text:
# A dynamical stabilization of the radion potential

## I introduction

Longstanding hierarchy problem, meaning why the Higgs field has a mass $`m_\mathrm{H}1`$ TeV, and not the Planck mass $`M_\mathrm{p}10^{18}`$GeV as suggested by renormalization corrections, finds a natural solution in supersymmetry where the stability of the Higgs mass is provided by the symmetry between bosons and fermions. There, the loop contributions from both the sectors cancel the quadratic divergences to all orders keeping the Higgs mass at the electroweak scale. So far this has been the preferred solution. Recently, however, this problem has been addressed without invoking this supersymmetry, but, by recognizing the fundamental scale to be the higher dimensional Planck mass, $`M_{}`$. In this case $`M_{}`$ takes a value close to the electroweak scale . The four dimensional Planck mass is then obtained via dimensional reduction by assuming the extra dimensions are compact. Thus, the volume of the extra dimensions $`V_d`$; the effective four dimensional Planck mass, and, the fundamental scale are all related to each other by a simple relationship

$$M_\mathrm{p}^2=M_{}^{2+d}V_d,$$
(1)
where $`d`$ is the number of extra dimensions. This automatically determines the present common size of all the extra dimensions at $`b_0`$. For two extra dimensions, and, $`M_{}=1`$ TeV, the required size is of the order of $`0.2`$mm . This suggests that the extra dimensions are indeed quite large and thus require a trapping potential which can stabilize them at their present size. Usually this problem is known as a radion stabilization problem, and in fact its stabilization is reminiscence to the problem of moduli and dilaton stabilization in low energy effective string and M-theories . Notice, that in the models with large extra dimensions the Standard Model particles are trapped in a four dimensional hypersurface (a$`3`$-brane), thus, they are not allowed to propagate in the bulk. However, it is generically assumed that besides gravity, the Standard Model singlets may propagate in the bulk. Among them the inflaton can be a candidate, which is less favored to be a brane field .

It is also quite unnatural to think that the size of the extra dimensions can be fixed during the evolution of the Universe right at the electroweak scale. In fact, just at the electroweak scale the size of the Universe is given by $`10^{16}`$cm. Thus, in order to solve the hierarchy we need to inflate the size of the extra dimensions . This also tells us that the effective four dimensional theory which can be obtained by dimensional reduction must have a new scalar entity, which is known as a radion. The radion also corresponds to the size of the extra dimensions as mentioned earlier. For simplicity, we just take this radion to be homogeneous and treat it only as a zeroth mode. It has been noticed that the radion has a very light mass $`m_\mathrm{r}10^2`$eV for two large extra dimensions .

Now the prime question that appears is how do we stabilize the large extra dimensions while keeping all the virtues and predictions of the big bang and the inflationary cosmology. This is a non-trivial issue, however, we can get some insight from the fact that the expansion in the extra dimensions inevitably introduces expansion in the four dimensions . This still does not guarantee that the extra dimensions can stabilize themselves after expanding their size to the millimeter scale. The other important factor which one has to keep in mind is that this expansion must also provide adequate scale invariant density perturbation to form the structure formation of the Universe. In fact the theory of large extra dimensions naturally sets the cut-off for any mass scale, hence, at most the inflating fields in four dimensions can acquire a mass $`\mathrm{TeV}`$. So keeping all these constraints in mind, it is not so easy task to construct a simple model for the early Universe. There have been many attempts in this direction, in Ref. , it has been proposed that inflation occurs before the stabilization of the extra dimensions with the radion field playing the role of inflaton. In Ref. , it has been suggested that the initial displacement of the brane from the stable point can lead to inflation in $`3`$ spatial dimensions.

In this paper we raise the issue of stabilizing the extra dimensions at a millimeter scale with extremely light radion mass. We argue that this is possible provided there exists a radion potential which has a minimum corresponding to the size of the large extra dimensions. We then show that it is possible to maintain their large size throughout the dynamics of inflation. This is the main goal of the present work. In the next section we set-up our frame work and discuss the initial phase of radion dominated inflation and the stabilization mechanism. In the subsequent sections we describe the radion dynamics, density perturbations, and, reheating of the Universe. In the last section we briefly summarize our scenario.

## II Extra dimensions from the point of view of four dimensions

Let us begin by considering that there exists a scalar field in the bulk. This scalar field essentially plays a double role; providing effective mass to the radion during inflation, and, also acting as an inflaton which essentially reheats the Universe before nucleosynthesis. Since, the actual mass of the radion is very small, for instance, for two large extra dimensions it is $`𝒪(10^2)`$ eV, we can not expect the radion field to reheat the Universe to the extent that we obtain from a bulk scalar field/fields. On the other hand, we require the bulk scalar fields in order to produce density perturbations during inflation . Following this wisdom, we invoke scalar fields $`\chi _i`$, living in the bulk along with gravity. From the point of view of four dimensions the extra dimensions are assumed to be compactified on a $`d`$ dimensional Ricci flat manifold with a radii $`b(t)`$, which have a minimum at $`b_0`$. The higher dimensional metric then reads

$`ds^2=dt^2a^2(t)dx^2b^2(t)dy^2,`$ (2)
where $`x`$ denotes the three spatial dimensions, and $`y`$ collectively denote the extra dimensions. The scale factor of the four dimensional space-time is denoted by $`a(t)`$. After dimensional reduction the effective four dimensional action reads

$`S={\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g}[{\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{p}^2}{16\pi }}R+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \sigma ^\mu \sigma U(\sigma )`$ (3)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \chi _i^\mu \chi _i\mathrm{exp}(d\sigma /\sigma _0)V(\chi _i)].`$ (4)
The four dimensional metric is then determined by $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, where $`\mu ,\nu =0,1,2,3`$. At this moment we are not so specific about any matter potential $`V(\chi _i)`$, we shall keep the discussion general until the next section, where we specify a hybrid inflationary model in order to produce the required density perturbations. The radion field is expressed as $`\sigma (t)`$, which can be written in terms of the radii of the extra dimensions

$`\sigma (t)=\sigma _0\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{b(t)}{b_0}}\right],\sigma _0=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d(d+2)M_\mathrm{p}^2}{16\pi }}\right]^{1/2}.`$ (5)
From the above equation, it is evident that $`\sigma _0`$ is proportional to the four dimensional Planck mass. For $`b(t)(\mathrm{TeV})^1`$, and, $`b_01`$mm, the modulous of the radion field takes a very large initial value. The radion field has a potential which is given by $`U(\sigma )`$ in Eq. (3). In this paper we shall not shed any light upon its origin, rather we shall assume that such a potential with a minimum is essential to stabilize the large extra dimensions. It has been well known that there can be at least three sources which might contribute to $`U(\sigma )`$ such as a cosmological constant in $`4+d`$ dimensional theory. Second source might be the curvature of the extra dimensions. However, such a contribution can be made zero if the extra dimensions are compactified on a torus, and, the third possibility could be due to the Casimir force. All these known possibilities can only help to stabilize the extra dimensions close to the electroweak scale and thus they do not serve our purpose in solving the hierarchy problem. New avenues could be opened if the extra dimensions were not commutative and a Casimir repulsive force could be generated due to a non-trivial topology of the extra dimensions . Even then we require to fine tune the non-commutative parameter and thus again it is far from convincing. At large there is no proper understanding of how such a non-trivial potential for the radion field can be generated, and here we do not make any suggestion in this direction. Inspite of having a minimum in the radion potential, it is still a model dependent issue to stabilize the radion around its minimum. However, as we feel that the issue of radion stabilization is interwined with that of inflation, and, generation of density perturbation in four dimensions, it is still required to have a simple model where one can address all these issues together in a single framework.

In this paper we provide a dynamical argument which suggests that the radion field can have a running mass during the inflationary epoch. When the radion field approaches a critical value, it decouples from the rest of the inflationary dynamics and rolls down the potential to reach the minimum. When inflation finally comes to an end, the running mass of the radion field settles down to its bare mass which can be as small as eVs.

## III Radion dynamics and Inflation

As we have discussed very briefly in our last section, the radion field plays a very significant role in the early Universe, in this paper we devise a simple scheme which provides a running mass to the radion field. This comes quite naturally if there exists a scalar field in the bulk, which upon dimensional reduction couples to the radion field as shown in the effective four dimensional action Eq. (3). If we assume that the scalar field $`\sigma `$, and, at least one of the bulk fields; say $`\chi `$ is rolling down the potential, then the slow-roll equations yield

$`3H\dot{\sigma }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{\sigma _0}}e^{d\sigma /\sigma _0}V(\chi ),`$ (6)
$`3H\dot{\chi }`$ $``$ $`e^{d\sigma /\sigma _0}V^{}(\chi ),`$ (7)
$`H^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3M_\mathrm{p}^2}}\left[e^{d\sigma /\sigma _0}V(\chi )+U(\sigma )\right],`$ (8)
where the dot denotes time derivative and prime denotes the derivative with respect to $`\chi `$ field. Notice, here we have assumed that among many bulk fields only a single field which we call inflaton is taking part in a slow-roll inflation while the rest of them are trapped in some false vacuum. Thus, the potential $`V(\chi )`$, evaluated at those points, has become an effective function of $`\chi `$ alone, however, the bulk of the potential is coming from the false vacuum. On the other hand, the form of $`U(\sigma )`$ must be such that there exists a global minimum at $`\sigma =0`$. For simplicity we can model the potential to be $`m_\mathrm{r}^2\sigma ^2`$. Eventhough the absolute value of the radion field is extremely large, the radion potential $`U(\sigma )`$ is subdominant compared to the first term in the total potential in the above Eq. (8) due to a very small radion mass, which is of the order of eV.

Thus, the effective potential is dominated by the exponential term at the beginning of inflation. Notice that eventhough $`|\sigma |34\sigma _0`$ during the onset of inflation, the contribution coming from $`V(\chi )M_{}^2M_\mathrm{p}^2`$, hence, the total energy density is still bounded by the upper limit $`M_\mathrm{p}^4`$ in our world. From Eq. (5), it is quite evident that in order to obtain $`b_0`$ as large as $`1`$ mm, the extra dimensions need to grow at least $`35`$ e-foldings in size. As we have discussed, if we assume that inflation proceeds in $`\sigma `$ direction, then, from Eqs. (6) and (8), we obtain a simple relation between the expansion rates of the observable and the extra dimensions . Which yields

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d+2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}}{b}}={\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}.`$ (9)
The set of slow-roll equations satisfy power law inflation in the observable world for arbitrary number of extra dimensions. The scale factor is given by

$$a(t)t^{(d+2)/d},$$
(10)
however, during this period the extra dimensions grow much slower as

$$b(t)t^{2/d}.$$
(11)
It is noticeable that the extra dimensions do not inflate for $`d2`$ extra dimensions. From the point of view of four dimensions the radion field inflates our Universe and during this process it rolls down the exponential potential to reach the critical value $`|\sigma _0|`$. About this point the exponential term in front of $`V(\chi )`$ in Eq. (8), becomes weaker, and this helps the effective mass of the radion field to catch up with the Hubble expansion

$$m_{\mathrm{r},\mathrm{eff}}^2m_\mathrm{r}^2+\frac{V(\chi )}{\sigma _0^2}𝒪(1)H^2.$$
(12)
Here again, we have neglected the contribution from $`U(\sigma )`$ compared to $`V(\chi )`$, because the bare mass of the radion field which is of the order of electroweak scale is much smaller than the Hubble parameter. This is also the reason why we have approximated the effective mass to that of the Hubble parameter in the above equation Eq. (12). At this point the radion field can not anymore support inflation. However, inflation is still continuing, but, now due to the vacuum expectation value of the matter fields. This is not an assumption, but, as we shall see later, it is very important to maintain the mass of the radion of the order of Hubble expansion while not disturbing the effective mass parameters of $`\chi `$ field. The simplest way to realize inflation is from the vacuum dominated phase rather than the slow-roll motion of all $`\chi _i`$ fields. This can be satisfied if we assume hybrid potential for $`\chi _i`$ fields. In fact, in the next section we shall notice that the necessity to assume hybrid model has a completely different motivation. The large effective mass for the radion field helps to decouple its dynamics from the rest of the fields. If $`H`$ changes slowly, then the field $`\sigma `$, for $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}H`$, approaches the minimum configuration, $`\sigma =0`$, exponentially fast. We remind the readers that the minimum value of $`\sigma `$ field is provided by the radion potential $`U(\sigma )`$. The radion field evolves like

$$\sigma (t)\sigma _0e^{\left(m_{\mathrm{r},\mathrm{eff}}^2(H)t/3H\right)}\sigma _0e^{\left(Ht/3\right)}.$$
(13)
In order to stabilize the radion field we have to ensure that the radion field settles down to the bottom of the potential much faster before the end of vacuum dominated inflation. In the standard hybrid model this phase ends with a phase transition when the effective mass of the subsidiary field which triggers the phase transition becomes imaginary. This takes place when $`\tau 3H(\delta \mathrm{ln}\varphi )/m^2310^{22}`$ sec, where $`m`$ is the mass term of the inflaton which we take around 10 GeV. Thus, by the time this phase transition takes place, the factor $`H\tau 10^8`$ becomes quite large. This leads to an extremely large suppression to the exponential factor in Eq. (13). In fact the radion field rolls down towards the minimum of $`U(\sigma )`$ much faster compared to the inflationary time scale, the time taken is give by $`t1/H1/M_{}=10^{30}`$ sec. This is perhaps the easiest way to freeze the dynamics of the large extra dimensions.

It is noticeable that the effective mass for the radion remains of the order of Hubble expansion until the end of vacuum dominated phase. Once the matter fields begin oscillations and eventually settle down at their respective minima via reheating, the effective mass term for the radion approaches its bare mass $`m_\mathrm{r}`$. However, one might suspect that quantum corrections to the radion mass due to its coupling to the matter field, such as Higgs, could be large. Usually these corrections must be of the order of the bare mass of the radion field due to the Planck mass suppression. There could also be a possible contribution that might come from the Higgs vacuum, $`v`$, which has the form $`V(v)/M_\mathrm{P}^2(\mathrm{eV})^2`$. We mention that this contribution is directly associated with the cosmological constant problem in the sense that it is expected that $`V(v)<(\mathrm{eV})^4`$, in order to be consistent with current limits .

## IV Density perturbations

Any successful inflationary model has to pass through the test of density perturbation. As we have noted earlier, the last stage of inflation has to be supported by the the vacuum energy density of $`V(\chi _i)`$, whose upper bound is $`M_{}^2M_\mathrm{p}^2`$. Since, for our purpose, the masses of the fields have a natural cut-off scale $`M_{}`$, it is extremely difficult to produce adequate density perturbation for a simple chaotic inflationary scenario . For this reason hybrid model has been chosen because it may overcome a low level of density perturbation . In this section we briefly review the model. Let us consider the $`4+d`$ dimensional potential

$`V(\widehat{\chi }_1,\widehat{\chi }_2)={\displaystyle \frac{M_{}^d}{4\lambda }}\left(M_{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{M_{}^d}}\widehat{\chi }_1^2\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\chi _2}^2}{2}}\widehat{\chi }_2^2`$ (14)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{M_{}^d}}\widehat{\chi }_1^2\widehat{\chi }_2^2,`$ (15)
where $`\widehat{\chi }_2`$ is the inflaton field, and, $`\widehat{\chi }_1`$ is the subsidiary field which is responsible for the phase transition. Notice, that the higher dimensional field has a mass dimension $`1+d/2`$, which leads to non renormalisable interaction terms. However, the suppression is given by the fundamental scale, instead of the four dimensional Planck mass. Upon dimensional reduction the effective four dimensional fields, $`\chi _i`$ are related to their higher dimensional relatives by a simple scaling

$$\chi _i=\sqrt{V_d}\widehat{\chi }_i.$$
(16)
Therefore, eventhough the natural initial value for $`\widehat{\chi }_iM_{}^{1+d/2}`$, in the effective four dimensional theory we may have $`\chi _iM_\mathrm{p}`$. It is easy to check that the slow roll conditions for the inflation breaks down in hybrid model when $`\widehat{\chi }_{2c}^2M_{}^{2+d}/2g^2`$. This provides a water fall solution to the fields when $`\chi _{2c}M_\mathrm{p}/\sqrt{2}g`$.

Now, in order to perform the density perturbation calculation we need to know the follow on history of the Universe. Especially, we must notice when the observable world should be within the horizon at the beginning of inflation. This depends on the total number of e-foldings we have in general. In order to estimate how many e-foldings do we get in this model, we make a naive estimation while supposing that there are only two extra dimensions. It is clear that the extra dimensions ought to expand $`35`$ e-foldings in order to reach the millimeter size, this tells us that the three spatial dimensions must grow upto $`70`$ e-foldings during the first phase of inflation. The second phase of vacuum dominated inflation proceeds soon after this initial phase and lasts for at least another $`4060`$ e-foldings. So, total number of e-foldings can be as large as $`130`$. We notice that there are two important differences from the standard hybrid inflationary cosmology. First, the inflationary scale is not given as usual by the grand unification scale; $`10^{16}`$ GeV, but in our case the scale is much lower, and it is given by a geometric mean; $`\sqrt{M_{}M_\mathrm{p}}10^{12}`$ GeV. Second, the reheat temperature of the Universe in our case is extremely low. Indeed, as we shall see below reheat temperature is certainly more than MeV, but can be as low as $`T_\mathrm{r}100`$ MeV, which for the time being we take as granted while estimating when the interesting modes are crossing the present horizon. In fact, one can easily estimate that what matters is the density perturbations produced during the last $`43`$ e-foldings of inflation .

In our case, for two large extra dimensions the last $`43`$ e-foldings are supported by adiabatic perturbations due to the slow roll of $`\chi _2`$ field .

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{2\lambda ^{3/2}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{M_{}^3}{m_{\chi _2}^2M_\mathrm{p}}}.`$ (17)
If we set in the last equation the values; $`M_{}10^2TeV`$, and, $`m_{\chi _2}m10GeV`$, we obtain the correct COBE normalization $`\delta \rho /\rho \left(g/2\lambda ^{3/2}\right)\times 10^5`$, upto the uncertainties in the coupling constants. So far, we have only discussed the adiabatic fluctuations of $`\chi _2`$ field, in fact there is another source of density perturbation in our case, which is due to the isocurvature fluctuations of the radion field. Since, we have noticed that the radion field settles down at the bottom of the potential during inflation with an effective mass $`𝒪(\mathrm{H})`$. So, the energy density of the radion field is effectively given by its quantum fluctuations, which is quadratic in nature. The perturbations generated in the density of the radion field will have a nongaussian feature . So, in principle we can expect a mixture of adiabatic and isocurvature fluctuations. In this paper we do not delve into the details of the mixed perturbation scenario.

## V Reheating

After hybrid inflation ends the field $`\chi _1`$ goes to one of its minima; $`\chi _{1\pm }=\pm M_{}^{3/2}/\sqrt{\lambda }`$. The inflaton field gets a mass contribution; $`g^2M_{}^2/\lambda `$, which dominates over $`m_{\chi _2}`$. Therefore, by using the same set of parameters we have introduced to explain density perturbations, we can estimate that the physical mass of the oscillating inflaton can be about an order of magnitude below $`M_{}`$. Thus, the decay of $`\chi _1`$ into Higgs fields; $`\varphi `$, is allowed for typical Higgs field masses in the range $`100200`$ GeV. Let us stress that this process will take place only within the brane, which marks the departure from the former Kaluza Klein (KK) theories, where the production of matter via inflaton decays occurs everywhere.

The reheating temperature has been estimated in Ref. . Here we only recollect the main ideas. First, we calculate the decay rate of the inflaton field into two Higgses. That gives

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi _1\varphi \varphi }\frac{M_{}^4}{32\pi M_\mathrm{p}^2m_{\chi _1}}.$$
(18)
With an inflaton mass $`m_{\chi _1}0.1M_{}`$, we obtain the reheating temperature to be; $`T_\mathrm{r}100`$ MeV. As it is expected, this temperature is above the required temperature for which the big bang nucleosynthesis can successfully take place. It is worth mentioning that bulk reheating is much less efficient than the brane reheating, because the production of KK gravitons; $`g_{KK}`$, is very inefficient due to the Planck mass suppressed couplings, and, KK number conservation  which forbids kinematically the decay of zero mode inflaton into graviton, or, radion, since, the process has to have an inflaton mode as a final product. One may also wonder upon the radion decay. In fact radion can also decay into two light fermions, through the coupling $`(\sigma /\sigma _0)m_\psi \overline{\psi }\psi `$, however, its decay rate is again Planck mass suppressed. Nevertheless, we mention that the last e-foldings of inflation, and entropy production during reheating is sufficient enough to substantially dilute their number density.

## VI Conclusion

We conclude our paper by summarizing our main results. We have noticed that non-trivial radion dynamics can help to stabilize the size of the large extra dimensions. In fact the radion mass is running throughout the inflationary evolution. The initial phase of inflation is governed by the exponential radion potential. The radion field rolls down the exponential potential and its effective mass becomes of the order of the Hubble expansion. When this happens, the dynamics of the radion field decouples from the rest of the matter fields. However, inflation continues with the help of vacuum dominated phase of the hybrid inflationary model. During inflation, the radion field rolls down within one Hubble time to its minimum, which helps to stabilize the size of the extra dimensions. Once, inflation comes to an end via the phase transition in the hybrid model, the effective radion mass drops down to its bare value which is $`10^2`$ eV for the two large extra dimensions. In this model we require last $`43`$ e-foldings of inflation in order to match the density perturbations from the COBE data. We have shown that the adiabatic fluctuations of $`\chi _1`$ field can produce the adequate density perturbations. We have also noticed that there exists another source of density perturbations. This is due to the quantum fluctuations of the radion field around the bottom of the potential. This kind of density perturbations leads to nongaussian spectrum. In fact we would expect to have mixture of both adiabatic and isocurvature fluctuations. It will be interesting to study the details of the density fluctuations, which might lead to a definitive prediction of our model.

###### Acknowledgements.

A. M. acknowledges the support of The Early Universe network HPRN-CT-2000-00152.


format: text

text:
# Cohomology of split algebras and of trivial extensionsThis work has been supported by the projects SECYT-ECOS A98E05 and SECYT-CAPES BR12/99/OG. The first author wishes to thank FAPESP (Brazil) for financial support. The second author has a research scholarship from Cnpq (Brazil). The third and fourth authors are research members of CONICET (Argentina).

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we consider split algebras $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=AM`$ where $`A`$ is a subalgebra of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`M`$ is a two–sided ideal. Our main purpose is to compute the Hochschild cohomology $`H^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ using the cohomology theory of $`A`$ and $`M`$.

Our motivations are three-fold. First, decompositions providing split algebras arise in various examples. Note for instance that trivial extensions and triangular matrix algebras (see below) are split algebras, their cohomology has been investigated recently by several authors . Second it is known that degree one Hochschild cohomology provides insight to representation theory through universal covers, and its vanishing is related to the notion of simply connected algebras, . D. Happel shows in  that a finite representation type algebra over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero is simply connected if and only if the first Hochschild cohomology $`H^1`$ space of its Auslander algebra is zero. Moreover R. Buchweitz and S. Liu provided a proof of the same statement assuming only that the field is algebraically closed (Oberwolfach 2000). It has been suspected that for a finite dimensional algebra over an algebraically closed field, the vanishing of the first Hochschild cohomology space implies that its ordinary quiver has no oriented cycles. This was proved wrong and a family of counterexamples can be found in . It is also conjectured that a tilted algebra is simply connected if and only if its first Hochschild cohomology space vanishes. This has been proved for tame tilted algebras, see . In another direction, degree two cohomology concerns the deformation theory of algebras, see . Finally split algebras are interesting to study in relation to Happel’s question : if the Hochschild cohomology vector spaces of a finite dimensional algebra vanish after some degree, is the algebra of finite homological dimension? The present paper is a first step for considering this question in a relative and split framework.

We describe now the contents of each section of the article.

In section 2 we obtain a long exact sequence involving $`H^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. If $`M`$ is a projective left or right $`A`$-module the other terms of this sequence are direct sums of vector spaces $`Ext_{AA}^q(M^{_A^p},X)`$ for $`p+q=`$ or $`p+q=+1`$ depending on whether $`X=M`$ or $`X=A`$. We study in detail the connecting homomorphism of this long exact sequence in order to obtain results on the dimensions of the Hochschild cohomology vector spaces of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

More precisely we obtain for any $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–bimodule $`X`$ a double complex whose total cohomology is the Hochschild cohomology of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with coefficients in $`X`$. The first quadrant spectral sequence involved converges, the terms at the first level are unknown but can probably be approximated through new spectral sequences. Nevertheless, if $`M`$ is projective as a left or right $`A`$–module, we show that the cohomology of the $`p`$–th column $`𝒞^p\left(X\right)`$ is $`Ext_{AA}^{}(M^{_Ap},X)`$.

In section 3 we do not assume that $`M`$ is projective on one side. When $`M`$ is a square zero ideal and the bimodule $`X`$ verifies $`MX=XM=0`$ then the horizontal differentials of the double complex are 0. Consequently the Hochschild cohomology $`H^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda },X)`$ is the direct sum of the cohomologies of the columns, namely

$$H^n(\mathrm{\Lambda },X)=\underset{p+q=n}{}H^q\left(𝒞^p\left(X\right)\right).$$

Of course the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–bimodule $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ does not verify the above hypothesis. Nevertheless the bimodules on both sides of the sequence $`0M\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }/M0`$ do, and we consider the corresponding long exact sequence in Hochschild cohomology. An interesting result we obtain is that the connecting homomorphism

$$\delta :H^n(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }/M)H^{n+1}(\mathrm{\Lambda },M)$$

is bigraded of bidegree $`(1,0)`$, that is $`\delta =_{p+q=n}\delta ^{p,q}`$, where

$$\delta ^{p,q}:H^q\left(𝒞^p\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/M\right)\right)H^q\left(𝒞^{p+1}\left(M\right)\right).$$

Moreover in section 4 we provide a precise description of $`\delta ^{p,q}`$ involving only two terms, using the cup product of a cocycle with the identity endomorphism of $`M`$. This description enables us to determine whether $`\delta ^{p,q}`$ annihilates or not in some interesting cases.

In section 5 we consider a special case of split algebras: trivial extensions $`TA`$. They are of the form $`ADA`$ where $`DA`$ is the dual $`A`$–bimodule of $`A`$ endowed with the zero multiplicative structure. We show that its first Hochschild cohomology is a direct sum of four vector spaces (see Theorem 5.5). One of the factors is the center of $`A`$, in particular $`H^1(TA,TA)`$ never vanishes. More generally we show that $`H^n(A,A)H_n(A,A)`$ is a direct summand of $`H^n(TA,TA)`$. This result is a consequence of the fact that for these algebras the component $`\delta ^{0,q}`$ of the connecting homomorphism is zero.

As a direct consequence of our computations we show that $`H^1(TA,TA)=kH^1(A,A)`$ for a *one-way* algebra $`A`$, see Definition 5.10. This generalizes previous results obtained in .

Finally we specialize to triangular matrix algebras and one–point extensions the results we have obtained for general split algebras. In this way we recover computations performed in .

## 2 Split algebras and the double complex

Let $`k`$ be a field. As stated in the introduction a split algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a $`k`$–algebra with a subalgebra $`A`$ and a two–sided ideal $`M`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=AM`$. In other words $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ consists of the following data: a $`k`$–algebra $`A`$ and a multiplicative $`A`$–bimodule $`M`$ with a product, i.e. an associative $`A`$–bimodule map $`M_AMM`$, $`mm^{}m.m^{}`$. The algebra structure in $`AM`$ is given by

$$\left(a+m\right)\left(a^{}+m^{}\right)=aa^{}+am^{}+ma^{}+m.m^{}.$$

Let $`X`$ be a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–bimodule. As usual, the Hochschild cohomology vector spaces of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with coefficients in $`X`$ are the cohomology groups of the following cochain complex, (see for instance )

$$0X\stackrel{d}{}Hom_k(\mathrm{\Lambda },X)\stackrel{d}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{d}{}Hom_k(\mathrm{\Lambda }^n,X)\stackrel{d}{}\mathrm{}$$

where for $`n1`$

$`df\left(x_1\mathrm{}x_{n+1}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`x_1f\left(x_2\mathrm{}x_{n+1}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left(1\right)^if\left(x_1\mathrm{}x_ix_{i+1}\mathrm{}x_{n+1}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`\left(1\right)^{n+1}f\left(x_1\mathrm{}x_n\right)x_{n+1}`$
and for $`xX`$ and $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$

$$\left(dx\right)\left(\lambda \right)=\lambda xx\lambda .$$

Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=AM`$, we have a decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^n`$ as a direct sum of vector spaces in terms of $`A`$ and $`M`$: let $`M^{p,q}`$ be the sub–vector space spanned by $`\left(p+q\right)`$–tensors $`x_1\mathrm{}x_{p+q}`$ such that exactly $`p`$ of the $`x_i`$’s belong to $`M`$ while the other $`x_i`$’s belong to $`A`$. Clearly

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^n=\underset{p+q=n}{}M^{p,q}.$$

Moreover the Hochschild complex above organizes in a double complex whose $`(p,q)`$– spot is $`Hom_k(M^{p,q},X)`$. Indeed, the image of $`d`$ restricted to $`Hom_k(M^{p,q},X)`$ is contained in $`Hom_k(M^{p+1,q},X)Hom_k(M^{p,q+1},X)`$. The horizontal and vertical components of $`d`$ are denoted $`d_h`$ and $`d_v`$ respectively. The cohomology of the total complex is $`H^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda },X)`$.

###### PROPOSITION 2.1

The vertical diffentials $`d_v`$ of the above double complex depend neither on the product of $`M`$ nor on the actions of $`M`$ on $`X`$.

Proof.  Let $`fHom_k(M^{p,q},X)`$, in other words $`f:\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(p+q)}X`$ vanishes on $`(p+q)`$–tensors which have not exactly $`p`$ components of $`M`$ and $`q`$ components of $`A`$. We evaluate $`d_vf`$ on a tensor $`(x_1\mathrm{}x_{p+q+1})M^{p,q+1}`$. We shall see that the terms where the product of $`M`$ or the action of $`M`$ on $`X`$ appear are zero. If $`x_1M`$ then $`x_1f(x_2\mathrm{}x_{p+q+1})=0`$ since $`(x_2\mathrm{}x_{p+q+1})M^{p,q}`$, regardless the action of $`M`$ on $`X`$. Similarly $`f(x_1\mathrm{}x_ix_{i+1}\mathrm{}x_{p+q+1})=0`$ if $`x_i`$ and $`x_{i+1}`$ belong to $`M`$ since the tensor belongs to $`M^{p1,q+1}`$ regardless the value of $`x_ix_{i+1}`$. The behaviour of the last term of the coboundary formula is analogous to the first one. $`\mathrm{}`$

In order to determine the vertical cohomology, we first note that the cohomology of the $`0`$–th column is the Hochschild cohomology $`H^{}(A,X)=Ext_{AA}^{}(A,X)`$, where $`X`$ is considered as an $`A`$–bimodule by restriction of scalars. From now on we simplify the notations omitting the tensor product sign for tensor products over the ground field $`k`$; tensor signs between vectors are replaced by commas.

The following result is announced in , but the proof provided there is incomplete.

###### THEOREM 2.2

The cohomology of the column $`p=1`$ is $`Ext_{AA}^{}(M,X)`$.

Proof.  We will first provide a free resolution of $`M`$ as an $`A`$–bimodule. Consider the bar resolution of $`M`$ as a left $`A`$–module (see \[18, 8.6.12\]),

$$\mathrm{}AAMAM0$$

and the Hochschild resolution of $`A`$ as an $`A`$–bimodule

$$\mathrm{}AAAAA0.$$

Tensoring them over $`A`$ provides the complex

$$\mathrm{}AMAAAAMAAMA0.$$

The cycles in each degree of the Hochschild resolution are projective left $`A`$–modules since the resolution splits as a sequence of left $`A`$–modules. The Künneth formula ensures that the last complex has zero homology in positive degrees and $`M_AA=M`$ in degree zero. Next we apply the functor $`Hom_{AA}(,X)`$ and we use the identification $`Hom_{AA}(AZA,X)=Hom_k(Z,X)`$ in order to verify that the coboundaries provide the first column of the double complex. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2.3

A direct computation shows that $`Hom_{AA}(M^{_Ap},X)`$ is the zero degree cohomology of the $`p`$–th column. In order to generalize this result to the other vertical cohomology groups for $`p2`$ we need to assume additional hypothesis on $`M`$ as follows.

###### THEOREM 2.4

Let $`A`$ be a $`k`$–algebra, $`M`$ be an $`A`$–bimodule which is right or left projective and $`X`$ be an $`AM`$–bimodule. The cohomology of the $`p`$–th column in degree $`q`$ is $`Ext_{AA}^q(M^{_Ap},X)`$.

The proof of the above theorem is given at the end of this section, as a consequence of the next result:

###### PROPOSITION 2.5

Let $`C`$, $`B`$ and $`A`$ be $`k`$–algebras, $`{}_{C}{}^{}N_{B}^{}`$ be a $`CB`$–bimodule and $`{}_{B}{}^{}M_{A}^{}`$ be a $`BA`$–bimodule. The homology of the following complex is equal to $`Tor_{}^B(N,M)`$

$$\mathrm{}\stackrel{b^{}}{}CCNMACNBMACNMAA\stackrel{b^{}}{}CNMA0,$$

where the term in degree $`n`$ is a free $`CA`$–bimodule of the form $`CZA`$ and

$$Z=\underset{i+j+k=n;i,j,k0}{}C^kNB^jMA^i.$$

Note that the boundary formula is provided by the standard resolution of an algebra as a bimodule:

$`b^{}(c,x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,a)`$ $`=`$ $`(cx_1,\mathrm{},x_n,a)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\left(1\right)^i(c,x_1,\mathrm{},x_ix_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_n,a)`$
$`+`$ $`\left(1\right)^n(c,x_1,\mathrm{},x_na).`$
By assumption products of type $`nm`$ are zero when $`nN`$ and $`mM`$; the bimodule action gives products in case of elements of the form $`bm`$, $`nb`$, $`cn`$, etc. Each summand of the formula must have an element of $`C`$ and an element of $`A`$ on each side, otherwise its value is $`0`$.

###### Remark 2.6

Before proving Proposition 2.5 we note that for a $`CA`$–bimodule $`X`$, the functor $`Hom_{CA}(,X)`$ applied to the above complex provides the second column $`𝒞^2(X)`$ in case $`A=B=C`$ and $`N=M`$, since by virtue of Proposition 2.1 we can assume that the product of $`M`$ and the actions of $`M`$ on $`X`$ are trivial.

Proof. (Proposition 2.5) We consider the bar resolution of $`M`$ as a left $`B`$–module

$$\mathrm{}BBMBM0$$

and we apply the functor $`N_B`$

$$\mathrm{}N_BBBMN_BBM0,$$

obtaining in this way the standard complex which is used to compute $`Tor_{}^B(N,M)`$

$$\mathrm{}NBMNM0.$$
(1)
Next we use the Hochschild resolution of $`C`$ as a $`C`$–bimodule

$$\mathrm{}CCCCC0.$$

Its homology is non–zero only in degree zero, with value $`C`$. Tensoring the above resolution with (1) over $`C`$ gives

$$\mathrm{}CNBMCCNMCNM0.$$

We assert that the homology of this complex is still $`Tor_{}^B(N,M)`$. Indeed we can use again the Künneth formula since the set of cycles of the bar resolution of $`C`$ (which splits as a sequence of right $`C`$–modules) is a projective right module, and the homology is zero except in degree zero with value $`C`$. Hence the homology of the above complex is the tensor product of the homologies, that is $`C_CTor_{}^B(N,M)=Tor_{}^B(N,M)`$.

Finally we consider the Hochschild resolution of $`A`$ and we tensor it over $`A`$ with the above complex. As before, the resulting homology is $`Tor_{}^B(N,M)_AA=Tor_{}^B(N,M)`$. A non difficult computation shows that the resulting boundaries coincide with those described in the statement.$`\mathrm{}`$

###### PROPOSITION 2.7

Let $`A,B,C,D`$ be $`k`$–algebras and $`{}_{D}{}^{}U_{C}^{}`$, $`{}_{C}{}^{}N_{B}^{}`$, $`{}_{B}{}^{}M_{A}^{}`$ be bimodules. Assume $`Tor_{}^B(N,M)=0`$ in positive degrees. Then $`Tor_{}^C(U,N_BM)`$ is the homology of the following complex:

$$\mathrm{}DDUNMADUCNMADUNBMADUNMAADUNMA0$$

with $`n`$–th term $`DZA`$ where

$$Z=\underset{i+j+k+l=n}{}D^lUC^kNB^jMA^i.$$

Proof.  By hypothesis the complex of the preceding proposition has homology only in degree zero, with value $`N_BM`$. Since the modules are $`C`$–free on the left, this complex is a resolution of the left $`C`$–module $`N_BM`$. Applying the functor $`U_C`$ provides a complex whose homology is $`Tor_{}^C(U,N_BM)`$.

We consider as in the previous proposition a resolution of the algebra $`D`$ as a $`D`$–bimodule. The Künneth formula shows that tensoring this resolution over $`D`$ with the complex obtained above provides a new complex whose homology is $`Tor_{}^C(U,N_BM)`$.$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2.8

If $`Tor_{}^C(U,N_BM)`$ is zero in positive degrees, the complex of Proposition 2.7 becomes a projective resolution of the $`DA`$–bimodule $`U_CN_BM`$. Applying the functor $`Hom_{DA}(,_DX_A)`$ to this projective resolution gives a cochain complex whose homology is $`Ext_{DA}^{}(U_CN_BM,X)`$.

Proof. (Theorem 2.4) Since $`M`$ is right or left projective, then $`Tor_{}^A(M,M)`$ is zero in positive degrees. The complex of Proposition 2.5, in the case $`N=M`$, $`A=B=C`$, is a projective resolution of the $`A`$–bimodule $`M_AM`$. We have already noticed that applying the functor $`Hom_{AA}(,X)`$ to this resolution yields precisely the second column of the double complex and, consequently, its cohomology is $`Ext_{AA}^{}(M_AM,X)`$.

The same procedure applies to Proposition 2.7, and we obtain that the third column has cohomology $`Ext_{AA}^{}(M^{_A3},X)`$. By induction the end of the proof is now obvious.$`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 The connecting homomorphism

We return to the double complex which we use to compute the Hochschild cohomology of an arbitrary split algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=AM`$ with coefficients in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–bimodule $`X`$. The filtration of the total complex arising from the columns provides a first quadrant spectral sequence, hence converging to $`H^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda },X)`$ (see for instance ). In the preceding section we have computed the first level vector spaces $`E_1^,`$, assuming $`M`$ is $`A`$–projective on one side. However the differential at the first level appears hard to compute even with these hypothesis on $`M`$.

We focus on a special case of interest for specific computations that we will perform in the next section.

###### THEOREM 3.1

Let $`A`$ be a $`k`$-algebra, $`M`$ be an $`A`$-bimodule, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=AM`$ be the corresponding split algebra with $`M^2=0`$, and let $`X`$ be a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–bimodule verifying $`MX=XM=0`$ (in other words $`X`$ is an $`A`$–bimodule with actions trivially extended to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$). Then the horizontal coboundaries of the double complex are zero. As a consequence

$$H^n(\mathrm{\Lambda },X)=\underset{p+q=n}{}H^q\left(𝒞^p\left(X\right)\right),$$

where $`𝒞^p(X)`$ denotes the $`p`$-th column.

Proof.  Let $`\phi :M^{p,q}X`$ be a cochain, in other words $`\phi :\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(p+q)}X`$ is a cochain that vanishes on each component $`M^{p^{},q^{}}M^{p,q}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(p+q)}`$.

By definition $`d_h\phi =d\phi _{M^{p+1,q}}`$ therefore

$`d_h\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_{p+q+1})`$ $`=`$ $`x_1\phi (x_2,\mathrm{},x_{p+q+1})`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p+q}{}}}\left(1\right)^i\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_ix_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_{p+q+1})`$
$`+`$ $`\left(1\right)^{p+q+1}\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_{p+q})x_{p+q+1}.`$
The first term is zero, indeed if $`x_1M`$ we have $`MX=0`$, while if $`x_1A`$ then $`(x_2,\mathrm{},x_{p+q+1})M^{p+1,q1}`$ and $`\phi `$ is zero when evaluated on it. The last term is zero for the same reasons. Each middle term vanishes since either both $`x_i`$ and $`x_{i+1}`$ belong to $`M`$ (hence $`x_ix_{i+1}=0`$) or $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_ix_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_{p+q+1})M^{p+1,q1}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The above decomposition and the results of the previous section yield the following:

###### COROLLARY 3.2

Let $`A`$ be a $`k`$–algebra and $`M`$ be an $`A`$–bimodule projective on one side. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be the split algebra $`AM`$ with $`M^2=0`$, and let $`X`$ be a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–bimodule such that $`MX=XM=0`$. Then

$$H^n(\mathrm{\Lambda },X)=\underset{p+q=n}{}Ext_{AA}^q(M^{_Ap},X),$$

where $`M^{_A0}=A`$.

We now consider for a split algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=AM`$ the following exact sequence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–bimodules

$$0M\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{\pi }{}\mathrm{\Lambda }/M=A0.$$

Note that $`M`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–bimodule since $`M`$ is a two–sided ideal of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Of course $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/M`$ is in fact $`A`$ considered as a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–bimodule with zero actions of $`M`$ on both sides. This exact sequence of coefficients provides a long exact sequence in Hochschild cohomology

$`0`$ $`H^0(\mathrm{\Lambda },M)`$ $`H^0(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda })\stackrel{\pi ^0}{}H^0(\mathrm{\Lambda },A)\stackrel{\delta ^0}{}`$
$`H^1(\mathrm{\Lambda },M)`$ $`H^1(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda })\stackrel{\pi ^1}{}H^1(\mathrm{\Lambda },A)\stackrel{\delta ^1}{}`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`H^n(\mathrm{\Lambda },M)`$ $`H^n(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda })\stackrel{\pi ^n}{}H^n(\mathrm{\Lambda },A)\stackrel{\delta ^n}{}`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
Our next purpose is to describe the connecting homomorphism $`\delta ^n`$ in order to combine this information with knowledge on $`H^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda },A)`$ and $`H^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda },M)`$. This will provide information on $`H^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ which is our main purpose. We begin by studying $`\delta ^0`$.

###### PROPOSITION 3.3

Let $`A`$ be a $`k`$-algebra, $`M`$ be an $`A`$-bimodule and let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=AM`$ be the corresponding split algebra. The above connecting homomorphism $`\delta ^0`$ vanishes if and only if the center $`A^A`$ of $`A`$ has symmetric action on M (i.e. $`am=ma`$ for every $`aA^A`$ and $`mM`$).

Proof.  The center $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=AM`$ is as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left[A^AA^M\right]\left[M^MM^A\right],$$

where $`A^M`$ are the elements of $`A`$ acting symmetrically on $`M`$, while $`M^M`$ is the center of the multiplicative bimodule $`M`$ and $`M^A=H^0(A,M)=\{mM|am=ma\text{for every }aA\}`$.

In the long exact sequence above

$$0M^\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{\pi ^0}{}A^\mathrm{\Lambda }=A^A\stackrel{\delta ^0}{}H^1(\mathrm{\Lambda },M)\mathrm{}$$

we have $`Im\pi ^0=A^AA^M`$. Hence $`Ker\delta ^0=A^AA^M`$ so $`\delta ^0=0`$ if and only if $`A^AA^M=A^A`$ which is equivalent to $`A^AA^M`$.$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Example 3.4

Let $`f`$ be an automorphism of $`A`$ and let $`M=^fA`$ be the $`A`$–bimodule $`A`$ with left action twisted by $`f`$. Then $`\delta ^0=0`$ if and only if $`f`$ is the identity on central elements of $`A`$. Indeed, let $`\text{Fix}f`$ be the subalgebra of elements fixed by $`f`$. For $`M=^fA`$ we have $`A^M=A^A\text{Fix}f`$.

###### Example 3.5

In case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the trivial extension $`TA`$ of $`A`$ we have $`M=DA`$ and the center of $`A`$ acts symmetrically on $`M`$. Consequently $`\delta ^0=0`$.

We next prove that each connecting homomorphism has bidegree $`(1,0)`$.

###### PROPOSITION 3.6

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=AM`$ be a split algebra with $`M^2=0`$. The connecting homomorphism

$$\delta ^n:H^n(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }/M)H^{n+1}(\mathrm{\Lambda },M)$$

has bidegree $`(1,0)`$ with respect to the decomposition provided in Theorem 3.1.

Proof.  We denote by $`H^q(𝒞^p(X))`$ the cohomology of the $`p`$–th column in degree $`q`$, where $`X`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–bimodule. Since we proved that the horizontal differentials are zero when $`MX=XM=0`$, we have for such an $`X`$

$$H^n(\mathrm{\Lambda },X)=\underset{p+q=n}{}H^q\left(𝒞^p\left(X\right)\right).$$

Both $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/M`$ verify the above assumption on $`X`$. Then

$$\delta ^n:\underset{p+q=n}{}H^q\left(𝒞^p\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/M\right)\right)\left(\underset{p+q=n}{}H^q\left(𝒞^{p+1}\left(M\right)\right)\right)H^{n+1}\left(𝒞^0\left(M\right)\right).$$

We assert that the image of $`\delta ^n_{H^q(𝒞^p(\mathrm{\Lambda }/M))}`$ is contained in $`H^q(𝒞^{p+1}(M))`$, hence $`\delta ^n=_{p+q=n}\delta ^{p,q}`$ where

$$\delta ^{p,q}:H^q\left(𝒞^p\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/M\right)\right)H^q\left(𝒞^{p+1}\left(M\right)\right).$$

In order to prove the assertion let $`\phi :M^{p,q}A`$ be a cocycle of the Hochschild complex of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/M`$. We use the given inclusion $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/M\mathrm{\Lambda }=AM`$ to obtain $`\overline{\phi }:M^{p,q}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, taking into account that $`A`$ inside $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has a non trivial action of $`M`$ on it. The image of the coboundary of $`\overline{\phi }`$ in the Hochschild complex of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is contained in $`M`$ and provides a well defined element in $`H^{p+q+1}(\mathrm{\Lambda },M)`$ by general arguments. Considering the double complex for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we have two components $`d\overline{\phi }=d_v\overline{\phi }+d_h\overline{\phi }`$. In fact $`\delta \phi =d\overline{\phi }`$. Now we will prove that $`d\overline{\phi }`$ has zero values on every component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{n+1}`$ except maybe on $`M^{p+1,q}`$. In order to prove that $`d_v\overline{\phi }=0`$, let $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{p+q+1})M^{p,q+1}`$, then

$`d_v\overline{\phi }(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{p+q+1})`$ $`=`$ $`x_1\overline{\phi }(x_2,\mathrm{},x_{p+q+1})`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p+q}{}}}\left(1\right)^i\overline{\phi }(x_1,\mathrm{},x_ix_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_{p+q+1})`$
$`+`$ $`\left(1\right)^{p+q+1}\overline{\phi }(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{p+q})x_{p+q+1}.`$
We observe that the middle terms remain unchanged for $`\phi `$ or $`\overline{\phi }`$, namely

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{p+q}{}}\left(1\right)^i\overline{\phi }(x_1,\mathrm{},x_ix_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_{p+q+1})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{p+q}{}}\left(1\right)^i\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_ix_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_{p+q+1}).$$

Concerning the first and the last terms we first assume that both $`x_1`$ and $`x_{p+q+1}`$ belong to $`A`$, then all the terms of the sum are in $`A`$ and coincide with the terms of $`d_v\phi `$. Since $`\phi :M^{p,q}A`$ is a cocycle, we obtain that the value of the above expression is zero.

If $`x_1M`$ and $`x_{p+q+1}A`$ then $`(x_2,\mathrm{},x_{p+q+1})M^{p1,q+1}`$, hence $`\phi `$ is zero on it. The last term remains in $`A`$, and all the terms of $`d_v\overline{\phi }`$ evaluated on the tensor $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{p+q+1})`$ coincide with the terms of $`d_v\phi `$ (the first one vanishes in both cases). Since $`\phi `$ is a cocycle, we infer that $`d_v\overline{\phi }(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{p+q+1})=0`$ also in this case. The remaining cases $`x_1,x_{p+q+1}M`$, or $`x_1A`$, $`x_{p+q+1}M`$ can be studied in an analogous way.

We conclude that $`\delta \phi =d_h\overline{\phi }Hom(M^{p+1,q},M)`$.$`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Operations

We introduce operations in the double complex $`Hom_{AA}(M^,,X)`$ of the previous sections in order to describe the $`(p,q)`$–component $`\delta ^{p,q}`$ of the connecting homomorphism

$$\delta ^{p,q}:H^q\left(𝒞^p\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/M\right)\right)H^q\left(𝒞^{p+1}\left(M\right)\right).$$

Recall that the following is an operation on Hochschild cohomology of bimodules over a $`k`$–algebra $`A`$ (see ). Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–bimodules, $`f:\mathrm{\Lambda }^nX`$ and $`g:\mathrm{\Lambda }^mY`$ be Hochschild cochains. The *cup product* (see ) $`fg`$ is defined as the composition

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{n+m}\mathrm{\Lambda }^n\mathrm{\Lambda }^m\stackrel{fg}{}XYX_\mathrm{\Lambda }Y.$$

One has $`d\left(fg\right)=dfg+\left(1\right)^nfdg`$, so the product is well defined in cohomology:

$$H^n(\mathrm{\Lambda },X)H^m(\mathrm{\Lambda },Y)H^{n+m}(\mathrm{\Lambda },X_\mathrm{\Lambda }Y).$$

In case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=AM`$ is a split algebra this operation goes clearly through the double complex, that is, if $`f:M^{p,q}X`$ and $`g:M^{p^{},q^{}}Y`$ are cochains, then

$$fg:M^{p,q}M^{p^{},q^{}}X_\mathrm{\Lambda }Y$$

is the product cochain. Note that $`M^{p,q}M^{p^{},q^{}}`$ is naturally a direct summand of $`M^{p+p^{},q+q^{}}`$, the value of $`fg`$ on the complement is zero.

###### THEOREM 4.1

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=AM`$ be a split algebra with $`M^2=0`$, and let

$$0M\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }/M0$$

be the corresponding short exact sequence. The $`(p,q)`$–component $`\delta ^{p,q}`$ of the connecting homomorphism $`\delta `$ in the long exact Hochschild cohomology sequence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is given by

$$\delta ^{p,q}\phi =1_M\phi +\left(1\right)^{p+q+1}\phi 1_M.$$

###### Remark 4.2

In the statement of this theorem, $`\phi :M^{p,q}\mathrm{\Lambda }/M`$ is an arbitrary cocycle and $`1_M:MM`$ is the identity morphism which is indeed a $`1`$–cocycle; it belongs to the $`(1,0)`$–spot of the double complex and corresponds to the projection $`AMM`$ in the usual Hochschild complex of $`M`$. Note that if $`M0`$ this projection is a non–zero element in $`H^1(\mathrm{\Lambda },M)`$.

Note also that we have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/M_\mathrm{\Lambda }M=\mathrm{\Lambda }/M_AM=A_AM=M`$ as well as $`M_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }/M=M`$.

Proof.  We lift the cocycle $`\phi `$ to $`\overline{\phi }:M^{p,q}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as in the previous section. Since $`\delta ^{p,q}\phi =d_h\overline{\phi }`$, we consider $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{p+q+1})M^{p+1,q}`$. In the coboundary formula the middle terms are all zero. If $`x_i`$ and $`x_{i+1}`$ belong to $`M`$ then $`x_ix_{i+1}=0`$ since $`M^2=0`$. Otherwise $`x_i`$ or $`x_{i+1}`$, or both of them lie in $`A`$, hence $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_ix_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_{p+q+1})`$ belongs to $`M^{p+1,q1}`$ and $`\phi `$ is zero evaluated on this tensor. We have proved that

$`\delta ^{p,q}\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_{p+q+1})`$ $`=`$ $`x_1\phi (x_2,\mathrm{},x_{p+q+1})`$
$`+`$ $`\left(1\right)^{p+q+1}\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_{p+q})x_{p+q+1},`$
which corresponds to the formula involving the cup product with the identity endomorphism of $`M`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Example 4.3

We describe the connecting homomorphism component

$$\delta ^{p,0}:Hom_{AA}(M^{_Ap},A)Hom_{AA}(M^{_Ap+1},M).$$

Let $`\phi Hom_{AA}(M^{_Ap},A)`$ be a cocycle, then

$$\left(\delta ^{p,0}\phi \right)(m_1,\mathrm{},m_{p+1})=m_1\phi (m_2,\mathrm{},m_{p+1})+\left(1\right)^{p+1}\phi (m_1,\mathrm{},m_p)m_{p+1}.$$

For $`p=0`$ we have

$$\delta ^{0,0}:Hom_{AA}(A,A)Hom_{AA}(M,M).$$

Recall that $`A_AM`$ and $`M_AA`$ are identified with $`M`$. Then $`\delta ^{0,0}\phi (m)=m\phi (1)\phi (1)m`$. Since the center $`A^A`$ is identified with $`Hom_{AA}(A,A)`$, then $`Ker\delta ^{0,0}=A^AA^M`$, in other words the kernel of $`\delta ^0`$ is the set of central elements of $`A`$ which act symmetrically on $`M`$, as in Proposition 3.3. Note also that $`\delta ^0=\delta ^{0,0}`$.

## 5 Trivial extensions

###### DEFINITION 5.1

The *trivial extension* $`TA`$ of an algebra $`A`$ is the split algebra obtained by using the $`A`$–bimodule $`DA=Hom_k(A,k)`$ endowed with the zero multiplicative structure.

We recall that for trivial extensions the connecting homomorphism $`\delta ^0`$ of the long exact cohomology sequence is zero, see Example 3.5. Our next purpose is to compute the first Hochschild cohomology vector space of a trivial extension. For this we study the first connecting homomorphism $`\delta ^1`$. Since $`\delta ^0=0`$ the long exact cohomology sequence for $`TA`$ gives the following exact sequence

$$\begin{array}{cccccccc}& 0\hfill & H^1(TA,DA)\hfill & \hfill & H^1(TA,TA)\hfill & \hfill & H^1(TA,A)\hfill & \stackrel{\delta ^1}{}\hfill \\ & & H^2(TA,DA)\hfill & \hfill & H^2(TA,TA)\hfill & \hfill & H^2(TA,A)\hfill & \stackrel{\delta ^2}{}\hfill \\ & & \mathrm{}\hfill & & & & & \end{array}$$

Using Theorem 3.1 for $`X=TA/DA=A`$ or $`X=DA`$ we have

$$H^n(TA,X)=\underset{p+q=n}{}H^q\left(𝒞^p\left(X\right)\right).$$

Moreover $`\delta ^n=_{p+q=n}\delta ^{p,q}`$ where

$$\delta ^{p,q}:H^q\left(𝒞^p\left(A\right)\right)H^q\left(𝒞^{p+1}\left(DA\right)\right)$$

###### Remark 5.2

The following facts hold without any projectivity hypothesis on the $`A`$–bimodule $`DA`$

1. $`H^{}\left(𝒞^0\left(X\right)\right)=H^{}(A,X)`$,
2. $`H^{}\left(𝒞^1\left(X\right)\right)=Ext_{AA}^{}(DA,X)`$ (cf. Theorem 2.2),
3. $`H^0\left(𝒞^p\left(X\right)\right)=Hom_{AA}(DA^{_Ap},X)`$ (cf. Remark 2.3).

Using them we get that for $`n=1`$

$`\begin{array}{cc}\delta ^1:\hfill & Hom_{AA}(DA,A)H^1(A,A)\stackrel{\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta ^{1,0}& 0\\ 0& \delta ^{0,1}\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)}{\text{}}\hfill \\ & Hom_{AA}(DA_ADA,DA)Ext_{AA}^1(DA,DA)H^2(A,DA)\hfill \end{array}`$

###### PROPOSITION 5.3

The connecting morphisms $`\delta ^{0,1}`$ and $`\delta ^{1,0}`$ verify:

* $`\delta ^{0,1}=0`$
* Under appropriate identifications $`\delta ^{1,0}\phi =\phi +\phi ^{}`$

###### Remark 5.4

The first item of this proposition will be generalized in Proposition 5.9.

Proof.

* Let $`\phi `$ be a vertical cocycle at the $`(0,1)`$–spot of the double complex of $`A`$, namely $`\phi :AA`$ is a usual derivation of the algebra $`A`$. We know that $`\delta ^{0,1}\phi =1_{DA}\phi +\phi 1_{DA}`$ (see Theorem 4.1):

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\delta ^{0,1}\phi :& \left(DA\right)A& & A\left(DA\right)& & DA\hfill \\ & (f,a)& +& (b,g)& & f\phi \left(a\right)+\phi \left(b\right)g.\hfill \end{array}$$

We assert that $`\delta ^{0,1}\phi `$ is actually a vertical coboundary in the double complex of $`DA`$, namely $`\delta ^{0,1}\phi =d_v\phi ^{}`$. Indeed

$$\left(d_v\phi ^{}\right)(f,a)=\phi ^{}\left(fa\right)+\phi ^{}\left(f\right)a.$$

For every $`xA`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\hfill \left(\phi ^{}\left(fa\right)\right)\left(x\right)& +\hfill & \left(\phi ^{}\left(f\right)a\right)\left(x\right)\hfill & =\hfill & \\ \hfill \left(fa\right)\left(\phi \left(x\right)\right)& +\hfill & \phi ^{}\left(f\right)\left(ax\right)\hfill & =\hfill & \\ \hfill f\left(a\phi \left(x\right)\right)& +\hfill & f\left(\phi \left(ax\right)\right)\hfill & =\hfill & \\ \hfill f(a\phi \left(x\right)& +\hfill & \phi \left(ax\right))\hfill & =\hfill & f\left(\phi \left(a\right)x\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

The last equality holds since $`\phi `$ is a derivation. Finally we obtain

$$\left(d_v\phi ^{}\right)(f,a)=f\phi \left(a\right).$$

Similarly we prove that $`\left(d_v\phi ^{}\right)(b,g)`$ equals $`\phi \left(b\right)g`$.
* Let $`\phi Hom_{AA}(DA,A)`$ or by adjointness let $`\beta :DA_{AA}DAk`$ be a bilinear form, given by $`\beta (f,g)=g\left(\phi \left(f\right)\right)`$. We know that $`\delta ^{1,0}\phi =1_{DA}\phi +\phi 1_{DA}`$, more precisely $`\left(\delta ^{1,0}\phi \right)(f,g)=f\phi \left(g\right)+\phi \left(f\right)g`$. Now each $`\psi Hom_{AA}(DA_ADA,DA)`$ is also identified with a bilinear form $`\beta :DA_{AA}DAk`$, namely $`\beta (f,g)=\psi (f,g)\left(1\right)`$. Through this identification, we have that $`\delta ^{1,0}\beta =\beta +\beta ^t`$, where $`\beta ^t(f,g)=\beta (g,f)`$. Indeed

$$\left(\delta ^{1,0}\phi \right)(f,g)\left(1\right)=\left(f\phi \left(g\right)\right)\left(1\right)+\left(\phi \left(f\right)g\right)\left(1\right)=f\left(\phi \left(g\right)\right)+g\left(\phi \left(f\right)\right).$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

We consider the set of skew–symmetric bilinear forms $`\beta `$ over $`DA`$ such that $`\beta (fa,g)=\beta (f,ag)`$ and we denote this set $`\mathrm{Alt}_A\left(DA\right)`$. In the proof of the next Theorem we will show that $`\mathrm{Alt}_A\left(DA\right)=\mathrm{Ker}\delta ^{1,0}`$. This vector space coincides with $`\left(DA\right)`$ as considered by M. Saorin in .

We use a star symbol in order to denote the dual of a vector space, while the notation $`D`$ is kept for the dual of a vector space endowed with a bimodule structure.

###### THEOREM 5.5

Let $`TA`$ be the trivial extension of a finite–dimensional algebra $`A`$. Then

$$H^1(TA,TA)=A^AH_1(A,A)^{}H^1(A,A)\mathrm{Alt}_A\left(DA\right).$$

Before proving this result we note that since the center of a $`k`$-algebra is not zero we get the following result.

###### COROLLARY 5.6

Let $`TA`$ be the trivial extension of a finite–dimensional algebra $`A`$. Then the first Hochschild cohomology group of $`TA`$ do not vanish.

Proof. Theorem 5.5. From the long exact sequence and the description of $`\delta ^1`$, we have

$$H^1(TA,TA)=H^1(TA,DA)\mathrm{Ker}\delta ^1.$$

We have that $`\mathrm{Ker}\delta ^1=H^1(A,A)\mathrm{Ker}\delta ^{1,0}`$ and

$$\mathrm{Ker}\delta ^{1,0}=\{\phi Hom_{AA}(DA,A)\phi +\phi ^{}=0\}.$$

Using adjointness we have

$$Hom_{AA}(DA,A)=\left(DA_{AA}DA\right)^{}.$$

So we have proved the following

$$\mathrm{Ker}\delta ^{1,0}=\mathrm{Alt}_A\left(DA\right).$$

From Remark 5.2

$$H^1(TA,DA)=Hom_{AA}(DA,DA)Ext_{AA}^1(A,DA).$$

Actually

$$Hom_{AA}(DA,DA)=Hom_{AA}(A,A)=A^A.$$

Finally

$$H^1(A,DA)=H_1(A,A)^{}$$

since for a finite dimensional algebra $`A`$ and a finite dimensional $`A`$–bimodule $`N`$ the following fact holds: $`H_n(A,N)^{}=H^n(A,DN)`$ (see for instance ). Note also that $`N`$ and $`DDN`$ are bimodules which are canonically isomorphic by the evaluation map. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### THEOREM 5.7

Let $`A`$ be an arbitrary algebra (not necessarily finite–dimensional). Then

$$H^1(TA,TA)=A^AH^1(A,TA)\mathrm{Alt}_A\left(DA\right).$$

Proof.  In the proof of the above theorem note that $`H^1(A,A)H^1(A,DA)=H^1(A,TA)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### THEOREM 5.8

Let $`A`$ be a finite dimensional $`k`$–algebra. Then the vector space $`H^n(A,A)H_n(A,A)`$ is a direct summand of $`H^n(TA,TA)`$.

In order to prove this theorem, we provide the following result generalizing Proposition 5.3. Recall that $`\delta ^{0,q}:H^q(A,A)Ext_{AA}^q(DA,DA)`$ is a component of the connecting homomorphism $`\delta ^q:H^q(TA,A)H^{q+1}(TA,DA)`$.

###### PROPOSITION 5.9

We have $`\delta ^{0,q}=0`$ for all $`q1`$.

Proof.  Let $`\varphi Hom(A^q,A)`$ be a Hochschild cocycle at the $`(0,q)`$–spot of the double complex. Next we provide $`\varphi ^{}Hom((DA)^{1,q1},DA)`$ such that $`d_v\varphi ^{}=\delta ^{0,q}\varphi `$, by the following formula

$$\varphi ^{}(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n,f,b_1,\mathrm{},b_m)\left(x\right)=ϵ(n,q)f\left(\varphi (b_1,\mathrm{},b_m,x,a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)\right)$$

where $`n+m+1=q`$ and

$$ϵ(n,q)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }n\text{ is odd}\hfill \\ \left(1\right)^{q+1}\hfill & \text{if }n\text{ is even.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Observe that $`\delta ^{0,q}(\varphi )Hom((DA)^{1,q1},DA)`$ and $`\delta ^{0,q}(\varphi )=1\varphi +(1)^{q+1}\varphi 1`$. So the following three cases arise:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \left(\delta ^{0,q}\varphi \right)(f,b_1,\mathrm{},b_q)\left(x\right)=f\left(\varphi (b_1,\mathrm{},b_q)x\right)\hfill \\ & \\ & \left(\delta ^{0,q}\varphi \right)(a_1,\mathrm{},a_i,f,b_1,\mathrm{},b_j)\left(x\right)=0\text{for }i0\text{}j0\text{}i+j=q\hfill \\ & \\ & \left(\delta ^{0,q}\varphi \right)(a_1,\mathrm{},a_q,f)\left(x\right)=\left(1\right)^{q+1}f\left(x\varphi (a_1,\mathrm{},a_q)\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

The verification that $`d_v\varphi ^{}=\delta ^{0,q}\varphi `$ is left to the reader.$`\mathrm{}`$

Proof.  (Theorem 5.8) By the previous result $`H^q(A,A)`$ is contained in the image of the morphism $`H^q(TA,TA)H^q(TA,A)`$. Concerning the homology factor note, as we remarked before, that $`H^q\left(𝒞^0\left(DA\right)\right)=H^q(A,DA)`$. We know from Proposition 3.6 that $`H^q(A,DA)Im\delta ^{q1}=0`$ therefore $`H_q(A,A)=H^q(A,DA)H^q(TA,TA)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We generalize now a result obtained in . In  it is shown that for a triangular schurian algebra $`A`$ we have $`H^1(TA,TA)=kH^1(A,A)`$. Actually the same equality holds for triangular algebras, or for $`2`$-nilpotent algebras whose quiver do not contain oriented cycles of length $`2`$, see .

Our next purpose is to use our previous computations on $`H^1`$ of a trivial extension in order to show that this result holds for one-way algebras, a family of algebras that we define below and which include the algebras considered above. Note that the proof in  of the above equality under the mentioned hypothesis also works for one-way algebras.

###### DEFINITION 5.10

A one-way algebra is a finite dimensional algebra endowed with a complete set $`S`$ of orthogonal idempotents such that

1. For $`ef`$ in $`S`$, if $`eAf0`$ then $`fAe=0`$.
2. For all $`eS`$, we have $`\mathrm{dim}_\mathrm{k}\left(eAe\right)=1`$.
3. $`S`$ has more than one element (*ie.* $`A`$ is not k) and $`A`$ is an indecomposable algebra (*ie.* the graph with set of vertices $`S`$ and an edge between $`e`$ and $`f`$ in case $`eAf`$ or $`fAe`$ is not zero is a connected graph).

###### THEOREM 5.11

Let $`A`$ be a finite dimensional one-way algebra, and let $`TA`$ be its trivial extension. Then

$$H^1(TA,TA)=kH^1(A,A).$$

In order to prove this formula we use Theorem 5.5, and two results as follows.

###### LEMMA 5.12

Let $`A`$ be a one-way algebra. Then

$$Hom_{AA}(DA,A)=0.$$

Proof.  Take $`\phi Hom_{AA}(DA,A)`$ and $`e,fS`$ distinct. Since $`\phi (D(eAf))fAe`$, the form $`\phi `$ has to vanish on $`D(eAf)`$. Now $`\phi (D(eAe))eAe`$ so $`Im\phi _{eS}eAe`$. But since the algebra is indecomposable and different from $`k`$ there exist $`fe`$ such that $`eAf0`$. Hence there is no non–zero two-sided ideal contained in the vector space $`_{eS}eAe`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### LEMMA 5.13

Let $`A`$ be a one-way algebra for a system $`S`$ of idempotents. Then $`H_1(A,A)=0.`$

Proof.  Let $`E=\times _{eS}ke`$ be the subalgebra of $`A`$ generated by $`S`$. Note that $`A_EA`$ is a projective $`A`$-bimodule since

$$A_EA=\underset{eS}{}AeeA$$

and each summand is a projective $`A`$-bimodule using the fact that

$$AA=\underset{e,fS}{}AefA.$$

Note also that the decomposition

$$A_EA_EA=\underset{e,fS}{}AffAeeA$$

shows that this bimodule is projective as an $`A`$-bimodule.

Consider now the projective resolution of $`A`$ as an A-bimodule

$$\mathrm{}A_EA_EAA_EAA0$$

where the boundary formula is provided by the standard Hochschild resolution of $`A`$ as an $`A`$–bimodule. The homotopy contraction showing the exactness is defined as usual, by inserting $`1`$ at the beginning of each tensor.

Applying the functor $`_{A^e}A`$ one gets, after decomposing in terms of the orthogonal idempotents

$$\mathrm{}\underset{e,f,gS}{}eAffAggAe\underset{e,fS}{}eAffAe\underset{eS}{}eAe0.$$

But $`_{e,fS}eAffAe=_{eS}eAeeAe`$, since $`eAf0`$ implies $`fAe=0`$ if $`fe`$. Also, if $`e`$ is any primitive idempotent, $`eAe`$ is isomorphic to $`k`$. The boundary map, using this isomorphism, is null on $`_{eS}eAeeAe`$.

As before, the following term $`_{e,f,gS}eAffAggAe`$ of the complex may be written as:

$$\left(\underset{eS}{}eAeeAeeAe\right)\left(\underset{efS}{}eAffAeeAe\right)$$

$$\left(\underset{efS}{}eAeeAffAe\right)\left(\underset{efgS}{}eAffAggAe\right).$$

The second and third summands are zero, and the restriction of the boundary map to the first one, composed with the isomorphism $`eAek`$ is the identity. So, already restricted to this first summand, the boundary map is surjective. Then $`H_1(A,A)=0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof. (Theorem 5.11) We recall the decomposition of Theorem 5.5:

$$H^1(TA,TA)=A^AH_1(A,A)^{}H^1(A,A)\mathrm{Alt}_A\left(DA\right).$$

The hypothesis on $`A`$ implies that the center $`A^A`$ of $`A`$ is the field $`k`$. From Lemma 5.12 we get $`\mathrm{Alt}_A\left(DA\right)=0`$, since $`\mathrm{Alt}_A\left(DA\right)Hom_{AA}(DA,A)`$. The previous theorem shows that $`H_1(A,A)=0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The aim of the last part of this section is to show that the connecting homomorphisms of the long exact sequence on Hochschild cohomology are not all zero in general.

We consider split algebras with $`M=A`$ and $`M^2=0`$. These algebras are isomorphic to $`A\left[x\right]/<x^2>Ak\left[ϵ\right]`$, where $`k\left[ϵ\right]=k\left[x\right]/<x^2>`$ is the algebra of dual numbers. We denote them by $`A\left[ϵ\right]`$. Recall that an algebra $`A`$ is symmetric if $`A`$ is isomorphic to $`DA`$ as an $`A`$–bimodule. In this case the trivial extension $`TA`$ of $`A`$ coincides with the split algebra $`A\left[ϵ\right]`$.

It is well known (see for instance , \[18, Prop. 9.4.1\]) that if $`A`$ and $`B`$ are $`k`$–algebras (one of them finite dimensional) we have

$$H^n(AB,AB)=\underset{p+q=n}{}H^p(A,A)H^q(B,B).$$

It is also well known that if $`k`$ is of characteristic different from $`2`$ then

$$\mathrm{dim}_\mathrm{k}H^{}(k\left[ϵ\right],k\left[ϵ\right])=\{\begin{array}{cc}2\hfill & \text{if }=0\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{if }>0\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

If $`\mathrm{char}k=2`$ then $`\mathrm{dim}_\mathrm{k}H^n(k\left[ϵ\right],k\left[ϵ\right])=2`$ for all $`n`$. For a $`k`$–algebra $`A`$ we infer that in characteristic different from $`2`$

$$H^n(A\left[ϵ\right],A\left[ϵ\right])=H^n\left(A\right)\left(\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}H^i\left(A\right)\right),$$

while in characteristic $`2`$

$$H^n(A\left[ϵ\right],A\left[ϵ\right])=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(H^i\left(A\right)H^i\left(A\right)\right).$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=AM`$ be a split algebra with $`M^2=0`$. Assume that all the connecting homomorphisms are zero. Then

$$H^n(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda })=\left(\underset{p+q=n}{}H^q\left(𝒞^p\left(M\right)\right)\right)\left(\underset{p+q=n}{}H^q\left(𝒞^p\left(A\right)\right)\right).$$

In case $`M`$ is projective on one side and all connecting homomorphisms are zero, we get

$$H^n(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda })=\left(\underset{p+q=n}{}Ext_{AA}^q(M^{_Ap},M)\right)\left(\underset{p+q=n}{}Ext_{AA}^q(M^{_Ap},A)\right).$$

In case $`M=A`$, and still assuming that all connecting homomorphisms are zero, we get

$$H^n(A\left[ϵ\right],A\left[ϵ\right])=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(H^i\left(A\right)H^i\left(A\right)\right)$$

which holds only in characteristic two. Hence the connecting homomorphisms are not zero in general.

###### Remark 5.14

For trivial extensions one can describe the component

$$\delta ^{p,0}:Hom_{AA}(DA^{_Ap},A)Hom_{AA}(DA^{_Ap+1},DA)$$

of the connecting homomorphism as follows, generalizing the second item of Proposition 5.3. The cyclic group of order $`p+1`$ acts on $`Hom_{AA}(DA^{_Ap+1},DA)`$ via

$$\left(t\phi \right)\left(f_1\mathrm{}f_{p+1}\right)=\phi \left(f_2\mathrm{}f_{p+1}f_1\right).$$

Identifying by adjunction the source with the target of $`\delta ^{p,0}`$ we obtain

$$\delta ^{p,0}\phi =t\phi +\left(1\right)^{p+1}\phi .$$

## 6 Triangular matrix algebras and one–point extensions

Recall that a *triangular matrix algebra* $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& 0\\ M& B\end{array}\right)`$ consists of two algebras $`A`$ and $`B`$ and a $`BA`$ bimodule $`M`$, the product is obtained by matrix multiplication. Note that in case $`B`$ is the ground field $`k`$ such algebras are called *one–point extensions* of $`A`$. Our next purpose is to specialize to these algebras the results we have obtained for split algebras in order to recover results of C. Cibils, S. Michelena and M.I. Platzeck in , and by D. Happel for one–point extensions , see also .

###### Remark 6.1

Triangular matrix algebras are split algebras with zero bimodule product. Indeed consider the algebra $`A\times B`$ and the trivially extended $`A\times B`$–bimodule $`M`$ with structure given by $`(a,b)m=bm`$ and $`m(a,b)=ma`$. The split algebra $`(A\times B)M`$ with $`M^2=0`$ is exactly the algebra $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& 0\\ M& B\end{array}\right).`$

Let $`T=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& 0\\ M& B\end{array}\right)`$ be a triangular matrix algebra. Consider the exact sequence of $`T`$–bimodules

$$0MTA\times B0$$

and the corresponding long exact sequence in Hochschild cohomology

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0\hfill & H^0(T,M)& \hfill & H^0(T,T)& \hfill & H^0(T,A\times B)& \stackrel{\delta ^0}{}\hfill & & \\ & H^1(T,M)& \hfill & \mathrm{}& & & & & \\ & & & \mathrm{}& \hfill & H^{n1}(T,A\times B)& \stackrel{\delta ^{n1}}{}\hfill & & \\ & H^n(T,M)& \hfill & H^n(T,T)& \hfill & H^n(T,A\times B)& \stackrel{\delta ^n}{}\hfill & & \\ & H^{n+1}(T,M)& \hfill & \mathrm{}& & & & & \end{array}$$

We will use a suitable version of Corollary 3.2 in order to describe $`H^n(T,M)`$ and $`H^n(T,A\times B)`$. The following fact will enable us to perform a $`Tor`$ computation for recovering Cibils and Michelena-Platzec Theorem.

###### LEMMA 6.2

If $`M`$ is projective as a left $`B`$–module, the trivially extended $`A\times B`$–bimodule $`M`$ is a projective left $`A\times B`$–module.

Proof.  Note that $`B`$ is projective as a left $`A\times B`$–module, consequently the same holds for a direct summand of a free $`B`$–module. $`\mathrm{}`$

The next result simplifies considerably this description.

###### LEMMA 6.3

Let $`M`$ be a $`BA`$–bimodule trivially extended to an $`A\times B`$–bimodule. Then for $`p2`$ we have

$$M^{_{\left(A\times B\right)}^p}=0.$$

Proof.  For $`mM`$ and $`nM`$ we have

$$mn=m(1,0)n=m(1,0)n=m0=0.$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### THEOREM 6.4

(see ) Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be $`k`$–algebras, $`M`$ be a $`BA`$–bimodule and let $`T=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& 0\\ M& B\end{array}\right)`$ $`=\left(A\times B\right)M`$ be the triangular matrix algebra or equivalently the corresponding split algebra. Then there is a long exact sequence in Hochschild cohomology

$$\begin{array}{cccccccc}0\hfill & 0& & H^0(T,T)\hfill & \hfill & H^0(A,A)H^0(B,B)\hfill & \stackrel{\delta ^{0,0}}{}\hfill & \\ & Hom_{BA}(M,M)& & \mathrm{}\hfill & & & & \\ & & & \mathrm{}\hfill & \hfill & H^{n1}(A,A)H^{n1}(B,B)\hfill & \stackrel{\delta ^{n1,0}}{}\hfill & \\ & Ext_{BA}^{n1}(M,M)& & H^n(T,T)\hfill & \hfill & H^n(A,A)H^n(B,B)\hfill & \stackrel{\delta ^{n,0}}{}\hfill & \\ & Ext_{BA}^n(M,M)& & \mathrm{}\hfill & & & & \end{array}$$

Proof.  Theorem 3.1 provides the following decompositions

$$H^n(T,A\times B)=\underset{p+q=n}{}H^q\left(𝒞^p\left(A\times B\right)\right)$$

$$H^{n+1}(T,M)=H^{n+1}(A\times B,M)\underset{p+q=n+1}{}H^q\left(𝒞^{p+1}\left(M\right)\right)$$

and Proposition 3.6 shows that the connecting homomorphism $`\delta ^n`$ is bigraded of bidegree $`(1,0)`$, that is, $`\delta ^n=_{p+q=n}\delta ^{p,q}.`$

In Section 2 we have proved that the cohomology in degree $`q`$ of the column $`𝒞^p(X)`$ for a $`T`$-bimodule $`X`$ is $`Ext_{(A\times B)(A\times B)}^q(M^{_{(A\times B)}^p},X)`$ whenever the $`A\times B`$ bimodule $`M`$ is projective on one side. It is clear from the proofs of Section 2 that this condition can be relaxed, namely it is enough to require the vanishing of the $`Tor`$ vector spaces between tensor powers of the bimodule and the bimodule itself – we thank Manuel Saorin for stressing this fact. In our situation the Lemma above shows that $`Tor_{A\times B}^{}(M^{_{(A\times B)}^p},M)=0`$ for $`p2`$. In order to show that $`Tor_{A\times B}^{}(M,M)=0`$, consider a projective resolution of $`M`$ as a left $`B`$-module and extend the action to $`A\times B`$ letting $`A`$ act by zero. As in Lemma 6.3 tensoring the above projective resolution by $`M`$ over $`A\times B`$ provides a zero complex.

These consideration show that that the cohomology of the columns can be replaced by $`Ext`$ vector spaces between tensor powers of $`M`$. Much of them vanish using again the Lemma above, finally we obtain the following for the connecting homomorphism:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & H^{n+1}(A\times B,M)\\ & & \\ H^n(A\times B,A\times B)& \stackrel{\delta ^{n,0}}{}& Ext_{\left(A\times B\right)\left(A\times B\right)}^n(M,M)\\ & & \\ Ext_{\left(A\times B\right)\left(A\times B\right)}^{n1}(M,A\times B)& \stackrel{\delta ^{n1,0}}{}& 0\end{array}\text{}$$

In fact

$$Ext_{\left(A\times B\right)\left(A\times B\right)}^{n1}(M,A\times B)=0\text{and}$$

$$H^{n+1}(A\times B,M)=0.$$

In order to prove this last assertion, let $`e=(1,0)`$ and $`f=(0,1)`$ be the idempotents of the algebra $`A\times B`$. Note that an $`A\times B`$–bimodule $`Y`$ is the direct sum of four bimodules which can be presented at the vertices of a square:

$$\begin{array}{cc}eYf\hfill & fYf\hfill \\ & \\ eYe\hfill & fYe.\hfill \end{array}$$

For instance $`eYf`$ is an $`AB`$–bimodule and $`eYe`$ is an $`A`$–bimodule. We have that

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}Ext_{\left(A\times B\right)\left(A\times B\right)}^{}(Y,Z)=\hfill & Ext_{AB}^{}(eYf,eZf)\hfill & \hfill & Ext_{BB}^{}(fYf,fZf)\hfill & \hfill \\ & & & & \\ & Ext_{AA}^{}(eYe,eZe)\hfill & \hfill & Ext_{BA}^{}(fYe,fZe).\hfill & \end{array}$$

Since the three components $`eMf`$, $`fMf`$ and $`eMe`$ are zero, we obtain

$$Ext_{\left(A\times B\right)\left(A\times B\right)}^{n1}(M,A\times B)=Ext_{\left(A\times B\right)\left(A\times B\right)}^{n1}(M,f\left(A\times B\right)e),$$

note that $`f(A\times B)e=0`$. Similarly we obtain

$$H^{n+1}(A\times B,M)=0\text{ since }H^{n+1}(A\times B,M)=Ext_{\left(A\times B\right)\left(A\times B\right)}^{n+1}(A\times B,M).$$

Moreover the same type of arguments shows that

$$H^n(A\times B,A\times B)=H^n(A,A)H^n(B,B)\text{ and }$$

$$Ext_{\left(A\times B\right)\left(A\times B\right)}^n(M,M)=Ext_{BA}^n(M,M).$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 6.5

The same result can be derived from the spectral sequence arising from the double complex. Indeed only the first two columns are non–zero at the first level, and the vector spaces have to be decomposed as we did above.

###### Remark 6.6

If $`B=k`$ and $`M`$ is any right $`A`$–module, we obtain Happel’s long exact sequence :

$$\begin{array}{cccccccc}0& & 0& & H^0(T,T)& & H^0(A,A)k& \\ & & End_AM& & H^1(T,T)& & H^1(A,A)& \\ & & Ext_A^1(M,M)& & H^2(T,T)& & H^2(A,A)& \\ & & Ext_A^2(M,M)& & \mathrm{}& & & \end{array}$$

###### PROPOSITION 6.7

The connecting homomorphism of the cohomology long exact sequence for a triangular matrix algebra is given by

$$\delta ^nf=1_Mf\text{ for }fH^n(A,A)\text{ and }$$

$$\delta ^ng=\left(1\right)^{n+1}g1_M\text{ for }gH^n(B,B).$$

The proof follows from the general description of $`\delta ^{p,q}`$ given in Theorem 4.1.

C.C.:
Département de Mathématiques, Université de Montpellier 2,
F–34095 Montpellier cedex 5, France.
Claude.Cibils@math.univ-montp2.fr

E.M.:
Departamento de Matemática, Universidade de São Paulo,
Caixa Postal 66.281
São Paulo – SP, 05315–970, Brasil.
enmarcos@ime.usp.br

M.J.R:
Departamento de Matemática, Universidad Nacional del Sur,
Av. Alem 1253
8000 Bahía Blanca, Argentina.
mredondo@criba.edu.ar

A.S.:
Departamento de Matemática, FCEyN, Universidad de Buenos Aires
Pabellón I – Ciudad Universitaria
1428 – Buenos Aires, Argentina.
asolotar@dm.uba.ar January 21, 2002