text:
# A Generalization of Poisson-Nijenhuis Structures

## 1 Introduction

Poisson-Nijenhuis manifolds, first introduced by Magri and Morosi in their paper \[M-M\] and further studied in \[K-M\], play a central role in the study of integrable systems. A Poisson-Nijenhuis structure on a manifold $`M`$ is given by a pair $`(\pi ,J)`$ formed by a Poisson tensor $`\pi `$ and a (1,1)-tensor field $`J`$ whose Nijenhuis torsion vanishes, such that for any two differential 1-forms $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, we have the following compatibility conditions:

$$\pi (\alpha ,^tJ\beta )=\pi (^tJ\alpha ,\beta )\mathrm{and}C(\pi ,J)(\alpha ,\beta )=0,$$
$`(𝒞)`$
where $`{}_{}{}^{t}J`$ denotes the transpose of $`J`$ and $`C(\pi ,J)`$ is an $``$-bilinear, skew-symmetric operation on the space of differential 1-forms that we shall define below.

In \[V\], the author defined the Poisson-Nijenhuis structures in the general algebraic framework of Gel’fand and Dorfman. Moreover, Y. Kosmann-Schwarzbach gave in \[K\] a characterization of Poisson-Nijenhuis structures in terms of Lie algebroids. Another characterization is given in \[B-M\]. The particular case of a Poisson-Nijenhuis manifold having a non degenerate Poisson tensor (or symplectic-Nijenhuis manifold) is especially interesting, this case was studied by several authors for different purposes and under various names (see e.g. \[D\]). A natural question arises: what is the odd-dimensional analogue of a symplectic-Nijenhuis manifold? The main aim of the paper is to study this question. A contact manifold is known to be the analogue of a symplectic manifold for the odd-dimensional case. But a natural framework for a unified study of both contact and symplectic manifolds is given by the Jacobi structures. A Jacobi structure on a manifold $`M`$ is defined by a pair $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a bivector field, $`E`$ is a vector field such that $`[E,\mathrm{\Lambda }]=0`$, and $`[\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }]=2E\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Jacobi structures were introduced by A. Lichnerowicz and studied by him and his collaborators \[L\]\[D-L-M\]\[G-L\] (see also \[Ki\]).

In the theory of Hamiltonian systems an important mechanism allows to construct a hierarchy of pairwise compatible Poisson tensors starting from a Poisson-Nijenhuis structure. This brings us to the problem of finding a more general mechanism that would be operational for Jacobi structures. So, we shall need to extend the compatibility conditions $`(𝒞)`$ above to the case of Jacobi manifolds. Recently, Marrero, Monterde and Padron (see \[M-M-P\]) considered Jacobi-Nijenhuis structures and gave a possible solution to the above questions. Here, we present an approach that is slightly different from the one used in \[M-M-P\]. However, these approaches are not equivalent and we shall compare the two approaches in Section 3.2.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we recall some definitions and basic results concerning Jacobi structures.

In Section 3, we give necessary and sufficient conditions for a (1,1)-tensor field $`J`$ and a Jacobi structure $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$ to define, in a natural way, a new Jacobi structure which is compatible with $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$ in the sense of \[N\]. This section contains our main results which are Theorem 3.4 and Theorem 3.11.

Section 4 is devoted to the analysis of homogeneous Poisson structures, which are compatible with a (1,1)-tensor field $`J`$. Such structures are called homogeneous Poisson-Nijenhuis structures. It is well known that homogeneous Poisson structures are related to Jacobi structures, their relations having already been established in \[D-L-M\]. We give sufficient conditions for the existence of a homogeneous Poisson-Nijenhuis structure on a manifold and deduce consequences for the existence and properties of Jacobi structures.

## 2  Preliminaries

In this paper, all manifolds, multi-vector fields and forms are assumed to be differentiable of class $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$.

### 2.1 Jacobi structures

###### Definition 2.1

A Jacobi manifold $`(M,\{,\})`$ is a manifold $`M`$ equipped with an $``$-bilinear, skew-symmetric map $`\{,\}:C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)\times C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)`$, called the Jacobi bracket, which satisfies the following properties:

* the Jacobi identity:

$$\{f,\{g,h\}\}+\{g,\{h,f\}\}+\{h,\{f,g\}\}=0,f,g,hC^{\mathrm{}}(M,);$$
* the bracket is local (i.e. the support of $`\{f,g\}`$ is a subset of the intersection of the supports of $`f`$ and $`g`$).

Equivalently, a Jacobi structure can be defined by a pair $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$ of a bivector field $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and a vector field $`E`$ such that

$$[E,\mathrm{\Lambda }]=0\mathrm{and}[\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }]=2E\mathrm{\Lambda },$$

where $`[,]`$ is the Schouten-Nijenhuis bracket on the space of multi-vector fields (see \[Kz\]). The Jacobi bracket is then given by

$$\{f,g\}=\mathrm{\Lambda }(df,dg)+fdggdf,E.$$

When $`E`$ is zero, we obtain a Poisson structure. In other words, a Poisson structure on a manifold $`M`$ is given by a bivector field $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ such that the Schouten-Nijenhuis bracket $`[\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ vanishes. Then $`(M,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is called a Poisson manifold. In \[L\], Lichnerowicz showed that to any Jacobi structure $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$ on a manifold $`M`$, one may associate a Poisson structure $`\pi `$ on $`M\times `$, defined by

$$\pi (x,t)=e^t\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)+\frac{}{t}E\right).$$

Then, $`\pi `$ is called the Poissonization of $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$.

Notations. To any bivector field $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ on $`M`$, we may associate the skew-symmetric linear map denoted also by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)\chi (M)`$ and defined by:

$$\beta ,\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha =\alpha \beta ,\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,\beta ),$$

where $`\chi (M)`$ is the space of vector fields and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)`$ is the space of differential 1-forms on $`M`$. Conversely, a linear map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)\chi (M)`$ defines a bivector field on $`M`$ if and only if

$$\alpha ,\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta +\beta ,\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha =0.$$

Example: locally conformal symplectic manifolds. Let $`M`$ be a $`2n`$-dimensional manifold. A locally conformal symplectic structure on $`M`$ is given by a pair $`(F,\omega )`$, where $`F`$ is a non-degenerate 2-form and $`\omega `$ is a 1-form such that

$$d\omega =0\mathrm{and}dF+\omega F=0.$$

We define a bivector field $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and a vector field $`E`$ by:

$$i_EF=\omega \mathrm{and}i_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha }F=\alpha ,\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M).$$

Then $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$ defines a Jacobi structure. For any $`xM`$, there exist a neighborhood $`U_x`$ and a function $`f`$ defined on $`U_x`$ such that $`\omega =df`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=e^fF`$ is symplectic.

### 2.2 The Lie algebroid of a Jacobi manifold

It was proven in \[Ke-SB\] that there is a Lie algebroid associated with an arbitrary Jacobi manifold $`(M,\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$. We refer the reader to \[Ma\], for instance, for the basic properties of Lie algebroids. Consider the vector bundle $`T^{}M`$. The space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(T^{}M)`$ of smooth sections may be identified with $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)\times C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)`$. The Lie algebroid associated with a Jacobi manifold $`(M,\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$ is $`T^{}M`$ with the Lie bracket $`\{,\}_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(T^{}M)`$ defined by

$`\{(\alpha ,f),(\beta ,g)\}_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)}`$ $`=(L_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha }\beta L_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta }\alpha d\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,\beta )\right)+fL_E\beta gL_E\alpha i_E(\alpha \beta ),`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,\beta )+\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,dg)\mathrm{\Lambda }(\beta ,df)+fE(dg)gE(df)),`$
where $`d`$ is the exterior derivative and $`L_X=di_X+i_Xd`$ is the Lie derivation by $`X`$, for any vector field $`X`$. The anchor is given by the map $`\mathrm{\#}_{_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)}}`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\#}_{_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)}}(\alpha ,f)=\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha +fE.$$

## 3 Jacobi and Nijenhuis structures

### 3.1 Extension of the definition of compatibility to Jacobi structures

Let $`J`$ be a $`(1,1)`$-tensor field of $`M`$. The Nijenhuis torsion $`N_J`$ of $`J`$ with respect to the Lie bracket $`[.,.]`$ on the space $`\chi (M)`$ of vector fields is defined by

$$N_J(X,Y)=[JX,JY]J[JX,Y]J[X,JY]+J^2[X,Y],X,Y\chi (M).$$

###### Definition 3.1

$`J`$ is called a Nijenhuis tensor if its Nijenhuis torsion vanishes.

In particular, when $`J`$ is a $`(1,1)`$-tensor field on $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)\chi (M)`$ is a linear map, then $`J\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ defines a bivector field if and only if $`J\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }^tJ`$. In this case, the associated bivector field is denoted by $`J\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Furthermore, any bivector field $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ gives rise to a bracket defined on the differential 1-forms by

$$\{\alpha ,\beta \}_\mathrm{\Lambda }=L_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha }\beta L_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta }\alpha d\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,\beta )\right),\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M),$$
(1)
where $`L_X`$ is the Lie derivation by $`X`$, for any vector field $`X`$.

Whenever $`J\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }^tJ`$, we denote by $`C(\mathrm{\Lambda },J)`$ the $``$-bilinear map given by

$$C(\mathrm{\Lambda },J)(\alpha ,\beta )=\{\alpha ,\beta \}_{J\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\{^tJ\alpha ,\beta \}_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\{\alpha ,^tJ\beta \}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^tJ\{\alpha ,\beta \}_\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$

###### Definition 3.2

(see \[K-M\]) A Poisson-Nijenhuis structure on a manifold $`M`$ is defined by a Poisson tensor $`\pi `$ and a Nijenhuis tensor $`J`$ on $`M`$ such that

* $`J\pi =\pi ^tJ,`$
* $`C(\pi ,J)=0`$.

In this case, we say that $`\pi `$ and $`J`$ are compatible.

An extension of this definition to Jacobi structures is given by:

###### Definition 3.3

Let $`(M,\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$ be a Jacobi manifold and let $`J`$ be a $`(1,1)`$-tensor field such that its Nijenhuis torsion $`N_J`$ satisfies

$$N_J(\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ,\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta )=0\mathrm{and}N_J(\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ,J^kE)=0,$$

for all $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)`$ and for all $`k`$. Then, $`J`$ is said to be compatible with the Jacobi structure $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$ if

* $`J\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }^tJ,`$
* $`^tJ\gamma ,\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(C(\mathrm{\Lambda },J)(\alpha ,\beta )\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,\beta )JE+\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,^tJ\beta )E=0,`$ for any $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)`$,
* $`[J^kE,\mathrm{\Lambda }]+[E,J^k\mathrm{\Lambda }]=0,`$ for any integer $`k1`$.

When $`E=0`$ (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ defines a Poisson structure), the definition reduces to that of a weak Poisson-Nijenhuis structure (see \[M-N\]). The compatibility conditions then reduce to $`(i)`$ and $`(ii)`$ and constitute a generalization of the definition of a Poisson-Nijenhuis structure introduced in \[M-M\].

###### Theorem 3.4

Let $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$ be a Jacobi structure on $`M`$. Assume that $`J`$ is a $`(1,1)`$-tensor field such that $`J\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }^tJ`$,

$$N_J(\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ,\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta )=0\mathrm{and}N_J(\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ,E)=0\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M),$$

where $`N_J`$ is the Nijenhuis torsion of $`J`$. Then $`(J\mathrm{\Lambda },JE)`$ is a Jacobi structure on $`M`$ if and only if the following properties are satisfied for all $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M):`$

* $`J([JE,\mathrm{\Lambda }]\alpha +[E,J\mathrm{\Lambda }]\alpha )=0,`$
* $`^tJ\gamma ,\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(C(\mathrm{\Lambda },J)(\alpha ,\beta )\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,\beta )JE+\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,^tJ\beta )E=0.`$

In particular, if $`J`$ is a Nijenhuis tensor compatible with $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$, then $`(J\mathrm{\Lambda },JE)`$ is a Jacobi structure on $`M`$.

The proof of Theorem 3.4 is based on the following three lemmas.

###### Lemma 3.5

For any bivector field $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$,

$$\gamma ,\mathrm{\Lambda }\{\alpha ,\beta \}_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\gamma ,[\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ,\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta ]+\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }](\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ),\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M).$$
(2)
This formula is proven for instance in \[K-M\].

###### Lemma 3.6

Consider a pair $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$ of a bivector field $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and a vector field $`E`$ on $`M`$ such that $`[\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }]=2E\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Then, for any $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)`$-linear map $`J`$ on $`\chi (M)`$ satisfying $`J\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }^tJ`$, the following formula holds:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[J\mathrm{\Lambda },J\mathrm{\Lambda }](\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`(JEJ\mathrm{\Lambda })(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )+^tJ\gamma ,\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(C(\mathrm{\Lambda },J)(\alpha ,\beta )\right)`$
$`+E(^tJ\gamma )\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,^tJ\beta )JE(^tJ\gamma )\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,\beta )`$
$`\gamma ,N_J(\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ,\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta ).`$
Proof: Lemma 3.5 yields

$$\frac{1}{2}[J\mathrm{\Lambda },J\mathrm{\Lambda }](\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )=^tJ\gamma ,\mathrm{\Lambda }\{\alpha ,\beta \}_{J\mathrm{\Lambda }}\gamma ,[J\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ,J\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta ].$$

A direct computation, using Relation (2) again, shows that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[J\mathrm{\Lambda },J\mathrm{\Lambda }](\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}([\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }](^tJ\alpha ,\beta ,^tJ\gamma )+[\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }](\alpha ,^tJ\beta ,^tJ\gamma )`$ (3)
$`[\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }](\alpha ,\beta ,^tJ^2\gamma ))+^tJ\gamma ,\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(C(\mathrm{\Lambda },J)(\alpha ,\beta )\right)`$
$`\gamma ,N_J(\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ,\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta ).`$
Since $`[\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }]=2E\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we obtain:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[J\mathrm{\Lambda },J\mathrm{\Lambda }](\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ $`=(JEJ\mathrm{\Lambda })(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )+E(^tJ\gamma )\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,^tJ\beta )JE(^tJ\gamma )\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,\beta )`$
$`+^tJ\gamma ,\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(C(\mathrm{\Lambda },J)(\alpha ,\beta )\right)\gamma ,N_J(\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ,\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta ).`$
This is the formula that we sought.

###### Lemma 3.7

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a bivector field and $`E`$ a vector field on $`M`$. The following relation holds for any $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)`$-linear map $`J`$ on $`\chi (M)`$:

$$[JE,J\mathrm{\Lambda }](\alpha ,\beta )=\beta ,N_J(E,\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha )+\beta ,J[JE,\mathrm{\Lambda }]\alpha +J[E,J\mathrm{\Lambda }]\alpha J^2[E,\mathrm{\Lambda }]\alpha .$$

Proof: For any bivector field $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and for all $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)`$, we have:

$$[E,\mathrm{\Lambda }](\alpha ,\beta )=L_E\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,\beta )\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }(L_E\alpha ,\beta )\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,L_E\beta ).$$

This is equivalent to the relation

$$[E,\mathrm{\Lambda }]\alpha =[E,\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ]\mathrm{\Lambda }L_E\alpha ,\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M).$$
(4)
Using (4), we obtain for any $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)`$:

$`[JE,J\mathrm{\Lambda }]\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`[JE,J\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ]J\mathrm{\Lambda }L_{JE}\alpha `$
$`=`$ $`N_J(E,\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha )+J[JE,\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ]+J[E,J\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ]J^2[E,\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ]J\mathrm{\Lambda }L_{JE}\alpha .`$
Replacing $`[E,\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ]`$ by $`[E,\mathrm{\Lambda }]\alpha +\mathrm{\Lambda }L_E\alpha `$, we deduce that

$`[JE,J\mathrm{\Lambda }]\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`N_J(E,\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha )+J\left([JE,\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ]\mathrm{\Lambda }L_{JE}\alpha \right)`$
$`+J\left([E,J\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ]J\mathrm{\Lambda }L_E\alpha \right)J^2[E,\mathrm{\Lambda }]\alpha `$
$`=`$ $`N_J(E,\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha )+J\left([JE,\mathrm{\Lambda }]+[E,J\mathrm{\Lambda }]J[E,\mathrm{\Lambda }]\right)\alpha .`$
Proof of Theorem 3.4: Lemma 3.7 ensures that $`[JE,J\mathrm{\Lambda }]=0`$ is equivalent to (a), while Lemma 3.6 asserts that $`[J\mathrm{\Lambda },J\mathrm{\Lambda }]=2JEJ\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ if and only if property (b) is satisfied. Therefore, the theorem is proved.

Now, let us express Properties (a) and (b) of Theorem 3.4 using the Lie algebroid bracket associated with the Jacobi structure.

###### Proposition 3.8

Let $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$ be a Jacobi structure on $`M`$ and let $`J`$ be a $`(1,1)`$-tensor field such that

$$J\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }^tJ\mathrm{and}N_J(\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha +fE,\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta +gE)=0,\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M),f,gC^{\mathrm{}}(M,).$$

Then,

$`(a)\text{is satisfied}`$ $``$ $`[J\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha +fJE,gJE]=\mathrm{\#}_{_{(J\mathrm{\Lambda },JE)}}\left(\{(\alpha ,f),(0,g)\}_{(J\mathrm{\Lambda },JE)}\right)`$
$`(b)\text{is satisfied}`$ $``$ $`[J\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ,J\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta ]=\mathrm{\#}_{_{(J\mathrm{\Lambda },JE)}}\left(\{(\alpha ,0),(\beta ,0)\}_{(J\mathrm{\Lambda },JE)}\right).`$
Proof: On one hand,

$$[J\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha +fJE,gJE]=g[J\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ,JE]+\left(J\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,dg)+fdggdf,JE\right)JE.$$

On the other hand,

$$\mathrm{\#}_{_{(J\mathrm{\Lambda },JE)}}\{(\alpha ,f),(0,g)\}_{(J\mathrm{\Lambda },JE)}=gJ\mathrm{\Lambda }L_{JE}\alpha +\left(J\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,dg)+fdggdf,JE\right)JE.$$

We deduce that

$`[J\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha +fJE,gJE]\mathrm{\#}_{_{(J\mathrm{\Lambda },JE)}}\{(\alpha ,f),(0,g)\}_{(J\mathrm{\Lambda },JE)}`$ $`=`$ $`g([J\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ,JE]+J\mathrm{\Lambda }L_{JE}\alpha )`$
$`=`$ $`g[J\mathrm{\Lambda },JE]\alpha .`$
But Lemma 3.7 asserts that

$$[J\mathrm{\Lambda },JE]\alpha =0J([JE,\mathrm{\Lambda }]\alpha +[E,J\mathrm{\Lambda }]\alpha )=0.$$

Hence we obtain the first equivalence. In the same way, we prove the second equivalence using Lemma 3.6.

### 3.2  Hierarchy of Jacobi structures

A manifold $`M`$ is said to be a bihamiltonian manifold if $`M`$ is endowed with two Poisson tensors $`\pi _1`$ and $`\pi _2`$ such that $`\pi _1\lambda \pi _2`$ is a Poisson tensor for any $`\lambda `$. Then $`\pi _1\lambda \pi _2`$ is called a Poisson pencil. By analogy, if $`\{.,.\}__1`$ and $`\{.,.\}__2`$ are two Jacobi structures such that $`\{.,.\}__\lambda =\{.,.\}__1\lambda \{.,.\}__2`$ defines a Jacobi structure for any $`\lambda `$ in $``$, then $`\{.,.\}__\lambda `$ will be called a Jacobi pencil. In this case, the two Jacobi structures are said to be compatible (see \[N\]).

###### Proposition 3.9

Let $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,E_1)`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,E_2)`$ be two Jacobi structures on $`M`$. Denote by $`\pi _i=e^t(\mathrm{\Lambda }_i+/tE_i)`$, with $`i=1,2`$, the associated Poisson tensors on $`M\times `$. Then the following assertions are equivalent:

* $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,E_1)`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,E_2)`$ define a Jacobi pencil on $`M`$.
* $`[E_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_2]+[E_2,\mathrm{\Lambda }_1]=0`$ and $`[\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_2]=E_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2+E_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$.
* The pair $`(\pi _1,\pi _2)`$ defines a Poisson pencil on $`M\times `$.

The proof of this proposition is straightforward and can be found in \[N\].

###### Remark 3.10

Consider the following relation:

* $`[JE,\mathrm{\Lambda }]+[E,J\mathrm{\Lambda }]=0`$

Under the hypotheses of Theorem 3.4, if $`(J\mathrm{\Lambda },JE)`$ is a Jacobi structure compatible with $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$, then it follows from the proposition above and Theorem 3.4 that ($`a^{}`$), as well as $`(b)`$ are satisfied.

On the other hand, if ($`a^{}`$) and $`(b)`$ are satisfied then Theorem 3.4 ensures that $`(J\mathrm{\Lambda },JE)`$ is a Jacobi structure on $`M`$. But, $`(J\mathrm{\Lambda },JE)`$ may not be compatible with $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$. They define a Jacobi pencil if and only if $`[J\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }]=JE\mathrm{\Lambda }+EJ\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$

###### Theorem 3.11

For any Jacobi structure $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$ compatible with a Nijenhuis tensor $`J`$ on $`M`$ and for each $`k^{}`$, the pair $`(J^k\mathrm{\Lambda },J^kE)`$ is a Jacobi structure on $`M`$. Furthermore for $`k_1,`$ $`k_2^{}`$, $`(J^{k_1}\mathrm{\Lambda },J^{k_1}E)`$ and $`(J^{k_2}\mathrm{\Lambda },J^{k_2}E)`$ define a Jacobi pencil.

This theorem is a generalization of a result proved in \[M-M\] and \[K-M\].

###### Lemma 3.12

Let $`J`$ be a $`(1,1)`$-tensor field. Then, we have:

$`N_{J^{k+1}}(X,Y)`$ $`=`$ $`N_{J^k}(JX,JY)+J^k\left(N_J(J^kX,Y)+N_J(X,J^kY)\right)`$
$`J^2\left(N_{J^{k1}}(JX,JY)N_{J^k}(X,Y)\right),X,Y\chi (M).`$
The proof of this lemma is straightforward.

Proof of Theorem 3.11: assume that $`[J^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Lambda },J^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }]=2J^{\mathrm{}}EJ^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, for any $`\mathrm{}k`$. It follows from Lemma 3.6 that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[J^{k+1}\mathrm{\Lambda },J^{k+1}\mathrm{\Lambda }](\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ $`=(J^{k+1}EJ^{k+1}\mathrm{\Lambda })(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )+^tJ\gamma ,J^k\mathrm{\Lambda }C(J^k\mathrm{\Lambda },J)(\alpha ,\beta )`$
$`+J^kE(^tJ\gamma )J^k\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,^tJ\beta )J^{k+1}E(^tJ\gamma )J^k\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,\beta ),`$
for all for all $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)`$. We shall prove that

$$J^k\mathrm{\Lambda }C(J^k\mathrm{\Lambda },J)(\alpha ,\beta )+J^k\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,^tJ\beta )J^kEJ^k\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,\beta )J^{k+1}E=0,$$

for any $`k1`$. In fact, for any bivector field $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and for any linear map $`J`$ on $`\chi (M)`$ such that $`J\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }^tJ`$, the following relation holds (see \[M-M\]):

$$C(J\mathrm{\Lambda },J)(\alpha ,\beta ),X=C(\mathrm{\Lambda },J)(^tJ\alpha ,\beta ),X+\alpha ,N_J(\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta ,X).$$
(5)
For any vector field $`X`$ of the form $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma `$, we have

$$C(J\mathrm{\Lambda },J)(\alpha ,\beta ),\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma =C(\mathrm{\Lambda },J)(^tJ\alpha ,\beta ),\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma $$

Thus,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }C(J\mathrm{\Lambda },J)(\alpha ,\beta )=\mathrm{\Lambda }C(\mathrm{\Lambda },J)(^tJ\alpha ,\beta ),$$

for all $`\alpha ,\beta `$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)`$. Hence, we obtain by induction that for any $`k1`$,

$$J^k\mathrm{\Lambda }C(J^k\mathrm{\Lambda },J)(\alpha ,\beta )=J^k\mathrm{\Lambda }C(\mathrm{\Lambda },J)(^tJ^k\alpha ,\beta ).$$
(6)
Since $`J`$ is compatible with $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$, we have

$$J\mathrm{\Lambda }C(\mathrm{\Lambda },J)(\alpha ,\beta )=J(\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,\beta )JE\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,^tJ\beta )E).$$
(7)
We deduce that

$`J^k\mathrm{\Lambda }C(J^k\mathrm{\Lambda },J)(\alpha ,\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`J^k\mathrm{\Lambda }C(\mathrm{\Lambda },J)(^tJ^k\alpha ,\beta )`$
$`=`$ $`J^k(\mathrm{\Lambda }(^tJ^k\alpha ,\beta )JE\mathrm{\Lambda }(^tJ^k\alpha ,^tJ\beta )E)`$
$`=`$ $`J^k\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,\beta )J^{k+1}EJ^k\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,^tJ\beta )J^kE,`$
for any $`k1.`$ So, we obtain the relation that we sought. The latter implies that

$$[J^k\mathrm{\Lambda },J^k\mathrm{\Lambda }]=2J^kEJ^k\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{for}\mathrm{any}k1.$$

Moreover, replacing $`J`$ by $`J^k`$ in Lemma 3.7, we obtain, since $`[E,\mathrm{\Lambda }]=0`$,

$$[J^kE,J^k\mathrm{\Lambda }](\alpha ,\beta )=\beta ,N_{J^k}(E,\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha )+^tJ^k\beta ,[J^kE,\mathrm{\Lambda }]\alpha +[E,J^k\mathrm{\Lambda }]\alpha .$$

From Lemma 3.12, we obtain by induction that $`N_{J^k}(E,\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha )`$ vanishes for all $`k1`$. Therefore,

$$[J^kE,J^k\mathrm{\Lambda }]=0,\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}k1.$$

Thus, $`(J^k\mathrm{\Lambda },J^kE)`$ defines a Jacobi structure for any $`k1`$.

Now, take two different pairs $`(J^{k_1}\mathrm{\Lambda },J^{k_1}E)`$ and $`(J^{k_2}\mathrm{\Lambda },J^{k_2}E)`$. We shall prove that they determine a Jacobi pencil. For any $`\lambda `$, we have to prove that

$$[J^{k_1}\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda J^{k_2}\mathrm{\Lambda },J^{k_1}\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda J^{k_2}\mathrm{\Lambda }]=2(J^{k_1}E\lambda J^{k_2}E)(J^{k_1}\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda J^{k_2}\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$

We already know that

$$[J^{k_i}\mathrm{\Lambda },J^{k_i}\mathrm{\Lambda }]=2J^{k_i}EJ^{k_i}\mathrm{\Lambda },i=1,2.$$

Now we prove that

$$[J^{k_1}\mathrm{\Lambda },J^{k_2}\mathrm{\Lambda }]=J^{k_1}EJ^{k_2}\mathrm{\Lambda }+J^{k_2}EJ^{k_1}\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$

Assume that $`k_1=k_2+\mathrm{}`$, then we apply $`\mathrm{}`$ times the result saying that, for arbitrary bivector fields $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\pi `$ on $`M`$, for any linear map $`J`$ on $`\chi (M)`$ the following formula holds (see \[M-M\]):

$`[J\mathrm{\Lambda },\pi ](\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{\Lambda },\pi ](\alpha ,\beta ,^tJ\gamma )+C(\pi ,J)(\alpha ,\gamma ),\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta `$ (8)
$`C(\pi ,J)(\beta ,\gamma ),\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha C(\mathrm{\Lambda },J)(\alpha ,\beta ),\pi \gamma .`$
We apply this last relation and we calculate by recursion the $`\mathrm{}`$ quantities $`[J^{k_2+\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Lambda },J^{k_2}\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$,…,$`[J^{k_2+1}\mathrm{\Lambda },J^{k_2}\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$. It follows that:

$`[J^{k_1}\mathrm{\Lambda },J^{k_2}\mathrm{\Lambda }](\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`[J^{k_2}\mathrm{\Lambda },J^{k_2}\mathrm{\Lambda }](\alpha ,\beta ,^tJ^{\mathrm{}}\gamma )`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}C(J^{k_2}\mathrm{\Lambda },J)(\alpha ,^tJ^{r1}\gamma ),J^{k_1r}\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta `$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}C(J^{k_2}\mathrm{\Lambda },J)(\beta ,^tJ^{r1}\gamma ),J^{k_1r}\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha `$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{l}{}}}C(J^{k_1r}\mathrm{\Lambda },J)(\alpha ,\beta ),J^{k_2+r1}\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma `$
Using ( 6), ( 7) and the fact that $`[J^{k_2}\mathrm{\Lambda },J^{k_2}\mathrm{\Lambda }]=2J^{k_2}EJ^{k_2}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we obtain after computations:

$$[J^{k_1}\mathrm{\Lambda },J^{k_2}\mathrm{\Lambda }]=J^{k_1}EJ^{k_2}\mathrm{\Lambda }+J^{k_2}EJ^{k_1}\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$

The last step is to show that:

$$[J^{k_1}E\lambda J^{k_2}E,J^{k_1}\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda J^{k_2}\mathrm{\Lambda }]=0.$$

This is equivalent to showing that $`[J^{k_1}E,J^{k_2}\mathrm{\Lambda }]+[J^{k_2}E,J^{k_1}\mathrm{\Lambda }]=0.`$ By hypothesis this relation is true when $`k_2=1`$ and using Lemma 3.7, we can easily show by induction that this formula holds for any $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$.

Example. Let $`\omega `$ be a closed 1-form and let $`F_1`$, $`F_2`$ be two non-degenerate 2-forms on $`M`$. Assume that $`(F_1,\omega )`$ and $`(F_2,\omega )`$ are locally conformal symplectic structures on $`M`$. Let $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_i,E_i)`$ denote the Jacobi structures associated with $`(F_i,\omega )`$, where $`i=1,2`$. Assume that these two Jacobi structures are compatible. Define the isomorphism of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)`$-modules $`\mathrm{}_i:\chi (M)\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)`$ by

$$\mathrm{}_i(X)=i_XF_i.$$

We have

$$E_i=\mathrm{}_i^1(\omega )\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\alpha =\mathrm{}_i^1(\alpha ),\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M).$$

Then, the $`(1,1)`$-tensor field $`J=\mathrm{}_2^1\mathrm{}_1`$ is compatible with $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,E_1)`$. Indeed, for any $`xM`$, there exist a neighborhood $`U_x`$ and a function $`f`$ defined on $`U_x`$ such that $`\omega =df`$. The 2-forms $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=e^fF_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=e^fF_2`$ are symplectic and the Poisson tensors associated with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ are respectively $`\pi _1=e^f\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, $`\pi _2=e^f\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$.

We claim that the Jacobi structures $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,E_1)`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,E_2)`$ are compatible if and only if $`\pi _1`$ and $`\pi _2`$ are compatible. Let us prove this claim. Using the properties of the Schouten-Nijenhuis bracket, we get

$$[\pi _1,\pi _2]=e^{2f}\left([\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_2][\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,f]\mathrm{\Lambda }_2[\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,f]\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\right).$$

Since $`E_i=[\mathrm{\Lambda }_i,f]=\mathrm{\Lambda }_i(df)`$, we have

$$[\pi _1,\pi _2]=e^{2f}\left([\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_2]E_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2E_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\right).$$

Therefore, $`[\pi _1,\pi _2]=0`$ if and only if $`[\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_2]=E_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2+E_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$. Moreover, we may remark that the Jacobi identity for the Schouten-Nijenhuis bracket yields

$`[[\pi _1,\pi _2],e^f]`$ $`=`$ $`[[\pi _2,e^f],\pi _1][[e^f,\pi _1],\pi _2]`$
$`=`$ $`[[\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,f],e^f\mathrm{\Lambda }_1][[f,\mathrm{\Lambda }_1],e^f\mathrm{\Lambda }_2].`$
The fact that $`E_i=[\mathrm{\Lambda }_i,f]`$ implies

$$[[\pi _1,\pi _2],e^f]=e^f([E_2,\mathrm{\Lambda }_1]+[E_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_2]).$$

Thus, $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_i,E_i)_{i=1,2}`$ form a Jacobi pencil if and only if the tensors $`(\pi _i)_{i=1,2}`$ define a Poisson pencil. So, we may deduce that the Nijenhuis torsion of $`J`$ vanishes. Furthermore, the sequence $`(J^k\pi _1)`$ consists of pairwise compatible Poisson tensors, while $`(J^k\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,J^kE_1)`$ is a sequence of pairwise compatible Jacobi structures.

### 3.3 Compatibility conditions and Jacobi-Nijenhuis structures

In this section, we shall study the differences between a Jacobi-Nijenhuis structure and a structure which satisfies the axioms of Definition 3.3. We now recall the definition of a Jacobi-Nijenhuis structure given in \[M-M-P\]. For any bivector field $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and for any vector field $`E`$, we may define a map $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}_{_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)}}:\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)\times C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)\chi (M)\times C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)`$ by

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}_{_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)}}(\alpha ,g)=(\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha +gE,i_E\alpha ),\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M),gC^{\mathrm{}}(M,).$$

Consider the Lie bracket $`[.,.]_{}`$ defined on $`\chi (M)\times C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)`$ by:

$$[(X_1,f_1),(X_2,f_2)]_{}=([X_1,X_2],i_{X_1}df_2i_{X_2}df_1).$$

Let $`𝒥:\chi (M)\times C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)\chi (M)\times C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)`$ be a $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)`$-linear map. The Nijenhuis torsion of $`𝒥`$ is defined as follows:

$`N_𝒥((X_1,f_1),(X_2,f_2))`$ $`=[𝒥(X_1,f_1),𝒥(X_2,f_2)]_{}𝒥[𝒥(X_1,f_1),(X_2,f_2)]_{}`$
$`𝒥[(X_1,f_1),𝒥(X_2,f_2)]_{}+𝒥^2[(X_1,f_1),(X_2,f_2)]_{}.`$
Then $`𝒥`$ is said to be a recursion operator of a Jacobi structure $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$ (see \[M-M-P\]) if

$$N_𝒥(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}_{_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)}}(\alpha _1,g_1),\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}_{_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)}}(\alpha _2,g_2))=0$$

for any $`(\alpha _i,g_i)\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)\times C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)`$, $`i=1,2`$.

###### Definition 3.13

\[M-M-P\] Let $`𝒥:\chi (M)\times C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)\chi (M)\times C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)`$ be a $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)`$-linear map, and let $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$ be a Jacobi structure on $`M`$. The triple $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E,𝒥)`$ is said to be a Jacobi-Nijenhuis structure on $`M`$ if $`𝒥`$ is a recursion operator of $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$, if $`𝒥\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}_{_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)}}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}_{_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)}}^t𝒥`$ and if $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,E_1)`$ is a Jacobi structure compatible with $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and $`E_1`$ are characterized by

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}_{_{(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,E_1)}}=𝒥\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}_{_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)}}.$$

In fact, a $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)`$-linear map $`𝒥`$ from $`\chi (M)\times C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)`$ into itself is equivalent to determining a quadruplet $`(J,X_0,\alpha _0,\phi _0)`$, where $`J`$ is a $`(1,1)`$-tensor field on $`M`$, $`X_0`$ is a vector field, $`\alpha _0`$ is a differential 1-form and $`\phi _0`$ is a smooth function such that

$$𝒥(X,f)=(JX+fX_0,i_X\alpha _0+f\phi _0).$$

We set $`𝒥=(J,X_0,\alpha _0,\phi _0)`$, the transpose $`{}_{}{}^{t}𝒥`$ of $`𝒥`$ is defined by

$${}_{}{}^{t}𝒥(\beta ,g)=(^tJ\beta +g\alpha _0,i_{X_0}\beta +g\phi _0),$$

for any $`(\beta ,g)\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)\times C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)`$. For any Jacobi structure $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$,

$$𝒥\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}_{_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)}}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}_{_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)}}^t𝒥\{\begin{array}{cc}i_E\alpha _0=0\hfill & \\ JE=\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha _0+\phi _0E\hfill & \\ J\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^tJ\alpha =(i_E\alpha )X_0+(i_{X_0}\alpha )E,\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)\hfill & \end{array}$$

From now on, we shall assume that $`i_E\alpha _0=0`$.

We can now compare Jacobi-Nijenhuis structures with structures defined by a $`(1,1)`$-tensor field $`J`$ and a Jacobi structure which are compatible in the sense of Definition 3.3.

We start with the simple example where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ (i.e. the Jacobi structure is just a non-zero vector field on $`M`$), then for any $`(1,1)`$-tensor field $`J`$, the properties $`(i)`$, $`(ii)`$ and $`(iii)`$ of Definition 3.3 are satisfied. Taking into account the above equivalence, we deduce that a recursion operator $`𝒥=(J,X_0,\alpha _0,\phi _0)`$ of $`(0,E)`$ defines a Jacobi-Nijenhuis structure on $`M`$ if and only if $`JE=\phi _0E`$ and $`X_0`$ vanishes on the support of $`E`$. In other words, any $`(1,1)`$-tensor field $`J`$ is compatible with $`(0,E)`$ but for a recursion operator $`𝒥=(J,X_0,\alpha _0,\phi _0)`$, the pair $`(E,𝒥)`$ is a Jacobi-Nijenhuis structure on $`M`$ if and only if the following conditions are fulfilled:

$$JE=\phi _0E\mathrm{and}X_0=0\text{on supp}(E).$$

We now move on to the general case. Let $`𝒥=(J,X_0,\alpha _0,\phi _0)`$ be a recursion operator of a Jacobi structure $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is not identically zero on $`M`$. There are two alternatives:

First case: $`X_0=0`$ on the support of $`E`$. We shall show that in such a case, $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E,𝒥)`$ is a Jacobi-Nijenhuis structure if and only if $`JE=\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha _0+\phi _0E`$ and $`J`$ fulfills the axioms $`(i)`$, $`(ii)`$ and $`(iii)`$ of Definition 3.3.

Assume that $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E,𝒥)`$ is a Jacobi-Nijenhuis structure. By hypothesis, we have $`(i)`$ and the equality $`JE=\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha _0+\phi _0E`$. Moreover, for every integer $`k1`$, the equation

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}_{_{(\mathrm{\Lambda }_k,E_k)}}=𝒥^k\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}_{_{(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)}}$$

has a unique solution that is $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_k,E_k)=(J^k\mathrm{\Lambda },J^kE)`$. A result proven in \[M-M-P\] shows that if $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E,𝒥)`$ is a Jacobi-Nijenhuis structure then for any integer $`k1`$, the pair $`(J^k\mathrm{\Lambda },J^kE)`$ is a Jacobi-Nijenhuis structure that is compatible with $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$. So, we obtain in particular $`(iii)`$. Furthermore, setting

$$𝒱=\{xM|E(x)=0\text{in a neighborhood of}x\},$$

it follows from the fact that $`𝒥`$ is a recursion operator that the Nijenhuis torsion $`N_J`$ of $`J`$ satisfies the following equation on $`\mathrm{supp}(E)𝒱`$:

$$N_J(\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha +fE,\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta +gE)=0.$$
(9)
Since $`\mathrm{supp}(E)𝒱`$ is a dense subset of $`M`$, by an argument of continuity, Equation ( 9) is valid on the whole manifold $`M`$. Furthermore, $`JE=\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha _0+\phi _0E`$ implies that $`J^kE`$ is also of the form $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha +\phi E`$, for all $`k1`$. So,

$$N_J(\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ,J^kE)=0,\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M).$$

Applying Theorem 3.4, we obtain $`(ii)`$. This shows that $`J`$ belongs to the particular class of structures satisfying Definition 3.3 and $`JE=\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha _0+\phi _0E`$.

Conversely, assume that the relations $`JE=\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha _0+\phi _0E`$, $`(i)`$, $`(ii)`$ and $`(iii)`$ are satisfied on $`M`$. Then using Theorem 3.11 and Definition 3.13, we deduce that $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E,𝒥)`$ is a Jacobi-Nijenhuis structure.

Second case: if $`X_0`$ is not identically zero on the support of $`E`$, then $`J\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^tJ0`$. However, $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E,𝒥)`$ may be a Jacobi-Nijenhuis structure.

We summarize our discussion in the following proposition:

###### Proposition 3.14

Let $`(M,\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$ be a Jacobi manifold and let $`J`$ be a (1,1)-tensor field on $`M`$ such that $`J\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }^tJ`$. Assume that there exist a vector field $`X_0`$, a 1-form $`\alpha _0`$ and a smooth function $`\phi _0`$ such that $`𝒥=(J,X_0,\alpha _0,\phi _0)`$ is a recursion operator of $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$. Then $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E,𝒥)`$ is a Jacobi-Nijenhuis structure if and only if the following conditions are satisfied:

* $`JE=\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha _0+\phi _0E`$,
* $`[J^kE,\mathrm{\Lambda }]+[E,J^k\mathrm{\Lambda }]=0,`$ for any integer $`k1`$,
* $`^tJ\gamma ,\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(C(\mathrm{\Lambda },J)(\alpha ,\beta )\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,\beta )JE+\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,^tJ\beta )E=0,`$ for any $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)`$.

## 4  Nijenhuis tensors and homogeneous Poisson structures

###### Definition 4.1

A homogeneous Poisson manifold $`(M,\pi ,Z)`$ is a Poisson manifold $`(M,\pi )`$ with a vector field $`Z`$ over $`M`$ such that

$$[Z,\pi ]=\pi .$$

###### Theorem 4.2

Assume that $`(M,\pi ,Z)`$ is a homogeneous Poisson manifold. Let $`J`$ be Nijenhuis tensor compatible with $`\pi `$. Then $`(M,J\pi ,Z)`$ is a homogeneous Poisson manifold if and only if the following property is satisfied:

$$\pi (L_Z^tJ^tJL_Z)=0,$$
(10)
where $`L_Z=i_Zd+di_Z`$ is the Lie derivation by $`Z`$. When this property holds, $`J\pi \lambda \pi `$ defines a Poisson pencil which is homogeneous with respect to $`Z`$.

Proof: Taking into account Theorem 3.11, we have only to prove that $`[Z,J\pi ]=J\pi `$. Let us compute $`[Z,J\pi ]`$. We obtain

$`[Z,J\pi ](df,dg)`$ $`=`$ $`L_Z\left(J\pi (df,dg)\right)J\pi (L_Zdf,dg)J\pi (df,L_Zdg)`$
$`=`$ $`L_Z\left(\pi (^tJdf,dg)\right)\pi (^tJL_Zdf,dg)\pi (^tJdf,L_Zdg)`$
Since

$$L_Z\left(\pi (^tJdf,dg)\right)=[Z,\pi ](^tJdf,dg)+\pi (L_Z^tJdf,dg)+\pi (^tJdf,L_Zdg),$$

we obtain

$`[Z,J\pi ](df,dg)`$ $`=`$ $`[Z,\pi ](^tJdf,dg)+\pi (L_Z^tJdf,dg)J\pi (L_Zdf,dg)`$
$`=`$ $`\pi (^tJdf,dg)+\pi (L_Z^tJdf,dg)J\pi (L_Zdf,dg)`$
Hence, the relation $`[Z,J\pi ]=J\pi `$ is equivalent to the following one:

$$\pi L_Z^tJ=\pi ^tJL_Z.$$

This proves the theorem.

###### Definition 4.3

A homogeneous Poisson manifold $`(M,\pi ,Z)`$ equipped with a Nijenhuis tensor $`J`$ which is compatible with $`\pi `$ and satisfies equation ( 10) is said to be a homogeneous Poisson-Nijenhuis manifold.

###### Corollary 4.4

Let $`(M,\pi ,J)`$ be a Poisson-Nijenhuis manifold. If $`\pi `$ is homogeneous with respect to a vector field $`Z`$ and if the following property holds

$$[Z,JX]=J[Z,X],X\chi (M),$$
(11)
then the triple $`(M,\pi ,J)`$ is a homogeneous Poisson-Nijenhuis manifold with respect to $`Z`$.

Proof: We obtain this corollary using the above theorem and the fact that

$$[Z,JX]=J[Z,X],X\chi (M)L_Z^tJ=^tJL_Z.$$

###### Definition 4.5

A map $`\psi :(M_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,E_1)(M_2,\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,E_2)`$ between two Jacobi manifolds is said to be a conformal Jacobi morphism if there exists a function $`aC^{\mathrm{}}(M_1,)`$ which vanishes nowhere such that for any $`f,gC^{\mathrm{}}(M_2,)`$ we have:

$$\{a(f\psi ),a(g\psi )\}_1=a(\{f,g\}_2\psi ),$$

where the brackets $`\{,\}_1`$ and $`\{,\}_2`$ are the Jacobi brackets associated with $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,E_1)`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,E_2)`$ respectively.

Homogeneous Poisson manifolds are closely related to Jacobi manifolds and their relations were established in \[D-L-M\]. In terms of Poisson pencils, we have the following results.

###### Proposition 4.6

Let $`\{.,.\}__\lambda `$ be a Jacobi pencil on $`M`$. There exists a Poisson pencil on $`M\times `$ such that the projection $`P:M\times M`$ is a conformal Jacobi morphism, for each $`\lambda `$.

Proof: If $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_i,E_i)`$ denotes the Jacobi structure on $`M`$ associated to $`\{.,.\}__i`$, with $`i=1,2`$, then according to Proposition 3.9, the Poisson pencil on $`M\times `$ is given by $`\pi _1\lambda \pi _2`$ where

$$\pi _i(x,t)=e^t\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_i(x)+\frac{}{t}E_i\right).$$

One may easily verify that $`P:(M\times ,\pi _\lambda )(M,\{.,.\}__\lambda )`$ is a conformal Jacobi morphism.

Conversely, we may prove that homogeneous Poisson pencils give Jacobi pencils by using a proof from \[D-L-M\]. More precisely, we have:

###### Proposition 4.7

Let $`\pi _\lambda `$ be a homogeneous Poisson pencil on $`M`$ with respect to the vector field $`Z`$, and let $`N`$ be a sub-manifold of $`M`$ of codimension 1 which is transverse to $`Z`$. Then there exists a Jacobi pencil on $`N`$ such that for any pair of functions $`(f,g)`$ defined on an open set $`U`$ of $`M`$, satisfying $`<Z,df>=f`$ and $`<Z,dg>=g`$, we have

$$\{f_{|_{NU}},g_{|_{NU}}\}_\lambda =\pi _\lambda (df,dg)_{|_{NU}}.$$

###### Corollary 4.8

Let $`(M,\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$ be a Jacobi manifold and let $`J`$ be a Nijenhuis tensor on $`M`$, which is compatible with $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$. Then there exists a sequence of Poisson-Nijenhuis structures $`(\pi _k)`$ on $`M\times `$ such that the projection $`P_k:(M\times ,\pi _k)(M,\mathrm{\Lambda },E)`$ is a conformal Jacobi morphism, for each $`k1`$ .

Conversely, if $`(M,\pi ,J)`$ is a homogeneous Poisson-Nijenhuis manifold with respect to the vector field $`Z`$ and if $`N`$ is a sub-manifold of $`M`$ of codimension 1, which is transverse to $`Z`$, then there exists a sequence of pairwise compatible Jacobi structures on $`N`$ determined by $`\pi `$, $`Z`$ and $`J`$.

This corollary is a direct consequence of Theorem 3.11 and Propositions 4.6 and 4.7.

Acknowledgments. I express my gratitude to the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics for its support. I wish to thank R. Brouzet, J.-P. Dufour and A. Kuku for helpful discussions. Thanks are due also to C.-M. Marle for pointing out Ref. \[M-M-P\], J. Monterde and J. M. Nunes da Costa for providing me with Ref. \[M-M-P\] and Ref. \[N\], respectively. I am indebted to the referee for useful comments which enabled me to bring this paper to its present form.

Current address:

DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA,

CHAPEL HILL, NC 27599-3250.

E-mail: aissaw@math.unc.edu


format: text

text:
# Exact Bond-Located Spin Ground State in the Hubbard Chain with Off-Diagonal Coulomb Interactions

\[

## Abstract

We show the existence of an exact ground state in certain parameter regimes of one-dimensional half-filled extended Hubbard model with site-off-diagonal interactions. In this ground state, the bond-located spin correlation exhibits a long-range order. In the case when the spin space is SU(2) symmetric, this ground state degenerates with higher spin states including a fully ferromagnetic state. We also discuss the relation between the exact bond-ordered ground state and the critical bond-spin-density-wave phase.

\]

The Hubbard model is one of the generic models to describe interacting electrons in narrow-band systems . The on-site repulsion of this model is due to the matrix elements of the Coulomb interaction corresponding to the on-site Wannier states, and the other matrix elements are neglected. The importance of the neglected nearest-neighbor exchange interactions was, however, stressed and discussed for stabilization of ferromagnetism or a dimerized state .

Japaridze first discussed using the weak-coupling theory the possibility of the bond-spin-density-wave (BSDW) ground state connected with the site-off-diagonal nature of the pair-hopping term . He introduced the BSDW order parameters $`𝓞_i=(𝒪_i^x,𝒪_i^y,𝒪_i^z)`$:

$$𝓞_i=\frac{1}{2}(1)^i\underset{\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}(c_{i\sigma }^{}𝝉_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}^{}c_{i+1\sigma ^{}}^{}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)$$
(1)
with the Pauli matrices $`𝝉=(\tau ^x,\tau ^y,\tau ^z)`$, where the operator $`c_{i\sigma }^{}`$ ($`c_{i\sigma }^{}`$) creates (annihilates) an electron with spin $`\sigma `$ ($`=,)`$ at the $`i`$-th site. The $`z`$-component of these order parameters (BSDW-$`z`$) $`𝒪_i^z`$ describes a staggered magnetization with spins located on bonds between adjacent sites (see Fig. 1).

First in this Letter, we exactly demonstrate that the half-filled one-dimensional (1D) Hubbard model with site-off-diagonal interactions and a spin anisotropy has a doubly degenerate bond-ordered ground state in an intermediate coupling regime, using the optimal ground state approach . This bond-ordered state is interpreted as a Néel state of bond-located spins, and the state realizes the fully BSDW long-range order with respect to the z-direction. For this reason we call the state the Bond-Néel  (BNéel) state in the following. In this state there are no correlations with respect to both of site-located charge and spin density operators except for the nearest neighbor. The system possesses, therefore, charge and spin gaps between the ground state and excited states.

Next we consider a spin SU(2) symmetric case, and we show that the existence of the phase in which the BSDW correlation is dominant by using numerical methods as the level-crossing approach . The BSDW correlation shows a power-law decay at large distances and the system has a gapless spin excitation. This BSDW phase borders on the BNéel phase on the multicritical point. We discuss the relation between the BNéel state and the critical BSDW state.

We consider the 1D extended Hubbard model with on-site and nearest-neighbor interaction given by

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{ijkl}{}\underset{\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}ij|v_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}|klc_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma ^{}}^{}c_{l\sigma ^{}}^{}c_{k\sigma }^{},$$

where the matrix elements with respect to on-site or nearest-neighbor only are nonzero. The Hamiltonian is $`=_{i,j}h_{ij}`$, where the local Hamiltonian $`h_{ij}`$ is given by

$`h_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}(c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }^{}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)[t+X(n_{i\sigma }+n_{j\sigma })]`$ (5)
$`+\frac{1}{2}U\left[(n_i\frac{1}{2})(n_i\frac{1}{2})+(n_j\frac{1}{2})(n_j\frac{1}{2})\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}}V_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(n_{i\sigma }\frac{1}{2})(n_{j\sigma ^{}}\frac{1}{2})`$
$`+\frac{1}{2}W{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}}(c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }^{}+c_{j\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }^{})(c_{i\sigma ^{}}^{}c_{j\sigma ^{}}^{}+c_{j\sigma ^{}}^{}c_{i\sigma ^{}}^{}).`$
Here the summation is taken over pairs of neighboring sites $`i,j`$, and the number operators is defined as $`n_{i\sigma }=c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }^{}`$. The first term in the Hamiltonian (5) is the single-particle hopping ($`t`$-term) including the bond-charge interaction $`X=ii|v_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}|ij`$. The on-site coupling is $`U=ii|v_{\sigma ,\sigma }|ii`$. Nearest-neighbor density interaction with opposite and parallel spins are parametrized by $`V_{\sigma ,\sigma }=V_{}=ij|v_{\sigma ,\sigma }|ij`$ and $`V_{\sigma \sigma }=V_{}=ij|v_{\sigma \sigma }|ij`$, respectively. Here we introduce spin anisotropy due to some factors, such as the crystal structure and spin-orbit interaction. The bond-bond interaction is controlled by $`W=ij|v_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}|ji=ii|v_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}|jj`$.

Now let us show that the above Hamiltonian can be factorized in some parameter space. For this purpose, we introduce a local bond operator with spin $`\sigma `$ defined by

$$R_{ij}^\sigma (\lambda ,\mu )=\lambda a_{ij\sigma }^{}a_{ij\sigma }^{}+\mu s_{ij\sigma }^{}s_{ij\sigma }^{},$$
(6)
where the operators $`s_{ij\sigma }^{}`$ and $`a_{ij\sigma }^{}`$ denote the symmetric and antisymmetric bond-creation operators, respectively: $`s_{ij\sigma }^{}=\left(c_{i\sigma }^{}+c_{j\sigma }^{}\right)/\sqrt{2}`$, $`a_{ij\sigma }^{}=\left(c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }^{}\right)/\sqrt{2}`$. The bond operator $`R_{ij}^\sigma (\lambda ,\mu )^{}`$ can be rewritten by using the operators $`B_{ij}^\sigma =c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }^{}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ and $`N_{ij}^\sigma =n_{i\sigma }+n_{j\sigma }`$:

$$R_{ij}^\sigma (\lambda ,\mu )=\frac{\lambda +\mu }{2}\left(1B_{ij}^\sigma \right)+\frac{\lambda \mu }{2}\left(N_{ij}^\sigma 1\right).$$
(7)
The local Hamiltonian (5) can be written as follows:

$`h_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`R_{ij}^{}(\alpha ,\beta )R_{ij}^{}(\alpha ^{},\beta ^{})+R_{ij}^{}(\lambda ,\mu )R_{ij}^{}(\lambda ^{},\mu ^{})`$ (10)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{V}_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(n_{i\sigma }\frac{1}{2})(n_{j\sigma ^{}}\frac{1}{2})`$
$`+(W+Xt){\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}B_{ij}^\sigma +X(n_i+n_j)(t+X),`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{\sigma \sigma }=V_{}W`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}=V_{}U/2`$ ($`\sigma \sigma ^{}`$). Here the parameters of operators $`R_{ij}^\sigma `$ in (10) are constrained to satisfy the relations:

$`2(\alpha \alpha ^{}+\lambda \lambda ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`U+6W4t,`$ (11)
$`2(\beta \beta ^{}+\mu \mu ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`U2W+4t,`$ (12)
$`2(\alpha \beta ^{}+\lambda \mu ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`2(\alpha ^{}\beta +\lambda ^{}\mu )=U+2W.`$ (13)
When $`\lambda ,\mu 0`$, we see from the Eq. (6) that the bond operator is positive semidefinite: $`R_{ij}^\sigma (\lambda ,\mu )0`$. Then for $`U=2V_{}`$, $`W=V_{}=tX`$ the local operator $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}=h_{ij}X(n_i+n_j)+t+X`$ is also positive semidefinite as long as $`\alpha ,\alpha ^{},\beta ,\beta ^{},\lambda ,\lambda ^{},\mu ,\mu ^{}0`$.

From these facts, we find that the energy of the global Hamiltonian $``$ is bounded from below in the following regime:

$`U=2V_{},W=V_{}=tX,`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{max}\{2W4t,6W+4t\}U2W.`$ (15)
We denote the global Hamiltonian $``$ in this regime as $`_\mathrm{b}`$. We impose the periodic boundary condition on the system and choose the number of lattice sites $`L`$ to be even in the following. The lower bound is given as $`E_{\mathrm{lower}}=(t+X)L+2XN`$, where $`N`$ denotes the total number of electrons. To obtain an upper bound of the ground-state energy, we consider the following trial wave functions:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\sigma =\underset{i\{\mathrm{odd}\}}{}s_{i,i+1,\sigma }^{}\underset{j\{\mathrm{even}\}}{}s_{j,j+1,\sigma }^{}|0,$$
(16)
where $`|0`$ denotes the vacuum. A schematic illustration of this state is given in Fig. 1. The state corresponds to a half-filled state with a density $`N/L=1`$. Since $`R_{ij}^\sigma (\lambda ,\mu )s_{ij\sigma }^{}|0=0`$, the state $`s_{ij\sigma }^{}|0`$ is an eigenstate of the local Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}`$ with eigenvalue zero: $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}^{}s_{ij\sigma }^{}|0=0`$. Rewriting the global Hamiltonian as $`_\mathrm{b}=_{i,j}\left[\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}+X(n_i+n_j)(t+X)\right]`$, we can see that the state (16) is also an eigenstate:

$$_\mathrm{b}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\sigma =(tX)L|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\sigma .$$
(17)
This means that the ground-state energy is bounded from above at $`E_{\mathrm{upper}}=(tX)L`$. At half filling, therefore, the upper and lower bound coincide, and the eigenstate $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\sigma `$ is the ground state in the regime (15). The ground-state energy is given as $`E=(tX)L`$.

When $`U=2Wt`$, the system is in the the regime (15), and the spin exchange interaction obtains the SU(2) symmetry, $`V_{}=V_{}=V`$. Then the operators $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}^\alpha =_iS_i^\alpha `$, $`\alpha =+,,z`$ commute with the Hamiltonian. In this case, we can deduce that the ground state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\sigma `$ and a fully polarized ferromagnetic (FM) state, $`|\mathrm{FM}=_ic_i^{}|0`$, are degenerate. Since $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}^+|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\sigma `$ does not vanish, the states

$$|\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{l_1}{m_1}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{l_2}{m_2}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}}^\sigma =\underset{k}{}\left(S_{\mathrm{tot}}^+\right)^{l_k}\left(S_{\mathrm{tot}}^{}\right)^{m_k}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\sigma $$
(18)
are also eigenstates with the lowest energy eigenvalue and with $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}^z=_k(l_km_k)_{}`$, ($`|S_{\mathrm{tot}}^z|L/2`$) as long as $`|\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{l_1}{m_1}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{l_2}{m_2}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}}_{}^\sigma 0`$. These states, however, may not be linearly independent each other. The eigenstates of $`𝑺_{\mathrm{tot}}^2`$ with $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}^z`$ may be constructed by linear combinations of the states (18) with $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}^z`$. Then these $`𝑺_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ states $`(|𝑺_{\mathrm{tot}}|L/2)`$ may degenerate. In Fig. 2 we show energies in the $`L=8`$ system at $`W=V=t`$ in Eq. (5) using the exact diagonalization. At the exactly solvable point ($`U=2t`$), all the lowest states with total spin $`|𝑺_{\mathrm{tot}}|L/2`$ and the density $`N/L=1`$ degenerate.

For $`V_{}>V_{}`$, i.e., $`t2W<U`$, the Hamiltonian can be expressed as

$$=_\mathrm{b}|_{U=2W}+\gamma \underset{i,j}{}\left(N_{ij}^{}1\right)\left(N_{ij}^{}1\right)$$
(19)
with $`\gamma =U/2W>0`$. The ground state is the FM state, since $`|\mathrm{FM}`$ gives the lowest eigenvalue both of $`_\mathrm{b}|_{U=2W}`$ and $`_{i,j}\left(N_{ij}^{}1\right)\left(N_{ij}^{}1\right)`$. The system undergoes, therefore, a first-order phase transition at this level-crossing point $`\gamma =0`$. At $`U=2W=2t`$, $`X=0`$, the $`\eta `$-paring operator with momentum $`\pi `$, $`\eta ^{}=_j(1)^jc_j^{}c_j^{}`$, commutes with the Hamiltonian. Therefore the $`\eta `$-paring state: $`|\eta =(\eta ^{})^{N/2}|0`$ is also an exact ground state, which agrees with the result by de Boer and Schadschneider . From the above discussion, we obtain the phase diagram of the model (5) as shown in Fig. 3.

In order to analyze the properties of two ground states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{}`$ in the regime (15), we introduce the matrix product representation . This is useful for calculating the ground state expectation values and correlation functions. First, we describe these states in terms of products of local $`2\times 2`$ matrices as,

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\sigma =2^{L/2}\mathrm{Tr}g_1^\sigma g_2^\sigma \mathrm{}g_{L1}^\sigma g_L^\sigma ,$$
(20)
where two matrices $`g_i^\sigma `$, $`\sigma =,`$, are given by

$$g_i^\sigma =\left(\begin{array}{cc}|\sigma _i& |2_i\\ |0_i& |\sigma _i\end{array}\right).$$
(21)
Here $`|\sigma _i=c_{i\sigma }^{}|0_i`$, $`|2_i=c_i^{}c_i^{}|0_i`$, and $``$ denotes the usual matrix multiplication of $`2\times 2`$ matrices with a tensor product of the matrix elements. Note that $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}\left(g_i^\sigma g_j^\sigma \right)=0`$. Next, we introduce $`4\times 4`$ transfer matrices: $`G_{l_1l_2}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}g_{n_1n_2}^\sigma g_{m_1m_2}^\sigma ^{}`$, where $`l_k=(n_k,m_k)`$ and the indices correspond as $`l_k=1,2,3,4(n_k,m_k)=(11),(12),(21),(22)`$, respectively. Since the overlap between $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{}`$ for size $`L`$ is evaluated by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{}=2^L\mathrm{Tr}(G^{})^L=42^L`$, these two states are orthogonal in the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$. The ground state is, therefore, doubly degenerate, and the translational symmetry of the system is spontaneously broken except for $`U=2W`$.

The two-site correlation functions of operators $`A_1`$ at the 1st site and $`B_r`$ at the $`r`$-th site can be calculated by $`A_1B_r=\mathrm{Tr}Z(A)G^{r2}Z(B)G^{Lr}`$ with $`Z(A)=g^\sigma Ag^\sigma `$. Thus, the nearest neighbor correlations are obtained as follows, $`n_in_{i+1}=2`$, $`S_i^zS_{i+1}^z=\frac{1}{4}`$, and $`S_i^+S_{i+1}^{}=0`$. On the other hand, the two-point charge and spin correlation functions for $`|ij|2`$ are $`n_in_jn_in_j=0`$ and $`S_i^zS_j^z=0`$, respectively. These results indicate that there is a finite energy gap between the ground state and the excited states with respect to site-located charges and spins.

We can also obtain the bond-bond correlation functions as $`B_{i,i+1}^\sigma B_{j,j+1}^{\pm \sigma }=\left(1\pm (1)^{|ij|}\right)/2`$, and thus we obtain the BSDW-$`z`$ correlation as $`𝒪_i^z𝒪_j^z=1`$.

This result shows the existence of the BSDW-$`z`$ long-range order, and the expectation values of the BSDW-$`z`$ order parameter is given by $`𝒪_i^z=\pm 1`$. Since $`\{s_{i,i+1,\sigma }^{},a_{j,j+1,\sigma }^{}\}=0`$, the expectation value of $`𝒪_i^z`$ can be expressed as $`𝒪_i^z=(1)^i(M_iM_i)`$ with $`M_{i\sigma }=s_{i,i+1,\sigma }^{}s_{i,i+1,\sigma }^{}`$. Now we introduce a bond-spin vector operator given as $`𝑻_i=\frac{1}{2}_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}s_{i,i+1,\sigma }^{}𝝉_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}^{}s_{i,i+1,\sigma ^{}}^{}`$. Then we have

$$𝒪_i^z=2(1)^iT_i^z.$$
(22)
The BSDW-$`z`$ order just corresponds to the Néel order of the bond-located spins. Since the nearest-neighbor commutation relations of the bond-spin operators are different from those of the ordinary spin operators, the bond-spin and the spin operators are not exactly equivalent.

Next we discuss the relation between the BNéel and the BSDW states. As was discussed above, the BNéel state has both charge and spin gaps, whereas the BSDW state has gapped charge and gapless spin excitations . Let us consider the Hamiltonian with an SU(2) symmetry in spin space given at $`X=0`$, $`V_{}=V_{}=V`$ in Eq. (5). In this Hamiltonian, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\sigma `$ gives an exact ground state when $`U=2V=2W=2t`$. There is large degeneracy in the ground state and the correlation function of the BNéel state are not reliable.

We show in Fig. 4 the phase diagram at $`W/t=1`$ in the $`U`$$`V`$ plain, obtained by the exact diagonalization of the $`L=12`$ system. There appear BSDW, charge-density-wave (CDW), and FM phases. The CDW state has gaps both in charge and spin excitations, and shows a site-long-range order. The spin-gap transition occurs between the CDW-BSDW boundary. This transition point is obtained by the singlet-triplet level crossing in the excited states, which is justified by the conformal field theory . On the other hand, the CDW-FM and the BSDW-FM transitions are of the first order, and their boundaries are determined by level crossing in the ground state . Finite size effects in this analysis are small enough to get reliable results. The exact ground state appears just on the BSDW-FM boundary within the precision of the exact diagonalization.

As was shown in Fig. 2, at the exactly solvable point ($`U=2t`$), all the lowest states with the total spin $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ ($`S_{\mathrm{tot}}L/2`$) degenerate. From the above numerical and exact results, we conjecture that this total spin-$`S_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ states can be constructed by means of linear combinations of the states (18) and the singlet state in the constructed states corresponds to the BSDW state.

Finally, we comment on the relation between the present result and other works. Exact dimerized ground states in electron systems is discussed recently by Dmitriev et al. . The dimer consists of up- and down-spin electrons, whereas our “dimer” given in Eq. (16) of an electron and a hole for each spin. Their results, therefore, do not contain a state with the staggered magnetization on the bonds. The ground state we have discussed is rather similar to the one which appears in a spin-$`1/2`$ two-leg ladder model  or in an orbitally degenerate spin chain  with the Jordan-Wigner transformation.

In summary, we have shown that a BNéel state with the BSDW order is the exact ground state in wide parameter space of the generalized Hubbard chain. In this state, both charge and spin excitations have gaps. In the case when SU(2) symmetry exists in the spin space, the ground state degenerates with higher spin states including the fully FM state. This BNéel phase adjoins the critical BSDW phase on the multicritical point. We expect that the relation between the BNéel and the BSDW states is analogous to the one between the Ising limit and the Heisenberg point in the spin-$`1/2`$ antiferromagnetic XXZ chain with respect to the low-energy spin excitations. Note, in the model (5), that the BNéel state appears when the spin anisotropy is XY-like, $`V_{}/W=V_{}/V_{}<1`$, contrary to the Néel state of the XXZ model.


text:
# 1 In the complex plane: (a) the light-quark triangle (LT); and (b) the rescaled unitarity triangle (UT).

hep-ph/0102295

LMU-01-02

Bounds on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ and $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ from the Light-Quark Triangle

Harald Fritzsch and Zhi-zhong Xing 111Electronic address: xing@theorie.physik.uni-muenchen.de

Sektion Physik, Universit$`\ddot{a}`$t M$`\ddot{u}`$nchen, Theresienstrasse 37A, 80333 M$`\ddot{u}`$nchen, Germany

## Abstract

With the help of the light-quark triangle, which is essentially congruent to the rescaled unitarity triangle for a variety of textures of the quark mass matrices, we calculate the CP-violating quantity $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ and the ratio of $`|V_{ub}|`$ to $`|V_{cb}|`$. We find that $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ is most likely to lie in the range $`0.45\mathrm{sin}2\beta 0.60`$, a result compatible very well with the present BaBar and Belle measurements. On the other hand, $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|0.8`$ is disfavored. Our bounds on both $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ and $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ can soon be confronted with more precise data to be accumulated from the asymmetric $`B`$-meson factories.

Recently the BaBar and Belle Collaborations have updated their measurements of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$, where $`\beta \mathrm{arg}[(V_{cb}^{}V_{cd})/(V_{tb}^{}V_{td})]`$ is an inner angle of the unitarity triangle of quark flavor mixing , from the CP-violating asymmetry in $`B_d^0`$ vs $`\overline{B}_d^0J/\psi K_S`$ decays:

$$\mathrm{sin}2\beta =\{\begin{array}{c}0.34\pm 0.20(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.05(\mathrm{syst}),(\mathrm{BaBar}\text{[2]}),\\ \\ 0.58_{0.34}^{+0.32}(\mathrm{stat})_{0.10}^{+0.09}(\mathrm{syst}),(\mathrm{Belle}\text{[3]}).\end{array}$$
(1)
These results are lower than, but not in conflict with the previous result reported by the CDF Collaboration: $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.79\pm 0.42`$ ; and they are also compatible with the results obtained from global analyses of the unitarity triangle in the standard model . Although the central value from the BaBar measurement is relatively lower than those from the Belle and CDF measurements, there is no serious discrepancy that one can really claim. In comparison with the preliminary data announced last year by the BaBar and Belle Collaborations , their present data have considerably narrowed the possible room for new physics to manifest itself in the CP-violating asymmetry between $`B_d^0J/\psi K_S`$ and $`\overline{B}_d^0J/\psi K_S`$ decays . A new window is on the other hand being opened, with the help of more precise data on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ and other CP-violating parameters to be accumulated at the $`B`$-meson factories, towards stringent tests of the texture of quark mass matrices. Reliably quantitative information on quark mass matrices will shed light on the underlying flavor symmetry and its breaking mechanism, which are crucial for our deeper understanding of the origin of quark masses, flavor mixing, and CP violation.

The main purpose of this paper is to determine $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ from the so-called light-quark triangle, whose shape depends only upon the flavor mixing between $`(u,c)`$ and $`(d,s)`$ quarks in the heavy quark limit . As shown in Ref. , the light-quark triangle is essentially congruent to the rescaled unitarity triangle for a variety of realistic quark mass matrices. Therefore it is possible to calculate the angles of the unitarity triangle, which are observable parameters of CP violation, from the sides of the light-quark triangle. We find that the numerical prediction of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ from the light-quark triangle is very well consistent with the present BaBar and Belle data. We also obtain a very instructive bound on $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$, although it is somehow lower than the currently most favorable experimental value. Our results of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ and $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ can soon be confronted with more precise data to be accumulated at the KEK and SLAC $`B`$-meson factories.

Let us start with a brief retrospection of the light-quark triangle derived from the quark mass matrices with specific texture zeros. In the standard model or its extensions which have no flavor-changing right-handed currents, one can always choose a specific flavor basis in which both the up-type quark mass matrix $`M_\mathrm{u}`$ and its down-type counterpart $`M_\mathrm{d}`$ are Hermitian and have vanishing (1,3) and (3,1) elements . Such a flavor basis is quite natural in the sense that it coincides with the observed hierarchy of quark masses. Without loss of generality, the (1,1) element of $`M_\mathrm{u}`$ or $`M_\mathrm{d}`$ can also be arranged to vanish through a proper but physically irrelevant transformation of the chosen flavor basis . It is impossible, however, to arrange the (1,1), (1,3) and (3,1) elements of both $`M_\mathrm{u}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{d}`$ to vanish in the most general case. Hence quark mass matrices of the form

$$M_\mathrm{q}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& D_\mathrm{q}& 0\\ D_\mathrm{q}^{}& C_\mathrm{q}& B_\mathrm{q}\\ 0& B_\mathrm{q}^{}& A_\mathrm{q}\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
where q = u (up-type) or d (down-type), keep the essential generality except for assuming the simultaneous vanishing of the (1,1) elements in $`M_\mathrm{u}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{d}`$. In view of the strong mass hierarchy in each quark sector, one naturally expects that $`|A_\mathrm{q}|`$ is dominant over $`|B_\mathrm{q}|`$, $`|C_\mathrm{q}|`$ and $`|D_\mathrm{q}|`$ in magnitude. It turns out that the heavy quark limit (i.e., $`m_t\mathrm{}`$ and $`m_b\mathrm{}`$), which allows the light quarks $`(u,c)`$ or $`(d,s)`$ to be decoupled from the massive $`t`$ or $`b`$ quark, is a useful and realistic approximation. Then the flavor mixing matrix element $`|V_{us}|`$ or $`|V_{cd}|`$ can be derived from the mismatch between the diagonalization of $`M_\mathrm{u}`$ and that of $`M_\mathrm{d}`$:

$$|V_{cd}|=\left|R_\mathrm{u}R_\mathrm{d}\mathrm{exp}(i\omega )\right|,$$
(3)
where

$`R_\mathrm{u}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_u}{m_u+m_c}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{m_d+m_s}}},`$
$`R_\mathrm{d}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_c}{m_u+m_c}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_d}{m_d+m_s}}},`$ (4)
and $`\omega \mathrm{arg}(D_\mathrm{d})\mathrm{arg}(D_\mathrm{u})`$. Such an instructive relation was discussed long time ago  to interpret the Cabibbo mixing between $`(u,c)`$ and $`(d,s)`$ quarks. Note that Eq. (3) defines a triangle in the complex plane, the so-called light-quark triangle as illustrated in Fig. 1(a). This triangle has been shown to be approximately congruent to the rescaled unitarity triangle in Fig. 1(b) , defined by the relation

$$|V_{cd}|=\left|S_\mathrm{u}S_\mathrm{d}\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha )\right|,$$
(5)
where $`S_\mathrm{u}=|V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}/V_{cb}^{}|`$, $`S_\mathrm{d}=|V_{tb}^{}V_{td}/V_{cb}^{}|`$, and $`\alpha \mathrm{arg}[(V_{tb}^{}V_{td})/(V_{ub}^{}V_{ud})]`$ is another inner angle of the unitarity triangle. As a result, the phase parameter $`\omega `$, which is only relevant to the magnitude of flavor mixing between $`(u,c)`$ and $`(d,s)`$ quarks in the heavy quark limit, may lead to CP violation (i.e., $`\omega \alpha `$) once the heavy quark limit is slightly lifted. One can then make use of the light-quark triangle to calculate the angles of the unitarity triangle in a good approximation. Since the former only involves $`|V_{cd}|`$, $`m_u/m_c`$ and $`m_d/m_s`$, it is possible to predict the value of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ with rather small numerical uncertainties.

A particularly interesting case is $`\omega =90^{}`$; i.e., the light-quark triangle is a right-angled triangle . In this special case, we can estimate the magnitude of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{\mathrm{LT}}`$ by use of a rather simple relation:

$$\mathrm{tan}\beta _{\mathrm{LT}}=\frac{R_\mathrm{u}}{R_\mathrm{d}}\sqrt{\frac{m_um_s}{m_cm_d}}.$$
(6)
Taking $`m_u/m_c=410^3`$ and $`m_d/m_s=0.05`$ typically , we obtain $`\beta _{\mathrm{LT}}15.8^{}`$ or $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{\mathrm{LT}}0.52`$. The latter is fairly consistent with experimental data given in Eq. (1).

More generally, one may calculate the CP-violating angle $`\beta `$ from the light-quark triangle with the help of the cosine theorem. We obtain

$$\mathrm{cos}\beta _{\mathrm{LT}}^{}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{m_s}{m_d}}\left[|V_{cd}|+\frac{1}{|V_{cd}|}\left(\frac{m_d}{m_s}\frac{m_u}{m_c}\right)+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{LT}}\right]$$
(7)
in the next-to-leading order approximation, where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{LT}}=\frac{1}{2}\left[|V_{cd}|\frac{1}{|V_{cd}|}\left(\frac{m_d}{m_s}\frac{m_u}{m_c}\right)\right]\left(\frac{m_u}{m_c}+\frac{m_d}{m_s}\right).$$
(8)
Then a numerical prediction for $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{\mathrm{LT}}^{}`$ as a function of $`m_u/m_c`$ can be made by taking $`|V_{cd}|=0.222\pm 0.009`$ 222Note that we have adopted the average of the experimental values $`|V_{cd}|=0.224\pm 0.016`$ and $`|V_{us}|=0.2196\pm 0.0023`$  as the input of $`|V_{cd}|`$. The reasons are simply that (a) $`|V_{cd}|=|V_{us}|`$ holds in the heavy quark limit; and (b) $`|V_{us}||V_{cd}|𝒪(10^4)`$ holds in reality, as guaranteed by the unitarity of the quark flavor mixing matrix . and $`m_s/m_d=18.9\pm 0.8`$ . Note that the ratio $`m_s/m_d`$, unlike the ratio $`m_u/m_c`$, can be determined rather accurately using the chiral perturbation theory. We plot the result in Fig. 2. We see that the magnitude of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{\mathrm{LT}}`$ increases monotonically with the value of $`m_u/m_c`$. Corresponding to the generous range of $`m_u/m_c`$ (i.e., $`110^3m_u/m_c610^3`$), $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{\mathrm{LT}}`$ takes values from 0.25 to 0.65. The uncertainties resulting from the errors of $`m_s/m_d`$ and $`|V_{cd}|`$ are insignificant, as illustrated in Fig. 2. It is obvious that the bound on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ from the light-quark triangle is very well compatible with the present BaBar and Belle data.

Note that $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta 0.50`$ is expected to hold in the standard model with current data . This lower bound implies $`m_u/m_c3.510^3`$. Indeed the most probable values of $`m_u/m_c`$ lie in the range $`310^3m_u/m_c510^3`$ . Accordingly we arrive at a rather narrow range for $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ from the light-quark triangle: $`0.45\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{\mathrm{LT}}0.6`$. Such an interesting range can be further narrowed, once our knowledge on the mass ratio $`m_u/m_c`$ is improved . After more precise data are accumulated from the $`B`$-meson factories at KEK and SLAC, it will be possible to make a stringent test of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ derived from the light-quark triangle.

Now we discuss the possibility to determine $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ directly from the unitarity triangle, based on the quark mass matrices in Eq. (2). The specific deviation of the rescaled unitarity triangle in Fig. 1(b) from the light-quark triangle in Fig. 1(a) cannot be calculated, unless a further assumption is made for the texture of $`M_\mathrm{u}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{d}`$. In a number of phenomenological models with natural flavor symmetries , $`|B_\mathrm{q}||C_\mathrm{q}|`$ and $`|B_\mathrm{u}|/C_\mathrm{u}=|B_\mathrm{d}|/C_\mathrm{d}`$ have been assumed. In this case, we obtain

$`S_\mathrm{u}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_u}{m_c}}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|V_{cd}|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_cm_s}{m_um_b}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_u}{m_c}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_d}{m_s}}|V_{cd}|^2\right)\right],`$
$`S_\mathrm{d}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_d}{m_s}}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_u}{m_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_d}{m_s}}\right)`$ (9)
in the next-to-leading order approximation . We see that $`S_\mathrm{u}R_\mathrm{u}`$ and $`S_\mathrm{d}R_\mathrm{d}`$ hold to the leading-order degree of accuracy . Applying the cosine theorem to Fig. 1(b) leads to

$$\mathrm{cos}\beta _{\mathrm{UT}}^{}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{m_s}{m_d}}\left[|V_{cd}|+\frac{1}{|V_{cd}|}\left(\frac{m_d}{m_s}\frac{m_u}{m_c}\right)+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{UT}}\right]$$
(10)
in the same order approximation, where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{UT}}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{LT}}\frac{1}{2|V_{cd}|}\sqrt{\frac{m_s}{m_d}}\left(\frac{m_u}{m_c}+\frac{m_d}{m_s}|V_{cd}|^2\right)\frac{m_s}{m_b}.$$
(11)
It is clear that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{UT}}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{LT}}`$ appears in the limit $`m_b\mathrm{}`$. With the inputs given above as well as $`m_b/m_s=34\pm 4`$ , one can similarly compute $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{\mathrm{UT}}^{}`$ as a function of $`m_u/m_c`$. The numerical result is illustrated in Fig. 3. We find that the magnitude of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{\mathrm{UT}}`$ is slightly larger than that of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{\mathrm{LT}}`$, as a consequence of the new correction term induced by the mass ratio $`m_s/m_b`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{UT}}`$. Taking $`m_u/m_c=410^3`$ for example, we obtain $`0.52\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{\mathrm{UT}}0.56`$ in contrast with $`0.51\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{\mathrm{LT}}0.54`$. This confirms that one may use the sides of the light-quark triangle to calculate the angles of the unitarity triangle to a good degree of accuracy, without involving further details of the quark mass matrices.

Note that an experimental value of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ lower than that obtained from the global fit of the unitarity triangle may have important implications on some parameters of the standard model . In particular, the true value of $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ might be somehow smaller than the presently most favorable value (i.e., $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|0.09`$ ). It is therefore desirable, in the near future at $`B`$-meson factories, to check the self consistency between the experimental measurements of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ and $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ within the framework of the standard model. Given the texture of quark mass matrices in Eq. (2), the magnitude of $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ can be calculated from either the light-quark triangle 333Note that a calculation of $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ from the light-quark triangle makes sense only when the heavy quark limit is slightly lifted. In this case, $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|_{\mathrm{LT}}`$ should be understood as the leading-order approximation of $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|_{\mathrm{UT}}`$ determined from the unitarity triangle. or the unitarity triangle. We obtain

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}}\right|_{\mathrm{LT}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_u}{m_c}}},`$
$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}}\right|_{\mathrm{UT}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_u}{m_c}}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_cm_s}{m_um_b}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_u}{m_c}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_d}{m_s}}|V_{cd}|^2\right)\right]`$ (12)
in the next-to-leading order approximation. Clearly $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|_{\mathrm{UT}}`$ is a little larger than $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|_{\mathrm{LT}}`$, due to the correction from $`m_s/m_b`$. One may easily check, with the help of Eqs. (9) and (12), that $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|_{\mathrm{UT}}=S_\mathrm{u}/|V_{ud}|`$ holds to the same degree of accuracy. The numerical results of $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|_{\mathrm{LT}}`$ and $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|_{\mathrm{UT}}`$ are shown in Fig. 4. We observe that the possibility of $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|0.08`$ is strongly disfavored. For $`m_u/m_c`$ changing from $`310^3`$ to $`510^3`$, we get $`0.055|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|_{\mathrm{UT}}0.074`$. The experimental data obtained in the LEP experiments indicate that $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ should be larger than $`0.08`$ . In our approach this can hardly be accommodated. We conclude that the LEP results for $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ should be questioned. The issue will soon be clarified by the new experimental data to be obtained from the $`B`$-meson factories.

In summary, we have calculated $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ and $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ from the light-quark triangle based on a generic texture of quark mass matrices. The results turn out to be good approximations of those obtained directly from the unitarity triangle. We find that the present BaBar and Belle data on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ can well be interpreted in the context of our model of quark masses and CP violation. More accurate numerical predictions have to rely on further progress in determining the mass ratio $`m_u/m_c`$. A crucial experimental test of the texture of quark mass matrices under discussion will be the improved measurement of $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$. Our bounds on both $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ and $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ can soon be confronted with more precise data to be accumulated from the asymmetric $`B`$-meson factories at KEK and SLAC.

Acknowledgements One of us (H.F.) is indebted to D. Schaile for a discussion on the LEP results. Z.X. would like to thank A. Buras for his useful comments on the lower bound of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ in the standard model.