text:
# RU01-01-B hep-th/0102136 Product of Boundary Distributions

## 1 Introduction

It is fair to say that up to now, the Literature  on the boundary Poisson bracket has revolved around the boundary Poisson bracket in “integrated” form. That is: as a composition of two local functionals $`F`$ and $`G`$ into a new local functional $`\{F,G\}`$, $`i.e.`$where all objects are integrated over the full physical space.

We shall in this paper elaborate on a singular, distributional formalism for the boundary Poisson bracket.

When addressing this problem, one immediately runs into the well-known problem  of rendering proper sense of multiplying very singular distributions together. Preferably, the distribution product should respect standard rules of calculus, such as: commutativity, associativity and the Leibnitz rule. Perhaps surprisingly, it turns out, as we shall show in this paper, that a few descriptive rules like the above are enough to reproduce, in a one-to-one fashion, the family of boundary Poisson bracket solutions, of which a $`d`$-parameter branch was already identified in . From the boundary Poisson bracket point of view, the restricting principle is the Jacobi identity.

Conceptionally, an important question is raised by the infinitely many versions of the distribution product that the above mentioned analysis produces. How do we account for this infinity? The paradigm will be that a priori they are all equally-good. A specific choice relies on external data. That is, a specific choice of the “boundary background”, a specific choice of renormalization scheme for the “boundary theory”, etc. We shall simply argue that is no unique, canonical, intrisic distribution product.

The main feature of the boundary calculus is the fact that we can not freely discard boundary terms, when integrating by part. Hence, the adjoint differentiation is not just the ordinary differentiation (with a minus in front). Curiously, the adjoint differentiation turns out to be more fundamental than the differentiation itself. The logic behind the distributional construction can roughly be sketched by the following chain:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{Distributions}\\ \\ \mathrm{Adjoint}\mathrm{Differentiation}\\ \\ \mathrm{Boundary}\mathrm{Distributions}\\ \\ \mathrm{Product}\\ \\ \mathrm{Differentiation}.\end{array}$$
(1.1)
The organization of the paper is as follows: We start by reviewing some basic notions in the Schwartzian  formulation of distribution theory, adapted to the situation with a boundary. The distribution product itself is postponed to Section 3. We consider the ultra-local case in Section 4, where the main results are listed. Further developments of the general theory are done in Section 5 The boundary Poisson bracket is discussed in Section 6. Finally, we consider an alternative basis for the product in Section 7. Conclusions are in Section 8. The reader might want to focus on Section 3-4 and Section 6 for a first-time reading.

## 2 Elementary Distribution Theory

Let the physical space222 The reader may substitute the word space with his favorite term: Cauchy surface, space-time, world volume, etc, for most of the paper. When addressing the boundary Poisson bracket, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ will an equal-time-surface. The time variable will be suppressed from the notation. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a closed subset of $`IR^d`$. Consider the ring $`C^{\mathrm{}}(IR^d,IC)`$ of complex-valued functions equipped with the topology corresponding to the uniform convergence on compact subsets. We are not interested in the specific behavior of the functions outside the physical space $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, so we mode out by the two-sided ideal

$$\left\{fC^{\mathrm{}}(IR^d,IC)\right|f\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)\{0\}\}C^{\mathrm{}}(IR^d,IC).$$
(2.1)
The relevant quotients are two rings and one multiplicative group:

$``$ $``$ $`C^{\mathrm{}}(IR^d,IC)/,`$ (2.2)
$`𝒟`$ $``$ $`C_c^{\mathrm{}}(IR^d,IC)/,`$ (2.4)
$`^\times `$ $``$ $`C^{\mathrm{}}(IR^d,IC\backslash \{0\})/.`$ (2.6)
Elements of the second subquotient ring $`𝒟`$ are required to have a representative with compact support. We shall loosely refer to this subring as the test functions with compact support. Elements of the multiplicative group $`C^{\mathrm{}}(IR^d,IC\backslash \{0\})`$ are required to have a non-vanishing representative.

The vector space $`𝒟^{}`$ of distributions is here defined as the space of functionals $`u:^\times \times 𝒟IC`$, which are continuous and linear wrt. the second entry. The second entry carries a test function $`f𝒟`$ while the first entry carries a non-vanishing volume density $`\rho ^\times `$. The support $`\mathrm{supp}(u)`$ of a distribution $`u𝒟`$ is defined as

$$\mathrm{supp}(u)=\underset{A}{}\left\{A\mathrm{closed}IR^d\right|fC^{\mathrm{}}(IR^d,IC):f\left(A\right)\{0\}u[^\times ,f]\{0\}\}.$$
(2.7)
The ring $``$ of test functions with not necessarily compact support is embedded into the distribution space $`𝒟^{}`$ via the embedding $`i:𝒟^{}`$:

$$i(f)[\rho ,g]_\mathrm{\Sigma }\rho d^dxfg,\rho ^\times ,f,g𝒟.$$
(2.8)
We have that $`\mathrm{supp}(i(f))\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{supp}(f)`$. Notation: The $`i`$-map will often not be written explicitly in formulas. Hopefully, this will not cause any confusion.

Generally, we have a product $`\times 𝒟^{}𝒟^{}`$ of a test function $`f`$ and a distribution $`u`$ via

$$(fu)[\rho ,g]=u[\rho ,fg],u𝒟^{},\rho ^\times ,f,g𝒟.$$
(2.9)
Note that $`\mathrm{supp}(fu)\mathrm{supp}(f)\mathrm{supp}(u)`$.

### 2.1 Adjoint Differentiation

Initially, the differential operator $`_i\frac{}{x^i}:`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},d`$, is only well-defined on smooth functions. Not every distribution will be differentiable when a boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is present. Rather, the distributions are adjointly differentiable. In detail, the adjoint differential operator $`_i^{}:𝒟^{}𝒟^{}`$ acts on a distribution $`u𝒟^{}`$ via

$$_i^{}u[\rho ,f]u[\rho ,_if],\rho ^\times ,f𝒟.$$
(2.10)
This definition of course mimics $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }\rho d^dx(_i^{}f)g=_\mathrm{\Sigma }\rho d^dxf_ig`$ for test functions $`f,g𝒟`$. We have that $`\mathrm{supp}(_i^{}u)\mathrm{supp}(u)`$.

We immediately get that $`[_i^{},_j^{}]u=0`$ as a consequence of $`[_i,_j]f=0`$. The commutator

$$[_i^{},f]=(_if)$$
(2.11)
of the adjoint derivative $`_i^{}`$ with a test function $`f`$ is again a test function, as the following short calculation shows:

$`[_i^{},f]u[\rho ,g]`$ $`=`$ $`_i^{}fu[\rho ,g]f_i^{}u[\rho ,g]=fu[\rho ,_ig]_i^{}u[\rho ,fg]`$ (2.12)
$`=`$ $`u[\rho ,f_ig]u[\rho ,_i(fg)]=u[\rho ,(_if)g]=(_if)u[\rho ,g].`$ (2.14)
We emphasis that the adjoint derivative $`_i^{}`$ does not satisfy the Leibnitz rule, not even among test functions. Nevertheless, equation (2.11) can still be viewed as a Leibnitz-type rule for the adjoint differential operator $`_i^{}`$:

$$_i^{}(fu)=(_if)u+f_i^{}u.$$
(2.15)
### 2.2 Boundary Distributions

We can now define the main object of this paper: The vector space $``$ of boundary distributions

$$\left\{\underset{k}{}f_k(^{})^kg_k\right|\mathrm{All}\mathrm{but}\mathrm{finitely}\mathrm{many}\mathrm{of}f_k,g_k\mathrm{are}\mathrm{zero}\}𝒟^{}.$$
(2.16)
We have employed a multi-index notation: For instance, the index

$$k=(k_1,\mathrm{},k_d)IN_0^d,IN_0\{0,1,2,\mathrm{}\},$$
(2.17)
runs over the $`d`$-dimensional non-negative integers, and

$$(^{})^k=(_1^{})^{k_1}\mathrm{}(_d^{})^{k_d}.$$
(2.18)
By using property (2.11), we may write

$$\underset{k}{}_k,_k=(^{})^k1.$$
(2.19)
The adjoint derivatives $`_i^{}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},d`$, give rise to a $`d`$-dimensional grading of $``$. The elements $`(^{})^k1`$, $`kIN_0^d`$ , constitute a $``$-linear basis for $``$, called the adjoint basis. Note that the support of the basis elements is the whole set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$:

$$\mathrm{supp}\left((^{})^k1\right)=\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$
(2.20)
Here it is crucial that the volume density $`\rho `$ is an argument of the distributions, so that we can vary $`\rho `$. As a consequence, the $``$-coefficient function inside $`_k`$ is unique. (Of course, it is sufficient to vary $`\rho `$ infinitesimally, for instance around the constant function $`\rho =1`$.)

### 2.3 Functional and Functional Derivative

A functional $`F(^\times ,IC)`$ is a map $`F:^\times IC`$ from the group $`^\times `$ of volume densities to the complex numbers $`IC`$, which in general depends on a number of fields $`\varphi ^A`$. We shall not adapt the latter dependence explicitly in the notation because it would appear too heavy. The functional is called differentiable wrt. the fields $`\varphi ^A`$ if there exist a distributions $`u_A:^\times \times 𝒟IC`$ that satisfies

$$\rho ,\delta \varphi ^B:\underset{A}{}u_A[\rho ,\delta \varphi ^A]=\delta F[\rho ]$$
(2.21)
for all smooth infinitesimal variations $`\delta \varphi ^A`$. For a differentiable functional $`F`$, we shall write $`u_A=\delta F/\delta \varphi ^A`$ and call it the functional derivative of $`F`$ wrt. $`\varphi ^A`$.

The Lebesque (or the Riemann) integral provides an embedding $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }:𝒟(^\times ,IC)`$, of functions $`f𝒟`$ with compact support into the functional space $`(^\times ,IC)`$:

$$_\mathrm{\Sigma }f[\rho ]_\mathrm{\Sigma }\rho d^dxf,\rho ^\times ,f𝒟.$$
(2.22)
The integration kernel function $`f`$ is unique – $`i.e.`$the embedding $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is injective – because the volume density $`\rho `$ can be varied. The local functionals are of this form $`F=_\mathrm{\Sigma }f`$. They are differentiable, and their functional derivatives are boundary distributions:

$$\frac{\delta F}{\delta \varphi ^A}=\underset{k}{}(^{})^kP_{A(k)}f\stackrel{(\text{2.11})}{=}\underset{k}{}E_{A(k)}f(^{})^k1.$$
(2.23)
This formula is similar to \[1, Statement 5.2\] of Soloviev. Here

$$P_{A(k)}f(x)\frac{f(x)}{\varphi ^{A(k)}(x)}$$
(2.24)
and

$$E_{A(k)}f(x)\underset{mk}{}\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ k\end{array}\right)()^{mk}P_{A(m)}f(x)$$
(2.25)
denote the higher partial derivatives and the higher Euler-Lagrange derivatives, respectively, cf. .

### 2.4 Geometric Consideration

One may consider coordinate transformations $`x^ix^i^{}`$. To make this construction geometric, one should introduce covariant derivatives $`_iD_i`$ by specifying a choice of connection. More generally, the pertinent multi-index structure becomes non-commutative words of a $`d`$-letter alphabet , if the derivatives $`[D_i,D_j]0`$ cease to commute.

## 3 Distribution Product

### 3.1 Introduction

As is very well known, even without a boundary, $`i.e.`$$`\mathrm{\Sigma }=IR^d`$, there is no truly natural product for two generic distributions $`u,v𝒟^{}`$. A severe blow against such hopes is dealt by the Schwartz’ Impossibility Result : It states that one cannot in a satisfactory manner embed the whole algebra of continuous functions $`C(IR^d)`$ inside a differential algebra. In this paper, the term differential algebra denotes an associative and commutative algebra equipped with $`d`$ mutually commutative, linear derivations $`_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},d`$, that are defined for all algebra elements in the algebra and that satisfy the Leibnitz rule. In the case with no boundary, Colombeau  has embedded $`𝒟^{}`$ into a differential algebra. As an illustrative manifestation of the Schwartz’ Impossibility Result at work, the product of Columbeau does not coincide with the classical product in $`C(IR^d)`$. However, it preserves the classical product for smooth functions $`C^{\mathrm{}}(IR^d)`$. It would be interesting to know if and/or how Columbeau’s construction can be adapted to incorporate boundaries.

An old idea uses the convolution in the Fourier transformed space  to define a product. However, we are concerned, that the important features of the boundary and the notion of locality would be “washed away” by the Fourier transform if one is not careful.

### 3.2 Boundary Poisson Bracket

Here we shall take a more modest approach, and only consider a distribution product within the much smaller class $``$ of boundary distributions. Our main motivation and main application is to reformulate the boundary Poisson bracket  using the boundary distributions.

First step is to make sense of the following product:

$$\{f,g\}=\frac{\delta \left[_\mathrm{\Sigma }f\right]}{\delta \varphi ^A}\omega ^{AB}\frac{\delta \left[_\mathrm{\Sigma }g\right]}{\delta \varphi ^B}=\left(\underset{k}{}E_{A(k)}f(^{})^k1\right)\omega ^{AB}\left(\underset{\mathrm{}}{}E_{B(\mathrm{})}g(^{})^{\mathrm{}}1\right).$$
(3.1)
In 1993, Soloviev \[1, Rule 5.4\] showed that the boundary Poisson brackets would have an alternative description in terms of distribution products. He inquired, without pursuing it further, whether a distribution product could be given a rigorous meaning.

### 3.3 Distribution Product

A priori, no canonical choice for such a product is preferred. A certain choice for the product represents an additional input of informations into the system. This should be specified in order to have a well-posed problem. In a fundamental and geometrically formulated theory, like for instance a complete, non-perturbative formulation of string theory, the appearance of boundaries themselves, like branes, is presumably only a good low energy description. By analyzing the product of the boundary distributions, we are merely collecting some left-over low energy data of the full dynamical boundary theory. As a physicist, one may view the product as a result of a renormalization without a regularization. As a mathematician, it is simply going to be a definition that depends on external parameters.

Let us start by specifying the product on the basis of $``$. There should exist smooth structure functions $`c_n^{k,\mathrm{}}(x)`$, such that

$$(^{})^k1(^{})^{\mathrm{}}1=\underset{n}{}c_n^{k,\mathrm{}}(^{})^n1,$$
(3.2)
$`i.e.`$the algebra $``$ closes. On a technical note, to avoid cluttering up the paper with arguments of convergence, we assume that

$$k,\mathrm{}:c_n^{k,\mathrm{}}=0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}\mathrm{but}\mathrm{finitely}\mathrm{many}n.$$
(3.3)
Next we extend the product to the whole $`_k\times _{\mathrm{}}`$ by demanding that the coefficient functions themselves carry no surprises:

$$\left(f_k(^{})^k1\right)\left(g_{\mathrm{}}(^{})^{\mathrm{}}1\right)=(f_kg_{\mathrm{}})\left((^{})^k1(^{})^{\mathrm{}}1\right).$$
(3.4)
We shall furthermore assume:

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill & \mathrm{Naturalness}\hfill & :& u1=u=1u,& \mathrm{or}& c_n^{k,0}=\delta _n^k=c_n^{0,k}.\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ \hfill & \mathrm{Commutativity}\hfill & :& uv=vu,& \mathrm{or}& c_n^{k,\mathrm{}}=c_n^{\mathrm{},k}.\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ \hfill & \mathrm{Associativity}\hfill & :& (uv)w=u(vw),& \mathrm{or}& _nc_n^{k,\mathrm{}}c_p^{n,m}=_nc_p^{k,n}c_n^{\mathrm{},m}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.5)
To ensure that the boundary Poisson bracket (See Section 6) does not change the bulk properties, one can impose the decoupling requirement:

$$\mathrm{Decoupling}:u1v1uv1,\mathrm{or}c_0^{k,\mathrm{}}=\delta _0^k\delta _0^{\mathrm{}}.$$
(3.6)
Strictly speaking, we cannot exclude the possibility that going to a bigger algebra than the boundary distribution algebra $``$ might kill some of the solutions by additional requirements. However, this does not jeopardize the $``$ product construction as an isolated construction. It rests in itself. In fact, rather we predict that one can construct deformed versions of the Colombeau algebra.

### 3.4 Differentiation

Given the multiplication in $``$, there now is a canonical choice for a differential structure $`_i`$ in $``$. This consists in requiring that the Leibnitz-type relation (2.11) which previously only applied to smooth functions should continue to hold for all boundary distributions $`u`$:

$$_iuu_i^{}1_i^{}u.$$
(3.7)
Note how the existence of the product is vitale for this definition. One may easily check that $`_ji(f)=i(_jf)`$ for smooth functions $`f`$, cf. (2.8), and that this definition (3.7) respects the Leibnitz rule wrt. the standard product $`:\times `$, cf. (2.9). We shall also impose the Leibnitz rule for the full product $`:\times `$:

$$_i(uv)=(_iu)v+u_iv.$$
(3.8)
The Leibnitz rule (3.8) leads to a tower of quadratic consistency relations among the structure functions:

$$c_n^{k+e_i,\mathrm{}}+c_n^{k,\mathrm{}+e_i}\underset{p}{}c_p^{k,\mathrm{}}c_n^{p,e_i}=c_{ne_i}^{k,\mathrm{}}_ic_n^{k,\mathrm{}}.$$
(3.9)
Here $`e_i(0,\mathrm{},0,1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ is the $`i`$’th unit vector of the index lattice. We shall extensively investigate this quadratic Leibnitz condition in the following two Sections 4-5. With the implimentation of the Leibnitz rule, we may refer to $`_i`$ as a (first order) linear derivation, while $`_i^{}`$ is a (first order) affine differential operator. Hence their commutator becomes a (zeroth order) left multiplication operator:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill [_i^{},_j^{}]& =& 0,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill [_i,_j]& \stackrel{(\text{3.8})}{=}& 0,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill [_i,_j^{}]& \stackrel{(\text{3.8})}{=}& _i_j^{}1_i^{}1_j^{}1_i^{}_j^{}1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.10)
## 4 Ultra-Local Product

### 4.1 Definition

The product is called ultra-local, if the $`c_n^{k,\mathrm{}}`$ coefficient functions are of the form

$$c_n^{k,\mathrm{}}=c^{k,\mathrm{}}\delta _n^{k+\mathrm{}}.$$
(4.1)
In this distinguished case the structure constants $`c_n^{k,\mathrm{}}`$ are dimensionless, and the finiteness assumption (3.3) is automatically satisfied. The decoupling requirement follows from the naturalness assumption. Moreover, the other assumptions reduces to:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill & \mathrm{Naturalness}\hfill & :& c^{k,0}=1=c^{0,k}.\hfill \\ & & & \\ \hfill & \mathrm{Commutativity}\hfill & :& c^{k,\mathrm{}}=c^{\mathrm{},k}.\hfill \\ & & & \\ \hfill & \mathrm{Associativity}\hfill & :& c^{k,\mathrm{}}c^{k+\mathrm{},m}=c^{k,\mathrm{}+m}c^{\mathrm{},m}.\hfill \\ & & & \\ \hfill & \mathrm{Leibnitz}\mathrm{rule}\hfill & :& c^{k+e_i,\mathrm{}}+c^{k,\mathrm{}+e_i}c^{k,\mathrm{}}c^{k+\mathrm{},e_i}=c^{k,\mathrm{}}_ic_n^{k,\mathrm{}}=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.2)
Note that the Leibnitz rule has split into two conditions. The last condition says that there will only be locally constant solutions, $`i.e.`$they are constant on each connected component of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Let us restrict ourselves to one of the connected components, so we can speak of a constant solution. Then the commutativity and the associativity conditions define a $`2`$-cocycle in the Abelian multiplicative monoid $`(IC,)`$ of complex numbers. (A monoid is a semi-group with a neutral element. Contrary to the notion of a group, elements are not assumed to have an inverse element.)

### 4.2 Ultra-Local Analysis

The generic solutions are $`2`$-coboundaries:

$$\{b^k\}_kIC\{\mathrm{}\}:c^{k,\mathrm{}}=\frac{b^kb^{\mathrm{}}}{b^{k+\mathrm{}}},b^{k=0}=1,$$
(4.3)
that satisfies the first of the Leibnitz conditions. By use of the exactness, it can be cast into:

$$\frac{1}{c^{k,e_i}}+\frac{1}{c^{\mathrm{},e_i}}=\frac{1}{c^{k+\mathrm{},e_i}}+1.$$
(4.4)
It follows that there exists constants $`s_{ij}IC\{\mathrm{}\}`$, $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},d`$, such that

$$\frac{b^{k+e_i}}{b^kb^{e_i}}=\frac{1}{c^{k,e_i}}=1+\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}\frac{k_j}{s_{ij}}.$$
(4.5)
Let us calculate the first few lattice vectors in terms of the basis elements:

$`b^{e_i+e_j}`$ $`=`$ $`b^{e_i}b^{e_j}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_{ij}}}),`$ (4.6)
$`b^{e_i+e_j+e_k}`$ $`=`$ $`b^{e_i}b^{e_j}b^{e_k}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_{ij}}})(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_{ik}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_{jk}}}).`$ (4.8)
Enforcing the symmetry in the first formula and the associativity in the last formula we are lead to consider the following algebraic variety in $`\left(IC\{\mathrm{}\}\right)^{d^2}`$:

$$s_{ij}=s_{ji}s_{ij}(s_{ik}s_{jk})=0.$$
(4.9)
(no sums.) It turns out that there are no further requirements and that we can associate a solution to each parameter value $`\{s_{ij}\}_{ij}`$ on this algebraic variety. The latter requirement in (4.9) has the solutions

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}& s_{ij}=0& & s_{ij}=\mathrm{}& & k=1,\mathrm{},d:s_{ik}=s_{jk}.& \end{array}$$
(4.10)
In words, if $`s_{ij}IC\backslash \{0\}`$, then the $`i`$’th and the $`j`$’th row (and column) are pairwise equal. This inspires an equivalence relation “$``$” in $`\{1,\mathrm{},d\}`$:

$$ij\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{}i=js_{ij}IC\backslash \{0\}.$$
(4.11)
(It is reflexive by construction. The symmetry and the transitivity follow from (4.9).) Let us call the number of equivalence classes the rank, and denote it $`r`$. The cardinality $`n_i`$ of the equivalence classes has the sum $`_{i=1}^rn_i=d`$. Clearly, the equivalence classes can be mapped into a $`d`$-box, $`r`$-row Young tableau of row lengths $`(n_1,\mathrm{},n_r)`$, where $`n_1\mathrm{}n_r1`$. (We remind the reader that a Young tableau is a decorated Young diagram, where the decoration consists in a numbering $`1,\mathrm{},d`$ of the boxes. The boxes within the same row and rows of equal lengths can still freely be permuted.) We note that after the row (and column) reduction “$``$”, the $`s_{ij}`$ matrix is an $`r\times r`$ symmetric matrix with $`\frac{r(r1)}{2}`$ free off-diagonal elements $`s_{ij}=0`$ or $`s_{ij}=\mathrm{}`$, that can take $`2^{\frac{r(r1)}{2}}`$ different combinations.

When all diagonal elements $`s_is_{ii}IC\backslash \{0\}`$, we are on a $`r`$-dimensional branch of the algebraic variety. Branch points have more than one of the diagonal elements $`s_i`$ equal to $`s_i=0`$ or $`s_i=\mathrm{}`$. Branch points only exist in higher dimensions $`d>1`$.

### 4.3 Ultra-Local Results

Our main result is that we can write the generic solution as a product of two factors $`(I)`$ and $`(II)`$:

$`c^{k,\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`c_{(I)}^{k,\mathrm{}}c_{(II)}^{k,\mathrm{}},`$ (4.12)
$`c_{(I)}^{k,\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(s)_{i(k)}(s)_{i(\mathrm{})}}{(s)_{i(k+\mathrm{})}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(i(k)+s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(i(\mathrm{})+s)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(i(k+\mathrm{})+s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}}`$ (4.14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B(i(k)+s,i(\mathrm{})+s)}{B(i(k+\mathrm{})+s,s)}}={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{i(k)1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{i(\mathrm{})1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{i+j+s}{i+j+1+s}},`$ (4.16)
$`c_{(II)}^{k,\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}i,j\\ ij\\ s_{ij}=0\end{array}}{}}\delta _0^{\mathrm{min}(k_i+\mathrm{}_i,k_j+\mathrm{}_j)},`$ (4.21)
for arbitrary diagonal parameters $`s\left((IC\{\mathrm{}\})\backslash (IN)\right)^r`$ on $`r`$ copies of the Riemann sphere, $`r=1,\mathrm{},d`$. Here $`(s)_n=\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+n)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)`$ is the Pochhammer symbol in $`r`$ dimensions and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)_{i=1}^r\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_i)`$. The linear map $`i:IC^dIC^r`$ maps the basis vectors $`e_i`$ to the basis vectors $`i(e_j)=e_{j/}`$. That is:

$$i(e_j)=i(e_k)jk.$$
(4.22)
The solutions (4.21) are precisely the allowed coefficients for the ultra-local boundary Poisson bracket. As we shall see, this is by no means a coincidence. It merely reflects a deep correspondance of notions and properties between the two kinds of boundary calculi that will be further illuminated in Section 6. In  we found one $`d`$-dimensional branch.

### 4.4 Examples

As an example, consider the vertical, full-rank Young diagram $`(n_1=1,\mathrm{},n_d=1)`$. If all the off-diagonal parameters $`s_{ij}=\mathrm{}`$ blow up, the solution reads:

$$c^{k,\mathrm{}}=\frac{(s)_k(s)_{\mathrm{}}}{(s)_{k+\mathrm{}}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+s)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+\mathrm{}+s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}.$$
(4.23)
This is the $`d`$-dimensional branch found in .

If all the off-diagonal parameters $`s_{ij}=0`$ vanish instead, the solution reads:

$$c^{k,\mathrm{}}=\{\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{(s_i)_{k_i}(s_i)_\mathrm{}_i}{(s_i)_{k_i+\mathrm{}_i}}& =& \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k_i+s_i)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}_i+s_i)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k_i+\mathrm{}_i+s_i)\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_i)}& \mathrm{if}i=1,\mathrm{},d:ke_i\mathrm{},\hfill \\ & & & \\ 0& & & \mathrm{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.24)
As a third example, consider the horizontal, maximally symmetric, rank-$`1`$ Young diagram $`(n_1=d)`$, where all the parameters $`s_{ij}=s`$ are equal. In this case, the solution is simply:

$$c^{k,\mathrm{}}=\frac{(s)_{|k|}(s)_{|\mathrm{}|}}{(s)_{|k|+|\mathrm{}|}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(|k|+s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(|\mathrm{}|+s)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(|k|+|\mathrm{}|+s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)},$$
(4.25)
where $`|k|_{i=1}^dk_i`$. This distinguished $`1`$-dim branch has contrary to all other branches an alternative $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$ basis, as we shall see in Section 7.3.

## 5 Supplementary Formalism

### 5.1 Integration of Distributions

Note that when a distribution has compact support, its test functions do not also have to have compact support, understood in the appropriate sense. Hence, we may extend the definition of integration $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }:𝒟(^\times ,IC)`$, cf. (2.22), to an arbitrary boundary distribution $`u_c`$ with compact support, simply by:

$$_\mathrm{\Sigma }\rho d^dxu_\mathrm{\Sigma }u[\rho ]=u[\rho ,1].$$
(5.1)
The integral (5.1) satisfies

$$_\mathrm{\Sigma }\rho d^dx\left(u_i^{}1_iu\right)=_\mathrm{\Sigma }\rho d^dx_i^{}u=_i^{}u[\rho ,1]=u[\rho ,_i1]=u[\rho ,0]=0.$$
(5.2)
This together with the Leibnitz rule yields $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }\rho d^dx(_i^{}u)v=_\mathrm{\Sigma }\rho d^dxu_iv`$ for boundary distributions $`u,v_c`$. We see from the second expression in (5.2) that even with a boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ present, the integral of a total adjoint derivative vanishes. The opposite is also true, as will become clear below:

$$_\mathrm{\Sigma }u=0u^1,\mathrm{},u^d_c:u=\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}_i^{}u^i.$$
(5.3)
(Here it is important that $`\rho `$ is free.)

More explicitly, given an arbitrary boundary distribution $`u=_kf_k(^{})^k1_c`$, with finitely many smooth coefficient functions $`f_k𝒟`$, there exists a unique smooth function

$$f=\underset{k}{}^kf_k𝒟,$$
(5.4)
which has the same integral:

$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}f_k(^{})^k1={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}(^{})^k1[,f_k]={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}^kf_k`$ (5.5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}f\stackrel{(\text{2.8})}{=}i(f)[,1]={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}i(f),f_k𝒟.`$ (5.7)
See Soloviev \[2, p.2\] for a related formula. The non-injective linear map $`u_\mathrm{\Sigma }u`$ has the following kernel:

$$_\mathrm{\Sigma }u=0f=0.$$
(5.8)
We can see this in a more elaborated manner by rewriting $`u`$ as

$`u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}f_k(^{})^k1\stackrel{(\text{2.11})}{=}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}(^{})^k{\displaystyle \underset{mk}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ k\end{array}\right)^{mk}f_m`$ (5.11)
$`=`$ $`f+(\mathrm{total}\mathrm{adjoint}\mathrm{derivative}\mathrm{terms}).`$ (5.13)
This also establishes a proof of (5.3). We shall sometimes refer to the unique smooth function $`f`$ as $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(u)`$.

The functional $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }u`$ is differentiable as a consequence of (5.7) and our previous discussion in Section 2.3 of the $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ case. It follows from straightforward manipulations, that (2.23) is valid for distributions as well:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \left[_\mathrm{\Sigma }u\right]}{\delta \varphi ^A}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \left[_\mathrm{\Sigma }f\right]}{\delta \varphi ^A}}={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}E_{A(k)}f(^{})^k1={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}(^{})^kP_{A(k)}f`$ (5.14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}(^{})^kP_{A(k)}u={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}E_{A(k)}u(^{})^k1,`$ (5.16)
where we have independently extended the definition $`P_{A(k)}u_nP_{A(k)}f_n(^{})^n1`$ and

$$E_{A(k)}u\underset{mk}{}\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ k\end{array}\right)()^{mk}P_{A(m)}u$$
(5.17)
to an arbitrary boundary distribution $`u`$.

The functionals can in principle also depend on the mixed derivatives $`P(,^{})\varphi ^A`$ of the field variables $`\varphi ^A`$, where $`P(,^{})`$ is a polynomial in the non-commutative $`_i`$ and $`_i^{}`$. However, we shall for simplicity assume thoughout this paper that adjoint derivatives $`_i^{}`$ acting on the fundamental field variables $`\varphi ^A`$ have been reexpressed in terms of the ordinary derivatives and multiplication operators by repeated use of (3.7). Let us also note for later that

$$[_i^{},P_{A(k)}]=[P_{A(k)},_i]=P_{A(ke_i)}.$$
(5.18)
### 5.2 Generating Functions and Fourier Transform

In order to carry out the analysis most efficiently, it is convenient to resum the distributions in a generating series

$`e^^{}yu`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{y^k}{k!}}(^{})^ku,`$ (5.19)
$`e^yu`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{y^k}{k!}}^ku={\displaystyle \frac{e^^{}yu}{e^^{}y1}}.`$ (5.21)
The last expression should be understood by a formal Taylor expansion around $`y=0`$. Then it merely reproduces the previous definition (3.7) of differentiation $`_i`$ and its iterated consequences (assuming the Leibnitz rule). The Leibnitz-type rule (2.15) for the adjoint differential operator $`_i^{}`$ is

$$e^^{}y(fu)=e^yfe^^{}yu,fe^^{}yu=e^^{}y(e^yfu),$$
(5.22)
while the Leibnitz rule (3.8) for the differential operator $`_i`$ becomes

$$e^y(uv)=e^yue^yv,$$
(5.23)
or equivalently,

$$e^^{}y(uv)=\frac{e^^{}yue^^{}yv}{e^^{}y1}.$$
(5.24)
We have the following “affine Leibnitz rule”:

$$e^{u_A+u_B+y}(uv)=e^{u_A+y}ue^{u_B+y}v,u_A,u_B,u,v.$$
(5.25)
The interplay (3.10) between $`_i^{}`$ and $`_i`$ reads:

$$e^ye^{^{}\overline{y}}u=\frac{e^ye^{^{}\overline{y}}1}{e^{^{}\overline{y}}1}e^{^{}\overline{y}}e^yu=\frac{e^{^{}(y+\overline{y})}1}{e^^{}y1e^{^{}\overline{y}}1}e^{^{}\overline{y}}e^yu.$$
(5.26)
The product (3.2) is summed up as

$$T(y_A,y_B,q)\underset{k,\mathrm{},n}{}\frac{y_A^k}{k!}\frac{y_B^{\mathrm{}}}{\mathrm{}!}c_n^{k,\mathrm{}}q^n.$$
(5.27)
It has the Fourier transform333 Notation: A $`q`$-integration $`𝑑q_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑q`$ is always taken to be along the real axis $`IR`$, while a $`y`$-integration $`𝑑y_i\mathrm{}^{+i\mathrm{}}\frac{dy}{2\pi i}`$, is along the imaginary axis $`iIR`$, and normalized with a factor $`2\pi i`$. 444We have shuffled the order of the arguments $`T(y,y_A,y_B)T(y_A,y_B,y)`$ compared with a similar notation used in .

$$T(y_A,y_B,y)d^dqe^{qy}T(y_A,y_B,q).$$
(5.28)
The boundary algebra then reads

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill & \mathrm{Closure}\hfill & :& e^{^{}y_A}1e^{^{}y_B}1=d^dyT(y_A,y_B,y)e^^{}y1.\hfill \\ & & & \\ \hfill & \mathrm{Naturalness}\hfill & :& T(y_A,0,y)=\delta ^d(y_Ay)=T(0,y_A,y).\hfill \\ & & & \\ \hfill & \mathrm{Commutativity}\hfill & :& T(y_A,y_B,y)=T(y_B,y_A,y).\hfill \\ & & & \\ \hfill & \mathrm{Associativity}\hfill & :& d^d\stackrel{~}{y}T(y_A,y_B,\stackrel{~}{y})T(\stackrel{~}{y},y_C,y)=d^d\stackrel{~}{y}T(y_A,\stackrel{~}{y},y)T(y_B,y_C,\stackrel{~}{y}).\hfill \\ & & & \\ \hfill & \mathrm{Leibnitz}\mathrm{Rule}\hfill & :& d^d\stackrel{~}{y}T(y_C,\stackrel{~}{y}+y_C,y)e^{y_C}T(y_A,y_B,\stackrel{~}{y})=T(y_A+y_C,y_B+y_C,y).\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.29)
The last equation corresponds to the quadratic Leibnitz condition (3.9). An important version of the Leibnitz rule reads:

$$d^d\stackrel{~}{y}e^{y_B}T(y_A,\stackrel{~}{y}+y_B,y+y_B)e^{y_C}T(y_C,y_D,\stackrel{~}{y}+y_C)=(AD,BC).$$
(5.30)
This identity was (in the constant case) written down in \[5, Equation (6.1)\] in the context of the boundary Poisson bracket as a sufficient condition for the Jacobi identity to hold. A proof is given in Appendix A.

### 5.3 Change of Product

To deal with the non-ultra-local product, we invoke the following Ansatz: There exists an invertible matrix-valued smooth function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^k_a`$ and a fiducial solution $`c_{(0)c}^{a,b}`$ such that

$$c_n^{k,\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^k{}_{a}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\mathrm{}}{}_{b}{}^{}c_{(0)c}^{a,b}\mathrm{\Lambda }^c{}_{n}{}^{}.$$
(5.31)
It would be obvious to use a ultra-local solution $`c_{(0)c}^{a,b}=c_{(0)}^{a,b}\delta _c^{a+b}`$ as the fiducial solution, but any solution will do. We may view $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^a_k`$ as a change of the renormalization scheme; also known as finite renormalization.

We sum up the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^k_a`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(y,q^{(0)})=\underset{k,a}{}\frac{y^k}{k!}\mathrm{\Lambda }^k{}_{a}{}^{}q_{}^{(0)a}.$$
(5.32)
The Fourier transform reads

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(y,y^{(0)})=d^dq^{(0)}e^{q^{(0)}y^{(0)}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(y,q^{(0)}).$$
(5.33)
The Ansatz (5.31) then reads:

$$T(y_A,y_B,y)=d^dy_A^{(0)}d^dy_B^{(0)}d^dy^{(0)}\mathrm{\Lambda }(y_A,y_A^{(0)})\mathrm{\Lambda }(y_B,y_B^{(0)})T^{(0)}(y_A^{(0)},y_B^{(0)},y^{(0)})\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(y^{(0)},y).$$
(5.34)
The Ansatz (5.31) automatically satisfies the commutativity and the associativity requirements. The quadratic Leibnitz condition (3.9) is met by the following generic condition:

$`_i\mathrm{\Lambda }^k_a`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^k{}_{ae_i}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k+e_i}{}_{a}{}^{}+\mathrm{\Lambda }^k{}_{b}{}^{}c_{(0)a}^{b,d}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{e_i}{}_{d}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^k{}_{b}{}^{}c_{(0)a}^{b,e_i},`$ (5.35)
or equivalently, in terms of the inverse matrix:

$$_i\mathrm{\Lambda }^a{}_{k}{}^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^a{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{b}{}_{k}{}^{}_{i}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{}}{}_{b}{}^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^a{}_{ke_i}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{a+e_i}{}_{k}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{e_i}{}_{d}{}^{}c_{(0)b}^{d,a}\mathrm{\Lambda }^b{}_{k}{}^{}+c_{(0)b}^{e_i,a}\mathrm{\Lambda }^b{}_{k}{}^{}.$$
(5.36)
This system is integrable. For an infinitesimal variation, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^a{}_{k}{}^{}=\delta _k^a+\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }^a_k`$, the condition (5.35) becomes a linearized, homogeneous, first order partial differential equation:

$$_i\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }^k{}_{a}{}^{}=(A_i\delta \mathrm{\Lambda })^k{}_{a}{}^{}\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }^k{}_{ae_i}{}^{}\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }^{k+e_i}{}_{a}{}^{}+\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }^{e_i}{}_{d}{}^{}c_{(0)a}^{d,k},[A_i,A_j]=0,$$
(5.37)
with solution

$$\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }(x)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}_{x^{(0)}}^x𝑑x^iA_i\right)\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }(x^{(0)}),$$
(5.38)
independent of the integration path. Other requirements are:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill & \mathrm{Naturalness}\hfill & :& \mathrm{\Lambda }^k{}_{a=0}{}^{}=\delta _0^k.\hfill \\ & & & \\ \hfill & \mathrm{Decoupling}\hfill & :& \mathrm{\Lambda }^{k=0}{}_{a}{}^{}=\delta _a^0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.39)
It is easy to see that the solution (5.38) for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)=\mathrm{𝟏}+\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$ respects naturalness (and decoupling) requirements for all points $`x`$, if it does so for one point $`x^{(0)}`$.

## 6 Boundary Poisson Bracket

A compelling smooth-to-smooth version of the $`x`$-pointwise boundary Poisson bracket (3.1) is, cf. Section 5.1:

$`\{f,g\}_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`C^{\mathrm{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \left[_\mathrm{\Sigma }f\right]}{\delta \varphi ^A}}\omega ^{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \left[_\mathrm{\Sigma }q\right]}{\delta \varphi ^B}}\right]`$ (6.1)
$`=`$ $`C^{\mathrm{}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}E_{A(k)}f(^{})^k1\right)\omega ^{AB}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}E_{B(\mathrm{})}g(^{})^{\mathrm{}}1\right)\right]`$ (6.3)
$`=`$ $`C^{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,\mathrm{},n}{}}E_{A(k)}f\omega ^{AB}E_{B(\mathrm{})}gc_n^{k,\mathrm{}}(^{})^n1`$ (6.5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k,\mathrm{},n}{}}^n\left(E_{A(k)}fc_n^{k,\mathrm{}}\omega ^{AB}E_{B(\mathrm{})}g\right),f,g.`$ (6.7)
One of the main points is that the boundary Poisson bracket can be defined via the last equality as a composition between smooth functions into smooth functions without ever introducing the boundary distributions. Historically , this is what have been done. But as the first three lines clearly indicate, the distribution product is “lurking just beneath the surface”.

### 6.1 Mono-Local Tensors

The notion of a tensor field acquires some new features when a boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is present. These are worthwhile pointing out. First of all, the Poisson bi-vector $`\omega ^{AB}=\omega ^{AB}(x,\varphi (x))`$ is a function of the field variables $`\varphi ^A(x)`$ and it may have explicit $`x`$-dependence, but it does not depend on the derivatives $`^k\varphi ^A(x)`$, $`k0`$, of the field variables. It is antisymmetric $`\omega ^{BA}=\omega ^{AB}`$. Furthermore, it satisfies the Jacobi identity:

$$0=\underset{\mathrm{cycl}.A,B,C}{}\omega ^{AD}P_{D(0)}\omega ^{BC}.$$
(6.8)
This implies the Jacobi identity

$$0=\underset{\mathrm{cycl}.f,g,h}{}\{f,\{g,h\}_{\mathrm{}}\}_{\mathrm{}},f,g,h,$$
(6.9)
for the boundary Poisson bracket (6.7) itself, as we shall see in Appendix B.

The Poisson bi-vector $`\omega ^{AB}(x)`$ transforms covariantly as a tensor, $`i.e.`$

$$\omega ^{AB}\omega ^{A^{}B^{}}=P_{A(0)}\varphi ^A^{}\omega ^{AB}P_{B(0)}\varphi ^B^{}$$
(6.10)
under a change of coordinates

$$\varphi ^A(x)\varphi ^A^{}(x)=\varphi ^A^{}(\varphi (x),x),$$
(6.11)
which does not involve the derivatives $`^k\varphi ^A(x)`$, $`k0`$, of the field variables. The presence of the boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ implies that the $`2`$-tensor $`\omega ^{AB}(x)`$ cannot maintain its form under a more general field transformation. Hence, it is natural to consider only a Poisson bi-vector $`\omega ^{AB}(x)`$ which does not depend on the derivatives $`^k\varphi ^A(x)`$, $`k0`$, in the first place since the allowed class of field redefinitions cannot induce them later-on. We should perhaps stress that we continue to allow for derivatives $`^k\varphi ^A(x)`$ inside $`f`$ and $`g`$ in (3.1). After all, this is the raison d’etre of a boundary Poisson bracket, while on the other hand, the applications usually deal with a Poisson structure on Darboux form, $`i.e.`$where $`\omega ^{AB}`$ is a constant.

### 6.2 Multi-Local Formalism

Let us mention, without going into lengthy details, that to allow for arbitrary field redefinitions, one should consider a bi-local Poisson bracket

$`\{F,G\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Sigma }\times \mathrm{\Sigma }}}\rho d^dx_A\rho d^dx_B{\displaystyle \frac{\delta F}{\delta \varphi ^A(x_A)}}\omega ^{AB}(x_A,x_B){\displaystyle \frac{\delta G}{\delta \varphi ^B(x_B)}}`$ (6.12)
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{cycl}.A,B,C}{}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\rho d^dx_D\omega ^{AD}(x_A,x_D){\displaystyle \frac{\delta \omega ^{BC}(x_B,x_C)}{\delta \varphi ^D(x_D)}}.`$ (6.15)
By the word bi-local we are merely referring to that $`\omega ^{AB}(x_A,x_B)`$ (in the distributional sense) may depend on $`x_A`$ and $`x_B`$. It may very well be that the support is along the diagonal $`x_A=x_B`$, but this does not necessarily imply that the Poisson bi-vector $`\omega ^{AB}(x_A,x_B)`$ can be written with one entry only, due to the very nature of distributions. Whenever one can bring $`\omega ^{AB}(x_A,x_B)`$ on the diagonal form

$$\omega ^{AB}(x_A,x_B)=\omega ^{AB}(x_A)\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }(x_A,x_B),$$
(6.16)
one may reduce the boundary Poisson bracket (6.15) to the mono-local case. The point is twofold:

* The diagonal Ansatz (6.16) is not stabile under general field redefinitions, when a boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is present.
* Even if $`\omega ^{AB}(x_A,x_B)`$ is of the diagonal form (6.16), the pertinent Jacobi condition (6.15) may not acquire a mono-local form, if $`\omega ^{AB}(x_A)`$ depends on the field derivatives $`^k\varphi ^A(x)`$, $`k0`$.

Here the Dirac delta distribution is defined as

$$f:_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\times \mathrm{\Sigma }}\rho d^dx_A\rho d^dx_Bf(x_A,x_B)\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }(x_A,x_B)=_\mathrm{\Sigma }\rho d^dxf(x,x).$$
(6.17)
It has the property that

$$\left(_{x_A^i}^{}_{x_B^i}\right)\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }(x_A,x_B)=0.$$
(6.18)
The functional derivative may formally be written as

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi ^A(x)}=\underset{i}{}\underset{k}{}(_x^{})^k\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }(x,z_{(i)})P_{A(k)}^{(z_{(i)})},$$
(6.19)
where the $`i`$-sum extends over the finitely many $`d`$-tuple variables $`z_{(i)}=(z_{(i)}^1,\mathrm{},z_{(i)}^d)`$ of the implicitly attacked multi-local functional. That is, the functional derivative operation “peers” beyond the integral symbols of the unwritten multi-local functional (if any integrals).

In the multi-local framework, the proof of the Jacobi identity for the boundary Poisson bracket will follow from the traditional argument: Namely, as a consequence of 1) the Jacobi identity (6.15) for $`\omega ^{AB}(x_A,x_B)`$, 2) the Leibnitz rule and 3) the fact that two functional derivatives commute:

$$[\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi ^A(x_A)},\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi ^B(x_B)}]=0.$$
(6.20)
While multi-local objects are a straightforward and natural generalization, we shall devote our attention to the important mono-local case. First of all, because it is interesting in its own right. Secondly, since we have only sketched the multi-local formalism, we would like to provide a proof of the Jacobi identity that rest within the mono-local formalism itself. (See Appendix B). Unfortunately, the mono-local proof does not have the attractive simplicity of the multi-local proof.

### 6.3 Fourier Transform

It is convenient to resum the higher derivatives in a series,

$`P_A(q)f`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}q^kP_{A(k)}f,`$ (6.21)
$`E_A(q)f`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}q^kE_{A(k)}f=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{q}}\right]P_A(q)f,`$ (6.22)
and to introduce the Fourier transform

$`P_A(y)f`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle d^dqe^{qy}P_A(q)f},`$ (6.23)
$`E_A(y)f`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle d^dqe^{qy}E_A(q)f}=e^yP_A(y)f.`$ (6.24)
Then we may write a functional derivative as

$$\frac{\delta \left[_\mathrm{\Sigma }f\right]}{\delta \varphi ^A}=d^dye^^{}yP_A(y)f=d^dyE_A(y)fe^^{}y1.$$
(6.25)
As a consequences of (5.18), we have the following Heisenberg group structure :

$`e^yP_A(y_A)`$ $`=`$ $`P_A(y_A+y)e^y,`$ (6.26)
$`E_A(y_A)`$ $`=`$ $`E_A(y_A+y)e^y,`$ (6.28)
$`P_A(y_A)e^^{}y`$ $`=`$ $`e^^{}yP_A(y_A+y),`$ (6.30)
$`E_A(y_A)e^^{}y`$ $`=`$ $`E_A(y_A+y).`$ (6.32)
The $`x`$-pointwise boundary Poisson bracket (6.7) can be stated as

$`\{f,g\}_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`C^{\mathrm{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \left[_\mathrm{\Sigma }f\right]}{\delta \varphi ^A}}\omega ^{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \left[_\mathrm{\Sigma }q\right]}{\delta \varphi ^B}}\right]`$ (6.33)
$`=`$ $`C^{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle d^dy_Ad^dy_Bd^dyE_A(y_A)f\omega ^{AB}E_B(y_B)gT(y_A,y_B,y)e^^{}y1}`$ (6.35)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^dy_Ad^dy_Bd^dye^y\left(E_A(y_A)f\omega ^{AB}T(y_A,y_B,y)E_B(y_B)g\right)}.`$ (6.37)
The Jacobi identity for this un-integrated, $`x`$-pointwise boundary Poisson bracket $`\{f,g\}_{\mathrm{}}`$ is satisfied. Here (and everywhere else in this paper), we are referring to the Jacobi identity in its strongest form, $`i.e.`$without any residual total derivative terms nor any total adjoint derivative terms leftover. It is proven in Appendix B. Interestingly, it continues to hold if we replace the smooth functions $`f`$, $`g`$ and $`\omega ^{AB}`$ with general boundary distributions $`u`$, $`v`$ and $`\omega ^{AB}`$ and take the last equation in (6.7) or in (6.37) as a definition:

$$0=\underset{\mathrm{cycl}.u,v,w}{}\{u,\{v,w\}_{\mathrm{}}\}_{\mathrm{}},u,v,w.$$
(6.38)
## 7 Alternative $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}1`$ Basis

### 7.1 Heuristic Remarks

Heuristically, the adjoint basis $`(^{})^k1`$ may be viewed as a renormalization/definition of what should be meant by the singular expression $`(\rho 1_\mathrm{\Sigma })^1()^k(\rho 1_\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, where

$$1_\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& \mathrm{if}x\mathrm{\Sigma }\hfill \\ \hfill 0& \mathrm{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$
(7.1)
is the characteristic function for the set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ inside $`IR^d`$.

In the same way, we shall now consider an alternative basis $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}1`$, which provides a rigorous meaning to $`^n\mathrm{ln}(\rho 1_\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. It will be convenient in the rigorous treatment to exclude $`n=0`$.

For the ultra-local product, we shall use this basis to argue that the parameter $`s`$ itself has an interpretation as a renormalization of $`\mathrm{ln}(\rho 1_\mathrm{\Sigma })/\mathrm{\Gamma }(0)`$.

### 7.2 $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$ Operators

After the above heuristic introduction, we turn to a rigorous definition of the operators $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}:`$ for $`nIN_0^d\backslash \{0\}`$:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(y)u`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{y^n}{n!}}\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}u{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha }{e^{^{}\alpha y}1}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\alpha }}e^{^{}\alpha y}u`$ (7.2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha }{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{^{}\alpha y}1}}y{\displaystyle \frac{}{y}}e^{^{}\alpha y}u,u,`$ (7.4)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(y=0)u`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (7.6)
The integral expressions should be understood by first Taylor expanding around $`y=0`$ and then performing the $`\alpha `$-integration. Up to second order in $`y`$, we get:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(e_i)}u`$ $`=`$ $`_i^{}u,`$ (7.7)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(e_i+e_j)}u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_i^{}_j^{}u_i^{}1_j^{}u)+(ij).`$ (7.9)
Note that this definition relies heavily on the existence of the distribution product (3.2). For $`u1`$ the definition (7.6) simplifies to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(y)1=\mathrm{ln}\left(e^^{}y1\right).$$
(7.10)
An equivalent definition is given by

$$y\frac{}{y}\mathrm{\Delta }(y)u=\underset{n0}{}\frac{|n|y^n}{n!}\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}u=\frac{1}{e^^{}y1}y\frac{}{y}e^^{}yu,u.$$
(7.11)
### 7.3 Inverse Relations

Of particular interest is the case where the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}1`$, $`n0`$, become linearly independent. Because of the triangular form of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}1`$, $`n0`$, this happens precisely when

$$n0:\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}10.$$
(7.12)
Granted that this is the case, the inverse relations read:

$`e^^{}yu`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{y^k}{k!}}(^{})^ku={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\alpha \mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha y)1\right){\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\alpha }}\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha y)u`$ (7.13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha }{\alpha }}\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha y)1\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{y}}\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha y)u,u,`$ (7.15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{y}}e^^{}yu`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{|k|y^k}{k!}}(^{})^ku=\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }(y)1\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{y}}\mathrm{\Delta }(y)u,`$ (7.17)
$`e^^{}y1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }(y)1\right){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}y^kS^{(k)}\left(\{{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{n!}}\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}1\}_{n0}\right).`$ (7.19)
In the last line we have indicated that the adjoint basis elements

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(^{})^k1}{k!}}`$ $`=`$ $`S^{(k)}\left(\{{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{n!}}\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}1\}_{n0}\right)`$ (7.20)
$`=`$ $`\left(1\right)^k{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}\{m_n\}_{n0}\\ k=_{n0}m_nn\end{array}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_n!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}1\right)^{m_n},kIN_0^d,`$ (7.24)
up to a normalization, become the $`d`$-dimensional Schur polynomials of the alternative basis elements $`\frac{(1)^n}{n!}\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}1`$, $`nIN_0^d\backslash \{0\}`$.

### 7.4 Derivative of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$ operators

The derivative $`_i`$ acts very simple on the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$ operators, as the reader might have suspected from the heuristic arguments given in Section 7.1:

$`_i\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}u`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n+e_i)}u,`$ (7.25)
$`e^{\overline{y}}\mathrm{\Delta }(y)u`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }(y+\overline{y})u\mathrm{\Delta }(\overline{y})u.`$ (7.27)
This follows straightforwardly from the definitions (3.7) and (7.6). Note that we can describe the derivative $`_i`$ in terms of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$ operators without using the distribution product (3.2). This is the key advantage of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$ operators. As one might expect, the action of the adjoint derivatives $`_i^{}`$ now becomes complicated:

$$e^{^{}\overline{y}}\mathrm{\Delta }(y)u=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(y\overline{y})u\mathrm{\Delta }(\overline{y})u}{\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }(\overline{y})1\right)}.$$
(7.28)
### 7.5 Product in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}1`$ Basis

Starting from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}1`$ basis, we can describe the distribution product as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{(k)}1\mathrm{\Delta }^{(\mathrm{})}1=\underset{n0}{}\stackrel{~}{c}_n^{k,\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}1,$$
(7.29)
for some smooth structure functions $`\stackrel{~}{c}_n^{k,\mathrm{}}`$. From this point of view we would have the same basic requirements, such as the commutativity and the associativity assumption and the Leibnitz rule. (The naturalness assumption is automatically fulfilled, because $`n0`$.)

The product (3.2) is summed up in

$$\stackrel{~}{T}(y_A,y_B,q)\underset{k,\mathrm{},n0}{}\frac{y_A^k}{k!}\frac{y_B^{\mathrm{}}}{\mathrm{}!}\stackrel{~}{c}_n^{k,\mathrm{}}q^n.$$
(7.30)
It has Fourier transform

$$\stackrel{~}{T}(y_A,y_B,y)d^dqe^{qy}\stackrel{~}{T}(y_A,y_B,q).$$
(7.31)
We note for later that:

$$d^dy\stackrel{~}{T}(y_A,y_B,y)=\stackrel{~}{T}(y_A,y_B,q=0)=0.$$
(7.32)
The closeness (7.29) of the boundary algebra then reads

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(y_A)1\mathrm{\Delta }(y_B)1=d^dy\stackrel{~}{T}(y_A,y_B,y)\mathrm{\Delta }(y)1.$$
(7.33)
Contrary to the adjoint basis, the Leibnitz condition is linear in the structure functions

$`_i\stackrel{~}{c}_n^{k,\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{c}_n^{k+e_i,\mathrm{}}+\stackrel{~}{c}_n^{k,\mathrm{}+e_i}\stackrel{~}{c}_{ne_i}^{k,\mathrm{}},`$ (7.34)
$`e^{\overline{y}}\stackrel{~}{T}(y_A,y_B,y\overline{y})`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{T}(y_A+\overline{y},y_B+\overline{y},y)\stackrel{~}{T}(y_A+\overline{y},\overline{y},y)`$ (7.38)
$`\stackrel{~}{T}(\overline{y},y_B+\overline{y},y)+\stackrel{~}{T}(\overline{y},\overline{y},y).`$
### 7.6 Ultra-Local Product

We have that $`\stackrel{~}{c}_n^{k,\mathrm{}}=\stackrel{~}{c}^{k,\mathrm{}}\delta _n^{k+\mathrm{}}`$ is ultra-local in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}1`$ basis if and only if $`c_n^{k,\mathrm{}}=c^{k,\mathrm{}}\delta _n^{k+\mathrm{}}`$ is ultra-local in the adjoint basis $`(^{})^k1`$. This is due to the homogeneity of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$ operators of homogeneity weights $`nIN_0^d`$. Here the homogeneity weights are wrt. a scaling of the adjoint differential operator $`_i^{}\lambda _i_i^{}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},d`$. Or vice-verse. Only the Leibnitz rule is slightly changed compared with the adjoint case in Section 4.1. It still splits into two conditions:

$$\stackrel{~}{c}^{k+e_i,\mathrm{}}+\stackrel{~}{c}^{k,\mathrm{}+e_i}=\stackrel{~}{c}^{k,\mathrm{}}_i\stackrel{~}{c}_n^{k,\mathrm{}}=0.$$
(7.39)
The generic solutions are $`2`$-coboundaries of locally constant invertible elements:

$$\stackrel{~}{b}^k^\times :\stackrel{~}{c}^{k,\mathrm{}}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{b}^k\stackrel{~}{b}^{\mathrm{}}}{\stackrel{~}{b}^{k+\mathrm{}}},$$
(7.40)
that satisfies the first of the Leibnitz conditions – below written slightly simplified by use of the exactness property:

$$\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{c}^{k,e_i}}+\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{c}^{\mathrm{},e_i}}=\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{c}^{k+\mathrm{},e_i}}.$$
(7.41)
It follows that there exists constants $`s_{ij}=s_{ji}`$, $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},d`$, such that

$$\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{c}^{k,e_i}}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}\frac{k_j}{s_{ij}}.$$
(7.42)
A check of the product confirms that these constants $`s_{ij}`$ coincide with the $`s_{ij}`$ introduced in the adjoint case in Section 4.2. In fact, the ultra local solution (4.21) becomes

$`\stackrel{~}{c}^{k,\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{c}_{(I)}^{k,\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{c}_{(II)}^{k,\mathrm{}},`$ (7.43)
$`\stackrel{~}{c}_{(I)}^{k,\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`sB(i(k),i(\mathrm{})),`$ (7.45)
$`\stackrel{~}{c}_{(II)}^{k,\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}i,j\\ ij\\ s_{ij}=0\end{array}}{}}\delta _0^{\mathrm{min}(k_i+\mathrm{}_i,k_j+\mathrm{}_j)},`$ (7.50)
$`i.e.`$all the diagonal parameter $`s`$ enter multiplicatively. The arguments $`i(k)`$ in the Euler Beta function are non-negative integers. Recall that the Euler Beta function has a pole located in zero. All other branches besides the $`1`$-dimensional branch with the horizontal Young diagram $`(n_1=d)`$ are “infected” with this pole. This is an indirect manifestation of the fact that the generators $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}1`$, $`n0`$, on the other branches are not linearly independent.

### 7.7 Non-Ultra-Local Product

To deal with the non-ultra-local case, we invoke the following Ansatz: There exists an invertible matrix-valued smooth function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^k_a`$ and a fiducial solution $`\stackrel{~}{c}_{(0)c}^{a,b}`$ such that

$$\stackrel{~}{c}_n^{k,\mathrm{}}=\underset{a,b,c0}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^k{}_{a}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\mathrm{}}{}_{b}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{c}_{(0)c}^{a,b}\mathrm{\Lambda }^c{}_{n}{}^{}.$$
(7.51)
It would be obvious to use the ultra-local solution $`\stackrel{~}{c}_{(0)c}^{a,b}=B(|a|,|b|)\delta _c^{a+b}`$ as the fiducial solution, but in fact any solution will do.

Again we sum up the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^k_a`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(y,q^{(0)})=\underset{k,a0}{}\frac{y^k}{k!}\mathrm{\Lambda }^k{}_{a}{}^{}q_{}^{(0)a},$$
(7.52)
and the Fourier transform

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(y,y^{(0)})=d^dq^{(0)}e^{q^{(0)}y^{(0)}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(y,q^{(0)}).$$
(7.53)
We note for later that:

$$d^dy^{(0)}\mathrm{\Lambda }(y,y^{(0)})=\mathrm{\Lambda }(y,q^{(0)}=0)=0.$$
(7.54)
The Ansatz (7.51) then reads:

$$\stackrel{~}{T}(y_A,y_B,y)=d^dy_A^{(0)}d^dy_B^{(0)}d^dy^{(0)}\mathrm{\Lambda }(y_A,y_A^{(0)})\mathrm{\Lambda }(y_B,y_B^{(0)})\stackrel{~}{T}^{(0)}(y_A^{(0)},y_B^{(0)},y^{(0)})\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(y^{(0)},y).$$
(7.55)
The Ansatz (7.51) automatically satisfies the commutativity and the associativity requirements. The linear Leibnitz condition (7.38) is met by the following generic condition:

$`_i\mathrm{\Lambda }^k_a`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k+e_i}{}_{a}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^k{}_{ae_i}{}^{},`$ (7.56)
$`e^{(q^{(0)}+)\overline{y}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(y,q^{(0)})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(y+\overline{y},q^{(0)})\mathrm{\Lambda }(\overline{y},q^{(0)}),`$ (7.58)
$`e^{\overline{y}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(y,y^{(0)}\overline{y})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(y+\overline{y},y^{(0)})\mathrm{\Lambda }(\overline{y},y^{(0)}).`$ (7.60)
or equivalently, in terms of the inverse matrix:

$$_i\mathrm{\Lambda }^a{}_{k}{}^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^a{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{b}{}_{k}{}^{}_{i}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{}}{}_{b}{}^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{a+e_i}{}_{k}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^a{}_{ke_i}{}^{}.$$
(7.61)
The shift operators $`(E^n)^k{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{}=\delta _{\mathrm{}}^{k+n}`$ span a commutative and associative algebra $`\stackrel{=}{E}{}_{}{}^{n}\stackrel{=}{E}{}_{}{}^{m}=\stackrel{=}{E}^{n+m}`$, with a trivial differental structure $`[_i,\stackrel{=}{E}{}_{}{}^{n}]=0`$. Hence, we can write the condition (7.60) as

$$[_i\stackrel{=}{E}{}_{}{}^{e_i},\stackrel{=}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}]=0.$$
(7.62)
This system is clearly integrable with solution

$`\stackrel{=}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(x+\overline{y})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}\overline{y}^i\stackrel{=}{E}{}_{}{}^{e_i})\stackrel{=}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(x)\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}\overline{y}^i\stackrel{=}{E}{}_{}{}^{e_i})`$ (7.63)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k,a}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{y}^k}{k!}}\stackrel{=}{E}{}_{}{}^{k}\stackrel{=}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(x){\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{y})^a}{a!}}\stackrel{=}{E}{}_{}{}^{a},`$ (7.65)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x+\overline{y})^k_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{},b}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{y}^{\mathrm{}}}{\mathrm{}!}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)^{k+\mathrm{}}{}_{ab}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{y})^b}{b!}},`$ (7.67)
where $`x`$ is a reference point. This can of course also be derived by expanding the second expression in (7.60).

## 8 Conclusions

When imposing the Jacobi identity for a boundary Poisson bracket, an infinite tower of conditions emerges. (Plus an expected standard Jacobi condition on the Poisson bi-vector $`\omega ^{AB}`$.) In the ultra-local case, this tower was already known . We have demonstrated that there is a well-defined distribution product behind the boundary Poisson bracket construction. We have shown that the tower of conditions on the boundary Poisson bracket can really be viewed as conditions on this distribution product instead. As a result, we have simplified the boundary calculus of Hamiltonian field theory considerably. We hope that these developments will stimulate further interests in the physical systems with a boundary.

Acknowledgements. We would like to thank B. Morariu for carefully reading the manuscript. The work is supported in part by U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) under grant no. DE-FG02-91ER-40651-Task-B.

## Appendix A Proof of the Leibnitz Identity (5.30)

Consider the following $`(AD,BC)`$ symmetric object:

$`e^{y_B}e^{^{}y_A}1e^{y_C}e^{^{}y_D}1`$ (A.1)
$`=`$ $`e^{^{}y_C}\left[e^{(y_By_C)}e^{^{}y_A}1e^{^{}y_C}1e^{^{}y_D}1\right]`$ (A.3)
$`=`$ $`e^{^{}y_C}\left[e^{(y_By_C)}e^{^{}y_A}1{\displaystyle d^d\stackrel{~}{y}T(y_C,y_D,\stackrel{~}{y}+y_C)e^{^{}(\stackrel{~}{y}+y_C)}1}\right]`$ (A.5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^d\stackrel{~}{y}e^{^{}y_B}\left[e^{^{}y_A}1e^{(y_Cy_B)}T(y_C,y_D,\stackrel{~}{y}+y_C)e^{^{}(\stackrel{~}{y}+y_B)}1\right]}`$ (A.7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^d\stackrel{~}{y}e^{^{}y_B}\left[d^dyT(y_A,\stackrel{~}{y}+y_B,y+y_B)e^{^{}(y+y_B)}1e^{(y_Cy_B)}T(y_C,y_D,\stackrel{~}{y}+y_C)\right]}`$ (A.9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^dyd^d\stackrel{~}{y}e^{y_B}T(y_A,\stackrel{~}{y}+y_B,y+y_B)e^{y_C}T(y_C,y_D,\stackrel{~}{y}+y_C)e^^{}y1}.`$ (A.11)
Here we have applied the Leibnitz rule three times plus various definitions. The desired Leibnitz identity (5.30) now follows from the unique decomposition of a boundary distribution into its $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ coefficient functions, cf. (2.19).

## Appendix B Mono-Local Proof of the Jacobi Identity (6.38)

Consider three boundary distributions $`u`$,$`v`$ and $`w`$. When calculating a “double bracket”, using the last formula in (6.37), we get three terms:

$$\{u,\{v,w\}_{\mathrm{}}\}_{\mathrm{}}=T_1(u,v,w)+T_2(u,v,w)T_1(u,w,v).$$
(B.1)
Here the first term $`T_1`$ is

$`T_1(u,v,w)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle }d^{6d}ye^y[E_A(y_A)uT(y_A,y_B,y)\omega ^{AB}e^{y_B}P_B(y_B)e^{(\stackrel{~}{y}y_C)}P_C(y_C)v`$ (B.4)
$`\times e^{(\stackrel{~}{y}y_B)}\left(\omega ^{CD}T(y_C,y_D,\stackrel{~}{y})E_D(y_D)w\right)]`$
$`\stackrel{(\text{6.32})}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^{6d}ye^y[E_A(y_A)uT(y_A,y_B,y)\omega ^{AB}e^{(\stackrel{~}{y}y_By_C)}P_B(y_B+y_C\stackrel{~}{y})P_C(y_C)v`$ (B.8)
$`\times e^{(\stackrel{~}{y}y_B)}\left(\omega ^{CD}T(y_C,y_D,\stackrel{~}{y})E_D(y_D)w\right)]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^{6d}ye^y^{}[e^{y_B^{}}\left(E_A(y_A)uT(y_A,\stackrel{~}{y}^{}+y_B^{},y+y_B^{})\omega ^{AB}\right)P_B(y_B^{})P_C(y_C)v`$ (B.12)
$`\times e^{y_C}\left(\omega ^{CD}T(y_C,y_D,\stackrel{~}{y}^{}+y_C)E_D(y_D)w\right)]`$
$`\stackrel{(\text{5.30})}{=}`$ $`T_1(w,v,u).`$ (B.14)
We have used the following shorthand notation for the integration measure

$$d^{6d}yd^dy_Ad^dy_Bd^dyd^dy_Cd^dy_Dd^d\stackrel{~}{y},$$
(B.15)
and we have performed the following change of integration variables

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}y_A^{}\\ y_B^{}\\ y^{}\\ y_C^{}\\ y_D^{}\\ \stackrel{~}{y}^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}1& & 0& & 0& & 0& & 0& & 0\\ 0& & 1& & 0& & 1& & 0& & 1\\ 0& & 1& & 1& & 1& & 0& & 1\\ 0& & 0& & 0& & 1& & 0& & 0\\ 0& & 0& & 0& & 0& & 1& & 0\\ 0& & 0& & 0& & 1& & 0& & 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}y_A\\ y_B\\ y\\ y_C\\ y_D\\ \stackrel{~}{y}\end{array}\right),$$
(B.16)
which has the Jacobian equal to $`1`$. The full Jacobi identity contains six $`T_1`$ terms. It is easy to see that they cancel by symmetry.

The second term $`T_2`$ in (B.1) is

$`T_2(u,v,w)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle }d^{6d}ye^y[E_A(y_A)uT(y_A,y_B,y)\omega ^{AB}e^{y_B}P_B(y_B)e^{\stackrel{~}{y}}\omega ^{CD}`$ (B.19)
$`\times e^{(\stackrel{~}{y}y_B)}\left(E_C(y_C)vT(y_C,y_D,\stackrel{~}{y})E_D(y_D)w\right)]`$
$`\stackrel{(\text{6.32})}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^{6d}ye^y[E_A(y_A)uT(y_A,y_B,y)\omega ^{AB}`$ (B.23)
$`\times e^{(\stackrel{~}{y}y_B)}\left(P_B(y_B\stackrel{~}{y})\omega ^{CD}E_C(y_C)vT(y_C,y_D,\stackrel{~}{y})E_D(y_D)w\right)]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^{6d}ye^y[E_A(y_A)uT(y_A,y_B^{}+\stackrel{~}{y},y)\omega ^{AB}`$ (B.27)
$`\times e^{y_B^{}}\left(P_B(y_B^{})\omega ^{CD}E_C(y_C)vT(y_C,y_D,\stackrel{~}{y})E_D(y_D)w\right)]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^{6d}ye^y[E_A(y_A)uT(y_A,\stackrel{~}{y}+y_B^{},y)\omega ^{AB}`$ (B.31)
$`\times e^{y_B^{}}\left(\delta ^d(y_B^{})P_{B(0)}\omega ^{CD}E_C(y_C)vT(y_C,y_D,\stackrel{~}{y})E_D(y_D)w\right)]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^{5d}ye^y[E_A(y_A)uT(y_A,\stackrel{~}{y},y)\omega ^{AB}`$ (B.35)
$`\times P_{B(0)}\omega ^{CD}E_C(y_C)vT(y_C,y_D,\stackrel{~}{y})E_D(y_D)w].`$
In the next-to-last step we used the assumption that $`\omega ^{CD}`$ does not depend on the derivatives $`^k\varphi ^A(x)`$, $`k0`$. It is now easy to see that in the full Jacobi identity, the three $`T_2`$ terms cancel by use of the Jacobi identity (6.8) for $`\omega ^{AB}`$ and the associativity (5.29) of the product $`T(y_A,y_B,y)`$.


format: text

text:
# Ground state ferromagnetism in a doubly orbitally degenerate model

## I Introduction

The problem of an origin of the metallic ferromagnetism, in spite of the variety of theoretical attempts to solve it, still remains open. Nowadays we can distinguish a few ways to obtain the ferromagnetic solution. First, one can consider the Hubbard model - which describes itinerant electrons in a single non-degenerate band interacting via on-site Coulomb repulsion $`U`$. Within this model the ferromagnetic solution has been obtained by means of some approximations , also the exact result of Nagaoka  shows that the ground state of a band with exactly one electron above or below half-filling is ferromagnetic at $`U=\mathrm{}`$. However, in spite of the large number of papers (for recent reviews see Refs. ) the question of an existence of ferromagnetic ordering in the Hubbard model is still under discussion. Second, one can include in a model Hamiltonian, in addition to the intra-atomic Coulomb repulsion, also other matrix elements of electron-electron interaction, which can provide new mechanisms of ferromagnetism stabilization. Third, one can take into consideration the orbital degeneracy with the intra-atomic Hund’s rule exchange interaction which forms atomic magnetic moments. Taking into consideration the orbital degeneracy is essentially important: in the case of strong intra-atomic iteractions the kinetic superexchange has a ferromagnetic nature, in contrast with the single-band Hubbard model where it has an antiferromagnetic one. We believe that at least for understanding of the ferromagnetism origin in crystals with narrow energy bands it is enough to consider other matrix elements of electron correlations (in addition to the intra-atomic Coulomb repulsion) and orbital degeneracy with intra-atomic Hund’s rule exchange.

The importance of orbital degeneracy and Hund’s rule exchange interaction for ferromagnetism was first suggested by Slater  and van Vleck : the presence of orbital degeneracy and Hund’s rule exchange interaction leads to so-called “atomic ferromagnetism”; in such a situation translational motion of electrons forces the spins of electrons on nearest-neighbour atoms to align in parallel. This mechanism of ferromagnetism based on a microscopic model was studied by Roth  considering the Hubbard model with double orbital degeneration. In Refs.  it was found that ferromagnetism in such two-band Hubbard model coexists with orbital ordering for the case of a quarter-filled band and strong intra-atomic interactions. Moreover, recently Spałek with co-workers  have proposed the mechanism of a coexisting ferromagnetism and spin-triplet paired state in a doubly orbitally degenerate band due to the intra-atomic Hund’s rule coupling. The problem of metallic ferromagnetism in the two-band Hubbard model has attracted much attention of researchers in a series of papers by means of the dynamical mean-field theory , the slave boson method  and the Gutzwiller variational wave function approximation . They all find ferromagnetism to be stabilized by intra-atomic Hund’s rule coupling at intermediate and strong intra-atomic Coulomb interactions. On the other hand, the authors  have obtained that intra-atomic Hund’s rule exchange does not play the important role in ferromagnetic ordering of crystals with narrow energy bands, and even may destabilize ferromagnetism. In particular, Hirsch  suggests that orbital degeneracy and intra-atomic exchange interaction are not likely to play a significant role in the ferromagnetic ordering of Ni or Ni-Cu and Ni-Zn alloys, and a single-band model with inter-atomic direct exchange contains the essential physics of metallic ferromagnetism of transition metal compounds. Nolting and co-workers  have obtained that magnetization of the doubly orbitally degenerate Hubbard model strongly decreases with increasing intra-atomic Hund’s rule exchange for a wide range of model parameters, namely the intra-atomic exchange coupling substantially suppresses ferromagnetic order.

In the cited above papers the authors have not took into consideration so-called “off-diagonal” matrix elements of electron-electron interaction which are one of the possible mechanisms of ferromagnetism in narrow energy bands as mentioned above. The importance of these matrix elements in a single-band case was pointed out in many works -. Here we note the special role of direct exchange interaction and correlated hopping (taking into account of the inter-atomic density-density Coulomb interaction which plays the essential role in charge ordering goes beyond the goal of this article). Last ten years the problem of importance of inter-atomic exchange interaction for the metallic ferromagnetism again is under discussion in number of works -, where it was concluded that the inter-atomic exchange interaction $`J`$ plays a fundamental role for the stabilization of ferromagnetic ordering in a single-band model. The authors found that the inter-atomic direct exchange $`J>0`$ stabilizes ferromagnetic ordering in the single-band Hubbard model at intermediate to strong intra-atomic Coulomb interactions . In the case of weak interactions the inter-atomic exchange is important for the stabilization of incomplete ferromagnetism . Hirsch  argued that the inter-atomic exchange interaction is the main driving force for metallic ferromagnetism in systems like iron, cobalt and nickel. Also for the special cases of generalized Hubbard models it has been found  by means of exact techniques that inter-atomic exchange plays a dominant role in the occurrence of ferromagnetism.

The importance of correlated hopping for understanding of the metallic ferromagnetism in narrow energy band was discussed in Refs. . In particular, a generalization of Nagaoka’s theorem has been proved , and it has been shown  that in strong coupling regime close to half-filling correlated hopping favours ferromagnetism stronger for electron-like carriers than for hole-like carriers (the reverse situation occurs at weak interactions ). Note, that due to an additional mechanism of correlated hopping  at weak intra-atomic interactions the situation, which is analogous to that of strong interactions, can be realized: correlated hopping favours ferromagnetism stronger for electron-like carriers versus hole-like carriers (see also Section 3).

In this connection, the necessity of a further study of the metallic ferromagnetism problem in narrow energy bands is obvious. Firstly, it is interesting and important to find how the orbital degeneracy with intra-atomic Hund’s rule coupling and “off-diagonal” matrix elements of electron-electron interaction (correlated hopping and inter-atomic direct exchange interaction) in the aggregate show itself. Note that these studies were performed partially in Ref.  by means of exact diagonalization, in particular, for the case of small one-dimensional chains and strong intra-atomic Coulomb repulsion the role of orbital degeneracy with intra-atomic Hund’s rule coupling and inter-atomic exchange interaction for the ferromagnetic ordering was studied. However, the results depend sensitively on the number of lattice sites and the boundary conditions, on the one hand, and the study is restricted to the one-dimensional case, on the other hand. Secondly, there is a contradiction about the role of intra-atomic Hund’s rule interaction for the stabilization of ferromagnetic ordering, as mentioned above. Therefore, the present paper is devoted to the study of the metallic ferromagnetism problem.

The structure of the paper is the following. In Section 2 we formulate the Hamiltonian of the doubly orbitally degenerate Hubbard model which is generalized by taking into account correlated hopping and inter-atomic exchange interaction. For the case of weak intra-atomic interactions the single-particle Green function and energy spectrum at arbitrary values of electron concentration are derived by means of the mean-field approximation. In Section 3 the ferromagnetism in ground state of the model is investigated. The role of orbital degeneracy with intra-atomic Hund’s rule coupling, of correlated hopping, and of inter-atomic direct exchange interaction for the stability of ferromagnetic ordering is studied. The expressions for ground state energy and magnetization as functions of the model parameters, the criterion of transition from paramagnetic to feromagnetic ground state are found. Finally, Section 4 is devoted to the conclusions from the obtained results.

## II Green function and energy spectrum of the model in the case of weak interaction

Let us generalize the Hamiltonian proposed in work  by taking into account the inter-atomic exchange interaction:

$`H=`$ $`\mu {\displaystyle \underset{i\gamma \sigma }{}}a_{i\gamma \sigma }^+a_{i\gamma \sigma }+{\displaystyle \underset{ij\gamma \sigma }{}^{}}t_{ij}(n)a_{i\gamma \sigma }^+a_{j\gamma \sigma }+{\displaystyle \underset{ij\gamma \sigma }{}^{}}(t_{ij}^{}a_{i\gamma \sigma }^+a_{j\gamma \sigma }n_{i\overline{\gamma }}+h.c.)`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{ij\gamma \sigma }{}^{}}(t_{ij}^{\prime \prime }a_{i\gamma \sigma }^+a_{j\gamma \sigma }n_{i\gamma \overline{\sigma }}+h.c.)+U{\displaystyle \underset{i\gamma }{}}n_{i\gamma }n_{i\gamma }+U^{}{\displaystyle \underset{i\sigma }{}}n_{i\alpha \sigma }n_{i\beta \overline{\sigma }}`$
$`+(U^{}J_0){\displaystyle \underset{i\sigma }{}}n_{i\alpha \sigma }n_{i\beta \sigma }+J_0{\displaystyle \underset{i\sigma }{}}a_{i\alpha \sigma }^+a_{i\beta \overline{\sigma }}^+a_{i\alpha \overline{\sigma }}a_{i\beta \sigma }`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij\gamma \gamma ^{}\sigma \sigma ^{^{}}}{}^{}}a_{i\gamma \sigma }^+a_{j\gamma {}_{}{}^{}\sigma ^{}}^+a_{i\gamma \sigma ^{}}a_{j\gamma {}_{}{}^{}\sigma },`$
where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential, $`a_{i\gamma \sigma }^+,a_{i\gamma \sigma }`$ are the creation and destruction operators of an electron of spin $`\sigma `$ ($`\sigma =,`$; $`\overline{\sigma }`$ denotes spin projection which is opposite to $`\sigma `$) on $`i`$-site and in orbital $`\gamma `$ ($`\gamma =\alpha ,\beta `$ denotes two possible orbital states), $`n_{i\gamma \sigma }=a_{i\gamma \sigma }^+a_{i\gamma \sigma }`$ is the number operator of electrons of spin $`\sigma `$ and in orbital $`\gamma `$ on $`i`$-site, $`n_{i\gamma }=n_{i\gamma }+n_{i\gamma }`$; $`t_{ij}(n)`$ is the effective concentration-dependent hopping integral of an electron from $`\gamma `$-orbital of $`j`$-site to $`\gamma `$-orbital of $`i`$-site (we neglect the electron hoppings between $`\alpha `$\- and $`\beta `$-orbitals), $`t_{ij}^{}`$ ($`t_{ij}^{\prime \prime }`$) includes influence of an electron on $`\overline{\gamma }`$ ($`\gamma `$)-orbital of $`i`$\- or $`j`$-site on hopping process ($`\overline{\gamma }=\beta `$ if $`\gamma =\alpha `$, and $`\overline{\gamma }=\alpha `$ when $`\gamma =\beta `$), the primes at sums in Eq. (4) signify that $`ij`$, $`U`$ is the intra-atomic Coulomb repulsion of two electrons of the opposite spins at the same orbital (we assume that it has the same value at $`\alpha `$\- and $`\beta `$-orbitals), $`U^{}`$ is the intra-atomic Coulomb repulsion of two electrons of the opposite spins at the different orbitals, $`J_0`$ is the intra-atomic exchange interaction energy which stabilizes the Hund’s states forming the atomic magnetic moments, and $`J`$ is the inter-atomic exchange interaction. The effective hopping integral $`t_{ij}(n)`$ is concentration-dependent in consequence of taking into account the correlated hopping  of electron.

The peculiarities of the model described by the Hamiltonian (4) are taking into consideration the influence of the site occupation on the electron hoppings (correlated hopping), and the direct exchange between the neighbouring sites. In this model an electron hopping from one site to another is correlated both by the occupation of the sites involved in the hopping process and the occupation of the nearest-neighbour sites. The correlated hopping, firstly, renormalizes the initial hopping integral (it becomes concentration- and spin-dependent) and, secondly, leads to an independent on quasiimpulse shift of the subband center, dependent on magnetic and orbital orderings. To characterize the value of correlated hopping we introduce dimensionless parameters $`\tau =\frac{t_{ij}(n)}{|t_{ij}|}1`$, $`\tau ^{}=\frac{t_{}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{}}{|t_{ij}|}`$, and $`\tau _2=\frac{t_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{ij}{}^{}}{|t_{ij}|}`$ where $`t_{ij}`$ is the band hopping integral.

The single-particle Green function satisfies the equation

$`(E+\mu )a_{p\gamma \sigma }|a_{p^{}\gamma \sigma }^+_E={\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{pp^{}}}{2\pi }}+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}t_{ip}(n)a_{i\gamma \sigma }|a_{p^{}\gamma \sigma }^+_E`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i\sigma ^{}}{}}t^{}(ip)[a_{p\overline{\gamma }\sigma ^{}}^+a_{p\overline{\gamma }\sigma ^{}}a_{i\gamma \sigma }|a_{p^{}\gamma \sigma }^+_E+a_{p\overline{\gamma }\sigma ^{}}^+a_{i\overline{\gamma }\sigma ^{}}a_{p\gamma \sigma }|a_{p^{}\gamma \sigma }^+_E`$ (6)
$`+a_{i\overline{\gamma }\sigma ^{}}^+a_{i\overline{\gamma }\sigma ^{}}a_{i\gamma \sigma }|a_{p^{}\gamma \sigma }^+_E+a_{i\overline{\gamma }\sigma ^{}}^+a_{p\overline{\gamma }\sigma ^{}}a_{p\gamma \sigma }|a_{p^{}\gamma \sigma }^+_E]`$ (7)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}t^{\prime \prime }(ip)[a_{p\gamma \overline{\sigma }}^+a_{p\gamma \overline{\sigma }}a_{i\gamma \sigma }|a_{p^{}\gamma \sigma }^+_E+a_{p\gamma \overline{\sigma }}^+a_{i\gamma \overline{\sigma }}a_{p\gamma \sigma }|a_{p^{}\gamma \sigma }^+_E`$ (8)
$`+a_{i\gamma \overline{\sigma }}^+a_{i\gamma \overline{\sigma }}a_{i\gamma \sigma }|a_{p^{}\gamma \sigma }^+_E+a_{i\gamma \overline{\sigma }}^+a_{p\gamma \overline{\sigma }}a_{p\gamma \sigma }|a_{p^{}\gamma \sigma }^+_E]`$ (9)
$`+Un_{p\gamma \overline{\sigma }}a_{p\gamma \sigma }|a_{p^{}\gamma \sigma }^+_E+U^{}n_{p\overline{\gamma }\overline{\sigma }}a_{p\gamma \sigma }|a_{p^{}\gamma \sigma }^+_E+(U^{}J_0)n_{p\overline{\gamma }\sigma }a_{p\gamma \sigma }|a_{p^{}\gamma \sigma }^+_E`$ (10)
$`+J_0a_{p\overline{\gamma }\overline{\sigma }}^+a_{p\gamma \overline{\sigma }}a_{p\overline{\gamma }\sigma }|a_{p^{}\gamma \sigma }^+_E+{\displaystyle \underset{i\gamma ^{}\sigma ^{}}{}}Ja_{i\gamma ^{}\sigma ^{}}^+a_{p\gamma \sigma ^{}}a_{i\gamma ^{}\sigma }|a_{p^{}\gamma \sigma }^+_E.`$ (11)
Let us consider the system at weak intra-atomic Coulomb interaction ($`U`$, $`U^{}`$ are smaller than the bandwidth $`w=2z|t_{ij}|`$ where $`z`$ is the number of nearest neighbours to a site). In this case we can take into account electron-electron interactions in the Hartree-Fock approximation:

$`a_{i\gamma \overline{\sigma }}^+a_{i\gamma \overline{\sigma }}a_{j\gamma \sigma }|a_{p^{}\gamma \sigma }^+_E`$ $``$ $`a_{i\gamma \overline{\sigma }}^+a_{i\gamma \overline{\sigma }}a_{j\gamma \sigma }|a_{p^{}\gamma \sigma }^+_E;`$ (12)
$`a_{i\gamma \overline{\sigma }}^+a_{j\gamma \overline{\sigma }}a_{i\gamma \sigma }|a_{p^{}\gamma \sigma }^+_E`$ $``$ $`a_{i\gamma \overline{\sigma }}^+a_{j\gamma \overline{\sigma }}a_{i\gamma \sigma }|a_{p^{}\gamma \sigma }^+_E.`$ (13)
We assume that averages $`a_{i\gamma \sigma }^+a_{i\gamma \sigma }=n_{\gamma \sigma }`$ are independent of the number of a site, i.e. we limit ourselves to a uniform charge and electronic magnetic moment distribution (the problems of antiferromagnetic, orbital and charge orderings will be studied elsewhere).

After the transition to Fourier representation we obtain for the Green function

$`a_{p\gamma \sigma }|a_{p^{}\gamma \sigma }^+_𝐤={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{EE_{\gamma \sigma }(𝐤)}},`$ (14)
where the single particle energy spectrum is

$`E_{\gamma \sigma }(𝐤)=\mu _{\gamma \sigma }+t_𝐤(n\gamma \sigma ),`$ (15)
with the shifted chemical potential

$`\mu _{\gamma \sigma }=\mu \beta _{}^{}{}_{\gamma }{}^{}\beta _{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{\gamma \sigma }{}^{}n_{\gamma \overline{\sigma }}Un_{\overline{\gamma }\overline{\sigma }}U^{}n_{\overline{\gamma }\sigma }(U^{}J_0)+zJ{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ^{}}{}}n_{\gamma \sigma ^{}},`$ (16)
here the shifts of the subband centers are

$`\beta _{}^{}{}_{\gamma }{}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij\sigma }{}}t^{}(ij)a_{i\overline{\gamma }\sigma }^+a_{j\overline{\gamma }\sigma },`$ (17)
$`\beta _{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{\gamma \sigma }{}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}t^{\prime \prime }(ij)a_{i\gamma \overline{\sigma }}^+a_{j\gamma \overline{\sigma }};`$ (18)
and the spin- and concentration-dependent hopping integral is

$`t_𝐤(n\gamma \sigma )=t_𝐤(1\tau n2\tau ^{}n_{\overline{\gamma }}2\tau _2n_{\gamma \overline{\sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{zJ}{w}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ^{}}{}}a_{i\gamma \sigma ^{}}^+a_{j\gamma \sigma ^{}}),`$ (19)
$`t_𝐤`$ is the Fourier transformant of the hopping integral $`t_{ij}`$.

The dependence of effective hopping integral on electron concentration and magnetization, a presence of the spin-dependent shift of subband center are the essential distinctions of single-particle energy spectrum of the model described by Hamiltonian (4) from the spectrum of the Hubbard model in the case of weak interaction.

## III Ferromagnetism in the ground state of the model

The concentration of electrons with spin $`\sigma `$ on $`\gamma `$ orbital is

$`n_{\gamma \sigma }={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\rho (ϵ)f(E_{\gamma \sigma }(ϵ))𝑑ϵ.`$ (20)
Here $`\rho (ϵ)`$ is the density of states, $`f(ϵ)`$ is the Fermi distribution function, $`E_{\gamma \sigma }(ϵ)`$ is obtained from respective formula (15) substituting $`t_𝐤ϵ`$. Let us assume the rectangular density of states:

$`\rho (ϵ)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\delta (ϵϵ(𝐤))={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2w}}\theta (ϵ^2w^2).`$ (21)
In the case of zero temperature we obtain:

$`n_{\gamma \sigma }={\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{\gamma \sigma }+w}{2w}},`$ (22)
where the value $`\epsilon _{\gamma \sigma }`$ is the solution of the equation $`E_{\gamma \sigma }(\epsilon )=0`$, from which we obtain $`\epsilon _{\gamma \sigma }=\frac{\mu _{\gamma \sigma }}{\alpha _{\gamma \sigma }}`$, where $`\alpha _{\gamma \sigma }=1\tau n2\tau ^{}n_\gamma 2\tau _2n_{\gamma \overline{\sigma }}\frac{zJ}{w}\underset{\sigma ^{}}{}n_{\gamma \sigma ^{}}(1n_{\gamma \sigma ^{}})`$.

The shifts of subband centers are

$`\beta _{}^{}{}_{\gamma }{}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij\sigma }{}}t^{}(ij)a_{i\overline{\gamma }\sigma }^+a_{j\overline{\gamma }\sigma }=2\tau ^{}w{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}n_{\overline{\gamma }\sigma }(n_{\overline{\gamma }\sigma }1),`$ (23)
$`\beta _{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{\gamma \sigma }{}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}t^{\prime \prime }(ij)a_{i\gamma \overline{\sigma }}^+a_{j\gamma \overline{\sigma }}=2\tau _2wn_{\gamma \overline{\sigma }}(n_{\gamma \overline{\sigma }}1).`$ (24)
From equation (22) we obtain for the magnetization ($`m<n`$):

$`m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma }{}}(n_\gamma n_\gamma )`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`\pm 2\left({\displaystyle \frac{zJ}{2w}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{zJ}{8w}}(8+n(4n))+{\displaystyle \frac{U+J_0}{2w}}+\tau _1n+{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _2}{2}}(4n)1\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ (26)
where $`\tau _1=\tau +\tau ^{}`$, here we have assumed that the orbital distribution of electrons is uniform. Note that magnetization (25) does not depend on the parameter of intra-atomic Coulomb interaction $`U^{}`$, which leads to the independent on magnetic moment renormalization of the chemical potential (it can be seen also from the expression for ground state energy). Similarly, in the work  is has been argued that this parameter does not play the decisive role in metallic ferromagnetism of the transition metal compounds.

The magnetization defined by Eq. (25) is plotted in Fig. 1 as a function of electron concentration $`n`$ at different values $`J_0/w`$. These dependencies qualitatively agree with results of work  obtained by use of the Gutzwiller variational functions method. From Fig. 1 one can see that nature of the ground state of the system strongly depends on the values of system parameters; the small changes of $`J_0`$ can lead to the transition from a paramagnetic state to a ferromagnetic one at some values of electron concentration and energy parameters (this result agrees with the results of works ); note that at some values of parameters the system can be fully polarized. The transition to ferromagnetic state is also possible with the increase of $`n`$. Similar transition with the increase of electron concentration has been found by the authors of work .

Taking into account correlated hopping leads to the appearance of a peculiar kinetic mechanism of ferromagnetic ordering stabilization. This mechanism is caused by the presence of the spin-dependent shift of the subband centers being the consequence of correlated hopping (which are similar to the shift of subband centers in consequence of inter-atomic direct exchange interaction).

The influence of correlated hopping on behaviour of the system is illustrated on Fig. 2. In distinction from the two-band Hubbard model there is an asymmetry of the cases $`n<2`$ and $`n>2`$. With the increase of parameter $`\tau _1`$ the region of ferromagnetic ordering moves towards larger values of electron concentration $`n`$, and with increasing $`\tau _1`$ – to smaller values of $`n`$. Let us also note that taking into account the correlated hopping significantly enriches the set of curves (illustrating the $`m(n)`$ dependencies), which qualitatively describe the experimental Slater-Pauling curves  for ferromagnetic alloys.

The peculiarity of degenerate band models is taking into account Hund’s exchange interaction $`J_0`$. The importance of $`J_0`$ is shown in Fig. 3. One can see that intra-atomic exchange stabilizes ferromagnetism in orbitally degenerate band (the behaviour of $`m`$ with the increase of $`J_0`$ qualitatively agrees with the dependence of magnetic moment on the intra-atomic correlation strength obtained in work ). To describe the real narrow-band materials we have to take into account the correlated hopping which allows to obtain the transition from paramagnetic to ferromagnetic phase at realistic values of $`J_0`$. Fig. 4, which is plotted with use of Eq. (25) at $`\frac{U}{w}=1.2`$, $`\frac{zJ}{w}=0.06`$ and $`\frac{J_0}{w}=0.2`$, $`\tau _1=0`$, $`\tau _2=0.15`$, reproduces the behaviour of the magnetization observed in the systems Fe<sub>1-x</sub>Co<sub>x</sub>S<sub>2</sub> and Co<sub>1-x</sub>Ni<sub>x</sub>S<sub>2</sub> with the change of electron concentration in $`3d`$-band . In these crystals the same subsystem of electrons is responsible both for conductivity and for the localized magnetic moment formation. The noted compounds have the cubic pyrite structure, then $`3d`$-band is split into two subbands: a doubly degenerate $`e_g`$ band and a triply degenerate $`t_{2g}`$ band; $`t_{2g}`$ band is completely filled and $`e_g`$ band is partially filled (the $`e_g`$ band filling changes from 0 to 1 in the compound Fe<sub>1-x</sub>Co<sub>x</sub>S<sub>2</sub> and from 1 to 2 in the compound Co<sub>1-x</sub>Ni<sub>x</sub>S<sub>2</sub>). One should describe $`e_g`$ band of these compounds by a doubly orbitally degenerate model.

The unusual peculiarity of the system Fe<sub>1-x</sub>Co<sub>x</sub>S<sub>2</sub> is the presense of ferromagnetic ordering at very small values of electron concentration $`n=x0.05`$ . Ferromagnetism in this compound has been studied within a single-band model in Refs. . The authors of work  have proposed an approximation for the description of Fe<sub>1-x</sub>Co<sub>x</sub>S<sub>2</sub> in the non-degenerate Hubbard model with $`U=\mathrm{}`$ which provides the ferromagnetic solution even at very small electron concentration (in this connection see also Ref. ). However, in accordance with the Kanamori theory  at very small $`n`$ we should obtain the gas limit where ferromagnetism does not occur. We also believe that the degeneracy of $`e_g`$ band is essential for the description of ferromagnetic ordering in this system. Our results allow to obtain the ferromagnetism for small values of electron concentration induced by correlated hopping $`\tau _2`$ in a presence of the inter-atomic exchange interaction (see Fig. 4). Thus, we believe that the correlated hopping mechanism in a presence of the inter-atomic exchange interaction allows the more natural explanation of the origin of ferromagnetism in the system Fe<sub>1-x</sub>Co<sub>x</sub>S<sub>2</sub> at very small $`x`$.

To calculate the ground state energy of the model per site we use the formula

$`E_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤\gamma \sigma }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}(t_𝐤(n)+E)J_𝐤^{\gamma \sigma }(E)𝑑E.`$ (27)
Here

$`J_𝐤^{\gamma \sigma }(E)=\delta (EE_{\gamma \sigma }(𝐤))\theta (E)`$ (28)
is the spectral intensity of Green function (14), $`\theta (E)`$ is the step-wise function. From Eq. (27) one can obtain for the ground state energy the expression

$`E_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma \sigma }{}}\left(\mu _{\gamma \sigma }n_{\gamma \sigma }(1\tau _1n+\alpha _{\gamma \sigma })n_{\gamma \sigma }(1n_{\gamma \sigma })w\right).`$ (29)
Expression (29) can be rewritten in the form

$`E_0`$ $`=`$ $`E_0^{(0)}+E_0^{(2)}+E_0^{(4)},`$ (30)
$`E_0^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\left[\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{n}{4}}\left(U+2U^{}J_0{\displaystyle \frac{zJ}{8}}(16(4n)^2)\right)(1\tau _1n{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\tau _2)(4n){\displaystyle \frac{w}{2}}\right],`$ (31)
$`E_0^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(2(1\tau _1n\tau _2(4n)){\displaystyle \frac{U}{w}}{\displaystyle \frac{J_0}{w}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2zJ}{w}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{n(4n)}{8}})\right){\displaystyle \frac{w}{8}}m^2,`$ (32)
$`E_0^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{zJ}{64}}m^4.`$ (33)
The position of the mininum of ground state energy depends on values of model parameters. In Fig. 5 the energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_0`$ between paramagnetic and ferromagnetic states is plotted as a function of the magnetization. At some values of the parameters a ferromagnetic ordering with $`m0`$ is energetically gainful. As it has been noted above the intra-atomic exchange is an important factor leading to ferromagnetism in an orbitally degenerate band. The increase of $`J_0/w`$ leads both to the increase of magnetic moment and to the decrease of the ferromagnetic ground state energy.

The dependence of the ground state energy of the model on the electron concentration is plotted in Fig. 6. One can see that with the increase of $`n`$ Coulomb correlation becomes more and more important and the value of the ground state energy rapidly increases, as well as at the rise of the intra-atomic Coulomb repulsion parameters. As the value of intra-atomic exchange increases the ground state energy decreases (Fig. 7); at some critical value $`J_0/w`$ the transition of the system from a state of paramagnetic metal to a state of ferromagnetic metal occurs. It appears that the ferromagnetic ordering can be more favourable than the paramagnetic one in orbitally degenerate model without singularities of the density of states even if the inter-atomic exchange and correlated hopping are absent (in the work  similar result is obtained only at the presence of density of states singularities). Let us also note that at increase of $`U`$ the critical value of $`J_0`$, at which the transition to ferromagnetic state occurs, decreases. The qualitatively similar picture has been obtained by the authors of work .

In Fig. 8 the energy difference between the paramagnetic and ferromagnetic states (Fig. 8b) and the value of magnetization (Fig. 8a) as functions of band filling are plotted at different values of correlated hopping. Depending on the value of $`n`$ (and the relation between the energy parameters) the state of the system can be para- or ferromagnetic, polarization can be full or partial. The curves 1 correspond to the case when correlated hopping is absent. With increase of $`n`$ the transition from para- to ferromagnetic state occurs, in the region $`n>2`$ the inverse transition takes place (symmetrical behaviour of the concentration dependence relative to half-filling is observed). The correlated hopping leads to the decrease of the ground state energy, in particular, the increase of $`\tau _1`$ (curves 3) has stronger influence at $`n>2`$ (as a result the region of ferromagnetic ordering moves towards larger values of $`n`$), the increase of $`\tau _2`$ (curves 2) – at $`n<2`$ (the region of ferromagnetic ordering moves towards smaller values of $`n`$). These effects are the manifestation of electron-hole asymmetry being the property of the systems with correlated hoppings (see ). At some values of correlated hopping in the system electron-hole symmetry retrieves (curves 4 in Fig. 8).

The condition of ferromagnetic ordering stability $`\frac{d^2E_0}{dm^2}<0`$ can be obtained as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{U+J_0}{2w}}+{\displaystyle \frac{zJ}{8w}}\left(8+n(4n)\right)+n\tau _1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\tau _2(4n)>1.`$ (34)
From expressions for ground state energy (30) and magnetization (25) one can see that for the values of inter-atomic exchange interaction $`J>0`$ at the point of the transition from a paramagnetic metal to a ferromagnetic metal the magnetization changes continuously, and for $`J=0`$ it has a jump, namely, in the former case the transition from a paramagnetic state to a partially polarized ferromagnetic state occurs, in the later one the transition from a paramagnetic state to a fully polarized ferromagnetic state (saturated ferromagnetic state, $`m=n`$) is obtained. The similar results have been obtained in a single-band model . Thus, taking into account the inter-atomic exchange interaction allows to obtain a partially polarized ferromagnetic state in two-band Hubbard model with symmetrical density of states; the partially polarized ferromagnetic state has been obtained by the authors of work , using the special feature of the density of states.

For the case of $`J=0`$ from Eq. (34) we obtain a generalization of the Stoner criterion which takes into account the orbital degeneracy and correlated hopping

$`(U+J_0)\rho (ϵ_F)>1n\tau _1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\tau _2(4n).`$ (35)
From the condition of the mininum of ground state energy $`\frac{dE_0}{dm}=0`$ one can also obtain the condition of partial spin polarization

$`{\displaystyle \frac{U+J_0}{2w}}+{\displaystyle \frac{zJ}{8w}}\left(8+n(4n)8m^2\right)+n\tau _1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\tau _2(4n)>1.`$ (36)
The condition of full spin polarization ($`m=n`$) is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{U+J_0}{2w}}+{\displaystyle \frac{zJ}{8w}}\left(8+n(4n)8n^2\right)+n\tau _1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\tau _2(4n)>1.`$ (37)
Eqs. (34)-(37) coincide with the conditions which can be derived from Eq. (25).

From these conditions one can see that both mechanisms of correlated hopping favour ferromagnetism but their concentration dependences are different; if $`\tau _2>\tau _1`$ then the systems with the electron concentration $`n<1`$ are more favourable to ferromagnetism than the systems with $`n>1`$, and vice versa (see Figs. 2, 8, 9).

In Fig. 9 the critical values of inter-atomic exchange are plotted as a function of band filling. The lower curve corresponds to the critical value for the partial polarization, the upper one – for the full polarization; the region below the lower curve corresponds to paramagnetic ordering of spins, between the curves – to the partial polarization, above the curves – to the full polarization of spins. It can be seen that correlated hopping essentially changes the condition of ferromagnetic ordering. Let us also note that the region of partial polarization is narrowed with a deviation from half-filling (similarly to the case of non-degenerate band ). The maximum of critical value $`zJ/w`$ corresponds to almost empty band. The cases $`n=1,3`$ are the most favourable for the existence of full spin polarization. Correlated hopping can lead to the displacement of the minimum points, and to the increase or decrease of $`zJ/w`$ critical values for the full polarization, i.e., to the non-equivalency of the cases $`n<2`$ and $`n>2`$.

In Fig. 10 the dependencies of critical values of $`J_0/w`$ on electron concentration at different values of $`zJ/w`$ are plotted. It is important to note that at $`zJ=0`$ the critical value of $`J_0/w`$ does not depend on the electron concentration. It can be explained by the next arguments: in the absence of inter-atomic exchange the mechanism which stabilizes ferromagnetism is a translational motion of electrons which enforces the spins of sites, involved in the hopping process, to allign in parallel because of Hund’s rule coupling.

Note also the essential difference of the situation where the system is described by non-zero values of correlated hopping: since correlated hopping renormalizes the bandwidth and makes it dependent on the concentration, the behaviour of the critical value of $`\frac{J_0}{w}`$ becomes asymmetrical relative to half-filling.

The critical value of $`J_0/w`$ as a function of $`zJ/w`$ is plotted on Fig. 11. As one can see the increase of $`zJ/w`$ significantly decreases the critical value of $`J_0/w`$ (in the same way the correlated hopping does). It shows the importance of taking into account the inter-atomic exchange and correlated hopping for the description of ferromagnetism in the systems with orbital degeneracy. The inverse dependence of critical values of $`zJ/w`$ and $`J_0/w`$ (what indicates the destabilization of ferromagnetic ordering at the increase of $`J_0/w`$) has been obtained in work  with use of the exact diagonalization method for the even number of sites in one-dimensional chains, but that result depends sensitively on the number of lattice sites and the boundary conditions.

## IV Conclusions

In this paper we have investigated the ground state of a doubly orbitally degenerate model. Taking into consideration the orbital degeneracy allows to analyse the influence of intra-atomic exchange interaction (Hund’s rule coupling), which is responsible for the formation of local magnetic moments, on the possibility of ferromagnetism realization. Beside the diagonal matrix elements of electron-electron interactions the model includes the off-diagonal ones – correlated hopping integrals, which describe the influence of site occupancy on the hopping of electrons. The model under consideration also includes the inter-atomic exchange interaction $`J`$.

The study of the model ground state, carried out in this work, shows that the stability of ferromagnetism strongly depends on the model parameters. In particular, it has been found that the relationship between correlated hopping parameters determines the criterion of ferromagnetism. At $`\tau _2>\tau _1`$ in the system with concentration of electrons $`n<2`$ the situation for ferromagnetic ordering is more favourable than for the system with $`n>2`$; at $`\tau _2<\tau _1`$ the opposite behaviour is obtianed. At some values of correlated hopping parameters the retrieval of the electon-hole symmetry is possible. Taking into account the correlated hopping leads to the appearance of the specific mechanism which stabilizes ferromagnetic ordering, and this is due to the spin-dependent shift of the subband centers. In the absence of inter-atomic exchange interaction the ferromagnetic ordering is stabilized by the translational motion of electrons between sites with “atomic ferromagnetism” formed by Hund’s rule coupling.

It is important to note that the transition of the system from paramagnetic to ferromagnetic state can occur at the values of interaction parameters, which are of the same order that bandwidth, and with density of states without peculiarities. The important role for the feromagnetism stabilization in weak interaction regime ($`U<2w`$) is played by the intra- and inter-atomic exchange interactions as well as correlated hopping that allows to describe the metallic paramagnetic-ferromagentic transition with realistic relationship between above mentioned exchange interactions.

For the values of inter-atomic exchange interaction $`J>0`$ at the point of the transition from a paramagnetic metal to a ferromagnetic metal the magnetization changes continuously, and for $`J=0`$ it has a jump, namely, in the former case the transition from a paramagnetic state to a partially polarized ferromagnetic state occurs, in the later one the transition from a paramagnetic state to a fully polarized ferromagnetic state (saturated ferromagnetic state) is obtained.

The obtained dependencies of magnetization on concentration of electrons qualitatively describe the experimental Slater-Pauling’s curves for ferromagnetic alloys. At some values of the model parameters the experimental dependence of magnetization for the systems Fe<sub>1-x</sub>Co<sub>x</sub>S<sub>2</sub> and Co<sub>1-x</sub>Ni<sub>x</sub>S<sub>2</sub> with changing electron concentration in $`e_g`$ band is reproduced theoretically. The correlated hopping mechanism of ferromagnetism stabilization allows to explain the ferromagnetism in the systems Fe<sub>1-x</sub>Co<sub>x</sub>S<sub>2</sub> at small concentrations $`x0.05`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

V.H. is grateful to Prof. W. Nolting (Humboldt-Universität, Berlin) for the hospitality during the workshop “242. WE-Heraeus-Seminar on Ground-State and Finite-Temperature Bandferromagnetism” (4-6 October, 2000, Berlin), where the part of the results considered in the present paper was discussed. The authors thank to Prof. D. Vollhardt and Prof. W. Weber for valuable discussions.