+\mathrm{}(\gamma ).$$

#### 1.1.2 Affine Hecke algebras $`(v,W_{aff}^r)`$

As usually let us denote $`v`$ the formal quantum parameter. (Abstract) Iwahori-Hecke algebras or affine Hecke are defined in two equivalent ways: in Coxeter presentation as group algebras of affine Weyl groups and in Bernstein presentation  as some abstract algebras presented by generators with relations. In Coxeter presentation:

###### Definition 1.1

An (abstract) Iwahori-Hecke or affine Hecke algebra is an $`[v,v^1]`$-algebra generated by $`T_\sigma ,\sigma W_{aff}^r`$, subject to the relations:

$$T_{s_i}T_{s_j}T_{s_i}=T_{s_j}T_{s_i}T_{s_j},$$

$$(T_{s_i}+1)(T_{s_i}v^2)=0,$$

$$T_\sigma T_\gamma =T_{\sigma \gamma }\text{ if }\mathrm{}(\sigma \gamma )=\mathrm{}(\sigma )+\mathrm{}(\gamma ).$$

Let us go to the Bernstein presentation of affine Hecke algebras as some abstract algebras presented by generators with relations.

###### Definition 1.2

An affine Hecke algebra in Bernstein presentation is an $`[v,v^1]`$-algebra with generators $`T_i^\pm ,i=1,\mathrm{}r1,`$ and $`X_j^\pm ,j=1,\mathrm{},r`$, subject to the relations:

$$\begin{array}{cc}T_iT_i^{}=1=T_i^{}T_i,\hfill & (T_i+1)(T_iv^2)=0,\hfill \\ T_iT_{i+1}T_i=T_{i+1}T_iY_{i+1},\hfill & T_iT_j=T_jT_i,\text{ if }|ij|>1,\hfill \\ X_iX_i^{}=1=X_i^{}X_i,\hfill & X_iX_j=X_jX_i,\hfill \\ T_iX_iT_i=v^2X_{i+1},\hfill & X_jT_i=T_iX_j,\text{ if }Ji,i+1.\hfill \end{array}$$

In this definition we denoted $`T_i`$ in place of $`T_i^+`$, $`X_i`$ in place of $`X_i^+`$, etc…. we keep this agreements in the future use.

The isomorphism between two definitions can be established as follows. Associate $`T_{s_i}T_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}_\sigma ^1X_1^{\sigma _1}\mathrm{}X_r^{\sigma _r}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{T}_\sigma :=v^{\mathrm{}(\sigma )}T_\sigma `$, if $`\sigma =(\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _r)`$ is dominant.

### 1.2

#### 1.2.1 Admissible representations of $`p`$-adic groups

Let us recall that a representation of $`p`$-adic group is called supercuspidal iff all its matrix coefficients have compact support modulo the center of the group. It is well-known the following fact: Given any irreducible representation $`\pi `$ of $`G`$, there exists a Levi subgroup $`L`$ and a supercuspidal representation $`\sigma `$ of $`L`$ such that $`\pi `$ is a sub-quotient of the induced representation $`ı_P^G(\sigma ):=Ind_P^Ginfl\sigma `$. Every representation of the form $`ı_P^G(\sigma )`$ has finite length for any irreducible representation of $`P`$ and the other pair $`(L^{},\sigma ^{})`$ has the same properties as $`(L,\sigma )`$ if and only if there exists an element $`xG`$ such that $`L^{}=xLx^1`$ and $`\sigma ^{}=\sigma ^x,`$ where $`\sigma ^x(h):=\sigma (xhx^1)`$. The pair $`(L,\sigma )`$ is called a cuspidal pair and the conjugacy class of $`(L,\sigma )`$ is called the support of $`\pi `$. Two pairs $`(L,\sigma )`$ and $`(L^{},\sigma ^{})`$ are called innertially equivalent iff there exist $`xG`$ and $`\chi 𝒳_L^{unr}`$ such that $`L^{}=xLx^1`$ and $`\sigma ^{}=(\sigma \chi )^x`$. Given an innertially equivalent class $`s=(L,\sigma )`$ one defines the sub-category $`^s(G)`$ of the category $`(G)`$ of smooth representations, consisting of all representations, all the sub-quotients of which have support in $`s`$. One of the well-known result of Bernstein is the fact that $`(G)=\times _s^s(G)`$ as the direct product of categories. The category $`_{cusp}(G):=\times _s^s(G)`$. Another well-known result of I. Bernstein, A. Borel and P. Kutzko is the fact that there is an equivalence from the category of unramified representations $`^{unr}(G)`$, for $`G=SL_2`$, to the category of finite dimensional representations of the Iwahori-Hecke algebra $`(G,I)`$. The general case was treated in numerous works, see for example, Henniart \[H\].

#### 1.2.2 Dipper-James construction of irreducible finite dimensional representations of $`(v,W_{aff}^r)`$

For affine Hecke algebras of type $`A_{r1}`$ there are constructions of all irreducible finite dimensional representations parametrized by Young tableaux, or partitions. Let us recall it in brief form. For each Young diagram $`\lambda `$ a so called Specht $`(v,W_{aff}^r)`$-module $`S^\lambda `$ was defined in \[DJ\] and for the value $`v=q`$ not a root of unity provide a complete list of irreducible finite dimensional representations of $`(q,W_{aff}^r)`$ modules.

If $`q`$ is a primitive $`\mathrm{}`$th root of unity, Dipper and James \[DJ\] constructed also a complete set of $`(q,W_{aff}^r)`$ modules $`D^\mu `$, parametrized though all Young diagram with at most $`\mathrm{}1`$ rows of equal length. Let us describe this construction in more detail. Let $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _r)`$, $`Y_\lambda =𝔖_{\lambda _1}\times \mathrm{}\times 𝔖_{\lambda _r}𝔖_n`$. Define the symmetrization

$$Sym_\lambda :=\underset{wY_\lambda }{}T_w$$

and the anti-symmetrization

$$A_\lambda :=\underset{wY_\lambda }{}(q)^{n(n1)/2\mathrm{}(w)}T_w.$$

Let $`S^\lambda `$ be the submodule of the induced $`(q,W_{aff}^r)`$ module $`W^\lambda (q,W_{aff}^r)_{(\lambda )}`$, \[where $`(\lambda )`$ is the sub-algebra generated by $`T_i`$ such that $`s_iY_\lambda `$\], generated by $`A_\lambda ^{}W^\lambda `$ for $`\lambda ^{}`$ is obtained from $`\lambda `$ by interchanging rows with columns,

$$S^\lambda =(q,W_{aff}^r)A_\lambda ^{}(q,W_{aff}^r)Sym_\lambda .$$

It was proven that there exists an explicit basis of the $`(v,W_{aff}^r)`$ modules

$$(v,W_{aff}^r)A_\lambda ^{}(v,W_{aff}^r)Sym_\lambda (v,W_{aff}^r),$$

which is evaluable at $`q^\times `$ and such that the basis elements evaluated at $`q`$ remain linearly independent over $``$ for all $`q^\times `$. Let $`(.,.)`$ be the bilinear form on the $`(v,W_{aff}^r)`$ module $`W^\lambda `$. The the modules $`D^\lambda =S^\lambda /(S^\lambda (S^\lambda )^{})`$ are either 0 or simple. The Young diagram is called $`\mathrm{}`$-regular iff it has at most $`\mathrm{}1`$ rows of equal length. The module $`D^\mu `$ is nonzero if and only if $`\mu `$ is $`\mathrm{}`$-regular. We refer the reader to the original work of Dipper and James \[DJ\] for a detailed exposition.

#### 1.2.3 The Langlands correspondence

Recall that a representation of $`p`$-adic group $`G`$ is called smooth if the stabilizer of any vector is an open-closed subgroup in $`G`$. Let us denote $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ the contragradient representation of $`V`$, Let $`\rho :G=𝔾(F)EndV`$ be an admissible (i.e. smooth and $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{V}}=V`$) representation of $`G`$. One of the most important properties of admissible representations of $`p`$-adic groups is the fact that the space $`V^I`$ of $`I`$-invariant vectors in an admissible representation $`V`$, is finite dimensional. For every element $`f`$ from the Iwahori-Hecke algebra $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐇}(G,I)C_c^{\mathrm{}}(IG/I)`$ we associate an operator in finite dimensional vector space $`V^I`$,

$$\rho (f):=_{𝔾(F)}f(x)\rho (x)𝑑x.$$

It is not hard to see that this correspondence gives us a representation of the Iwahori-Hecke algebra $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐇}(G,I)`$ in the finite dimensional space $`V^I`$. It was proven that the correspondence $`VV^I`$ provides a functor from, and is indeed an equivalence between the category of admissible representations of $`G`$ generated by $`I`$-fixed vectors and the category of finite dimensional representations of the Iwahori-Hecke algebra $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐇}(G,I)(v,W_{aff}^r)|_{v=q}`$. This result was essential proven by A. Borel, P. Kutzko end Bernstein in rank one case and by Harris-Taylor \[HT\] and Henniart \[H\] in the general (rank $`r`$) case. We refer the readers to \[HT\] and \[H\] for more detailed exposition of the local Langlands Correspondence.

### 1.3

We can define now our main objects - the quantized algebras of functions on quantum affine Hecke algebras.

#### 1.3.1 Quantized algebras of functions

Let us consider the product of matrix coefficients, associated with the product of elements of the affine Hecke algebra, of finite dimensional representations, see \[L\]. With respect to this product we have some non-commutative algebras.

###### Definition 1.3

The quantized algebra $`((v,W_{aff}^r))`$ or $`_v(W_{aff}^r)`$ of functions on the quantum affine Hecke algebra $`(v,W_{aff}^r)`$ is by definition the algebra generated by matrix coefficients of all finite-dimensional representations of the quantum affine Hecke algebra $`(v,W_{aff}^r)`$

#### 1.3.2 Inclusion

###### Proposition 1.4

The natural inclusion $`W_{aff}^1W_{aff}^r`$ induces a natural projection of quantized algebras of functions

$$((v,W_{aff}^r))((v,W_{aff}^1)).$$

Proof. It easy an easy consequence from the corresponding inclusion of the affine Weyl groups, $`W_{aff}^1W_{aff}^r`$ . $`\mathrm{}`$

## 2 Irreducible representations

The main subject of this section is to describe all (up to unitary equivalence) inequivalent unitarizable representations of the quantized algebras of functions on affine Hecke algebras. We describe first in the rank 1 case and then use the projection $`((v,W_{aff}^r))((v,W_{aff}^1))`$ to maintain the general case.

### 2.1 Rank 1 case

###### Lemma 2.1

The quantized algebra $`_v(W^fX_{}(T))`$ is generated by the restrictions $`t_{11}|_{W^fX_{}(T))}`$ and $`t_{12}|_{W^fX_{}(T))}`$ with some defining relations.

Proof. It was proven in L. Korogodski and Y. Soibelman \[KS\] that in every finite-dimensional representation of $`[SL_2()]_q`$, there exists an action of quantum Weyl elements $`\overline{w}`$. For the groups of type $`A_1`$, the root and coroot lattices are isomorphic $`X^{}(𝕋)X_{}(𝕋)`$. We can therefore see $`W_{aff}=W^fX^{}(𝕋)\overline{W}_{aff}=W^fX_{}(𝕋)`$ as some subgroups of $`SL_2()`$. Therefore we have the restrictions of the representations from the list of irreducible representations of $`SL_2()`$. Two generators of $`W_{aff}^1`$ are $`w=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right]`$ and $`D=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\varpi & 0\\ 0& \varpi \end{array}\right]`$. In the representation described in \[KS\], they are defined by two matrix elements $`t_{11}`$ and $`t_{12}`$, restricted to our affine Weyl group. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 2.2

Every irreducible unitarizable representation of $`_v(W^fX_{}(T))`$ can be obtained by restricting some irreducible unitarizable representations of $`_v(SL_2()`$.

Proof. First remark that if $`V`$ is a representation of $`_v(W^fX_{}(T))`$ and $`IndV=_v(SL_2())_{_v(W^fX_{}(T))}V`$ the induced representation of $`_v(SL_2())`$, then there is the well-known Frobenius duality

$$Hom(IndV,W)Hom(V,W|_{_v(W^fX_{}(T))}).$$

Let us consider a $`_v(W^fX_{}(T))`$ module $`V`$. Taking induction $`IndV=_v(SL_2())_{_v(W^fX_{}(T))}V`$ , we have a $`_v(SL_2())`$ module. The irreducible ones can be therefore obtained from the list of irreducible unitarizable reprenatations $`\pi _{w,t}`$ of $`_v(SL_2())`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let us denote the restrictions of representations of $`[SL_2]_q`$ on $`((v,W_{aff}^r))`$ by the same letters.

###### Theorem 2.3

Every irreducible unitarizable representations of $`_v(W_{aff}^1)`$ is equivalent to one of the unitarily inequivalent representation from the list:

1. The representations $`\tau _t,t𝕊^1`$, defined by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\tau (t_{11})=t,& \tau (t_{22})=t^1,\\ \tau (t_{21})=0,& \tau (t_{12})=0,\end{array}$$
2. The representations $`\pi _{w,t},wW^f,t𝕊^1`$, defined by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\pi _t(t_{11}):\hfill & \{\begin{array}{cc}e_00,\hfill & \\ e_k\sqrt{1v}e_{k1},\hfill & k>0,\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \pi _t(t_{22}):\hfill & \begin{array}{cc}e_k\sqrt{1v}e_{k+1},\hfill & k0\hfill \end{array},\hfill \\ \pi _t(t_{12}):\hfill & \begin{array}{cc}e_ktv^{2k}e_k,\hfill & k0\hfill \end{array},\hfill \\ \pi _t(t_{21}):\hfill & \begin{array}{cc}e_kt^1v^{2k+1}e_k,\hfill & k0\hfill \end{array}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Proof. It is directly deduced from Lemmas 2.1, 2.2 and the following fact. Let us now recall that L. Korogodski and Y. Soibelman \[KS\] obtained the description of all the irreducible (infinite-dimensional) unitarizable representations of the quantized algebra of functions $`_v(G)`$: For the particular case of $`_v(SL_2())`$, its complete list of irreducible unitarizable representations consists of:

* One dimensional representations $`\tau _t,t𝕊^1`$, defined by $`\tau _t(t_{11})=t,\tau _t(t_{22})=t^1,\tau _t(t_{12})=0,\tau (t_{21})=0.`$
* Infinite-dimensional unitarizable $`_v(SL_2())`$-modules $`\pi _t,t𝕊^1`$ in $`\mathrm{}^2()`$, with an orthogonal basis $`\{e_k\}_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$, defined by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\pi _t(t_{11}):\hfill & \{\begin{array}{cc}e_00,\hfill & \\ e_k\sqrt{1v}e_{k1},\hfill & k>0,\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \pi _t(t_{22}):\hfill & \begin{array}{cc}e_k\sqrt{1v}e_{k+1},\hfill & k0\hfill \end{array},\hfill \\ \pi _t(t_{12}):\hfill & \begin{array}{cc}e_ktv^{2k}e_k,\hfill & k0\hfill \end{array},\hfill \\ \pi _t(t_{21}):\hfill & \begin{array}{cc}e_kt^1v^{2k+1}e_k,\hfill & k0\hfill \end{array}.\hfill \end{array}$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

### 2.2 Rank r case

Let us consider the representations which are the composition of the homomorphisms

$$\pi _{s_i}=\pi _1p:F_v(G)_v(SL_2())End\mathrm{}^2(),$$

###### Theorem 2.4

Every irreducible unitarizable representation of $`_v(W_{aff}^r)`$ is equivalent to one of the unitarily inequivalent representations:

The representations $`\pi _{w,t}=\pi _{s_{i_1}}\mathrm{}\pi _{s_{i_1}}\tau _t`$, $`w=s_{i_1}\mathrm{}s_{i_k}W^f`$ is a reduced decomposition of $`w`$, $`t𝕊^1`$.

Proof. For the general case of $`_v(G)`$ , consider the algebra homomorphism $`_v(G)_v(SL_2())`$, dual to the canonical inclusion $`SL_2()G_{}`$. Then every irreducible unitarizable representation of the quantized algebra of functions $`_v(G)`$ is equivalent to one of the representations from the list:

* The representations $`\tau _t,t=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \sqrt{1}x)𝕋=𝕊^1`$,

$$\tau _t(C_{\nu ,s;\mu ,r}^\lambda )=\delta _{r,s}\delta _{\mu ,\nu }\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \sqrt{1}\mu (x)).$$
* The representations $`\pi _i=\pi _{s_{i_1}}\mathrm{}\pi _{s_{i_k}},`$ if $`w=s_{i_1}\mathrm{}s_{i_k}`$ is the reduced decomposition of the element $`w`$ into a product of reflections, where the representations $`\pi _{s_i}`$ is the composition of the homomorphisms

$$\pi _{s_i}=\pi _1p:_v(G)_v(SL_2())End\mathrm{}^2(),$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Schur-Weyl duality

The Schur-Weyl duality is well-known for finite-dimensional representations of quantum affine Hecke algebras and quantum $`v`$-Schur algebras. For (possibly infinite dimensional) representations of the quantized algebras of functions on them we also have this kind of duality. We use it then to describe (possibly infinite-dimensional) representations of $`q`$-Schur algebras. The main idea is to use the maps

$$U_n(\widehat{sl}_r)U_n^{}(\widehat{sl}_r)U_n^{}(\widehat{sl}_r)_AR𝕊_{n,r}(v)$$

### 3.1

#### 3.1.1 $`v`$-Schur algebras $`𝕊_{n,r}(v)`$

We recall first the definition of the affine $`v`$-Schur algebras. Let $`s`$ be an nonnegative integer, and $`r^{}=\{0\}`$ a positive integer. Denote

$$𝒜_r^n=\{(i_1,\mathrm{},i_r);1i_1\mathrm{}i_rn\}$$

be the fundamental domain of the both actions of $`W_{aff}^r=\widehat{𝔖}_r`$ on $`^r`$ on the left by

$$s_j.(i_1,\mathrm{},i_r):=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_{j+1},i_j,\mathrm{},ir),1j<r,$$

$$\lambda .(i_1,i_r):=(i_1+s\lambda _1,\mathrm{}i_r+s\lambda _r),\lambda ^r$$

and on the right by

$$(i_1,\mathrm{},i_r).s_j:=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_{j+1},i_j,\mathrm{},ir),1j<r,$$

$$(i_1,i_r).\lambda :=(i_1+s\lambda _1,\mathrm{}i_r+s\lambda _r),\lambda ^r.$$

For an element $`𝐢𝒜_r^n`$, denote the stabilizer as $`𝔖_𝐢`$. Let us consider the projector $`e_𝐢:=_{\delta 𝔖_𝐢}T_\delta `$. Define the affine $`v`$-Schur algebra as

$$𝕊_{n,r}(v):=\underset{𝐢,𝐣𝒜_r^n}{}_{𝐢,𝐣}=\underset{𝐢,𝐣𝒜_r^n}{}e_𝐢(v,W_{aff}^r)e_𝐣.$$

It was proven that $`_{𝐢,𝐣}=e_𝐢(v,W_{aff}^r)e_𝐣`$ is exactly the $`[v,v^1]`$-linear span of the element $`T_\sigma =_{\sigma 𝔖_𝐢\widehat{𝔖}/𝔖_𝐣}T_\sigma `$. It was proven that this affine $`v`$-Schur algebra $`𝕊_{n,r}(v)`$ is a quotient of the modified quantum group $`\dot{U}_v^{}(\widehat{gl}_n)`$.

#### 3.1.2 $`v`$-Schur duality

One defines

$$𝕋_{n,r}:=\underset{𝐢𝒜_r^n}{}e_𝐢(v,W_{aff}^r).$$

Define $`T_\sigma :=_{\delta \sigma }T_\delta `$, for each coset class $`\sigma 𝔖_𝐢\widehat{𝔖}_r`$, then $`\{T_\sigma \}`$ form a basis of $`𝕋(n,r)`$. The algebra $`(v,W_{aff}^r)`$ acts on $`𝕋(n,r)`$ by multiplication on the right and the algebra $`𝕊_{n,r}(v)`$ acts on $`𝕋(n,r)`$ on the left by multiplication

$$e_𝐢he_𝐣.e_𝐤h^{}:=\delta _{𝐣,𝐤}e_𝐢he_𝐣h^{},h,h^{}e_𝐢(v,W_{aff}^r).$$

The Schur-Weyl duality for finite dimensional representations is as follows.

$$𝕊_{n,r}(v)End_{(v,W_{aff}^r)}𝕋(n,r),$$

$$(v,W_{aff}^r)End_{𝕊_{n,r}(v)}𝕋(n,r),$$

Remark that a geometric realization of this Schur-Weyl duality is an important subject in the Deligne-Langlands interplay and was highly developed, see e.g. \[CG\].

###### Theorem 3.1

The unitarizable $`((v,W_{aff}^r))`$-modules and $`(𝕊_{n,r}(v))`$ modules are in a complete Schur-Weyl duality

$$(𝕊_{n,r}(v))End_{((v,W_{aff}^r))}𝕋(n,r),$$

$$((v,W_{aff}^r))End_{(𝕊_{n,r}(v))}𝕋(n,r),$$

Proof. It is enough to recall that the quantum algebras of functions are consisting of matrix coefficients of all finite dimensional representations of the affine Hecke algebras and affine $`v`$-Schur algebras respectively. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 3.2

#### 3.2.1 Restriction maps

Let us first recall \[L\] the definition of the so called modified universal enveloping algebras $`\dot{U}(𝔤)`$. Denote as before $`X^{}(T)`$ the weight lattice, $`X_{}(T)`$ the co-weight lattice. For each $`\lambda ^{},\lambda ^{\prime \prime }X^{}(T)`$ define

$${}_{\lambda ^{}}{}^{}U_{\lambda ^{\prime \prime }}^{}:=U(𝔤)/(\underset{\mu X_{}(T)}{}(K_\mu v^{\mu ,\lambda })U(𝔤)+U(𝔤)\underset{\mu X_{}(T)}{}(K_\mu v^{\mu ,\lambda }))$$

and the natural projection

$$U(𝔤){}_{\lambda ^{}}{}^{}U_{\lambda ^{\prime \prime }}^{}.$$

By definition the modified universal enveloping algebra $`\dot{U}(𝔤)`$ is the direct sum

$$\dot{U}(𝔤):=\underset{\lambda ^{}X^{}(T),\lambda ^{\prime \prime }X_{}(T)}{}{}_{\lambda ^{}}{}^{}U_{\lambda ^{\prime \prime }}^{}.$$

The $`v`$-Schur algebras can be considered as some quotient of the modified quantized universal enveloping algebras $`\dot{U}_v(𝔤)`$ which is different from $`U(𝔤)`$ replacing $`U^0(𝔤)=`$ by the direct sum of infinite number of copies of $``$, one for each element of the weight lattice $`X^{}(T)`$, see G. Lusztig (\[L\], chapters. 23, 29). It was shown that the category of highest weight finite dimensional representations with weight decomposition of $`U(𝔤)`$ is equivalent to the category of highest weight representations of $`\dot{U}(𝔤)`$, but the algebras $`U(𝔤)`$ admit also the representations without weight decomposition.

Recall from the work of Schiffmann. The main idea is related with the maps

$$U_n(\widehat{sl}_r)U_n^{}(\widehat{sl}_r)U_n^{}(\widehat{sl}_r)_AR𝕊_{n,r}(v)$$

#### 3.2.2 Description of irreducible representations

###### Theorem 3.2

The restrictions of irreducible unitarizable $`_v(U_n(\widehat{sl}_r))`$ modules to $`_v(𝕊_{n,r}(v))`$ give a complete list of irreducible unitarizable $`_v(𝕊_{n,r}(v))`$ modules.

Proof. The proof combines Lemmas 2.1, 2.2 and the following fact. In the particular case of $`𝕊_{2,d}(v)`$ Doty and Giaquinto \[DG\] have a more presice description: The $`v`$-Schur-Weyl algebra is just the image of the quantized universal eveloping algebra $`U_v(𝔰𝔩_2)`$ in the $`d`$-tensor product power of the standard 2-dimensional representation. It is isomorphic to the algebra generated by elements $`E,F,K`$ and $`K^1`$ subject to the relations:

1. $`KK^1=K^1K=1,`$
2. $`KEK^1=v^2E,KFK^1=v^2F,`$
3. $`EFFE=\frac{KK^1}{vv^1},`$
4. $`(Kv^d)(Kv^{d2})\mathrm{}(Kv^{d+2})(Kv^d)=0.`$

We use again the map $`_v(𝕊(n,d))_v(𝕊(2,d))`$ associated with the natural inclusion of the Weyl groups $`W_{aff}^1W_{aff}^r`$ $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.3

Denote

$$(V_{\epsilon ,t},\mathrm{\Pi }_{\epsilon ,t})=\{\begin{array}{cc}(,\tau _t),\hfill & \text{if }\epsilon =0,\hfill \\ (\mathrm{}_2(),\pi _{w,t}),wW^f,\hfill & \text{if }\epsilon =1\hfill \end{array}$$

and define

$$\stackrel{~}{𝕋}_{n,r}:=\underset{\epsilon =0,1}{\overset{}{}}_{t𝕊^1}^{}V_{\epsilon ,t}^{}V_{\epsilon ,t}𝑑t.$$

We have therefore the Schur-Weyl Duality for unitarizable representations: Every irreducible unitarizable representation of the quantum affine Hecke algebra $`(v,W_{aff}^r)`$ is a sub-representation of the representation in the space of $`𝕊_{n,r}(v)`$-invariants $`\stackrel{~}{𝕋}_{n,r}^{𝕊_{n,r}(v)}`$ and conversely, every irreducible unitarizable representation of the quantum $`v`$-Schur algebra $`𝕊_{n,r}(v)`$ is a sub-representation of the representation in the space of $`(v,W_{aff}^r)`$-invariants $`\stackrel{~}{𝕋}_{n,r}^{(v,W_{aff}^r)}`$

## Acknowledgments

This work was completed during the stay of the author as a visiting mathematician at the Department of mathematics, The University of Iowa. The author would like to express the deep and sincere thanks to Professor Tuong Ton-That and his spouse, Dr. Thai-Binh Ton-That for their effective helps and kind attention they provided during the stay in Iowa, and also for a discussion about the PBW Theorem and Schur-Weyl duality. The deep thanks are also addressed to the organizers of the Seminar on Mathematical Physics, Seminar on Operator Theory in Iowa and the Iowa-Nebraska Functional Analysis Seminar (INFAS), in particular the professors Raul Curto, Palle Jorgensen, Paul Muhly and Tuong Ton-That for the stimulating scientific atmosphere. The deep thanks are addressed to professors Phil Kutzko and Fred Goodman for the useful discussions during their seminar lectures on Iwahori-Hecke algebras and their representations.

The author would like to thank the University of Iowa for the hospitality and the scientific support, the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Germany, for an effective support.

Department of Mathematics, The University of Iowa, 14 McLean Hall, Iowa City, IA 52242-1419, U. S. A.
Email: ndiep@math.uiowa.edu
and
Institute of Mathematics, NCST of Vietnam, P. O. Box 631, Bo Ho 10,000, Hanoi, Vietnam
Email: dndiep@hn.vnn.vn