text:
# Examples of Infinity and Lie Algebras and Their Versal Deformations

## 1. Introduction

In this article we shall explore some interesting simple examples of $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ structures on low dimensional $`_2`$-graded vector spaces, and construct versal deformations of these structures. A detailed explanation of the definitions of infinity algebras and their cohomology theory can be obtained in . Infinity algebras were first described and applied by James Stasheff (see ), and have appeared recently in both mathematics and mathematical physics (see ). The essential details of the theory of versal deformations of infinity algebras are outlined in , and are a generalization of the results in  on versal deformations of Lie algebras (see also ). In this article, our aim is to show how to construct a miniversal deformation through some examples. For the proof of the miniversality of the deformations we will construct here, we refer to . For sake of completeness, we will present here the basic definitions of $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ algebras and formal deformations.

If $`W`$ is a $`_2`$-graded vector space, then $`S(W)`$ denotes the symmetric coalgebra of $`W`$. If we let $`T(W)`$ be the reduced tensor algebra $`T(W)=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}W^n`$, then the reduced symmetric algebra $`S(W)`$ is the quotient of the tensor algebra by the graded ideal generated by $`uv(1)^{uv}vu`$ for elements $`u`$, $`vW`$. The symmetric algebra has a natural coalgebra structure, given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(w_1\mathrm{}w_n)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n=1}{}}\underset{\sigma \mathrm{Sh}(k,nk)}{}ϵ(\sigma )w_{\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}w_{\sigma (k)}w_{\sigma (k+1)}\mathrm{}w_{\sigma (n)},$$

where we denote the product in $`S(W)`$ by juxtaposition, $`\mathrm{Sh}(k,nk)`$ is the set of *unshuffles* of type $`(k,nk)`$, and $`ϵ(\sigma )`$ is a sign determined by $`\sigma `$ (and $`w_1\mathrm{}w_n`$) given by

$$w_{\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}w_{\sigma (n)}=ϵ(\sigma )w_1\mathrm{}w_n.$$

A coderivation on $`S(W)`$ is a map $`\delta :S(W)S(W)`$ satisfying

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\delta =(\delta I+I\delta )\mathrm{\Delta }.$$

Let us suppose that the even part of $`W`$ has basis $`e_1\mathrm{}e_m`$, and the odd part has basis $`f_1\mathrm{}f_n`$, so that $`W`$ is an $`m|n`$ dimensional space. Then a basis of $`S(W)`$ is given by all vectors of the form $`e_1^{k_1}\mathrm{}e_m^{k_m}f_1^{l_1}\mathrm{}f_n^{l_n}`$, where $`k_i`$ is any nonnegative integer, and $`l_i_2`$. An $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ structure on $`W`$ is simply an odd codifferential on $`S(W)`$, that is to say, an odd coderivation whose square is zero. The space $`\mathrm{Coder}(W)`$ can be naturally identified with $`\text{Hom}(S(W),W)`$, and the Lie superalgebra structure on $`\mathrm{Coder}(W)`$ determines a Lie bracket on $`\text{Hom}(S(W),W)`$ as follows. Denote $`L_m=\text{Hom}(S^m(W),W)`$ so that $`L=\text{Hom}(S(W),W)`$ is the direct product of the spaces $`L_i`$. If $`\alpha L_m`$ and $`\beta L_n`$, then $`[\alpha ,\beta ]`$ is the element in $`L_{m+n1}`$ determined by

(1)
$$\begin{array}{c}[\alpha ,\beta ](w_1\mathrm{}w_{m+n1})=\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{\sigma \mathrm{Sh}(n,m1)}{}ϵ(\sigma )\alpha (\beta (w_{\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}w_{\sigma (n)})w_{\sigma (n+1)}\mathrm{}w_{\sigma (m+n1)})\\ \hfill (1)^{\alpha \beta }\underset{\sigma \mathrm{Sh}(m,n1)}{}ϵ(\sigma )\beta (\alpha (w_{\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}w_{\sigma (m)})w_{\sigma (m+1)}\mathrm{}w_{\sigma (m+n1)}).\end{array}$$

Another way to express this bracket is in the form

$$[\alpha ,\beta ]=\alpha \stackrel{~}{\beta }(1)^{\alpha \beta }\beta \stackrel{~}{\alpha },$$

where for $`\phi \text{Hom}(S^k(W),W)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ is the associated coderivation, given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }(w_1\mathrm{}w_n)=\underset{\sigma \mathrm{Sh}(k,nk)}{}ϵ(\sigma )\phi (w_{\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}w_{\sigma (k)})w_{\sigma (k+1)}\mathrm{}w_{\sigma (n)}.$$

In this article, formula (1) will be used extensively to make explicit computations of brackets. In our computations, we shall also use the fact that there are $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)`$ permutations in $`\mathrm{Sh}(k,nk)`$.

If $`W`$ is completely odd, and $`dL_2`$, then $`d`$ determines an ordinary Lie algebra on $`W`$, or rather on its parity reversion. The symmetric algebra on $`W`$ looks like the exterior algebra on $`W`$ if we forget the grading. If we define $`[a,b]=d(ab)`$ for $`a,bW`$, then the bracket is antisymmetric because $`ba=ab`$, and moreover

$`0=[d,d](abc)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \mathrm{Sh}(2,1)}{}}ϵ(\sigma )d(d(\sigma (a)\sigma (b))\sigma (c))`$
$`=`$ $`d((d(ab)c)+d(d(bc)a)d(d(ac)b)`$
$`=`$ $`[[a,b],c]+[[b,c],a][[a,c],b],`$
which is the Jacobi identity. When $`dL_2`$ and $`W`$ has a true grading, then the same principle holds, except that one has to take into account a sign arising from the map $`S^2(W)^2(V)`$, where $`V`$ is the parity reversion of $`W`$. Thus $`_2`$-graded Lie algebras are also examples of $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ algebras. In addition, differential graded Lie algebras are examples of $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ algebras. In all these cases, the method of construction of miniversal deformations we describe here applies. One simply considers only terms that come from $`L_2`$ in the codifferentials.

Suppose that $`\stackrel{~}{g}:S(W)S(W^{})`$ is a coalgebra morphism, that is a map satisfying

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\stackrel{~}{g}=(\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g})\mathrm{\Delta }.$$

If $`d`$ and $`d^{}`$ are $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ algebra structures on $`W`$ and $`W^{}`$, resp., then $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is a homomorphism between these structures if $`\stackrel{~}{g}d=d^{}\stackrel{~}{g}`$. Two $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ structures $`d`$ and $`d^{}`$ on $`W`$ are equivalent when there is a coalgebra automorphism $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ of $`S(W)`$ such that $`d^{}=\stackrel{~}{g}^1d\stackrel{~}{g}`$. Furthermore, if $`d=d^{}`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is said to be an automorphism of the $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ algebra.

## 2. Deformations with a local base

We shall always assume that the ground field $`𝔎`$ of the graded space $`W`$ has characteristic zero. A local base is a $`_2`$-graded commutative local algebra $`𝒜`$ equipped with a fixed augmentation $`ϵ:𝒜𝔎`$, with augmentation ideal $`𝔪`$. If $`d`$ is a codifferential on $`S(W)`$, then a deformation of $`d`$ with base $`𝒜`$ is a codifferential $`d_𝒜`$ on $`S(W)𝒜`$, which projects to $`d`$ under the morphism of coalgebras $`Iϵ:S(W)𝒜S(W)`$. When $`𝒜`$ is a formal algebra (a complete local algebra), then a deformation with base $`𝒜`$ will be called a formal deformation, and a deformation with base $`𝒜/𝔪^{n+1}`$ will be called an $`n`$-th order deformation. When $`n=1`$, the deformation is called infinitesimal.

In , it was shown that under some mild restrictions on the cohomology of $`L`$, there is a miniversal deformation, that is, there is a certain local base $`𝒜`$ and deformation $`d_𝒜`$, such that if $`d_𝒜^{}`$ is any deformation with base $`𝒜^{}`$, then there is a morphism of algebras $`\lambda :𝒜𝒜^{}`$, such that the induced codifferential $`\lambda _{}(d_𝒜)`$ on $`S(W)𝒜^{}`$ is equivalent to $`d_𝒜^{}`$. Note that any coderivation of $`S(W)𝒜`$ lies in $`L𝒜`$, so that $`\lambda _{}`$ is simply the natural map $`L𝒜L𝒜^{}`$. Moreover, the notion of equivalence of deformations with base $`𝒜`$ is given by the following. If $`d`$ is a codifferential on $`S(W)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is a coalgebra automorphism of $`S(W)`$, then define $`\stackrel{~}{g}^{}(d)=\stackrel{~}{g}^1d\stackrel{~}{g}`$. If $`d_𝒜^1`$ and $`d_𝒜^2`$ are two deformations of $`d`$ with base $`𝒜`$, then they are said to be equivalent if there is a coalgebra automorphism $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ of $`S(W)𝒜`$ satisfying $`(Iϵ)\stackrel{~}{g}=Iϵ`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{g}^{}(d_𝒜^1)=d_𝒜^2`$. The condition on $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ means simply that $`\stackrel{~}{g}(w)=w(mod𝔪)`$, so that $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ does not act on the underlying coalgebra $`S(W)`$ (to avoid mixing the notion of automorphisms of the $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ algebra with that of the equivalences of deformations of the algebra).

The objective in this article is to compute versal deformations of some simple examples. To see how to do this in practice, we will give a concrete description of the construction of a miniversal deformation of a codifferential $`d`$. Since $`d`$ is a codifferential, the map $`D:LL`$ given by $`D(\phi )=[d,\phi ]`$ satisfies $`D^2=0`$. The homology $`H(L)`$ of this map is called the cohomology of the $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ algebra. Let us assume that the space of cocycles $`Z(L)`$ has an increasing basis of the form $`\delta _i,\beta _j`$, where the subspace spanned by the $`\delta _i`$ projects isomorphically onto the cohomology of $`d`$, and $`\beta _j`$ is a basis of the coboundaries. By basis, we mean (in the sense of ) that any element of $`Z(L)`$ has a unique expression as a power series in the elements of the basis, and increasing means that the orders of the elements is nondecreasing. Here, order refers to the order of the element in $`L`$. In the general case, an element in $`L`$ is represented as a power series, since $`L`$ is a direct product of the spaces $`L_n`$. The order represents the least $`n`$ such that the projection of the element onto $`L_n`$ is nonzero.

In order for there to be a good theory of deformations, the cohomology should be of finite type, which means that there are only a finite number of elements in the basis $`\delta _i`$ of order less than a given integer. In our examples, the condition will be satisfied, but even in the simplest cases, as we shall see in the case of a one dimensional space, the cohomology can be infinite dimensional.

To construct the universal infinitesimal deformation of a codifferential $`d`$, one formally considers the infinitesimal base $`𝒜=𝔎`$ where $`=(\mathrm{\Pi }(H(L)))^{}`$ is the dual of the parity reversion of the cohomology of $`L`$, and the multiplication in $``$ is trivial. Then the base of the miniversal deformation is $`𝒜=𝔎[[]]/R`$, where $`R`$ represents a set of polynomial relations involving the generators of the space $``$.

If we let $`\delta _i`$ be a basis of a subspace of cocycles which projects isomorphically to the cohomology, then choosing an appropriate dual basis $`u^i`$ of $``$, the universal infinitesimal deformation $`d_1`$ is given by

(2)
$$d_1=d+\delta _iu^i.$$

The parity of the element $`u^i`$ is opposite to the parity of $`\delta _i`$, in order to preserve the oddness of the codifferential. Let $`\alpha _1=\delta _iu^i`$. Then $`\alpha _1`$ is a cocycle. In order to extend the bracket to a second order bracket, one simply computes

(3)
$$[d_1,d_1]=[d,d]+2[d,\alpha _1]+[\alpha _1,\alpha _1]=[\alpha _1,\alpha _1]$$

which is a cocycle, because the bracket of two cocycles is always a cocycle. This cocycle can be represented as a linear combination of the $`\delta _i`$ plus a coboundary term. Let us express this in the form

(4)
$$[d_1,d_1]=\frac{1}{2}D(\alpha _2)+\delta _iR_2^i,$$

where $`R_2^i`$ is a sum of products of the parameters of the form $`u_ku_l`$, so lies in $`𝔪^2`$, and $`\alpha _2L𝔪^2`$. We would like $`[d_1,d_1]`$ to be a coboundary mod $`𝔪^3`$, which means that we must have $`R_2^i=0`$ mod $`𝔪^3`$.

The second order deformation is given by $`d_2=d_1+\alpha _2`$. The bracket of this second order codifferential with itself is

$`[d_2,d_2]`$ $`=[d_1,d_1]+2[d_1,\alpha _2]+[\alpha _2,\alpha _2]`$
$`=[d_1,d_1]+2D(\alpha _2)+2[\alpha _1,\alpha _2]+[\alpha _2,\alpha _2]`$
$`=\delta _iR_2^i+2[\alpha _1,\alpha _2]+[\alpha _2,\alpha _2]`$
Note that the first and third terms in this bracket are zero mod $`𝔪^3`$. We want this bracket to be a coboundary mod $`𝔪^3`$. Let us first show that at least it is a cocycle mod $`𝔪^3`$. Now

$`D([d_2,d_2])`$ $`=2[\alpha _1,D(\alpha _2)]+2[D(\alpha _2),\alpha _2]`$
$`=2[\alpha _1,2[\alpha _1,\alpha _1]+2\delta _iR_2^i]+2[D(\alpha _2),\alpha _2]`$
$`=4[\alpha _1,\delta _iR_2^i]+2[D(\alpha _2),\alpha _2],`$
which is equal to zero mod $`𝔪^4`$. In general, let us suppose that we have shown that $`[d_n,d_n]=0`$ mod $`𝔪^{n+1}`$. and that $`D([d_n,d_n])=0`$ mod $`𝔪^{n+2}`$. Then we set

$$[d_n,d_n]=\frac{1}{2}D(\alpha _{n+1})+\delta _iR_{n+1}^i$$

where $`\alpha _{n+1}L𝔪^{n+1}`$, and $`R_{n+1}^i=0`$ mod $`𝔪^{n+2}`$. Set $`d_{n+1}=d_n+\alpha _{n+1}`$. Then

$`[d_{n+1},d_{n+1}]`$ $`=\delta _iR_{n+1}^i+2[d_nd,\alpha _{n+1}]+[\alpha _{n+2},\alpha _{n+2}].`$
Note that each term appearing in the bracket is equal to zero mod $`𝔪^{n+2}`$. Next, we compute

$`D[d_{n+1},d_{n+1}]=`$ $`2[D(d_nd),\alpha _{n+1}]2[d_nd,D\alpha _{n+1}]+2[\alpha _{n+1},\alpha _{n+1}]`$
$`=`$ $`2[D(d_nd\alpha _1),\alpha _{n+1}]2[d_n,D\alpha _{n+1}]+2[\alpha _{n+1},\alpha _{n+1}]`$
$`=`$ $`2[D(d_nd\alpha _1),\alpha _{n+1}]2[d_n,2[d_n,d_n]+2\delta _iR_{n+1}^i]`$
$`+2[\alpha _{n+1},\alpha _{n+1}]`$
$`=`$ $`2[D(d_nd\alpha _1),\alpha _{n+1}]2[d_n,2\delta _iR_{n+1}^i,+]2[\alpha _{n+1},\alpha _{n+1}]`$
$`=`$ $`2[D(d_nd\alpha _1),\alpha _{n+1}]2[d_nd,2\delta _iR_{n+1}^i]`$
$`+2[\alpha _{n+1},\alpha _{n+1}].`$
Each of the three remaining terms is equal to zero mod $`𝔪^{n+3}`$, so one can continue the process by adding an $`\alpha _{n+2}`$ term. Thus we see that it is possible to construct a formal deformation $`d_{\mathrm{}}=_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}\alpha _i`$, which will satisfy $`[d_{\mathrm{}},d_{\mathrm{}}]=0`$. But what about the relations $`R_n^i`$? It is easy to see that $`R_{n+1}^i=R_n^i`$ mod $`𝔪^{n+1}`$. We obtain a series of relations $`R_{\mathrm{}}^i`$, which must hold on the base in order for the required bracket relation to hold.

When it happens that $`[d_n,d_n]`$ contains no coboundary terms for some $`n`$, then the $`n`$-th order deformation is miniversal, and the $`n`$-th order relations hold to all orders. Thus, in good cases, one may hope to calculate the miniversal deformation exactly. This is what happens in the examples we shall study.

We shall only consider the simplest cases of $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ algebras. It is interesting to note that even for a 2 dimensional vector space, it can happen that there are infinitely many nonequivalent $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ structures. The main purpose of this article is to demonstrate how to compute versal deformations in practice.

Note that in order to calculate a versal deformation, we need much more information than the dimensions of the cohomology groups. Thus, calculations of cohomology of Lie algebras which often appear in the literature are not concrete enough to do versal deformations, because the bracket structure on the cohomology is essential for the calculations, because only the dimensions of the cohomology groups are computed. In fact in the examples presented in this paper, we had to also compute brackets of cochains that are not cocycles.

## 3. Deformations of a $`0|1`$ dimensional space

Suppose that $`W=f`$ is a 1 dimensional odd vector space. This situation corresponds by parity reversion to the case of an ordinary even one dimensional space, on which there is obviously only the trivial Lie algebra structure. Indeed, there is only one $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ algebra structure $`d=0`$ as well, so it does not seem reasonable to expect any deformations of this trivial structure. Nevertheless, this intuition is slightly wrong, because there is a infinitesimal differential on the space $`W`$, and a differential graded space is an $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ algebra. To see what is going on, note that $`L_1=\phi `$, where $`\phi (e)=e`$ is the identity map on $`W`$, which is an even 1-cochain. The map $`\phi `$ does not determine an $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ structure, because it is even, but when multiplied by the odd parameter $`\theta `$, it becomes an odd codifferential on $`S(W)=W`$. Thus $`d_1=\phi \theta `$ is an infinitesimal deformation of the trivial deformation $`d=0`$. Since $`\phi `$ is a cocycle, but not a coboundary, this deformation is also a miniversal deformation. To determine any relations on the base $`𝔎[[\theta ]]=𝔎𝔎\theta `$, one should compute $`[d_1,d_1]`$, but this is automatically zero since $`\theta ^2=0`$. Thus, there are no relations other than the relation $`\theta ^2=0`$, which is always true for an odd parameter, and the base of the miniversal deformation is just $`A=𝔎[\theta ]`$.

## 4. Deformations of a $`1|0`$ dimensional space

Let $`W=e`$ be a one dimensional even vector space. Then $`S^k(W)=e^k`$, and $`L_k=\phi _k`$, where $`\phi _k(e^l)=k!\delta _k^le`$. Now $`[\phi _k,\phi _l]`$ is the element of $`L_{k+l1}`$, which we compute in detail, as an illustration of how to perform the computation of brackets. Let $`n=k+l1`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{c}[\phi _k,\phi _l](e^n)=\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{\sigma \mathrm{Sh}(l,nl)}{}k!l!\phi _k(\phi _l(e^l),e^{k1})(1)^{\phi _k\phi _l}\underset{\sigma \mathrm{Sh}(k,lk)}{}l!k!\phi _k(\phi _k(e^k),e^{l1})\\ \hfill =\left(k!l!\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{l}\right)k!l!\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)\right)e=(kl)n!e=(kl)\phi _n(e^n).\end{array}$$

Since all the maps $`\phi _k`$ are even, the only codifferential on $`W`$ is $`d=0`$. This time, the infinitesimal deformation $`d_1=\phi _k\theta ^k`$ has an infinite number of terms, and they are not coboundaries. There are some nontrivial relations on the base, arising from the self bracket of $`d_1`$. We have

$$\frac{1}{2}[d_1,d_1]=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{k+l=n+1}{}[\phi _k\theta ^k,\phi _l\theta ^l]=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{k+l=n+1}{}(kl)\theta ^k\theta ^l\phi _n,$$

from which it follows that we obtain an infinite set of relations of the form $`_{k+l=n+1}(kl)\theta ^k\theta ^l=0`$, for $`n=1\mathrm{}`$. Let us examine the first few terms. For $`n=1`$, the relation is zero. For $`n=2`$, we obtain $`\theta ^2\theta ^1\theta ^1\theta ^2=0`$, i.e. $`\theta ^1\theta ^2=0`$. For $`n=3`$, the relation reduces to $`\theta ^1\theta ^3=0`$. For $`n=4`$, we obtain $`6\theta ^1\theta ^4+10\theta ^2\theta ^3=0`$. If we let $`R=_{k+l=n+1}(kl)\theta ^k\theta ^l=0`$ be the ideal generated by these relations in $`𝔎[[\theta ^1\mathrm{}]]`$, then the base of the miniversal deformation is just $`𝒜=𝔎[[\theta ^1\mathrm{}]]/R`$. The miniversal deformation coincides with the universal infinitesimal deformation, except that the base $`𝒜`$ of the miniversal deformation is not infinitesimal, but is a somewhat complicated infinite dimensional graded commutative algebra.

## 5. Deformations of a $`2|0`$ dimensional space

Let $`W=e_1,e_2`$ be a completely even dimensional space. Then $`S^k(W)=e_1^k,e_1^{k1}e_2,\mathrm{},e_2^k`$ has dimension $`k+1`$, so that $`L_k`$ has dimension $`2(k+1)`$. It will simplify the notation if we introduce multi-indices of nonnegative integers $`I=(i_1,i_2)`$. Define $`|I|=i_1+i_2`$, $`I!=i_1!i_2!`$, $`\delta _J^I=\delta _{j_1}^{i_1}\delta _{j_2}^{i_2}`$ and $`e^I=e_1^{i_1}e_2^{i_2}`$. Then $`L_n=\phi _{I,i}:|I|=n,i\{1,2\}`$, where

$$\phi _{I,i}(e^J)=I!\delta _I^Je_i.$$

Note that because $`W`$ is totally even, the maps $`\phi _{I,i}`$ are all even, so that $`d=0`$ is the only $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ structure on $`W`$ and

$$d_1=\phi _{I,i}\theta ^{I,i}$$

is the universal infinitesimal deformation as well as a miniversal deformation, but in the latter case, we need to compute the relations on the base. To that end, let us compute $`[\phi _{I,k},\phi _{J,l}]`$, which lies in $`L_{|I|+|J|1}`$. Define $`I+J=(i_1+j_1,i_2+j_2)`$ and

$$Ik=\{\begin{array}{cc}(i_11,i_2)\hfill & \text{if }k=1\text{ and }i_1>0\hfill \\ (i_1,i_21)\hfill & \text{if }k=2\text{ and }i_2>0\hfill \end{array}$$

Then

$$[\phi _{I,k},\phi _{J,l}]=i_l\phi _{J+(Il),k}j_k\phi _{I+(Jk),l},$$

where terms such that $`Il`$ or $`Jk`$ are not defined are omitted. From this we determine that the relations are given by

$$\underset{J+(Ij)=M}{}i_j\theta ^{I,m}\theta ^{J,j}=0,$$

for each multi-index $`M`$ and $`m\{1,2\}`$. This follows from the requirement that $`[d_1,d_1]=0`$. Computing this bracket, we obtain,

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}[d_1,d_1]=(i_l\phi _{J+(Il),k}j_k\phi _{I+(Jk),l})\theta ^{I,k}\theta ^{J,l}=\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{J+(Il)=M}{k=m}}{}i_l\phi _{M,m}\theta ^{I,m}\theta ^{J,j}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{I+(Jl)=M}{l=m}}{}j_k\phi _{M,m}\theta ^{I,k}\theta ^{J,m}.\end{array}$$

The second term is the same as the first after interchanging the dummy indices and using the fact that the $`\theta `$’s are odd.

## 6. Deformations of a $`0|2`$ dimensional space

Let $`W=f_1,f_2`$ be a completely odd two dimensional space. Then $`S^2(W)=f_1f_2`$, and $`S(W)=W+S^2(W)`$. We have $`L_1=\phi _j^i`$, where $`\phi _j^i(f_k)=\delta _k^if_j`$, and $`L_2=\psi _i`$, where $`\psi _i(f_1f_2)=f_i`$. Note that $`L_1`$ consists of even elements, while $`L_2`$ is odd. This time, in addition to the trivial $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ structure $`d=0`$, any element of $`L_2`$ also determines an $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ algebra structure. All of these structures are actually Lie algebra structures, with $`d=0`$ giving the abelian Lie algebra structure, while the nonzero elements of $`L_2`$ give rise to equivalent structures, so we need only consider the case $`d=\psi _1`$.

As an aid to the construction, we first compute the brackets of all the basis elements. First,

$$[\phi _j^i,\phi _l^k](f_m)=\phi _j^i(\phi _l^k(f_m))\phi _l^k(\phi _j^i(f_m))=\delta _l^i\delta _m^kf_j\delta _j^k\delta _m^if_l,$$

while

$$\begin{array}{c}[\phi _j^i,\psi _k](f_1f_2)=\phi _j^i(\psi _k(f_1f_2))\psi _k(\phi _j^i(f_1)f_2)+\psi _k(\phi _j^i(f_2)f_1)=\hfill \\ \hfill \phi _j^i(f_k)\psi _k(\delta _1^if_jf_2)+\psi _k(\delta _2^if_jf_1)=\delta _k^if_j\delta _1^i\delta _j^1f_k\delta _2^i\delta _j^2f_k,\end{array}$$

so that the brackets are given by

$`[\phi _j^i,\phi _l^k]`$ $`=\delta _l^i\phi _j^k\delta _j^k\phi _l^i`$
$`[\phi _j^i,\psi _k]`$ $`=\delta _k^i\psi _j\delta _j^i\psi _k`$
$`[\psi _i,\psi _j]`$ $`=0.`$
We give a more detailed table of the brackets below, which is useful in determining the cocycles and coboundaries.

$$\begin{array}{cccc}[\phi _1^1,\phi _1^1]=0\hfill & & & \\ [\phi _1^1,\phi _2^1]=\phi _2^1\hfill & & & \\ [\phi _1^1,\phi _1^2]=\phi _1^2\hfill & [\phi _2^1,\phi _1^2]=\phi _2^2\phi _1^1\hfill & & \\ [\phi _1^1,\phi _2^2]=0\hfill & [\phi _2^1,\phi _2^2]=\phi _2^1\hfill & [\phi _1^2,\phi _2^2]=\phi _1^2\hfill & \\ [\phi _1^1,\psi _1]=0\hfill & [\phi _2^1,\psi _1]=\psi _2\hfill & [\phi _1^2,\psi _1]=0\hfill & [\phi _2^2,\psi _1]=\psi _1\hfill \\ [\phi _1^1,\psi _2]=\psi _2\hfill & [\phi _2^1,\psi _2]=0\hfill & [\phi _1^2,\psi _2]=\psi _1\hfill & [\phi _2^2,\psi _2]=0\hfill \end{array}$$

### 6.1. Case 1: $`d=0`$

For the trivial codifferential $`d=0`$, every cochain is a cocycle, and therefore, the universal infinitesimal deformation of $`d`$ is

$$d_1=\phi _j^i\theta _i^j+\psi _kt^k,$$

where as usual $`\theta _i^j`$ are odd parameters and $`t_k`$ are even parameters. Computing the bracket of this derivation with itself, one obtains

$$\frac{1}{2}[d_1,d_1]=(\delta _k^i\psi _j+\delta _j^i\psi _k)\theta _i^jt^k+(\delta _n^i\phi _j^m\delta _j^n\phi _m^i)\theta _i^j\theta _n^m.$$

Since this bracket must vanish for $`d_1`$ to be a codifferential, we obtain some relations on the parameters. These are more easily seen by examining the detailed table, and looking for which terms contribute to which output cochains. For example, the cochain $`\psi _1`$ only arises from the brackets $`[\phi _2^2,\psi _1]`$ and $`[\phi _1^2,\psi _2]`$, and therefore, $`\theta _2^2t^1\theta _1^2t^2=0`$. The complete set of relations is given by

$$R=\{\theta _1^1\theta _1^21+\theta _1^2\theta _2^2,\theta _1^1\theta _2^1+\theta _2^1\theta _2^2,\theta _2^1\theta _1^2,\theta _1^1t^2\theta _1^2t^1,\theta _2^2t^1\theta _1^2t^2\},$$

and thus the base of the miniversal deformation is $`𝒜=𝔎[[\theta _j^i,t_k]]/R`$.

### 6.2. Case $`d=\psi _1`$

This second case is the first nontrivial codifferential that we have encountered. From the table of brackets, we see that $`\{\phi _1^1,\phi _1^2,\psi _1,\psi _2\}`$ is a basis of the space of cocycles, with $`\{\psi _1,\psi _2\}`$ being a basis of the coboundaries. Thus $`\{\phi _1^1,\phi _1^2\}`$ projects to a basis of the cohomology of $`d`$, which is two dimensional. The universal infinitesimal deformation of $`d`$ is given by $`d_1=\psi _1+\phi _1^1\theta _1^1+\phi _1^2\theta _2^1`$. Since $`[d_1,d_1]=2\phi _1^2\theta _1^1\theta _2^1`$, we obtain only one relation, $`R=\{\theta _1^1\theta _2^1\}`$, so that the infinitesimal deformation is miniversal, and $`𝒜=𝔎[\theta _1^1,\theta _2^1]/R=𝔎+𝔎\theta _1^1+𝔎\theta _2^1`$ is the base of the versal deformation. This completes the description of the miniversal deformation; its formula coincides with that of the universal infinitesimal deformation. We would like to explore this example a bit further.

We will consider a different infinitesimal deformation, which we will extend to a formal deformation. Since the infinitesimal deformation we have already given is universal, we start by adding some coboundary terms to our original deformation. We begin with

$$d_1^{}=\psi _1+\phi _1^1\theta _1^1+\phi _1^2\theta _2^1+\psi _1t^1+\psi _2t^2,$$

and proceed to construct a formal deformation out of this infinitesimal deformation of $`d`$. Since we added merely a coboundary term, this deformation is equivalent in some sense to the original one, but note that the base of this infinitesimal deformation is different, since there are more parameters.

We first carry out the construction of a formal deformation from the above infinitesimal one, and then show how to construct the homomorphism from the base of the miniversal deformation to the base of the formal deformation we are about to construct. Then we will explicitly determine the equivalence between the push out of $`d`$ given by the homomorphism of the bases and the formal deformation $`d_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ which is obtained by extending the infinitesimal $`d_1^{}`$ to a formal one. The authors found this construction intriguing, because the obvious homomorphism between the bases does not turn out to be the correct one. In addition, this example illustrates how to extend a deformation to higher order by adding higher order terms to eliminate coboundary terms arising in the computation of the self-bracket of the codifferential. Up to now, all of the terms arising in these computations have been coboundary free, so that they generate only relations, which means that the associated formal deformations are really infinitesimal ones and thus don’t provide a good illustration of the theory of formal deformations.

Let us first compute the bracket $`[d_1^{},d_1^{}]`$ of the infinitesimal deformation. We have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[d_1^{},d_1^{}]`$ $`=[\phi _1^1,\phi _1^2]\theta _1^1\theta _2^1[\phi _1^1,\psi _2]\theta _1^1t^2[\phi _1^2,\psi _2]\theta _2^1t^2`$
$`=\phi _1^2\theta _1^1\theta _2^1+\psi _2\theta _1^1t^2\psi _1\theta _2^1t^2`$
$`=\phi _1^2\theta _1^1\theta _2^1D(\phi _2^1)\theta _1^1t^2D(\phi _2^2)\theta _2^1t^2.`$
The second order deformation is given by extending $`d_1^{}`$ to

$$d_2^{}=\psi _1+\phi _1^1\theta _1^1+\phi _1^2\theta _2^1+\psi _1t^1+\psi _2t^2+\phi _2^1\theta _1^1t^2+\phi _2^2\theta _2^1t^2.$$

There is one necessary relation on the parameters: $`\theta _1^1\theta _2^1=0`$. Note that formally speaking, this relation should be interpreted as being only up to order 2, so that in the formal deformation, the relation that corresponds to this one could, a priori, pick up some higher order terms.

One could continue in the same manner to compute a third order deformation, but note that if the expression above is bracketed with itself, since $`\psi _2`$ kills $`\phi _2^1`$ and $`\phi _2^2`$, and $`\psi _1`$ takes $`\phi _2^1`$ to $`\psi _2`$ and $`\phi _2^2`$ to $`\psi _1`$, we will end up only adding more terms involving $`\phi _2^1`$ and $`\phi _2^2`$. Examining the terms in the bracket which involve $`\phi _1^1`$ and $`\phi _1^2`$ one determines that the same relation $`\theta _1^1\theta _2^1=0`$ holds (up to third order) and no additional relations are necessary. Thus it is reasonable to expect that one can write the formal deformation in the form

$$d_{\mathrm{}}^{}=\psi _1(1+t^1)+\phi _1^1\theta _1^1+\phi _1^2\theta _2^1+\psi _2t^2+\phi _2^1\theta _1^1t^2c_1+\phi _2^2\theta _2^1t^2c_2,$$

and solve for the constants $`c_1,c_2`$ and the relations on the parameters necessary so that $`[d_{\mathrm{}}^{},d_{\mathrm{}}^{}]=0`$. The solution is given by $`c_1=c_2=\frac{1}{1+t^1}`$, which should be considered as a formal power series in $`t^1`$. The base of this formal deformation is $`𝒜^{}=𝔎[[\theta _2^1,\theta _1^1,t^1,t^2]]/(\theta _1^1\theta _2^1)`$.

Since the deformation $`d_1`$ is miniversal, there must be some morphism $`\lambda :𝒜𝒜^{}`$, such that $`\lambda _{}(d_1)d_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$. This means that there is some automorphism $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ of $`S(W)`$ such that $`d_{\mathrm{}}^{}=\stackrel{~}{g}^1\lambda _{}(d_1)\stackrel{~}{g}`$. Suppose that $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is determined by an isomorphism $`g:W𝒜^{}W𝒜^{}`$ of the form $`g=I+u_1\phi _2^1+u_2\phi _2^2`$, for some constants $`u_1`$ and $`u_2`$. First we show that this is indeed an invertible map, by constructing its inverse $`g^1=I+v_1\phi _2^1+v_2\phi _2^2`$. It is easily checked that $`v_1=\frac{u_1}{1+u_2},v_2=\frac{u_2}{1+u_2}`$ determine the inverse map. Next, note that $`\stackrel{~}{g}=g+gg`$, where $`gg:S^2(W)S^2(W)`$ is the map given by $`(gg)(ab)=g(a)g(b)`$. In our case, we compute

$$(gg)(f_1f_2)=g(f_1)g(f_2)=(f_1+u_1f_2)(f_2+u_2f_2)=(1+u_2)(f_1f_2),$$

so that $`gg=(1+u_2)II`$. Let us denote $`\lambda (\theta _1^1)`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_1^1`$ and $`\lambda (\theta _2^1)`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_2^1`$, so that $`\lambda _{}(d_1)=\psi _1+\phi _1^1\stackrel{~}{\theta }_1^1+\phi _1^2\stackrel{~}{\theta }_2^1`$. Then

$$\lambda _{}(d_1)\stackrel{~}{g}=(1+u_2)\psi _1+\phi _1^1(\stackrel{~}{\theta }_1^1+u_1\stackrel{~}{\theta }_2^1)+\phi _1^2(1+u_2)\stackrel{~}{\theta }_2^1.$$

Finally, we compute that

$`g^1\lambda _{}(d_1)\stackrel{~}{g}=`$ $`(1+u_2)\psi _1+\phi _1^1(\stackrel{~}{\theta }_1^1+u_1\stackrel{~}{\theta }_2^1)+\phi _1^2(1+u_2)\stackrel{~}{\theta }_2^1`$
$`+v_1(1+u_2)\psi _2+\phi _2^1v_1(\stackrel{~}{\theta }_1^1+u_1\stackrel{~}{\theta }_2^1)+\phi _2^2v_1(1+u_2)\stackrel{~}{\theta }_2^1.`$
To get the correct image we must have $`\theta _1^1=\stackrel{~}{\theta }_1^1+u_1\stackrel{~}{\theta }_2^1`$, $`\theta _2^1=(1+u_2)\stackrel{~}{\theta }_2^1`$, $`u_2=t^1`$ and $`u_1=t^2`$ (which finally justifies our tacit assumption that $`1+u_2`$ is invertible in $`𝒜`$’). Thus the map $`\lambda `$ is given by

$$\lambda (\theta _2^1)=\frac{1}{1+t^1}\theta _2^1,\lambda (\theta _1^1)=\theta _1^1+\frac{t^2}{1+t^1}\theta _2^1.$$

Note that this map is not even polynomial!

We computed the morphism $`\lambda `$ from $`𝒜`$ to the formal algebra $`𝒜^{}`$, but the same ideas can be used to compute the morphism to the algebra associated with the $`n`$-th order deformation. In particular, one can compute the infinitesimal morphism. But all of these morphisms are just the mod $`𝔪^k`$ reductions of the morphism $`\lambda `$ given above.

Even though our claim that any nonzero linear combination of the cochains $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ is equivalent as an $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ algebra structure to $`d=\psi _1`$, is just a classical fact about Lie algebras, it can be demonstrated easily using our methodology involving a coalgebra morphism $`g=I+u_1\phi _2^1+u_2\phi _2^2`$. If we compute $`g^1d\stackrel{~}{g}`$ as before, we obtain simply $`g^{}(d)=(1+u_2)\psi _1u_2\psi _2`$, which means that any combination for which the coefficient of $`\psi _1`$ is nonzero can be obtained (recall that $`1+u_2`$ needs to be invertible). It is also easy to see that if we take $`g=\phi _2^1+\phi _1^2`$, then $`g^1=g`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}=g+II`$, and $`g^{}(\psi _1)=\psi _2`$.

## 7. Deformations of a $`1|1`$ dimensional space

If $`W=e,f`$ is a $`1|1`$ dimensional space, then $`S^k(W)=e^k,e^{k1}f`$ is a $`1|1`$ dimensional space as well, and $`L_k=\phi _e^k,\phi _f^k,\psi _e^k\psi _f^k,`$ is a $`2|2`$ dimensional space, where

$`\phi _e^k(e^k)=k!e`$ $`\psi _e^k(e^{k1}f)=(k1)!e`$
$`\phi _f^k(e^{k1}f)=(k1)!f`$ $`\psi _f^k(e^k)=k!f.`$
The bracket structure is given by the table below.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}[\phi _e^m,\phi _e^n]=(mn)\phi _e^{m+n1}\hfill & [\phi _e^m,\phi _f^n]=(1n)\phi _f^{m+n1}\hfill & \\ [\phi _f^m,\phi _f^n]=0\hfill & & \\ [\phi _e^m,\psi _e^n]=(mn+1)\psi _e^{m+n1}\hfill & [\phi _f^m,\psi _e^n]=\psi _e^{m+n1}\hfill & \\ [\phi _e^m,\psi _f^n]=n\psi _f^{m+n1}\hfill & [\phi _f^m,\psi _f^n]=\psi _f^{m+n1}\hfill & \\ [\psi _e^m,\psi _f^n]=\phi _e^{m+n1}+n\phi _f^{m+n1}\hfill & & \\ [\psi _e^n,\psi _e^n]=0\hfill & [\psi _f^n,\psi _f^n]=0\hfill & \end{array}$$

Let us first take care of the simple case when $`d=0`$. Since every cochain is a cocycle and there are no coboundaries, the universal infinitesimal extension is given by

(5)
$$d_1=\phi _e^n\theta _n^e+\phi _f^n\theta _n^f+\psi _e^nt_n^e+\psi _f^nt_n^f.$$

This is also the formula for a miniversal deformation, but then the following relations on the base are necessary.

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k+l=n+1}{}}(kl)\theta _k^e\theta _l^e+t_k^et_l^f=0`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k+l=n+1}{}}(kl+1)\theta _k^et_l^e+\theta _k^ft_l^e=0`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k+1=n+1}{}}(l1)\theta _k^e\theta _l^f+lt_k^et_l^f=0`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k+l=n+1}{}}\theta _k^et_l^f\theta _k^ft_l^f=0`$
Having disposed of the trivial codifferential, we now consider the general case $`d=r_n\psi _e^n+s_n\psi _f^n`$ for some constants $`r_n,s_n𝔎`$. Then a computation of $`[d,d]`$ yields

$$\frac{1}{2}[d,d]=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{k+l=n+1}{}r_ks_l(\phi _e^n+l\phi _f^n),$$

from which it follows that $`_{k+l=n+1}r_ks_l=0`$ for all $`n`$. Let $`M`$ be the least integer such that not both $`r_M`$ and $`s_M`$ vanish. If $`r_M0`$, then it is easy to see that this forces $`s_l=0`$ for all $`l`$. A similar result holds if $`s_M0`$. Thus the only possibilities for nontrivial codifferentials are of the form $`d=r_k\psi _e^k`$ and $`d=s_k\psi _f^k`$.

Let us consider the case $`d=r_k\psi _e^k`$ first. Let $`L`$ be the least coefficient such that $`r_L0`$, and for simplicity, assume that $`r_L=1`$. Let $`d^L=\psi _L^k`$. Note that $`\psi _e^{L+k}=[d^L,\phi _f^{k+1}]`$, so that $`d=d^L+[d^L,_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}r_{k+L}\psi _f^{k+1}]`$. This resembles the case of an infinitesimal deformation, suggesting that $`d`$ is equivalent to $`d^L`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_f^k`$ represent the coderivation associated to $`\phi _f^k`$ (recall that $`\phi _f^k\text{Hom}(S(W),W)`$). Then the bracket is given by $`[d^L,\phi _f^k]=d^L\stackrel{~}{\phi }_f^k`$. This is because $`d^L`$ vanishes on terms that do not contain an $`f`$, but outputs no $`f`$, while $`\phi _f^k`$ requires an input of an $`f`$. So in the decomposition of the bracket, only one of the terms survives.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}r_{k+L}\stackrel{~}{\phi }_f^{k+1}`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ is a coderivation of $`S(W)`$, so that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }I+I\stackrel{~}{\lambda })\mathrm{\Delta }.$$

Let $`\stackrel{~}{g}=I+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$. Then we claim that $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is an automorphism of $`S(W)`$. For that to be true, the identity that needs to be satisfied is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }I+I\stackrel{~}{\lambda }+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\stackrel{~}{\lambda })\mathrm{\Delta },$$

but this holds since $`(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\stackrel{~}{\lambda })\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. To see this fact, note that $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ vanishes on an element in $`S(W)`$ not containing an $`f`$, while only one of the two terms output by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ could contain an $`f`$, since $`f^2=0`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ was an infinitesimal derivation, then $`\stackrel{~}{g}^1`$ would simply be $`I\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$. This is not true here. Nevertheless, we can compute $`\stackrel{~}{g}^1`$ exactly. For simplicity, first consider the case $`L=1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=\stackrel{~}{\phi }_f^2`$. Now,

$$\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\phi _f^k(e^nf)=(k1)!\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k1}\right)e^{nk}f,$$

so $`\stackrel{~}{g}(e^nf)=e^nf+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{1}\right)e^{n1}f`$. It follows that

$$\begin{array}{c}\phi _f^k(e^nf+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{1}\right)e^{n1})=\hfill \\ \hfill (k1)!\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k1}\right)e^{nk}f+(k1)!\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{k1}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{1}\right)e^{nk1}f.\end{array}$$

Since $`k!\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)=(k1)!\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{k1}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{1}\right)`$, it is easily seen that $`\stackrel{~}{g}^1=I_{k=2}^{\mathrm{}}(1)^i\phi _f^k`$. For arbitrary $`L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$, we can express $`\stackrel{~}{g}^1=I+_{k=2}^{\mathrm{}}c_k\phi _f^k`$, for some constants $`c_k`$.

From the consideration given above on how $`\phi _f^k`$ interacts with $`d^L`$, we see that $`d=\stackrel{~}{g}^1d^L\stackrel{~}{g}`$; in other words, $`d`$ and $`d^L`$ determine equivalent $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ structures.

A similar argument applies to the case of $`s_k\psi _f^k`$, except that in this case, one sees that $`\psi _f^k\stackrel{~}{\phi }_f^l=0`$, because $`\phi _f^l`$ always inputs an $`f`$ and outputs one, while $`\psi _f^k`$ inputs no $`f`$ and outputs one, so the composition is zero. Thus the bracket should be computed in the form $`d=\stackrel{~}{g}\psi _f^L\stackrel{~}{g}^1`$ for an appropriate choice of $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$.

The $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ structures determined by $`\psi _e^k`$ and $`\psi _f^l`$ can never be equivalent. To see this, note that if we extend these maps to coderivations, then we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_f^k(e^n)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)e^{nk}f\hfill & \stackrel{~}{\psi }_f^k(e^nf)=0\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\psi }_e^k(e^nf)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k1}\right)e^{nk+2}\hfill & \stackrel{~}{\psi }_e^k(e^n)=0\hfill \end{array}.$$

Suppose that $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_f^l=\stackrel{~}{g}^1\stackrel{~}{\psi }_e^k\stackrel{~}{g}`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_f^l=\stackrel{~}{\psi }_e^k\stackrel{~}{g}`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_f^l(e^nf)=0`$, it follows that $`\stackrel{~}{g}(e^nf)`$ must lie in the kernel of $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_e^k`$. But this implies that $`\stackrel{~}{g}(e^nf)`$ would be even. This is impossible since an automorphism is an even map, and $`e^nf`$ is odd. Thus no such equivalence is possible.

Next, we will compute the cohomology $`H(d_k)`$ for $`d_k=\phi _e^k`$, and show that it has dimension $`2L2`$. From this, it follows immediately that if $`kl`$, then $`d_k`$ is not equivalent to $`d_l`$. A similar result holds for $`d_k=\phi _f^k`$. Thus there are two infinite families of nonequivalent $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ structures on $`W`$. It is very interesting that such a simple space gives rise to so many distinct $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ structures.

### 7.1. The case $`d^L=\psi _e^L`$

First, note that $`D_L(\psi _e^k)=0`$, so $`\psi _e^k`$ is a cocycle for all $`k`$. No element of order less than $`L`$ can be a coboundary, because the bracket of anything with $`d^L`$ has order at least $`L`$. Since $`D_L(\phi _f^k)=\psi _f^{m+L1}`$, $`\psi _e^k`$ is a coboundary if $`kL`$. Since $`\psi _f^k`$ is never a cocycle, it is clear that the odd cocycles are spanned by $`\psi _e^k`$, and the dimension of the odd part of the cohomology of $`d^L`$ is $`L1`$.

Let $`h^k=\phi _e^k+(kL+1)\phi _f^k`$. Then $`D_L(h^k)=0`$, and moreover $`D_L(\psi _f^{kL+1})=h^k`$, when $`kL`$, so $`h^k`$ is a coboundary precisely when $`kL`$. Assume that $`\phi =r_k\phi _e^k+s_k\phi _f^k`$ is an arbitrary even cocycle. Then $`\phi r_kh^k=(s_kr_k(kL+1))\phi _f^k`$, so because $`D_L(\phi _f^k)0`$, it follows that $`s_k=r_k(kL+1)`$ for all $`k`$, and thus $`\phi =r_kh^k`$. The cocycles $`h^k`$ form a basis of the even cocycles, so the dimension of the even part of the cohomology of $`d^L`$ is also $`L1`$. Thus $`dim(H(d^L))=2L2`$.

If we consider $`d^L=\psi _f^L`$ instead of $`\psi _e^L`$, then the odd cocycles would be given by $`\psi _f^k`$, with those where $`kL`$ being coboundaries, while the even cocycles would be given by $`h^k=\phi _e^k+L\phi _f^k`$, $`D_L(\psi _e^{kL+1})=h^k`$ for $`kL`$. Thus we obtain the same dimension $`2L2`$ for the cohomology determined by $`\psi _f^L`$.

Now let us work with the case $`d^L=\psi _e^L`$ and calculate a miniversal deformation for some small values of $`L`$. It will prove useful to have a table of some brackets of $`h^k`$ with certain cochains.

$$\begin{array}{cc}[h^k,h^l]=(kl)h^{k+l1}\hfill & [h^k,\psi _e^l]=(Ll)\psi _e^{k+l1}\hfill \\ [h^k,\phi _f^l]=(1l)\phi _f^{k+l1}\hfill & [h^k,\psi _f^l]=(klL+1)\psi _f^{k+l1}\hfill \end{array}$$

### 7.2. The case $`d=\psi _e^1`$

If $`L=1`$, then since $`H(d^1)=0`$, the miniversal deformation is just $`d^1`$. This corresponds to the fact that $`W`$ has a differential equipping it with the structure of a differential graded vector space, and this differential is essentially unique.

### 7.3. The case $`d=\psi _e^2`$

If $`L=2`$, then the universal infinitesimal deformation of $`d^1`$ is $`d_1^1=\psi _e^2+h^1\theta _1+\psi _e^1t_1`$, and $`[d_1^1,d_1^1]=\psi _e^1\theta _1t_1`$. Thus the infinitesimal deformation is miniversal, with the relation $`\theta _1t_1=0`$. Note that in this case, $`\psi _e^2`$ determines a nontrivial $`_2`$-graded Lie algebra structure on the parity reversion of $`W`$, and $`\psi _e^1`$ corresponds to the fact that the differential on $`W`$ is a derivation of this Lie algebra structure. Thus the miniversal deformation gives a deformation of the Lie algebra structure into an $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ algebra by recording the graded derivations of the Lie algebra structure. The part contributed by $`h^1`$ corresponds to a $`_2`$-graded antiderivation of the Lie algebra, which becomes a true derivation only when it is multiplied by an odd parameter.

### 7.4. The case $`d=\psi _e^3`$

For $`L=3`$ the universal infinitesimal deformation of $`d^3`$ is

$$d_1^3=\psi _e^3+h^1\theta _1+h^2\theta _2+\psi _e^1t_1+\psi _e^2t_2.$$

From

$$\frac{1}{2}[d_1^3,d_1^3]=h^2\theta _1\theta _22\psi _e^1\theta _1t_1\psi _e^2(\theta _1t_2+2\theta _2t_1)\psi _e^3\theta _2t_2$$

we obtain the mod $`𝔪^3`$ relations $`R2=\{\theta _1\theta _2,\theta _1t_1,\theta _1t_2+2\theta _2t_1\}`$ corresponding to the coefficients of the $`h^2`$, $`\psi _e^1`$ and $`\psi _e^2`$ terms. Since $`\psi _e^3`$ is a coboundary, it does not give a relation, but means that we need to add a second order term to the codifferential. In this example the miniversal deformation is not given by the same formula as the universal infinitesimal deformation. The second order deformation $`d_2^3`$ is given by the formula

$$d_2^3=\psi _e^3+h^1\theta _1+h^2\theta _2+\psi _e^1t_1+\psi _e^2t_2+\phi _f^1\theta _2t_2.$$

Finally, we compute

$$\frac{1}{2}[d_2^3,d_2^3]=h^2\theta _1\theta _2\psi _e^1(2\theta _1t_1\theta _2t_1t_2)\psi _e^2(\theta _1t_2+2\theta _2t_1\theta _2t_2^2).$$

This time no coboundary terms arise in the bracket, so that the miniversal deformation is given by $`d_2^3`$, subject to the relations

$$R_3=\{\theta _1\theta _2,2\theta _1t_1\theta _2t_1t_2,\theta _1t_2+2\theta _2t_1\theta _2t_2^2\}.$$

Notice that the relations come from the mod $`𝔪^4`$ relations, but that they *are modified by picking up third order terms*. This point was misstated in , where it was declared that any relations discovered at $`n`$-th order remain relations at all orders. What really happens is that if you reduce the relations in the formal algebra mod $`𝔪^{n+1}`$, then they become the $`n`$-th order relations.

### 7.5. The case $`d=\psi _e^4`$

For $`L=4`$ the universal infinitesimal deformation of $`d^4`$ is

$$d_1^4=\psi _e^4+h^1\theta _1+h^2\theta _2+h^3\theta ^3+\psi _e^1t_1+\psi _e^2t_2+\psi _e^3t_3.$$

Then

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[d_1^4,d_1^4]=`$
$`h^2\theta _1\theta _22h^3\theta _1\theta _3h^4\theta _2\theta _3`$
$`3\psi _e^1\theta _1t_1\psi _e^2(2\theta _1t_2+3\theta _2t_1)\psi _e^3(\theta _1t_3+2\theta _2t_2+3\theta _3t_1)`$
$`\psi _e^4(\theta _2t_3+2\theta _3t_2)\psi _e^5\theta _3t_3.`$
The coefficients of $`h^k`$ and $`\psi _e^k`$ for $`k=1,2,3`$ yield 5 mod $`𝔪^3`$ relations:

$$R_2=\{\theta _1\theta _2,\theta _1\theta _3,\theta _1t_1,2\theta _1t_2+3\theta _2t_1,\theta _1t_3+2\theta _2t_2+3\theta _3t_1.\}$$

There are also 3 coboundary terms, so that after adding terms to cancel them we arrive at the following formula for the second order deformation.

$$d_2^4=d_1^4+\psi _f^1\theta _2\theta _3+\phi _f^1(\theta _2t_3+2\theta _3t_2)+\phi _f^2\theta _3t_3.$$

The bracket relation $`[\psi _e^k,\psi _f^l]=h^{k+l1}+(Lk)\phi _f^{k+l1}`$, which is easy to verify, will be used in the calculations below.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[d_2^4,d_2^4]=`$ $`h^1\theta _2\theta _3t_1+h^2(\theta _1\theta _2+\theta _2\theta _3t_2)+h^3(2\theta _1\theta _3+\theta _2\theta _3t_3)`$
$`+\psi _e^1(3\theta _1t_1+\theta _2t_1t_3+2\theta _3t_1t_2)`$
$`+\psi _e^2(2\theta _1t_23\theta _2t_1+\theta _2t_2t_3+2\theta _3t_2^2+\theta _3t_1t_3)`$
$`+\psi _e^3(\theta _1t_32\theta _2t_23\theta _3t_1+\theta _2t_3^2+3\theta _3t_2t_3)`$
$`+3\phi _f^1\theta _2\theta _3t_1+\phi _f^2(2\theta _2\theta _3t_2\theta _1\theta _3t_3)`$
$`+\psi _e^4\theta _3t_3^2`$
The mod $`𝔪^4`$ relations are the coefficients of the $`h^k`$ and $`\psi _e^k`$ terms for $`k=1,2,3`$, so there are six of them. But what about the terms that involve $`\phi _f^1`$ and $`\phi _f^2`$? These cochains are not even cocycles, so what are they doing in the expression at all? But if you check carefully, the mod $`𝔪^4`$ relations show that the coefficients are zero (mod $`𝔪^4`$). Thus these terms do not contribute to the bracket at this level. Finally, there is one coboundary term left, so it is necessary to add another term, and we have

$$d_3^4=d_2^4\phi _f^1\theta _3t_3^2.$$

After computing the boundary, the relations given by the coefficients of $`\psi _e^1`$, $`\psi _e^2`$ and $`\psi _e^3`$ are modified by adding the fourth order term $`\theta _3t_it_3^2`$ to the coefficient of $`\psi _e^i`$. The coefficients of the cocycles which are not coboundaries determine six relations on the base which is of the form $`𝒜=𝔎[[\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3,t_1,t_2,t_3]]/R`$. The coefficient of $`\phi _f^1`$ is one of the relations, so it is clearly zero. It is also easy to show that the coefficient of $`\phi _f^2`$ is equal to zero mod $`𝔪^4`$, but since we are claiming that the deformation is miniversal, the coefficient must be exactly equal to zero. Multiplying the coefficient of $`\psi _f^3`$ by $`\theta _3`$ yields

$$\begin{array}{c}\theta _1\theta _3t_3+2\theta _2\theta 3t_2\theta _2\theta _3t_3^2\hfill \\ \hfill =\theta _1\theta _3t_3+2\theta _2\theta _3t_22\theta _1\theta _3t_3\\ \hfill =2\theta _2\theta _3t_2\theta _1\theta _3t_3,\end{array}$$

where we used the relation $`\theta _2\theta _3t_3=2\theta _1\theta _3`$ in the second step. This is precisely the coefficient of $`\phi _f^2`$, so the coefficient of this term is zero. (Of course, it is really not necessary to show that these coefficients are zero, because it follows from the general theory that this must be the case.) Thus $`d^4`$ gives a miniversal deformation. Note that all terms in the relations have odd parameters in them. These computations illustrate the importance of introducing odd parameters, because otherwise $`d_1`$ would be a miniversal deformation.

It is not obvious how to write down the formula for the miniversal deformation of $`d^L`$ in general, but there are some things which can be easily shown in the general case. First, there will be $`2L2`$ relations, (when $`L4`$). Secondly, by studying the examples so far, it can be seen that the $`(L1)`$-th order deformation is miniversal. Thus only a finite number of computations is necessary in order to compute the miniversal deformation.

## 8. Conclusions

In the examples we have studied, we have given explicit constructions of miniversal deformations. Previous works have only computed the base of a miniversal deformation. The main complication in these constructions is the requirement of exact knowledge of the bracket structure on the space of cochains. Since most of the examples in the literature where cohomology of Lie algebras is studied do not contain this information, the computation of versal deformations of these structures will require more information than is currently easily available. We have just touched on the beginning of the subject.

In a future work, the authors plan to investigate versal deformations of $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ algebras with invariant inner products, which is related to the cyclic cohomology of these algebras. In the case of ordinary Lie algebras, only reductive algebras have invariant inner products, so the deformation theory is not so interesting. For example, simple Lie algebras have no deformations, even as $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ algebras. For super Lie algebras, and $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ algebras in general the picture is not so restricted.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the field of high-pressure material science, diverse carbon systems under pressure have been intensively studied with interest in synthesizing new phases. For example, the pressure-induced structural transition from C60 fullerene to amorphous diamond is realized by shock compression and rapid quenching. The shock compression and rapid quenching generate the high pressure (50-55GPa) and the temperature (2000-3000K) in a fraction of a microsecond. Consequently the C60 fcc crystal transforms into stable transparent glassy chips of $`\mu m`$ in size, which are confirmed to be an amorphous phase of diamond by electron energy-loss spectroscopy and electron diffractometry. Though this phase has a short-range order similar to normal diamond, it is amorphous. This amorphous phase is characterized by being consisted mostly from sp3 bonding, in contrast with previously reported amorphous carbon which is considered to be a disordered phase of graphite with sp2 bonds. By an investigation of the sample after the shock compression, the fabrication process for the amorphous diamond is postulated in the following way . Once the fcc cell of C60 is compressed, the inter-cluster bonding between $`C_{60}`$ molecules is formed. In other words, the polymerization of the C60 clusters occurs there, as was observed in several high-pressure experiments. By the further compression, molecules collapse and change into the amorphous. In the amorphous, the bonding state of sp3 is gradually produced and it forms a short-range order extending up to the volume of the normal diamond unit cell. This high temperature phase is quenched and obtained as the amorphous diamond, in which a greater part of the bonding state turns into sp3 type without the crystal growth in long range.

In fact, there is uncertainty in the understanding of the fabrication process from C60 to amorphous diamond, since the postulation for the process is obtained by checking the various phases of C60 remaining after the compression and the quenching and it is not based on direct observation of the reaction. In order to clarify such a transition process, the aid of the computer simulation will be needed. As for the structural transformation in carbon systems, there are a lot of theoretical approaches, from the first principles or semi-empirical way. However, those studies focus on the transformation between graphite and diamond. In the present stage, the theoretical simulation on the pressure-induced structural transformation in C60 has not been executed sufficiently. Therefore, the object of the present work is set to be a theoretical understanding of the pressure-induced structural transition in C60 crystal. For this purpose, a molecular dynamics simulation is executed using a tight-binding Hamiltonian with model parameters for carbon and hydrogen systems proposed by Winn , Rassinger and Hafner, combined with the constant pressure scheme by Wentzcovotch. The model parameters can reproduce the energy difference and geometries in various carbon systems including hydrogen, such as molecules and reconstructed diamond surfaces, as well as the bulk property of diamonds and graphites. This model parameters also give results consistent with other ab-initio and semi-empirical calculations for liquid carbon phase. In addition, to save computational costs, a part of calculations, involved in the crystal structure optimization, was carried out using the density matrix method , what is called the order N method.

The contents of this paper are as follows. At first the process of the pressure-induced amorphization of C60 will be presented. According to the simulation presented here, the C60 fcc crystal is easily and speedily transformed into the amorphous by the compression, going through the path postulated by the experiment as above, since the C60 structure is constructed by bondings of distorted sp2 type and it has potentiality in the transition to sp3 type bondings. However, in the simulated result, the amorphous phase itself is far from the state which should be classified as ”amorphous diamond”, especially just after the transition from C60, since the collapsed C60 fcc crystal includes a number of dangling bonds which have not yet turned into sp3 bondings. Therefore, the present work will furthermore pursue the transition from sp2 to sp3 in the amorphous phase through the compression, which will gradually reduce the number of the dangling bonds and drive the system towards the ”amorphous diamond” phase of randomly packing sp3 bondings. The details of those dynamical effects, such as the dependence on the temperature and the pressure, are not necessarily clarified by the experiment alone. Finally, the present paper will give a comparison of the structural transition in C60 to the pressure-induced graphite-diamond transition by the simulation. It will explain the reason why C60 fcc crystal shows the transition to amorphous diamond phase and why graphite directly turns into perfect cubic diamond.

## 2 The simulation scheme

In the present work, the simulations are executed in the following way.

1)The initial external pressure is set to be 0GPa and the pressure is gradually raised to the desired value.

2) Then the simulation is executed at a stationary pressure in sufficiently long time.

3) To simulate the process of the rapid quenching, the optimized structure at 0GPa and 0K is finally obtained, by letting down the applied pressure.

In the present stage, we do not have the detailed information on the physical quantities in the sample through the shock-compression, such as, the variation in the pressure and the temperature related to the propagation of shock waves. For example, the temperature is not preserved and rapidly escapes from the compressed system while the pressure is kept to be high. Thus, in some calculations, the temperature is also given as a parameter independent of the pressure. In the electronic structure calculation, a periodic boundary condition is applied to the fcc unit cell containing four C60 molecules and the summation over k-space is estimated at the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point alone.

## 3 Amorphization from the C60 fcc crystal

### 3.1  Compression at 0K

At first, the C60 fcc crystal was optimized at the pressure of 50-100GPa, keeping the temperature at 0K. The C60 fcc structure is stable in this pressure range. The initial cubic cell parameter including four C60 molecules is set to be 14.15Å. For example, a compression at 50GPa changed the cell into smaller one, in which the cell parameter shrinks to 13.6 Å. In the compressed cell, the relative positions of atoms are still preserved, while the covalent bonds are formed between C60 molecules. This is a kind of the polymerization, but not the amorphization.

### 3.2 Compression at finite temperature

Obviously, the reason why the C60 crystal is stable in such a high pressure is that the simulation is executed in an unphysical condition, i.e., keeping the temperature at 0 K. In the experiments for fabricating the amorphous diamond, the temperature rapidly rises from the room temperature to the range no less than 2000-3000 K. Then the collapse of the crystal will become drastic owing to the active movements of atoms, as can be expected from the phase diagram of carbon. Therefore, in this section, the simulation is executed with the condition that the temperature of the system can vary. To do this, the equation of motion is solved in the constant pressure scheme of molecular dynamics without any scaling of the kinetic energy.

Figure 1 shows the snapshots of an example of the amorphization. In this case, the pressure is linearly increased from 0GPa to 65GPa in the first 0.45ps and kept constant after that. The temperature is set to be 300K in the beginning and spontaneously increases to 2000-3000K by compression partly because this is adiabatic compression and partly because of recombination of C-C bonds. In the early stage, the stacking structure of the fcc crystal is still preserved. The C60 molecules come to show deformation and polymerization, if the inter-cluster distance becomes much closer to the intra-cluster atomic distance, as was observed in the compression study by Duclos et al.. By further compression, amorphization occurs and it results in the destruction of the molecular structure in the whole cell. At the same time, the sp2 bonding gradually transforms into the sp3.

The structural change in Fig.1 is also quantitatively checked. Figures 2 and 3 show the change in the pair-distribution function and the bond-angle distribution, which correspond to the snapshot of the transition process in Fig.1. The initial fcc C60 crystal has already turned into the amorphous phase in the first 1000 MD steps (1.0ps), as can be seen from these figures. The initial bond-angle distribution has two peaks at 108 degrees and 120 degrees, which mean bond-angles in five- and six-membered rings. As the time goes by, these two clear peaks become more and more broad and finally merge into one peak around 110 degrees. This indicates the vanishing of the molecular structure of C60.

Compressions in the pressure higher than 65GPa accompanies more temperature increase and it turns C60 into amorphous. On the other hand, if the maximum pressures are lower than 50GPa, and if the simulation starts at the room temperature, the fcc C60 crystal does not collapse completely, probably because the final temperature(1000-2000K) is not sufficiently high. However, if the initial temperature is set to be sufficiently high, as high as in the order of 1000K, the amorphization proceeds even at about 50GPa.

## 4 Formation of amorphous diamond

To gain the frozen phase after the rapid-quenching, we execute the crystal structure optimization firstly at the high pressure and finally obtain the optimized structure at 0GPa, gradually letting down the pressure. In the actual process of the shock compression and rapid quenching, the high-temperature phase is frozen into the system owing to the rapid decrease in the temperature, while the high pressure is still kept.

Figures 4(a) and 4(b) show the results of the crystal structure optimization, where the maximum compression pressures are set to be 65GPa and 125GPa, respectively. (In both cases, the optimized structures at 0GPa are obtained after the MD simulations continued as long as about 10ps, so that the property of the finally fabricated material shall not seriously be affected by the finiteness of the simulation time.) In these structures, the short-range order, formed in the high temperature and the high pressure, remains almost unchanged. The pair distribution function (not shown here) shows the peaks around 1.5Å and 2.5Å, which correspond to the contributions from the first- and next-nearest neighboring atoms, as is seen in that of the high temperature phase. However, only from the location of the peaks, it is difficult to determine whether the short-range order comes from a diamond-like structure or not. It may be likely that the peaks are attributed to the fragments of the C60, since the distances from one atom to the first- or next-nearest neighboring atoms are of the same extent both in diamond and in a single C60 molecule. Thus the distribution of the azimuthal angle, as is defined in Fig.5(a), was checked. Here the azimuthal angle is defined to be the relative angle of the two planes, respectively spanned by two bonds, when these two plane share one common bond. This distribution gives the information on the networking structure of the tetrahedron of sp3, and it will have peaks around 60 degrees or 180 degrees for cubic diamond and around 140 degrees for the C60 structure. (The pairs of six- and five-membered rings in C60 form the angle of about 140 degrees.) In Fig.5(b), for the case of the compression at 65GPa, there are no prominent peaks around 60 or 140 degrees. It means that the cage structure of C60 vanishes, while the diamond-like short range order is not clearly formed. On the other hand, in the structure compressed at 125GPa, there is a prominent peak near 60 degrees in Fig.5(c). The cubic-diamond-like short-range order, extending up to the third-nearest neighbors, is much more developed there, since this structure compressed by the larger pressure has much more number of sp3 bonding.

In fact, the networking structure of bonds is not necessarily confined to cubic diamond phase alone, since the energy difference between cubic and hexagonal diamond phase is little . Several local bonding structures similar to that of hexagonal diamond are found in the simulated results. In perfect hexagonal diamond structure, the azimuthal angle with respect to a bond on an atom parallel to the c-axis takes 0 and 120 degrees. On the other hand azimuthal angles with respect to other three bonds on an atom take 60 and 180 degrees, which is the same as cubic diamond. Therefore, even in perfect hexagonal diamond phase, the contributions to the distribution of azimuthal angles at 0 and 120 degrees is weak and it is one third of those at 60 and 180 degrees. Thus contribution from hexagonal-diamond like short range order around 0 or 120 degrees is hidden due to the randomness in amorphous.

The density in the structure compressed by the maximum pressure 65GPa \[Fig.4(a)\] is estimated to be about 2.7 g/ cm3. On the other hand, the density is 3.5 g/ cm3 after the compression at the maximum pressure 125GPa \[Fig.4(b)\], which is comparable to the experiment. In the actual amorphous diamond, the density is estimated to be larger than 3.3 g/cm3.

Figures 6(a) and 6(b) show the density of states of the finally fabricated material (frozen phase) after the compression at the maximum pressure 65GPa and 125GPa. These electronic structures are quantitatively different from that of the initial C60 fcc crystal, which is given in Ref.. The difference between Fig.6(a) and 6(b) results from the number of dangling bonds. In these figures, the contribution to the DOS from threefold carbon atoms is compared to the total DOS. Owing to the contribution from dangling bonds, the gap between the conduction and valence bands vanishes. In case of the compression at 65GPa\[Fig.6(a)\], the ratio of atoms with dangling bond amounts to 50 %, while in case of the compression at 125GPa\[Fig.6(b)\], the ratio of such atoms deceases to about 10%. Therefore, in the latter case, the conduction and valence bands are distinguished by a reduction of the DOS near the Fermi level, which is featured as a shaded zone in the figure. This reduction in the DOS is interpreted to be an analogous of the wide gap in the perfect diamond structure. In Fig.6(a), a narrow gap at the Fermi level is formed in the dangling bond states and it separates the occupied and unoccupied states. This is because the presence of a gap, even if it is narrow, makes the system more stable.

Comparing the results corresponding to the compression at 65GPa and 125GPa, the latter case, compressed at the larger pressure, is considered to be a better simulation, since the actual amorphous diamond has a transparent optical property similar to the normal diamond and it will have an electronic structure with a large gap near the Fermi level. In our simulations, at the pressure above 100GPa and the temperature above 5000K, the ratio of threefold carbon atoms decreases to 10$``$20%, and the valence and conduction bands tend to be distinguished by a wide range reduction in the DOS near the Fermi level, owing to the decrease of the dangling bonds. In the experimentally obtained amorphous diamond, the number of the the dangling bonds will also be reduced, possibly more than in this simulation. (It is certain that the dangling bonds still remain in the actual amorphous diamond, as was indicated by the EELS spectrum in Ref..)

## 5 An analysis for the dynamical process in the transition

After the rapid amorphous transition, it takes a long time until the short range order is formed again. In this section, the dynamical process in the reaction, especially related to the pressure and the temperature, is investigated. Figure 7 shows the results by a simulation where the external pressure is increased from 0GPa to 65GPa, and after that, the pressure is furthermore increased to 125 GPa, in order to check the pressure dependence. Figures 7(a)-(d) show the time dependence of the external pressure, the temperature, the mean square of the displacement, and the ratio of carbon atoms with fourfold coordination. The increase in the ratio of carbon atoms with fourfold coordination stands for the transition from sp2 to sp3, and it reflects on the reconstruction of the short-range order. In the amorphous phase, sp2-type bonding is gradually transformed into sp3-type, while the transition speed, in other word, the speed of the short-range order formation is going down. However, at least in the order of the picoseconds, the system has not yet arrive at the stationary state. The figure furthermore shows the dependence of the reaction on the external pressure. When the external pressure is raised again, the number of the sp3 bonding grows much more, since the transition is accelerated by the higher temperature and the higher density. The density in the high temperature phase amounts to about 3.0g/cm3 at 65GPa and increases to about 3.5g/cm3 at 125GPa.

The simulated result supports the postulations for the amorphous diamond formation process from the experimental data. We should stress here the importance of the following phenomena. Since the high temperature is generated through the reconstruction of the bonding, the reaction is enhanced so that the system can cross the potential barrier and transform its structure. (The system obtains work by the compression and the temperature increases to some extent, but it is not enough to speed up the reaction furthermore.) As an example, figure 8 shows the results of the two simulation where the external pressure is increased to 125GPa. In the first case, denoted as (A), there is no restriction to the variation of the temperature. On the other hand , in the second case, denoted as (B), the temperature is set to be 2500K after 0.5ps. The transition from sp2 to sp3 is apparently hindered in the case of (B), since the movement of atoms is inactive because of the lower temperature, in contrast with the case (A). For the same reason, the compression at 0K, shown in the previous section, cannot turn C60 to the amorphous. These simulations also suggest that there are possibly innumerable quasi-stable configurations by which the system is easily trapped. The amorphous diamond phase can also be regarded as one of such quasi-stable transient phases located in the reaction path from C60 to the bonding state of sp3 in whole crystal, i.e. perfect diamond phase. (In fact, the shock compression applied to lower-grade C60  exhibited the entire transition to the diamond crystallite, probably because of the easier crystal growth in the presence of defects and impurities.) Since shock compression process continues as long as nanoseconds, it is possible that the actual amorphous diamond phase has a structure much closer to perfect diamond, compared to the present simulation whose time-scale is at most picoseconds order. In the actual shock compression, a large fluctuation in the pressure and the temperature through the shock-wave propagation will fabricate variously altered phases, as are classified in several states, ranging from the slightly compressed fcc structure to the amorphous diamond.

It appears that the speed of increasing pressure may have some influence on the reaction. For example, if the response of the crystal inner stress cannot catch up with the rapid increase of the pressure, the decaying process of the crystal will become more drastic. The response of the inner stress is related to the cell deformation and it is dependent on the fictitious mass assigned to the cell deformation, as well as the external pressure and the inner stress in the constant-pressure scheme. We would like to avoid such dependence of the simulation on the artificial degree of freedom as possible. For this purpose, we adjusted the fictitious mass heavy enough so that the fluctuation of the ”kinetic energy” assigned to the cell deformation is kept to be very small and the almost ”isenthalpic” simulation becomes possible at a stationary pressure. The speed of raising the applied pressure is set to be sufficiently slow in such a way that the inner stress shall rise parallel with the external pressure. By doing so, the system property is almost determined by the the current pressure, and scarcely dependent on the kinetic contribution from the cell deformation. For example, in figure 7 and 8, where the pressure is raised to 125GPa in two different ways, the final system properties, such as the temperature and the bonding order, are similar.

## 6 Discussions

In the electronic structure of the finally fabricated material after the compression, the contribution from dangling bonds is not negligible. If the contribution of this kind appearing between the valence and conduction band is large, the fabricated material will lose the transparent optical property and it will not be qualified to be called amorphous diamond. As we have seen, the contribution from dangling bonds will be reduced after the compression at sufficiently higher temperature and pressure. In fact, there may be other mechanism that will reduce the contribution from dangling bonds. For example, it is well-known that the presence of hydrogen atoms reduces the number of dangling bonds in case of amorphous silicon. The DOS after the shock-compression in presence of hydrogen atoms are given in Fig.9. A comparison between Fig.9(a) and Fig.6(a), which are the DOS after the compression at 55GPa and 65GPa, shows that the DOS is apparently reduced around the Fermi level in the presence of the hydrogen, even if the pressure is somewhat lower. However, there is no clear gap between the valence and conduction band in Fig.9(a). Such a situation is not improved so much at higher pressure, as in Fig.9(b). In addition, according to the simulation like this, even in the case when much more numbers of the hydrogen atoms are included, dangling bonds not terminated by hydrogens are still left. This will be because the reactivity and the mobility of bonds are weakened by the presence of many hydrogen atoms and the formation of the short range order of sp3 will rather be hindered.

In case of the compression of C60, there are number of quasi-stable configurations in amorphous phase, and such a transient phase will easily be frozen by the quenching. This will be the major difference to the pressure-induced structural transition from graphite to diamond. Figure 10 shows the transition of the bonding state from sp2 to sp3 in the compression of the graphite. In the figure, the rapid increase in the ratio of fourfold carbon atoms after 1000fs stands for the transition from graphite to diamond. The transition speed is far faster than the cooling speed of the temperature in the shock compression experiment which is estimated to be from 106 to 1010 K/s. Graphite and diamond phases are located in very close configurations in the potential surface and there is no stable transient state in the transition path from graphite to diamond. Since graphite rapidly transforms into the cubic diamond without being trapped by any quasi-stable structure , perfect diamond phase remains alone after the quenching and amorphous diamond phase will not be obtained.

It should be noted here that, in comparison with ab-initio theory, there are less accuracy and less transferability in the tight-binding models, in spite of the fact that the model parameters succeed in reproducing the bulk property of certain carbon crystals. This is because the tight-binding model parameters are obtained by the fitting to the ab-initio results for several crystal structures. In order to check the model parameter dependence of our simulation, we have executed additional calculations using another model parameter by Xu et al.  and compared the results to those given in the previous sections. According to the results obtained by the Xu’s parameters, if the initial condition and the applied pressure are the same, the electronic and structural properties, such as the transition rate from sp2 to sp3 and the increase in the temperature, are of the same extent, compared to those given in the previous sections. For example, when the compression is executed above 100GPa, the ratio of atoms with dangling bond decreases to $`1020`$ % and the DOS shows the reduction near the Fermi level, as well as the result in the previous section.

It should also be mentioned that the model Hamiltonian used here does not include van der Waals interactions and is not quantitatively sufficient for the initial C60 fcc structure formed by van der Waals force. However, the purpose of the present work is the investigation in a compressed carbon system. Since the van der Waals force is much weaker than covalent bonds between atoms, it will be negligible in the simulation, especially after the transition into the high-density amorphous. In other words, the model parameters adopted here will be a good, even if not the best, description for the physical process of the pressure-induced structural transition from the C60 fcc crystal into the amorphous diamond.

## 7 Conclusion

We have investigated the amorphization of C60 fcc and the formation of amorphous diamond phase. The electronic property of amorphized phase of C60 just after the transition is far from so-called amorphous diamond, since the amorphized C60 contains a number of dangling bonds which have not yet turned into sp3 type bonding. Amorphous diamond phase is being gradually formed through the change in the bonding structure from sp2 to sp3 under high pressure and high temperature. If dangling bonds are sufficiently reduced, the valence and conduction bands are distinguished and a transparent optical property is observed in amorphous diamond phase as well as perfect cubic diamond. Amorphous phase is interpreted as one of quasi-stable phases in the transition path from C60 to diamond phase under pressure. If the temperature and the pressure are not sufficiently high, the reaction will be interrupted before forming amorphous diamond phase, probably because there are many quasi-stable phases between C60 and diamond and the system is liable to be trapped by such phases. This is in contrast with pressure-induced graphite-diamond transition. Since graphite and diamond phase are located in very near configurations in the potential surface, the transition from graphite to diamond proceeds rapidly without passing through any stable transient phase. From this reason, the formation of amorphous diamond phase is characteristic in the compression of C60 and such a phase is not obtained in the compression of graphite.

## Figure captions

* Figure 1: Snapshots of the transition from C60 fcc crystal to amorphous are given. The pressure is increased from 0GPa to 65GPa in 0.45ps and kept to be 65GPa after that. The pictures show the system cut out into a $`15\times 15\times 15`$Å3 cube, which does not stand for the unit cell.
* Figure 2 : Pair distribution function in each MD step, which corresponds to the compression given in figure 1.
* Figure 3: Bond-angle distribution in each MD step, which correspond to the compression given in figure 1. Although the structures, characteristic to C60, remain at first, they have almost vanished in 0.5ps and the system turns into the amorphous.
* Figure 4(a): The structure fabricated after the compression at the maximum pressure at 65GPa.
* Figure 4(b): The structure fabricated after the compression at the maximum pressure at 125GPa.
* Figure 5(a):Definition of azimuthal angle.
* Figure 5(b):Distribution of the azimuthal angle after the compression at 65GPa, in the structure of figure 4(a).
* Figure 5(c):Distribution of the azimuthal angle after the compression at 125GPa, in the structure of figure 4(b).
* Figure 6 :Density of states corresponding to figure 5. The solid line shows the total DOS, and the dotted line shows the contribution from threefold carbon atoms.
* Figure 6(a): DOS after the compression at 65GPa.
* Figure 6(b): DOS after the compression at 125GPa.
* Figure 7: An example of the dynamical effect caused by changes in the pressure through the compression is given here. Pressure is raised from 0GPa to 65GPa, and after that, again raised to 125GPa. The early stage of this simulation, where the pressure is confined in the range from 0GPa to 65GPa, corresponds to the snapshot given in figure 1. These figures show the very slow reconstruction process of the short-range order in the amorphous at the high pressure and temperature.
* Figure 7(a):The change in the applied pressure.
* Figure 7(b):The variation in the temperature. By raising the pressure again, the temperature increases again.
* Figure 7(c):The mean square of the displacement. By raising the pressure again, the atomic movement becomes more active.
* Figure 7(d):The ratio of fourfold carbon atoms. The increase in this ratio means the formation of the sp3 bonding. By raising the pressure again, much more numbers of the sp3 bonding are generated.
* Figure 8: Another example of the dynamical effect caused by change in the temperature through the compression is given here. The pressure is raised from 0GPa to 125GPa. In the path, denoted as (A), there is no concentration on the temperature. In the path (B), the temperature is scaled at 2500K after 0.5ps.
* Figure 8(a):The change in the applied pressure.
* Figure 8(b):The variation in the temperature.
* Figure 8(c):The mean square of the displacement. In the path (B), owing to the lower temperature, the atomic movement becomes more inactive.
* Figure 8(d):The ratio of fourfold carbon atoms. In the path (B), owing to the lower temperature, the transition speed from sp2 to sp3 decreases.
* Figure 9: The density of states with the presence of hydrogen. The solid line shows the total DOS, and the dotted line shows the contribution from threefold carbon atoms. The cell includes hydrogen atoms at 12.5% in number. Figure 9(a) shows the DOS after the compression at the maximum pressure 55GPa. The contribution from threefold C atoms is about 40% in the total DOS. Figure 9(b) shows the DOS after the compression at the maximum pressure 125GPa. The contribution from threefold C atoms is about 20% in the total DOS.
* Figure 10: This figure shows the ratio of fourfold carbon atoms in the pressure-induced structural transition from graphite to cubic diamond. The transition from sp2 to sp3 in the whole crystal can bee seen in the rapid increase in that ratio, changing from 0 to 1. In this simulation, the unit cell includes 240 carbon atoms. The pressure is raised from 0GPa to 150GPa in initial 0.15ps and kept constant. The temperature is scaled to be 5000K throughout the simulation. The graphite directly turns into the stable perfect cubic diamond, taking a reaction path similar to that demonstrated in a first principles simulation.


text:
# Gravitational radiation from long gamma-ray bursts

## 1 Introduction

Cosmological gamma-ray bursts are the most relativistic events in the Universe, at an observed rate of about two per day. The BATSE catalogue shows a bi-modal distribution of GRB durations, with short bursts of about a second and long bursts of about one minute (Kouveliotou et al., 1993; Paciesas et al., 1999). These events are probably associated with the formation of high-angular momentum low-mass black hole-torus systems representing hypernovae (Woosley, 1993; Paczyński, 1997, 1998; Brown et al., 2000) in star-forming regions (Paczyński, 1998; Bloom et al., 2000).

General arguments suggest that the rotational energy in a black hole can be similarly important as accretion, provided there is a channel in place to tap this energy. A maximally rotating black hole of mass $`M7M_{}`$ contains about $`2M_{}`$ in rotational energy. Raleigh’s criterion (e.g., Kippenhahn & Weigert (1990)) reminds us that rotating systems have a tendency to shed off angular momentum to larger distances, and a rotating black hole is no exception. This may be seen from the first law of black hole thermodynamics. For a black hole of mass $`M`$, angular momentum $`J_H`$ and angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_H`$ we have (Bardeen et al., 1973; Hawking, 1975, 1976): $`\delta M=\mathrm{\Omega }_H\delta J_H+T_H\delta S_H`$, where $`T_H`$ the horizon temperature and $`S_H`$ ($`\delta S_H0)`$ the entropy. Thus, the specific angular momentum $`a_p=\delta J_H/\delta M`$ of a radiated particle exceeds that of the black hole: $`a_p1/\mathrm{\Omega }_H2M>MJ_H/M=a.`$ Angular momentum is stored at a lower cost in radiation than in the black hole, and is emitted with an efficiency of at most 50%. In vacuum, the decay of a Kerr black hole into Schwarzschild black hole is safeguarded by an angular momentum barrier, and spontaneous emission of particles is exponentially small (Teukolsky, 1973; Press and Teukolsky, 1973; Teukolsky and Press, 1974). Yet, black holes formed in hypernovae will be surrounded by magnetized matter, in the form of an accretion disk or torus. A similar state is expected from tidal break-up of a neutron star by a Kerr black hole (Paczyński, 1991; van Putten, 1999).

Ultrarelativistic leptonic outflows which form the input to GBRs may be powered by black hole-spin in the presence of magnetic fields (van Putten, 2000a, b; Heyl, 2000). Long/short GRBs can hereby be associated with magnetic regulated suspended/hyper-accretion onto rapidly/slowly spinning black holes (van Putten & Ostriker, 2000). For long bursts, the suspended accretion state lasts for the duration of spin-down of the black hole, whereby the surrounding magnetized matter receives a powerful torque $`T=\dot{J}_H`$ from the angular momentum $`J_H`$ of the black hole (van Putten and Wilson, 1999; van Putten, 1999; Brown et al., 2001) which arrests the inflow. The black hole performs approximately isotropic work in powering both the outflow and the Maxwell stresses onto the torus. This suggests to consider the possibility that the torus re-radiates this output, in part, in gravitational-wave emissions as it develops non-axisymmetric instabilities.

Here, we show that gravitational wave-emissions are expected in suspended accretion as a collateral feature to long GRB-afterglow emissions. This feature is in many ways similar to new-born pulsars, which are well-known to radiate predominantly in gravitational waves (Shapiro and Teukolsky, 1983).

## 2 Torus in suspended accretion surrounding a rapidly spinning black hole

The approximately isotropic work performed by the black hole takes place over interconnecting magnetic field-lines regulated by the magnetic moment of the black hole in equilibrium with the torus magnetosphere (Wald, 1974; Dokuchaev, 1987; van Putten, 2000b; Lee et al., 2001). These field-lines comprise a torus magnetosphere supported by surrounding baryonic matter and open field-lines to infinity, as schematically indicated in Figure 1. The latter field-lines are endowed with conjugate radiative-radiative boundary conditions, whereas the former have radiative-Dirichlet boundary conditions. These different boundary conditions introduce interactions which will differ in details, e.g.: leptonic outflow to infinity and Maxwell stresses onto the torus, respectively. Nevertheless, the work performed per solid angle into these different field-lines is expected to be rather similar.

The magnetic connection of the black hole to the inner face of the mediates Maxwell stresses by equivalence in poloidal topology to pulsar magnetospheres. An aligned rotator radiates Maxwell stresses to infinity according to $`\dot{J}_p=\mathrm{\Omega }_pA_p^2`$, where the subscript $`p`$ refers to the appropriate pulsar values (Goldreich and Julian, 1969). Analogously, causal Maxwell stresses are set up between the black hole and the inner face of the torus according to (adapted from Thorne et al. (1986); van Putten & Ostriker (2000))

$`\tau _+=(\mathrm{\Omega }_H\mathrm{\Omega }_T)f_H^2A^2,`$ (1)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_T`$ denotes the angular velocity of the torus and its similarly shaped force-free magnetosphere, and $`2\pi f_HA`$ denotes the flux in interconnecting magnetic field-lines - $`2\pi A`$ representing the net magnetic flux produced in the torus. This torque received from the black hole compensates for angular momentum losses in magnetic winds and radiation, which arrests the inflow and enables a state of suspended accretion around a rapidly spinning black hole. The suspended accretion state is expected to be stable on average (van Putten & Ostriker, 2000).

There powerful shear between the inner and the outer faces of the torus is, to leading order, dictated by Keplerian motion. Some deviation away from Keplerian motion is expected due to the presence of competing torques. They tends to bring the two faces in state of super- and sub-Keplerian motion, with positive radial pressure which promotes a slender shape. The interface separating the two faces is expected to be unstable, which favors turbulent mixing into a state of uniform specific energy across the torus. Mixing enhances differential rotation, as may be illustrated in the Newtonian limit, which gives rise to the angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }(r)\mathrm{\Omega }_K(1(ra)/a)^{1/2}`$ as a function of radius $`r`$ for a torus of major radius $`a`$. Compression into a more slender shape tends to reduce differential rotation. The net result should be that the characteristically Keplerian decrease of angular velocity with radius is approximately preserved. The inner and other faces will have, respectively, angular velocities $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm \mathrm{\Omega }_K\left(1\pm 3b/4a\right),`$ where $`b`$ denotes their radial separation. The same trend should hold in the Kerr metric.

## 3 Gravitational radiation in suspended accretion

Gravitational radiation from a torus surrounding a black hole tends to dominate radio waves of the same frequency. This is generally due to the compact size in the presence of gravitationally weak magnetic fields. Consider a torus with ellipticity $`ϵ`$, a magnetic moment $`\mu _T`$ and mass $`m`$ in rotation about its center of mass. Its quadrupolar moments in magnetic moment and mass are, respectively, $`ϵ\mu `$ and $`ϵm`$, which produce luminosities (adapted from Shapiro and Teukolsky (1983)): $`_{em}\pi ^1(\mathrm{\Omega }_TM)^4(\mu _T/M^2)^2ϵ^2`$ and $`_{gw}(32/5)(\mathrm{\Omega }_TM)^{10/3}(m/M)^2ϵ^2`$ in geometrical units. These emissions may be compared with, respectively, the luminosity in radio emission $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p^4\mu _p^2/\pi `$ from an orthogonal pulsar and in gravitational-wave emissions $`(32/5)(\mathrm{\Omega }_{orb})^{10/3}`$ from neutron star-neutron star binaries with angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{orb}`$ and chirp mass $`=(M_1M_2)^{3/5}/(M_1+M_2)^{1/5}`$ (for circular orbits). The ratio of radio-to-gravitational wave emissions can be evaluated as

$`_{em}:_{gw}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)^{2/3}(E_B/M)(M/m)^2<1,`$ (2)
e.g., when $`E_B/M10^6`$ for the relative energy in the magnetic field and $`M/m10^2`$.

The fluence $`F_{GW}`$ in gravitational radiation may be appreciable, provided the torus is long-lived in a state of suspended accretion for the duraction of the burst. The suspended accretion state is described by balance of torque and energy:

$`\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \tau _+& =\tau _{}+\tau _{rad},\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Omega }_+\tau _+& =\mathrm{\Omega }_{}\tau _{}+\mathrm{\Omega }\tau _{rad}+P_d,\hfill \end{array}`$ (5)
where $`P_d`$ denotes dissipation, $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_K`$ a mean orbital angular frequency and $`\tau _{}=A^2f_w^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ denotes the torque on the outer face of the torus. The net magnetic flux $`2\pi A`$ supported by the torus will partially connect to the black hole and to infinity, respectively, with fractions $`f_H`$ and $`f_w`$. Thus, $`Aab<B_\theta >`$ in terms of the average poloidal component $`B_\theta `$ in the torus. Generally, $`f_H+f_w=1/21`$ with $`f_H(M/a)^2`$ for a slender torus. A remainder $`1f_Hf_w`$ is inactive in closed field-lines (with Dirichlet-Dirichlet boundary conditions) between the inner light surface and the outer light cylinder, attached to each face as toroidal “bags.” Note that for small differential rotation, we have $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_K\tau _{rad}+P_d)/\mathrm{\Omega }_K\tau _{rad}(\mathrm{\Omega }_+\tau _+\mathrm{\Omega }_{}\tau _{})/\mathrm{\Omega }_K(\tau _+\tau _{})2,`$ in which limit the efficiency of the radiation is $`50\%`$.

We shall assume that the coupling between the two faces is dominated by magnetohydrodynamical stresses, due to radial components $`B_r`$ of the magnetic field. These stresses are dissipative, by Ohmic heating and magnetic reconnection. This will heat the torus, which brings about thermal and, possibly, neutrino emission. By dimensional analysis

$`P_dA_r^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_+\mathrm{\Omega }_{})^2,A_r=ah<B_r^2>^{1/2},`$ (6)
where the second equation denotes the root-mean-square of the radial flux averaged over the interface between the two faces with contact area $`2\pi ah`$. While the angular momentum transport in the shear layer about this interface is mediated by $`<B_r^2>^{1/2}`$, the angular momentum transport from the black hole to the torus is mediated by the average $`<B_\theta >`$. The first comprises the spectral density average over all azimuthal quantum numbers $`m`$, whereas the second only involves $`m=0`$. Indeed, the net flux through the black hole is generated by the coroting horizon charge $`q<B_n>J`$ in magnetostatic equilibrium with the mean external poloidal magnetic field (Wald, 1974; Dokuchaev, 1987; van Putten, 2000b; Lee et al., 2001). This averaging process is due to the no-hair theorem. While the exact ratio depends on the details of the magnetohydrodynamic turbulence in the torus, a conservative estimate is that $`A_r/A`$ is about the square root of the number of azimuthal modes in the approximately uniform infrared spectrum, which should reach up to the first geometrical break at $`m=a/b`$, i.e.: $`A_r/A(a/b)^{1/2}`$. Thus, substitution of the first into the second of the stationary conditions (5) gives rise to a positive luminosity

$`\mathrm{\Omega }\tau _{rad}\mathrm{\Omega }^2A^2\left[3(A_r/A)^2(b/a)2f_w^2\right]\mathrm{\Omega }^2A^2`$ (7)
in view of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_+\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(3/2)(b/a)\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`f_w<1`$. The first equation of (5) now reduces to $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Omega }_Hf_H^2/3.`$ With $`\mathrm{\Omega }M^{1/2}/R^{3/2}`$ and $`f_H(M/a)^2`$, this shows that $`RM^{7/5}\mathrm{\Omega }_H^{2/5}`$, i.e., the radius of the torus decreases as the black hole spins-down. This defines a horizontal branch of the frequency dynamics in the $`\dot{f}(f)`$diagram (van Putten and Sarkar, 2000). At twice the Keplerian frequency of the torus, this produces an observed gravitational wave-frequency of about

$`f_{gw}12kHz/(1+z)`$ (8)
for canonical GRB values for a black hole-torus system at redshift $`z`$. If the torus is unstable against breaking up in clumps, or if the torus shows violent expansions in its mean radius, the gravitational waves will be episodical, and will correlate with sub-bursts in long GRBs.

The above shows that a stationary state of suspended accretion in the presence of gravitational wave-emissions is facilitated by magnetohydrodynamical viscosity. Note that no specific instability mechanism is identified which is to account for the required non-axisymmetric deformations of the torus. It would be of interest to study this by numerical simulations.

## 4 Long GRBs as LIGO/VIRGO sources

The GRB-afterglow emissions define the isotropic equivalent luminosity of the black hole in the present black hole-torus model. Given the uniform magnetization of the horizon, the collateral interaction onto the torus is of similar intensity per unit opening angle. It follows that

$`_{gw}^{iso}:_{grb}^{iso}1,`$ (9)
given that gravitational-wave emission is essentially unbeamed and assuming that the larger fraction of the magnetic field-lines threading the black hole connect to the torus. Long duration continuous emission with the predicted linear chirp is best detected using matched filtering. Taking into account, therefore, the expected gain by a factor $`\sqrt{n}`$ in sensitivity, where $`n`$ is the number of cycles in the emission, the effective amplitude of the gravitational radiation at a distance $`D`$ satisfies

$`h_{eff}^{grb}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{D}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{F_{GW}}{M}}\right)^{1/2}(M\mathrm{\Omega })^{1/2}(1+z)^1`$ (10)
for a net fluence $`F_{GW}`$ in gravitational waves. With a fraction of order unity of the black hole-luminosity radiated off in gravitational waves, derived from its spin-energy of about one-third its total mass, this points towards GRBs as potentially the most powerful LIGO/VIRGO gravitational-wave burst sources in the Universe. A geometrical beaming factor of $`100200`$ gives rise to one event per year within a distance $`D100`$Mpc with $`h_{eff}10^{20}`$. Their approximately monochromatic emissions may have interesting cosmological applications, assuming no cosmological evolution in the GRB parameters.

Acknowledgement. This research is supported by NASA Grant 5-7012, an MIT C.E. Reed Fund and a NATO Collaborative Linkage Grant. The author thanks S. Kulkarni and R. Weiss for stimulating discussions.

Figure captions

Figure 1. Schematic view of the magnetosphere of a black hole-torus system in poloidal cross-section. Shown are the inner and outer torus magnetosphere, attached to the two faces (middle, right) of the torus and the open field-lines to infinity supported by the equilibrium magnetic moment $`\mu _H`$ of the black hole (left). The former have Dirichlet-radiative boundary conditions, the latter have radiative-radiative boundary conditions ($`D`$ refers to Dirichlet and $`R/\overline{R}`$ to radiative outgoing/ingoing). The magnetic moment $`\mu _H^e`$ arises in equilibrium with the external magnetic field (van Putten, 2000b; Lee et al., 2001) provided by the magnetization $`\mu _T`$ of the torus. It serves to regulate an even horizon flux about its maximum at any rotation rate. A number of inactive field-lines make up inner and outer bags attached to the inner and outer faces of the torus with DD-boundary conditions, which touch an inner and outer light surface (dashed curves). The $`D\overline{R}`$ and $`DR`$-field lines mediate Maxwell stresses, by equivalence in poloidal topology to pulsar magnetospheres (Goldreich and Julian, 1969; van Putten, 1999). The strength of the Maxwell stresses on the inner and outer faces corresponds, respectively, to those on a pulsar with angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{psr}=\mathrm{\Omega }_H\mathrm{\Omega }_T`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{psr}=\mathrm{\Omega }_T`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_H`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_T`$ are the angular velocities of the black hole and the torus. This topological equivalence to pulsars also implies causality for the black hole coupling to the inner face. (Reprinted from van Putten (2000b).)

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the frequency-dynamics trajectory in the $`\dot{f}(f)`$diagram a gravitational wave-signal produced in by a long GRB event from a high-angular momentum black hole-torus system. The gravitational waves are emitted by the torus in suspended accretion. The linear size of the system decreases as the rotational energy of the black hole is radiated away. This produces an approximately horizontal branch on which $`\dot{f}f/T`$ (right to dashed line) of the twice-Keplerian frequency 1-2kHz/($`1+z`$) of the torus around a 10$`M_{}`$ rapidly spinning black hole at redshift $`z`$. When the spin of the black hole falls below a critical value, suspended ceases and the torus begins to hyperaccrete onto the black hole. This final phase may be messy, whereby accretion may excite quasi-normal mode ringing (QNR) of the horizon (Papadopoulos & Font, 2001). In case of neutron star-black hole coalescence, there exists a well-defined precursor signal, wherein $`\dot{f}f^{11/3}`$ (left to dashed line). For hypernovae, precursor gravitational wave-emissions are unknown.

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2