format: text

text:
# The local structure of Lie bialgebroids

## 1 Introduction

Lie bialgebroids were introduced by Mackenzie and Xu in  as the infinitesimal versions of Poisson groupoids. Lie algebroids are, in a certain sense, generalized tangent bundles, while Lie bialgebroids can be considered as generalizations of both Poisson structures and Lie bialgebras. It is therefore tempting to classify the local structure of Lie bialgebroids. It is well known that at generic points (called regular points) a Lie algebroid $`𝒜`$ is locally isomorphic to the following “standard” one:

$$𝒜=D(M\times 𝔤),$$
(1)
where $`DTM`$ is an integrable distribution, which is the image of the anchor, and $`M\times 𝔤`$ is a bundle of Lie algebras, namely the isotropy Lie algebras. Here one should think of $`𝔤`$ as a vector space equipped with a family of Lie algebra structures parameterized by points on the base manifold $`M`$, denoted by $`\{𝔤_x|xM\}`$. The Lie brackets are constant along leaves of $`D`$. I.e., for any $`A,B𝔤`$ considered as constant sections111Throughout the paper, we adapt the convention that elements in $`𝔤`$ (or $`𝔤^{}`$) are automatically considered as constant sections on $`𝒜`$ (or $`𝒜^{}`$) unless otherwise specified. of $`𝒜`$, $`[A,B]C^{\mathrm{}}(M)^D𝔤`$, where $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)^D`$ stands for leafwise constant functions on $`M`$. The anchor of $`𝒜`$ is the projection $`𝒜D`$. The bracket between sections of $`𝒜`$ is given by

$$[X+A,Y+B]=[X,Y]+(X(B)Y(A)+[A,B]),X,Y\mathrm{\Gamma }(D),A,BC^{\mathrm{}}(M,𝔤).$$
(2)
In particular, $`𝒜`$ is a transitive Lie algebroid if $`D=TM`$.

Consider the extended vector bundle

$$\overline{𝒜}:=TM(M\times 𝔤)D(M\times 𝔤)=𝒜.$$
(3)
The bracket on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒜)`$ naturally extends to a bracket on sections of $`\overline{𝒜}`$. This is done simply by applying the same formula: Equation (2) to $`X+A,Y+B𝔛(M)C^{\mathrm{}}(M,𝔤)`$. Using the graded Leibniz rule, one may extend this bracket to sections of $`^{}\overline{𝒜}`$ as well, which extends the ordinary Schouten brackets on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(^{}𝒜)`$. However, $`\overline{𝒜}`$ is in general not a Lie algebroid any more. For example, for $`A,B𝔤,X𝔛(M)`$, we have

$$[X,[A,B]]+[B,[X,A]]+[A,[B,X]]=L_X[A,B],$$
(4)
which may not be zero unless $`[A,B]`$ is a constant. This extended bundle $`\overline{𝒜}`$ and the brackets on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(^{}\overline{𝒜})`$ will be useful later in the paper in order to describe the Lie algebroid structure on $`𝒜^{}`$.

For any section $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }(^2\overline{𝒜})`$, by $`[,]_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we denote the bracket on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{𝒜}^{})`$ defined by

$$[\varphi ,\psi ]_\mathrm{\Lambda }=L_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\#}\varphi }\psi L_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\#}\psi }\varphi d[\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi ,\psi )]\varphi ,\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{𝒜}^{}).$$
(5)
The purpose of this paper is to classify all possible Lie bialgebroids $`(𝒜,𝒜^{})`$ for which $`𝒜`$ is of the standard form (1). We find that a Lie bialgebroid structure in this case can be totally characterized by a pair $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },\delta )`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a section of $`^2\overline{𝒜}`$, and $`\delta `$ is a bundle map $`M\times 𝔤M\times ^2𝔤`$. Such a pair defines the Lie algebroid structure on $`𝒜^{}`$. For transitive Lie bialgebroids, one can furthermore describe such a Lie bialgebroid using a quadruple $`(\pi ,\theta ,\tau ,\delta )`$ satisfying certain equations (see Theorem 3.2), where $`(\pi ,\theta ,\tau )`$ are components of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In this way, one establishes a one-to-one correspondence between transitive Lie bialgebroids and equivalence classes of certain quadruples. As applications, we recover a construction, due to Lu , of a Lie algebroid arising from a matched pair induced by a Poisson group action. Another special case is connected to dynamical $`r`$-matrices coupled with Poisson manifolds, which is a natural generalization of the classical dynamical $`r`$-matrices of Felder .

Acknowledgments. We are grateful to Vladimir Drinfel’d for raising the local structure question. We also wish to thank Kirill Mackenzie for useful discussions and Alan Weinstein for numerous suggestions and comments. In addition to the funding sources mentioned in the first footnote, the second author would also like to thank Peking University for hospitality while part of this project was being done.

## 2 Regular Lie bialgebroids

The aim of this section is to give a general description of a Lie bialgebroid $`(𝒜,𝒜^{})`$ at a regular point. As mentioned in Introduction, any Lie algebroid $`𝒜`$ is always locally isomorphic to the “standard” one (1), so we will assume that $`𝒜`$ is isomorphic to this form throughout the paper. Indeed we say that a Lie bialgebroid $`(𝒜,𝒜^{})`$ is regular if $`𝒜`$ is of the standard form (1). It is clear that $`D^{}`$ is isomorphic to the quotient bundle $`T^{}M/D^{}`$. By $`pr`$, we denote the projection $`T^{}MD^{}`$. By abuse of notation, we use the same symbol to denote its extension

$$pr:T^{}M(M\times 𝔤^{})𝒜^{}(D^{}(M\times 𝔤^{})).$$

For any $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)`$ (or more generally $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }(T^{}M(M\times 𝔤^{}))`$, by $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ we denote its corresponding section in $`D^{}`$ (or $`𝒜^{}`$). Hence

$$d_𝒜f=\stackrel{~}{df},fC^{\mathrm{}}(M).$$
(6)
Even though we are mainly interested in the local structure, our results hold for more general situations as well. Indeed we only need to require that the first leafwise de-Rham cohomology group $`H_D^1(M)`$ vanishes.

The main theorem of this section is the following:

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let $`(𝒜,𝒜^{})`$ be a Lie bialgebroid, where $`𝒜`$ is of the form (1): $`𝒜=D(M\times 𝔤)`$. Assume that $`H_D^1(M)=0`$. Then the differential $`d_{}:\mathrm{\Gamma }(^{}𝒜)\mathrm{\Gamma }(^{+1}𝒜)`$ corresponding to the Lie algebroid structure on $`𝒜^{}`$ is of the form:

$$d_{}=[\mathrm{\Lambda },]+\delta ,$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }(^2\overline{𝒜})`$ such that $`[\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒜)]\mathrm{\Gamma }(^2𝒜)`$ and $`\delta `$ is a bundle map $`M\times 𝔤M\times ^2𝔤`$, which is constant along leaves of $`D`$. Moreover the pair $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },\delta )`$ is unique up to a gauge transformation: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }+r_0`$, $`\delta \delta [r_0,]`$ for some $`r_0C^{\mathrm{}}(M,𝔤)^D`$.

Here, as well as in the sequel, $`\delta `$ is considered as a linear map: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(^{}𝒜)\mathrm{\Gamma }(^{+1}𝒜)`$, which is a graded derivation naturally extending the bundle map $`\delta :M\times 𝔤M\times ^2𝔤`$.

We will divide the proof into several lemmas. By $`[,]_{}`$ and $`\rho _{}`$, we denote, respectively, the Lie bracket and the anchor of the dual Lie algebroid $`𝒜^{}`$. Define $`K\mathrm{\Gamma }(^2\overline{𝒜})`$ and $`\theta 𝔛(M)𝔤`$ by

$`K(\alpha +\xi ,\beta +\eta )=<\rho _{}\xi ,\beta ><\rho _{}\eta ,\alpha >;`$ (8)
$`\theta (\alpha ,\xi )=<\rho _{}\xi ,\alpha >,\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M),\xi ,\eta 𝔤^{}.`$ (9)
Note that in general $`K`$ is not a section of $`^2𝒜`$. This is because the image of $`\rho _{}`$ is not necessarily contained in $`D`$. By $`\theta ^\mathrm{\#}`$, we denote the induced bundle map $`T^{}MM\times 𝔤`$:

$$<\theta ^\mathrm{\#}(\alpha ),\xi >=\theta (\alpha ,\xi ).$$
(10)
It is obvious to see that

$`K^\mathrm{\#}|_{T^{}M}=\theta ^\mathrm{\#}:T^{}M𝔤;`$ (11)
$`K^\mathrm{\#}|_{M\times 𝔤^{}}=\rho _{}|_{M\times 𝔤^{}}:M\times 𝔤^{}TM.`$ (12)
Let $`\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(^2TM)`$ be the Poisson structure on $`M`$ induced from the Lie bialgebroid .

###### Proposition 2.2.

Under the same hypothesis as in Theorem 2.1, we have

1. $`\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(^2D)`$;
2. $`\pi ^\mathrm{\#}=\rho _{}|_D^{}pr`$;
3. $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)`$, $`[\stackrel{~}{\alpha },\stackrel{~}{\beta }]_{}=[\alpha ,\beta \stackrel{~}{]}_\pi `$;
4. for any $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$, $`d_{}f=\pi ^\mathrm{\#}(df)\theta ^\mathrm{\#}(df)`$;
5. for any $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M),\xi 𝔤^{}`$, $`[d_𝒜f,\xi ]_{}=d_𝒜(\rho _{}(\xi )f)+ad_{\theta ^\mathrm{\#}(df)}^{}\xi `$;
6. $`\xi 𝔤^{},X\mathrm{\Gamma }(D)`$, $`[\rho _{}(\xi ),X]\mathrm{\Gamma }(D)`$;
7. $`xM`$, $`\theta ^\mathrm{\#}(D_x^{})Z(𝔤_x)`$, where $`Z(𝔤_x)`$ is the center of the Lie algebra $`𝔤_x`$.
8. $`e\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒜)`$, $`[K,e]\mathrm{\Gamma }(^2𝒜)`$;
9. $`K\mathrm{\Gamma }(^2𝒜)`$ iff $`\theta ^\mathrm{\#}(D^{})=0`$, or $`Im(\rho _{})D`$.

Proof. By definition , $`\pi ^\mathrm{\#}=\rho \rho _{}^{}`$, which implies that $`\pi ^\mathrm{\#}(T^{}M)D`$. Thus, it follows that $`\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(^2D)`$. On the other hand, we also have $`\pi ^\mathrm{\#}=\rho _{}\rho ^{}`$, thus $`\pi ^\mathrm{\#}=\rho _{}|_D^{}pr`$. This proves (2). Therefore

$$\rho _{}=\pi ^\mathrm{\#}+\rho _{}|_{M\times 𝔤^{}},$$
(13)
from which (4) follows immediately. (3) follows because $`\rho ^{}`$ is a Lie algebroid morphism from $`T^{}M`$ to $`𝒜^{}`$ , where $`T^{}M`$ is equipped with the standard Lie algebroid structure induced from the Poisson tensor $`\pi `$.

As for (5), we have

$`[d_𝒜f,\xi ]_{}`$
$`=`$ $`L_{d_{}f}\xi `$
$`=`$ $`d_𝒜<\theta ^\mathrm{\#}(df),\xi >+i_{\theta ^\mathrm{\#}(df)}d_𝒜\xi `$
$`=`$ $`d_𝒜(\rho _{}(\xi )f)+ad_{\theta ^\mathrm{\#}(df)}^{}\xi .`$
Here we have used the fact that $`d_𝒜\xi \mathrm{\Gamma }(^2(M\times 𝔤^{}))`$. Thus (5) is proved.

Given any $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)^D`$, we have $`df\mathrm{\Gamma }(D^{})`$, and therefore $`d_𝒜f=0`$ according to Equation (6). By (5), we obtain that $`d_𝒜(\rho _{}(\xi )f)=0`$ and $`ad_{\theta ^\mathrm{\#}(df)}^{}\xi =0`$.

It is obvious that $`ad_{\theta ^\mathrm{\#}(df)}^{}\xi =0`$ is equivalent to (7). Now $`d_𝒜(\rho _{}(\xi )f)=0`$ is equivalent to $`d(\rho _{}(\xi )f)\mathrm{\Gamma }(D^{})`$, which implies that $`X(\rho _{}(\xi )f)=0`$ for any $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }(D)`$. The latter is equivalent to $`[X,\rho _{}(\xi )](f)=0`$, which implies that $`[X,\rho _{}(\xi )]\mathrm{\Gamma }(D)`$ since $`f`$ is an arbitrary function in $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)^D`$. Thus (6) is proved.

It is easy to see that (6) implies that $`[K,X]\mathrm{\Gamma }(^2𝒜),X\mathrm{\Gamma }(D)`$. Next we need to show that $`[K,A]\mathrm{\Gamma }(^2𝒜)`$ for any $`A𝔤`$ considered as a constant section of $`𝒜`$. For this purpose, let us choose a local coordinate system $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k,x_{k+1},\mathrm{},x_{k+l})`$ such that $`D`$ is spanned by $`\{\frac{}{x_{k+j}}|j=1,\mathrm{},l\}`$. Then clearly $`dx^i\mathrm{\Gamma }(D^{}),i=1,\mathrm{},k`$. Let $`A_i(x)=\theta ^\mathrm{\#}(dx^i)`$. According to (7), we know that $`A_i(x)Z(𝔤_x)`$, for any $`x`$ and $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$. Thus, locally we can write $`K=K_1+K_2`$, where $`K_1=_{i=1}^kA_i\frac{}{x_i}`$ and $`K_2=_{j=1}^lA_{k+j}\frac{}{x_{k+j}}`$. It thus follows that $`[K,A]=[K_1+K_2,A]=[K_2,A]\mathrm{\Gamma }(^2𝒜)`$. Then (8) follows immediately.

Finally, we see, by definition, that $`K\mathrm{\Gamma }(^2𝒜)`$ iff $`\theta ^\mathrm{\#}(D^{})=0`$ or $`Im(\rho _{}|_{M\times 𝔤^{}})D`$. The latter is equivalent to $`Im(\rho _{})D`$ due to (1) and Equation (13). This completes the proof of the proposition. ∎

###### Corollary 2.3.

We have the following

1. for any $`X,Y\mathrm{\Gamma }(D)`$ and $`A𝔤`$, we have

$`[K,[X,Y]]=[[K,X],Y]+[X,[K,Y]];`$ (14)
$`[K,[X,A]]=[[K,X],A]+[X,[K,A]].`$ (15)
2. For $`A,B𝔤`$, if $`L_{\rho _{}(e)}[A,B]=0`$ for any $`e\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒜^{}|_x)`$, then

$$[K,[A,B]]|_x=[[K,A],B]|_x+[A,[K,B]]|_x.$$
(16)

Proof. Equation (14) is obvious. For Equation (15), we write $`K=K_1+K_2`$ as in the proof of Proposition 2.2. From the fact that $`A_i(x)Z(𝔤_x)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$, we have

$$[K_1,[X,A]]=[[K_1,X],A]+[X,[K_1,A]].$$

On the other hand, from the Jacobi identity of the Schouten bracket on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(^{}𝒜)`$, it follows that

$$[K_2,[X,A]]=[[K_2,X],A]+[X,[K_2,A]].$$

Equation (15) thus follows.

Finally, we note that

$$[K_2,[A,B]]=[[K_2,A],B]+[A,[K_2,B]],$$

while

$$([K_1,[A,B]][[K_1,A],B][A,[K_1,B]])|_x=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}A_iL_{\frac{}{x_i}}[A,B].$$

For any $`\xi 𝔤^{}`$, it is simple to see that $`\xi \text{ }\text{ }(_{i=1}^kA_iL_{\frac{}{x_i}}[A,B])=L_{K_1^\mathrm{\#}(\xi )}[A,B]`$. On the other hand, $`\rho _{}(\xi )=\pi ^\mathrm{\#}(\xi )+K_1^\mathrm{\#}(\xi )+K_2^\mathrm{\#}(\xi )`$. Since $`\pi ^\mathrm{\#}(\xi ),K_2^\mathrm{\#}(\xi )\mathrm{\Gamma }(D)`$, hence $`L_{\rho _{}(\xi )}[A,B]=L_{K_2^\mathrm{\#}(\xi )}[A,B]`$. The conclusion (2) thus follows immediately. ∎

The following result describes the bracket of mixed terms in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒜^{})`$.

###### Proposition 2.4.

For any $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)`$ and $`\xi C^{\mathrm{}}(M,𝔤^{})`$, we have

$$[\stackrel{~}{\alpha },\xi ]_{}=[\alpha ,\xi ]_{\pi +K}^\stackrel{~}{}.$$
(17)
Proof. First, let $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ be an arbitrary function, and $`\xi 𝔤^{}`$ an arbitrary element. Then according to Proposition 2.2 (5), together with Equations (11, 12), we have $`[\stackrel{~}{d}f,\xi ]_{}=[df,\xi ]_K^\stackrel{~}{}`$. On the other hand, it is easy to see that $`[df,\xi ]_\pi =0`$. Thus, we have $`[\stackrel{~}{d}f,\xi ]_{}=[df,\xi ]_{\pi +K}^\stackrel{~}{}`$. Now Equation (17) follows immediately from the anchor properties of a Lie algebroid. ∎

The last step is to analyze the bracket between elements in $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M,𝔤^{})`$. Note that $`\xi ,\eta C^{\mathrm{}}(M,𝔤^{})`$ and $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$, by Equation (12), one has

$$[\xi ,f\eta ]_{}[\xi ,f\eta ]_K=f([\xi ,\eta ]_{}[\xi ,\eta ]_K).$$

This implies that $`[\xi ,\eta ]_{}[\xi ,\eta ]_K`$ depends on $`\xi ,\eta `$ algebraically. On the other hand, $`[\xi ,\eta ]_{}[\xi ,\eta ]_K`$ can be split into two parts:

$$[\xi ,\eta ]_{}[\xi ,\eta ]_K=\mathrm{\Omega }(\xi ,\eta )+[\xi ,\eta ]^{},$$
(18)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\xi ,\eta )\mathrm{\Gamma }(D^{})`$ and $`[\xi ,\eta ]^{}C^{\mathrm{}}(M,𝔤^{})`$. Now $`[,]^{}`$ defines a fiberwise bracket on the bundle $`M\times 𝔤^{}`$, while $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\xi ,\eta )`$ corresponds to a $`𝔤𝔤`$-valued one-form on the bundle $`D`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Gamma }(D^{})(^2𝔤)`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\mathrm{\#}:DM\times (^2𝔤)`$ be its induced bundle map, and $`\delta ^{}:M\times 𝔤M\times (^2𝔤)`$ the fiberwise cobracket corresponding to $`[,]^{}`$.

###### Lemma 2.5.

$$d_{}=[\pi +K,]\mathrm{\Omega }^\mathrm{\#}+\delta ^{}$$
(19)
Proof. By Propositions 2.2, 2.4 and the fact that $`[\alpha ,\beta ]_K=[\xi ,\eta ]_\pi =0`$, we have

$$[\stackrel{~}{\alpha }+\xi ,\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\eta ]_{}=[\alpha +\xi ,\beta +\eta ]_{\pi +K}^\stackrel{~}{}+\mathrm{\Omega }(\xi ,\eta )+[\xi ,\eta ]^{},\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M),\xi ,\eta C^{\mathrm{}}(M,𝔤^{}),$$
(20)
which implies Equation (19) immediately.

###### Proposition 2.6.

There exists a function $`\tau C^{\mathrm{}}(M,^2𝔤)`$ and a fiberwise bracket $`[,]^{}`$ on the bundle $`M\times 𝔤^{}`$ constant along leaves of $`D`$ such that

$$[\xi ,\eta ]_{}=[\xi ,\eta ]_{K+\tau }+[\xi ,\eta ]^{},\xi ,\eta C^{\mathrm{}}(M,𝔤^{}).$$
(21)
Proof. For any $`X,Y\mathrm{\Gamma }(D)`$, from the compatibility condition $`d_{}[X,Y]=[d_{}X,Y]+[X,d_{}Y]`$ and Equations (14, 19), it follows that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^\mathrm{\#}[X,Y]=[\mathrm{\Omega }^\mathrm{\#}X,Y]+[X,\mathrm{\Omega }^\mathrm{\#}Y].$$

This is equivalent to that, as a $`^2𝔤`$-valued one-form, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is $`d_D`$-closed. By assumption, there exists a function $`\tau C^{\mathrm{}}(M,^2𝔤)`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }=d_D\tau `$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\mathrm{\#}(X)=L_X\tau ,X\mathrm{\Gamma }(D)`$.

For any $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }(D),A𝔤`$, the compatibility condition $`d_{}[X,A]=[d_{}X,A]+[X,d_{}A]`$, together with Equations (15, 19), implies that $`[\mathrm{\Omega }^\mathrm{\#}(X),A]+[X,\delta ^{}A]=0`$. On the other hand, we have

$`[\mathrm{\Omega }^\mathrm{\#}(X),A][X,\delta ^{}A]`$
$`=`$ $`[L_X\tau ,A]L_X\delta ^{}A`$
$`=`$ $`L_X([\tau ,A]\delta ^{}A).`$
It thus follows that $`[\tau ,A]\delta ^{}A`$ is constant along leaves of $`D`$. Let $`\delta A=\delta ^{}A[\tau ,A]`$. Thus, the map

$$\delta =\delta ^{}[\tau ,]:𝔤C^{\mathrm{}}(M,^2𝔤)^D$$
(22)
is a cobracket which induces a fiberwise bracket $`[,]^{}`$ on $`M\times 𝔤^{}`$ constant along leaves of $`D`$. Moreover it is simple to see, from Equation (22), that

$$[\xi ,\eta ]^{}=[\xi ,\eta ]^{}+ad_{\tau ^\mathrm{\#}\xi }^{}\eta ad_{\tau ^\mathrm{\#}\eta }^{}\xi ,\xi ,\eta C^{\mathrm{}}(M,𝔤^{}).$$

Thus, from Equation (18), we get

$`[\xi ,\eta ]_{}`$ $`=`$ $`[\xi ,\eta ]_K+[\xi ,\eta ]^{}+ad_{\tau ^\mathrm{\#}\xi }^{}\eta ad_{\tau ^\mathrm{\#}\eta }^{}\xi +(d_D\tau )(\xi ,\eta )`$
$`=`$ $`[\xi ,\eta ]_K+[\xi ,\eta ]^{}+[\xi ,\eta ]_\tau `$
$`=`$ $`[\xi ,\eta ]_{K+\tau }+[\xi ,\eta ]^{}`$
This concludes the proof of the proposition. ∎
Proof of Theorem 2.1: According to Proposition 2.2 (3), Proposition 2.4, and Proposition 2.6, we conclude that for any $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }(D^{}),\xi ,\eta C^{\mathrm{}}(M,𝔤^{})`$,

$$[\alpha +\xi ,\beta +\eta ]_{}=[\alpha +\xi ,\beta +\eta ]_\mathrm{\Lambda }+[\xi ,\eta ]^{},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\pi +K+\tau `$. It thus follows that $`d_{}=[\mathrm{\Lambda },]+\delta `$, where $`\delta :M\times 𝔤M\times ^2𝔤`$ is the cobracket dual to $`[,]^{}`$. Notice that in Proposition 2.6, $`\tau `$ and $`\delta `$ are not unique. They can differ by an element $`r_0C^{\mathrm{}}(M,^2𝔤)^D`$: $`\tau _1=\tau +r_0`$ and $`\delta _1=\delta [r_0,]`$. However, $`\delta ^{}=\delta +[\tau ,]=\delta _1+[\tau _1,]`$ is always fixed. This completes the proof of the theorem. ∎

###### Theorem 2.7.

Under the same hypothesis as in Theorem 2.1, we have

1. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }(^2𝒜)`$ iff $`Im(\rho _{})D`$.
2. For any $`xM`$, the cobracket $`\delta _x:𝔤_x^2𝔤_x`$ is a Lie algebra 1-cocycle if $`L_{\rho _{}(e)}[A,B]=0`$, $`A,B𝔤,e\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒜^{}|_x)`$. In particular, $`\delta _x`$ is always a 1-cocycle when $`Im(\rho _{}|_x)D_x`$.

Proof. $`K`$ is the only term in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which is not necessarily a section in $`^2𝒜`$. It is thus clear that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }(^2𝒜)`$ iff $`Im(\rho _{})D`$ according to Proposition 2.2 (9).

For any $`A,B𝔤`$, by the compatibility condition $`d_{}[A,B]=[d_{}A,B]+[A,d_{}B]`$ and Equation (19), we have

$$\delta ^{}[A,B]([\delta ^{}A,B]+[A,\delta ^{}B])=[K,[A,B]]+[[K,A],B]+[A,[K,B]].$$

It thus follows from Corollary 2.3 (2) that $`\delta _x^{}`$ is a cocycle if $`L_{\rho _{}|_x(\xi )}[A,B]=0`$ , $`\xi 𝔤^{}`$. Finally, note that $`\delta _x`$ being a cocycle is equivalent to $`\delta _x^{}`$ being a cocycle since their difference is a coboundary $`[\tau ,]`$. Therefore, the theorem is proved. ∎

###### Definition 2.8.

A regular Lie bialgebroid $`(𝒜,𝒜^{})`$, where $`𝒜`$ is of the standard form: $`𝒜=D(M\times 𝔤)`$, is called decomposable if $`Im(\rho _{})D`$.

We should note that the role of $`𝒜`$ and $`𝒜^{}`$ is not symmetric here. In other words, that $`(𝒜,𝒜^{})`$ is decomposable does not necessarily mean that $`(𝒜^{},𝒜)`$ is decomposable. In fact $`(𝒜^{},𝒜)`$ may even not be regular.

The following immediately follows from Proposition 2.2 (9).

###### Corollary 2.9.

Given a regular Lie bialgebroid $`(𝒜,𝒜^{})`$, if $`𝔤_x,xM`$, are center free (e.g., semisimple), then $`(𝒜,𝒜^{})`$ is decomposable.

In particular, if $`𝒜=M\times 𝔤`$ is a bundle of Lie algebras and $`𝔤_x,xM`$, are center free, $`𝒜^{}=M\times 𝔤^{}`$ is also a Lie algebra bundle such that $`(𝔤_x,𝔤_x^{}),xM`$, are all Lie bialgebras.

The following result is obvious.

###### Proposition 2.10.

If $`(𝒜,𝒜^{})`$ is a decomposable Lie bialgebroid as in Definition 2.8 and $`L`$ is any leaf of $`D`$, then $`(𝒜|_L,𝒜^{}|_L)`$ is a transitive Lie bialgebroid.

In other words, one can reduce the study of a decomposable Lie bialgebroid to the study of transitive ones, which is the main topic of the next section.

## 3 Transitive Lie bialgebroids

This section is devoted to the study of local structures of transitive Lie bialgebroids, which is a special case of regular ones. In this case, we have $`𝒜=TM(M\times 𝔤)`$ and the fiberwise brackets on $`M\times 𝔤M`$ are constant. We also assume, throughout the section, that $`H^1(M)=\{0\}`$. Theorem 2.1 implies the following:

###### Theorem 3.1.

Let $`𝒜=TM(M\times 𝔤)`$ be a transitive Lie algebroid. Assume that $`H^1(M)=\{0\}`$. Then there is a one-to-one correspondence between Lie bialgebroids $`(𝒜,𝒜^{})`$ and equivalence classes $`[(\mathrm{\Lambda },\delta )]`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }(^2𝒜)`$, $`\delta :𝔤𝔤𝔤`$ is a Lie algebra 1-cocycle satisfying the property that

$$[\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }],e]+\delta ^2e=0,e\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒜),$$
(23)
and the equivalence stands for the gauge equivalence: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }+r_0`$, $`\delta \delta [r_0,]`$ for some $`r_0^2𝔤`$.

Proof. Assume that $`(𝒜,𝒜^{})`$ is a transitive Lie bialgebroid. According to Theorem 2.1, we know that

$$d_{}=[\mathrm{\Lambda },]+\delta $$
(24)
for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }(^2𝒜)`$ and $`\delta :𝔤𝔤𝔤`$. Moreover, by Theorem 2.7, $`\delta `$ is a Lie algebra 1-cocycle. It is simple to check that

$$d_{}^2=[\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }],]+\delta ^2.$$
(25)
Thus Equation (23) follows.

Conversely, given a pair $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },\delta )`$ satisfying Equation (23), let $`d_{}:\mathrm{\Gamma }(^{}𝒜)\mathrm{\Gamma }(^{+1}𝒜)`$ be as in Equation (24). Then $`d_{}`$ defines a Lie algebroid on $`𝒜^{}`$ iff $`d_{}^2=0`$, which is equivalent to: $`d_{}^2f=0`$ and $`d_{}^2e=0`$ for any $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ and $`e\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒜)`$. Now we easily see that $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M),e\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒜)`$,

$$d_{}^2(fe)=fd_{}^2e+(d_{}^2f)e.$$

It thus follows that $`d_{}^2f=0`$ whenever the rank of $`𝒜`$ is greater than $`2`$. If the rank of $`𝒜`$ is less than or equal to $`2`$, by Equation (25), we have $`d_{}^2f=[\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }],f]=0`$ since $`\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ vanishes automatically. Finally, it is clear that the compatibility condition is satisfied automatically. ∎

Now $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be split into three parts: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\pi +K+\tau `$, where $`\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(^2TM)`$, $`K\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔤TM)`$ and $`\tau C^{\mathrm{}}(M,^2𝔤)`$. Our next task is to spell out the meaning of Equation (23) in terms of these data. Let us explain some notations that will be needed below. Recall the element $`\theta `$ of $`𝔛(M)𝔤`$ defined by Equation (9), and the corresponding bundle map $`\theta ^\mathrm{\#}:T^{}MM\times 𝔤`$. Note that $`\delta `$ extends naturally to a map, denoted by the same symbol, from $`𝔛(M)𝔤`$ to $`𝔛(M)(^2𝔤)`$. If $`\theta =X_iA_i𝔛(M)𝔤`$, write

$`\delta \theta ={\displaystyle X_i\delta A_i},[\tau ,\theta ]={\displaystyle X_i[\tau ,A_i]}`$ (26)
$`[\theta ,\theta ]={\displaystyle [X_i,X_j](A_iA_j)},\theta \theta ={\displaystyle X_i}X_j[A_i,A_j].`$ (27)
Note that $`\theta ^\mathrm{\#}d\tau C^{\mathrm{}}(M,^2𝔤𝔤)`$. By $`\text{Alt}(\theta ^\mathrm{\#}d\tau )C^{\mathrm{}}(M,^3𝔤)`$, we denote its total anti-symmetrization:

$$<\text{Alt}(\theta ^\mathrm{\#}d\tau ),\xi \eta \zeta >=<(\theta ^\mathrm{\#}d\tau )(\xi ,\eta ),\zeta >+c.p.,\xi ,\eta ,\zeta 𝔤^{}.$$
(28)
¿From the above discussion, a transitive Lie bialgebroid is then determined by a quadruple $`(\pi ,\theta ,\tau ,\delta )`$. We say two quadruples $`(\pi _i,\theta _i,\tau _i,\delta _i)`$, $`i=1,2`$, are equivalent if $`\pi _1=\pi _2`$, $`\theta _1=\theta _2`$, and $`\tau _1=\tau _2+r_0`$ and $`\delta _1=\delta _2[r_0,]`$ for some $`r_0^2𝔤`$.

We are now ready to state the main theorem of this section.

###### Theorem 3.2.

Under the same hypothesis as in Theorem 3.1, there is a one-one correspondence between transitive Lie bialgebroids $`(𝒜,𝒜^{})`$ and equivalence classes of quadruples $`(\pi ,\theta ,\tau ,\delta )`$ satisfying the following properties:

1. $`\delta :𝔤𝔤𝔤`$ is a Lie algebra 1-cocycle;
2. $`\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(^2TM)`$ is a Poisson tensor;
3. $`\theta ^\mathrm{\#}:(T^{}M,\pi )𝔤`$ is Lie algebroid morphism;
4. $`\delta \theta +\frac{1}{2}[\theta ,\theta ]=[\tau ,\theta ]\pi ^\mathrm{\#}(d\tau )`$;
5. $`\delta \tau +\frac{1}{2}[\tau ,\tau ]+\text{Alt}(\theta ^\mathrm{\#}d\tau )^3𝔤`$ is constant on $`M`$;
6. $`\delta ^2+[\delta \tau +\frac{1}{2}[\tau ,\tau ]+\text{Alt}(\theta ^\mathrm{\#}d\tau ),]=0`$, as a map from $`𝔤`$ to $`^3𝔤`$.

Proof. Each fiber of $`𝒜`$ is a vector space direct sum $`T_mM𝔤`$, and therefore admits a natural bigrading: elements in $`T_mM`$ have the degree $`(1,0)`$ while elements in the second component $`𝔤`$ have the degree $`(0,1)`$. This also induces a bigrading on the fibers of exterior powers of $`𝒜`$ and consequently on their sections. It is simple to see that $`[\pi ,\pi ]`$ is of degree $`(3,0)`$, $`[\pi ,K]`$ is of degree $`(2,1)`$, $`[\pi ,\tau ]`$ is of degree $`(1,2)`$, and $`[\tau ,\tau ]`$ is of degree $`(0,3)`$. On the other hand, $`[K,\tau ]`$ consists of elements of degree $`(1,2)`$ and of $`(0,3)`$, and $`[K,K]`$ consists of elements of degree $`(1,2)`$ and of $`(2,1)`$. For any $`S\mathrm{\Gamma }(^3𝒜)`$, let $`S=_{0i,j3}S^{(i,j)}`$ be its decomposition with respect to this bigrading. The following lemma can be easily verified by a direct computation.

###### Lemma 3.3.

With the above notations,

1. as a $`^2𝔤`$-valued vector field on $`M`$, we have $`[K,K]^{(1,2)}=[\theta ,\theta ]`$;
2. As a $`𝔤`$-valued bivector field on $`M`$, $`[K,K]^{(2,1)}=2\theta \theta `$;
3. $`\delta K=\delta \theta `$; $`[K,\tau ]^{(1,2)}=[\tau ,\theta ]`$;
4. $`[K,\tau ]^{(0,3)}=\text{Alt}(\theta ^\mathrm{\#}d\tau )`$;
5. $`[\pi ,K]=d_\pi \theta `$.

Write

$$T=\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }]\mathrm{\Gamma }(^3𝒜).$$

A direct computation, using Lemma 3.3, yields that

$`T^{(3,0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\pi ,\pi ];`$
$`T^{(2,1)}`$ $`=`$ $`[\pi ,K]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[K,K]^{(2,1)}`$
$`=`$ $`\theta \theta +d_\pi \theta ;`$
$`T^{(1,2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta K+[K,\tau ]^{(1,2)}+[\pi ,\tau ]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[K,K]^{(1,2)}`$
$`=`$ $`\delta \theta [\tau ,\theta ]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\theta ,\theta ]+\pi ^\mathrm{\#}(d\tau );`$
$`T^{(0,3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta \tau +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\tau ,\tau ]+[K,\tau ]^{(0,3)}`$
$`=`$ $`\delta \tau +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\tau ,\tau ]+\text{Alt}(\theta ^\mathrm{\#}d\tau ).`$
For any $`X𝔛(M)`$, according to Equation (25), we have $`d_{}^2X=L_XT`$. Hence $`d_{}^2X=0`$, $`X𝔛(M)`$, is equivalent to that $`T^{(i,3i)}=0`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},3`$, and $`T^{(0,3)}`$ is a constant function. The latter is equivalent to Conditions (2)-(5).

For any $`AC^{\mathrm{}}(M,𝔤)`$, it is easy to see that $`(d_{}^2A)^{(3,0)}`$, $`(d_{}^2A)^{(2,1)}`$, and $`(d_{}^2A)^{(1,2)}`$ all vanish by Conditions (2)-(5). And the only nontrivial term remaining is

$$(d_{}^2A)^{(0,3)}=\delta ^2A+[\delta \tau +\frac{1}{2}[\tau ,\tau ]+\text{Alt}(\theta ^\mathrm{\#}d\tau ),A].$$

Therefore, we see that $`d_{}^2e=0,e\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒜)`$ iff Conditions (2)-(6) hold. The conclusion thus follows by Theorem 3.1. ∎

## 4 Applications

As applications, in this section, we will consider two special cases of transitive Lie bialgebroids. They are connected, respectively, to the Lie algebroids arising from Poisson group actions , and dynamical $`r`$-matrices .

Let $`(𝒜,𝒜^{})`$ be a transitive Lie bialgebroid corresponding to a quadruple $`(\pi ,\theta ,\tau ,\delta )`$ as in Theorem 3.2. From Proposition 2.6, it is simple to see that the subbundle $`M\times 𝔤^{}`$ of $`𝒜^{}=T^{}M(M\times 𝔤^{})`$ is a Lie subalgebroid iff $`d\tau =0`$, or $`\tau ^2𝔤`$ is a constant.

¿From now on, we will assume that $`M\times 𝔤^{}`$ is a Lie subalgebroid. Thus one may simply assume that $`\tau =0`$ via a gauge transformation. By Theorem 3.2 (6), we have $`\delta ^2=0`$. This implies that $`𝔤^{}`$ is a Lie algebra such that $`(𝔤,𝔤^{})`$ is indeed a Lie bialgebra. Theorem 3.2 (4) is equivalent to that the linear map $`(\theta ^\mathrm{\#})^{}:𝔤^{}𝔛(M)`$ obtained by taking the opposite of the dual of $`\theta ^\mathrm{\#}`$ is a Lie algebra morphism. Hence, it defines a right action of $`𝔤^{}`$ on $`M`$. Theorem 3.2 (3) is equivalent to saying that this is a Poisson action (Proposition 5.4 in ). In conclusion, when $`\tau =0`$, the conditions in Theorem 3.2 reduce to the statement that $`(𝔤,𝔤^{})`$ is a Lie bialgebra and $`M`$ is a Poisson $`𝔤^{}`$-manifold. In this case, the Lie algebroid structure on $`𝒜^{}=T^{}M(M\times 𝔤^{})`$ can be described more explicitly. First, we note that the subbundle $`T^{}M`$ is also a Lie subalgebroid of $`𝒜^{}`$. In other words, both summands of $`𝒜^{}`$ are Lie subalgebroids. Therefore, in order to describe the bracket on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒜^{})`$, it suffices to consider the bracket between the mixed terms. For this purpose, consider the maps:

$`\varphi :T^{}MCDO(M\times 𝔤^{}),\varphi (\alpha )(\xi )=L_{\pi ^\mathrm{\#}\alpha }\xi +ad_{\theta ^\mathrm{\#}\alpha }^{}\xi \text{and}`$
$`\psi :M\times 𝔤^{}CDO(T^{}M),\psi (\xi )(\alpha )=<\xi ,d(\theta ^\mathrm{\#}\alpha )>i_{(\theta ^\mathrm{\#})^{}\xi }d\alpha ,`$
$`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)`$ and $`\xi C^{\mathrm{}}(M,𝔤^{})`$. Here $`CDO`$ stands for covariant differential operators , and $`<,>`$ means the pairing between $`𝔤^{}`$ and $`𝔤`$. Now a simple computation, using Proposition 2.4, yields that

$`[\alpha ,\xi ]_{}`$
$`=`$ $`[\alpha ,\xi ]_{\pi +K}`$
$`=`$ $`L_{\pi ^\mathrm{\#}\alpha }\xi +L_{K^\mathrm{\#}\alpha }\xi L_{K^\mathrm{\#}\xi }\alpha d<K^\mathrm{\#}\alpha ,\xi >`$
$`=`$ $`L_{\pi ^\mathrm{\#}\alpha }\xi +ad_{\theta ^\mathrm{\#}(\alpha )}^{}\xi <\theta ^\mathrm{\#}(\alpha ),d\xi >+i_{(\theta ^\mathrm{\#})^{}\xi }d\alpha +d<\xi ,\theta ^\mathrm{\#}(\alpha )>`$
$`=`$ $`\varphi (\alpha )(\xi )\psi (\xi )(\alpha ).`$
As a consequence, we conclude that (1). both $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ are Lie algebroid representations, (2). $`(T^{}M,M\times 𝔤^{})`$ is a matched pair, and (3). $`𝒜^{}`$ is isomorphic to the corresponding Lie algebroid $`T^{}M(M\times 𝔤^{})`$ . This Lie algebroid was studied in detail by Lu in .

Now we can summarize the discussion above in the following:

###### Theorem 4.1.

A quadruple $`(\pi ,\theta ,0,\delta )`$ as in Theorem 3.2 satisfies the conditions in Theorem 3.2 iff $`\pi `$ is a Poisson tensor, $`\delta `$ defines a Lie bialgebra and $`\theta `$ induces a right $`𝔤^{}`$-Poisson action. In this case, the dual Lie algebroid $`𝒜^{}`$ is isomorphic to the matched pair $`T^{}M(M\times 𝔤^{})`$ as mentioned above.

In other words, under the bijection of Theorem 3.2, the classes of quadruples $`(\pi ,\theta ,0,\delta )`$ correspond to those transitive Lie bialgebroids $`(𝒜,𝒜^{})`$ where $`𝒜^{}`$ is the double of the matched pairs $`(T^{}M,M\times 𝔤^{})`$ of a Poisson group action.

###### Remark 4.2.

More generally, instead of $`\tau =0`$, one may consider the situation where Conditions (4)-(6) of Theorem 3.2 are replaced by

$`\delta \theta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\theta ,\theta ]=0;`$ (29)
$`[\tau ,\theta ]\pi ^\mathrm{\#}(d\tau )=0;`$ (30)
$`\delta ^2=0;\text{ and}`$ (31)
$`\delta \tau +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\tau ,\tau ]+\text{Alt}(\theta ^\mathrm{\#}d\tau )=0.`$ (32)
Equations (29, 31) imply that $`\delta `$ defines a Lie bialgebra and $`\theta `$ induces a right $`𝔤^{}`$-Poisson action, and therefore one can form a Lie algebroid $`T^{}M(M\times 𝔤^{})`$ as in Theorem 4.1. It is simple to see that Equations (30, 32) mean that $`\tau C^{\mathrm{}}(M,^2𝔤)`$, considered as a section of $`^2𝒜`$, is a Hamiltonian operator, i.e., its graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau `$ is a Dirac structure of $`𝒜𝒜^{}`$ . In this case $`𝒜^{}`$ is isomorphic to the corresponding Lie algebroid $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau `$. This is a generalization of the situation studied in . Note that Equation (30) is equivalent to that

$$X_f\tau =ad_{\theta ^\mathrm{\#}(df)}\tau ,fC^{\mathrm{}}(M),$$
(33)
which implies that $`\tau `$ is completely determined, on a symplectic leaf, by its value at a particular point of the leaf. It would be interesting to investigate what kind of equation $`\tau `$ satisfies when being viewed as a function on the leaf space (compare with Theorem 3.14 in ).

Another special case of Theorem 3.2 is when the quadruple $`(\pi ,\theta ,\tau ,\delta )`$ is equivalent to $`(\pi ,\theta ,\tau ,0)`$. In this case, the corresponding Lie bialgebroid must be a coboundary Lie bialgebroid with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\pi +K+\tau `$.

###### Theorem 4.3.

There is a one-one correspondence between coboundary Lie bialgebroids $`(𝒜,𝒜^{})`$, where $`𝒜=TM(M\times 𝔤)`$, and triples $`(\pi ,\theta ,\tau )`$ satisfying the properties:

1. $`\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(^2TM)`$ is a Poisson tensor;
2. $`\theta ^\mathrm{\#}:(T^{}M,\pi )𝔤`$ is Lie algebroid morphism;
3. $`\frac{1}{2}[\theta ,\theta ]=[\tau ,\theta ]\pi ^\mathrm{\#}(d\tau )`$;
4. $`\text{Alt}(\theta ^\mathrm{\#}d\tau )+\frac{1}{2}[\tau ,\tau ](^3𝔤)^𝔤`$ (i.e., it is constant on $`M`$ as well as $`ad`$-invariant).

###### Definition 4.4.

For a Poisson manifold $`(M,\pi )`$ and a Lie algebra $`𝔤`$, assume that there exists a tensor $`\theta 𝔛(M)𝔤`$ such that $`\theta ^\mathrm{\#}:(T^{}M,\pi )𝔤`$ is a Lie algebroid morphism. A function $`\tau C^{\mathrm{}}(M,^2𝔤)`$ is called a dynamical $`r`$-matrix coupled with the Poisson manifold $`(M,\pi )`$ via $`\theta `$ if both conditions (3) and (4) in Theorem 4.3 are satisfied. Here $`\theta `$ is called a coupling tensor, and the equation

$$\text{Alt}(\theta ^\mathrm{\#}d\tau )+\frac{1}{2}[\tau ,\tau ]=\mathrm{\Omega }(^3𝔤)^𝔤,$$
(34)
is called the generalized DYBE coupled with $`(\pi ,\theta )`$.

With this definition, Theorem 4.3 can be rephrased as follows.

###### Theorem 4.5.

A function $`\tau C^{\mathrm{}}(M,^2𝔤)`$ is a dynamical r-matrix coupled with a Poisson tensor $`\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(^2TM)`$ via $`\theta `$ iff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:=\pi +K+\tau `$ defines a coboundary Lie bialgebroid structure for the Lie algebroid $`TM(M\times 𝔤)`$.

Now we consider an example, which is in fact the main motivation for the above definition.

###### Example 4.6.

Assume that $`M=𝔥^{}`$ where $`𝔥𝔤`$ is a Lie subalgebra. Then $`M`$ is a Poisson manifold with the Lie-Poisson structure $`\pi `$. In this case, $`T^{}M𝔥^{}\times 𝔥`$. Let $`\theta ^\mathrm{\#}:T^{}M𝔤`$ be the projection: $`(\xi ,v)v,(\xi ,v)𝔥^{}\times 𝔥`$. Clearly $`\theta ^\mathrm{\#}`$ is a Lie algebroid morphism. Let us fix a basis of $`𝔥`$, say $`\{e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_k\}`$, and let $`(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _k)`$ be its corresponding coordinate system on $`𝔥^{}`$. Then we have $`\theta =_i\frac{}{\lambda _i}e_i`$, where $`\frac{}{\lambda _i}`$, $`1ik`$, are considered as constant vector fields on $`𝔥^{}`$. Clearly $`[\theta ,\theta ]=0`$. Thus, for any $`\tau C^{\mathrm{}}(𝔥^{},^2𝔤)`$, Condition (3) in Theorem 4.3 takes the form $`[\tau ,\theta ]=\pi ^\mathrm{\#}(d\tau )`$, which, according to Equation (33), is equivalent to that

$$ad_\xi \tau =X_{l_\xi }(\tau ),\xi 𝔥.$$
(35)
Here $`X_{l_\xi }`$ denotes the Hamiltonian vector field of the linear function $`l_\xi `$ on $`𝔥^{}`$. Thus, If $`H`$ denotes a connected Lie group with Lie algebra $`𝔥`$, Equation (35) is equivalent to that the map $`\tau :𝔥^{}^2𝔤`$ is $`H`$-equivariant. Condition (4) in Theorem 4.3 becomes

$$Alt(d\tau )+\frac{1}{2}[\tau ,\tau ](^3𝔤)^𝔤.$$

In other words, $`\tau `$ is a classical dynamical $`r`$-matrix in the sense of Felder . We thus recover the main result in .

We end the paper with the following

###### Example 4.7.

Let $`(M,\pi )`$ be any Poisson manifold and $`𝔤=sl(2,)`$ with the standard generators $`\{H,E_+,E_{}\}`$:

$$[H,E_+]=E_+,[H,E_{}]=E_{},[E_+,E_{}]=2H.$$

Take $`\theta =X_fH`$, where $`f`$ is a smooth function on $`M`$ and $`X_f`$ its Hamiltonian vector field. Clearly $`\theta ^\mathrm{\#}:(T^{}M,\pi )𝔤`$ is Lie algebroid morphism because $`d_\pi \theta +\theta \theta =0`$.

Let

$$\tau =e^fHE_++e^fHE_{}+E_+E_{},$$

which can be considered as a twist of standard r-matrix on $`sl(2,)`$. Obviously $`[\theta ,\theta ]=0`$ and

$$[\tau ,\theta ]=\pi ^\mathrm{\#}(dr)=X_f(e^fHE_+e^fHE_{})$$

so that the condition in Theorem 4.3 (3) holds. For Theorem 4.3 (4), note that $`\text{Alt}(\theta ^\mathrm{\#}d\tau )=0`$ and $`[\tau ,\tau ]=3HE_+E_{}(^3𝔤)^𝔤`$. Hence $`\tau `$ is indeed a dynamical $`r`$-matrix coupled with $`\pi `$ via $`\theta `$.

In particular, let $`M=^2`$ be equipped with the standard symplectic structure $`\omega =dxdy`$ and $`f=axby`$. Then we have

$`\pi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{y}}`$
$`\theta `$ $`=`$ $`(b{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}+a{\displaystyle \frac{}{y}})H,\text{ and}`$
$`\tau (x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{axby}HE_++e^{(axby)}HE_{}+E_+E_{}.`$


text:
# Construction of multi-instantons in eight dimensions

## 1 Introduction.

The discovery of instantons  was an important advance in our understanding of non-perturbative quantum field theory. These objects are (anti-)self-dual ($`F=\pm F`$) Euclidean solutions to Yang-Mills field equations in 4D. They have lead to a deeper understanding of the QCD vacuum ($`\theta `$ vacuum ), and have been conjectured to play a part in the confinement of color charges . Instantons also have a broad significance in mathematics, specifically in the theory of fake $`𝖱^4`$-manifolds . The most general multi-instanton solutions have been constructed , and these again played a part in broadening our understanding of gauge theories.

A single instanton solution is spherically symmetric and, in mathematical language, corresponds to the third Hopf map, which is the principal fibre bundle $`S^7\stackrel{S^3}{}S^4`$, where $`S^4`$ is the one-point compactification of $`𝖱^4`$, $`S^3SU(2)`$ is the fibre (gauge group) and $`S^7`$ is the total space.

As string theory and M-theory live in higher dimensions, it is of interest to consider higher dimensional analogs of 4D instantons; in particular, there exists a natural generalization of instantons to 8D, where the last Hopf map $`S^{15}\stackrel{S^7}{}S^8`$ resides. The original 4D instanton had gauge group $`SU(2)`$ embedded in $`Spin(4)SU(2)\times SU(2)`$, so that the bundle became $`Spin(5)\stackrel{Spin(4)}{}S^4`$. The analogous single instanton solution in 8D was found in , and has a generalized self-duality $`F^2=\pm F^2`$ with the bundle $`Spin(9)\stackrel{Spin(8)}{}S^8`$. The higher dimensional instanton have conformal features similar to those of 4D instantons. The 8D case, and especially its multi-instanton generalization, appears more complicated than its 4D counterpart for the following reasons:

1. The fibre that is twisted with the 4D base space is a three-sphere, but this is a group, while the twisted part of the $`Spin(8)S_L^7\times S_R^7\times G_2`$ fibre is a seven-sphere. $`S^7`$ is the only paralellizable manifold that is not a Lie group, but it does have a close resemblance to a gauge group.
2. As $`S^7`$ can be represented by unit octonions, and $`G_2`$ is the automorphism group of the octonions, there is a hidden nonassociativity that comes into play.
3. There is only one choice (via the Hodge star) for the form of duality in 4D, but in 8D other possibilities arise, e.g., a tensor form of duality $`\lambda F_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}T_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\rho \sigma }`$ has been studied .

Attempts  to obtain multi-instantons in a $`Spin(8)`$ gauge theory meet with a number of difficulties. To circumvent these obstructions, we turn to a theory with only $`S^7`$ fibre, but to do this, we first need to review the properties of the octonions. Here we will construct multi-instanton solutions in 8D through a generalization of the ADHM procedure, and to do this we must deal with all of the above complications. We will introduce products and operators in a way that nonassociativity is tamed. Next, a new generalized duality is used to provide results that allow us to relate the topologically significant quadratic duality on $`F^2`$ to a specific form of tensor duality. We then consider the symmetries of our multi-instanton solutions and show that in 8D the $`k`$-instanton $`S^7`$ bundles contain $`16k7`$ parameters in analogy with the $`8k3`$ parameters of the most general 4D $`k`$-instanton $`S^3`$ bundles.

## 2 Octonions

We recall (for a review, see e.g. ) that the nonassociative octonionic algebra has the multiplication rule $`e_ie_j=\delta _{ij}+f_{ijk}e_k`$, where the $`f_{ijk}`$’s are completely anti-symmetric structure constants. The seven-sphere is described by a unit octonion $`g`$ satisfying $`g^{}g=1`$. The octonions’ nonassociativity complicates construction of the analog of a gauge theory. For example, for imaginary octonionic $`A`$ and $`F=\text{d}A+A^2`$, the corresponding $`S^7`$-gauge transformed quantities are

$`A_g=g^{}Ag+g^{}\text{d}g`$
and

$`F_g=g^{}Fg`$
$`+\text{d}g^{}\text{d}g(\text{d}g^{}g)(g^{}\text{d}g)+\text{d}g^{}(Ag)(\text{d}g^{}g)(g^{}Ag)`$
$`g^{}(A\text{d}g)+(g^{}Ag)(g^{}\text{d}g)g^{}A^2g+(g^{}Ag)(g^{}Ag).`$ (1)
Nonassociativity prevents the terms in the last two lines of (1) from canceling. Using $`g(g^{}h)=h`$, which holds for any octonions $`g`$ and $`h`$, we note that the terms do cancel in $`LF_g`$, where $`L`$ is the operator of left octonionic multiplication,

$`L(a_1\mathrm{}a_n)=a_1(a_2(a_3(\mathrm{}a_n))\mathrm{}).`$ (2)
Any arrangement of parentheses in the argument of $`L`$ give the same results on the right-hand side of (2). Use of the operator $`L`$ allows us to perform various operations on the octonions as if they were associative. For simplicity in notations, we omit $`L`$ in the following. Instead of left octonionic multiplication we could use right multiplication with the same result. From (1) we now find the familiar result $`F_g=g^{}Fg`$.

For associative $`A`$ and $`F`$, the forms $`\text{tr }F^n`$ are closed. To extend this to octonions, which do not admit a matrix representation, we need an octonionic operator with some of the properties of the matrix trace. Consider the operator trO defined by

$`\text{tr}\text{O}\text{ }L(a_1\mathrm{}a_n)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(1)^{(r_k+\mathrm{}+r_n)(r_1+\mathrm{}+r_{k1})}L(a_k\mathrm{}a_na_1\mathrm{}a_{k1}),`$ (3)
where differential forms $`a_k`$ are of degrees $`r_k`$. The operators trO and d commute and so the forms $`\text{tr}\text{O}\text{ }F^n`$ are closed; thus we arrive at the familiar Lie algebra result :

$`\text{tr}\text{O}\text{ }F^n=\text{d}Q_{2n1},`$ (4)
where

$`Q_{2n1}=n\text{tr}\text{O}\text{ }{\displaystyle _0^1}\text{d}tA\left[tF+(t^2t)A^2\right]^{n1}.`$ (5)
## 3 Linear duality

Since any pair of imaginary octonions generate a quaternionic subalgebra, we expect to find an octonionic duality condition which is reducible to its quaternionic counterpart. For example, let us define dual octonionic $`2`$-forms according to

$`(\text{d}x_\mu \text{d}x_\nu )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\text{d}x_\rho \text{d}x_\sigma ,`$ (6)
and determine the tensor $`f_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ from the following two requirements: (i) any $`2`$-form can be written as a sum of its self-dual and anti-self-dual parts, or equivalently, $`^2=1`$; (ii) $`\text{d}x\text{d}x^{}`$ is self-dual and $`\text{d}x^{}\text{d}x`$ is anti-self-dual. Consequently, for octonionic forms we obtain

$`f_{0ijk}=f_{ijk},`$
$`f_{ij0k}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}f_{ijk},`$
$`f_{ijkl}=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}f_{ijm}f_{klm}(\delta _{ik}\delta _{jl}\delta _{il}\delta _{jk}).`$ (7)
From Eqs. (6) and (7), the components of the $``$-dual field strength $`F=\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu \nu }\text{d}x_\mu \text{d}x_\nu `$ are subject to the following 21 relations: 111While our octonionic duality condition (8) is similar in form to one of the two duality conditions for $`SO(8)`$ considered in Ref. , the latter were not constructed to satisfy either of the two above-mentioned requirements. Consequently, our octonionic instantons are different from the $`SO(8)`$ solutions in Ref. .

$`F_{ij}=\pm f_{ijk}F_{0k}.`$ (8)
Applied to the quaternions, the above requirements lead to the familiar relations $`f_{0abc}=f_{ab0c}=ϵ_{abc}`$ and $`f_{abcd}=0`$. In both the quaternionic and octonionic cases, the components $`f_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ are the matrix elements of the corresponding groups and cosets in the products $`Spin(4)=S_L^3\times S_R^3`$ and $`Spin(8)=S_L^7\times G_2\times S_R^7`$. Also, the components turn out to coincide with the elements of the torsion and curvature tensors of $`Spin(4)/Spin(3)`$ and $`Spin(7)/G_2`$ respectively (for the latter see ). Note the two choices of sign for the curvature tensor $`f_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ in (7) and the two choices of orientation, $`S_{L,R}^7=Spin(7)_{L,R}/G_2`$. Neither corresponds to the two choices of sign in Eq. (8).

Dual fields satisfy $`F=\pm F`$ and, in view of the octonionic Bianchi identity $`DF=0`$, they also solve an 8D generalization of the Yang-Mills equation $`DF=0`$. Below we find multi-particle solutions to the duality equations.

## 4 Quadratic duality

In addition to the linear form of duality considered above, a quadratic form of duality is also possible in 8D. In the latter case, dual octonionic 4-forms are related via the Hodge star, “$``$”.

A conformally invariant action $`I=\text{tr}\text{O}\text{ }F^2F^2`$ yields the equation of motion $`\{F,DF^2\}=0`$. The $``$-dual fields, which are defined by

$`F^2=\pm F^2,`$ (9)
solve the equation of motion by means of the Bianchi identity $`DF=0`$.

In terms of (anti-)self-dual $`F_\pm ^2=\frac{1}{2}(F^2\pm F^2)`$, the action becomes

$`I=\text{tr}\text{O}\text{ }{\displaystyle \left(F_+^2F_+^2+F_{}^2F_{}^2\right)}.`$ (10)
On the other hand, the topological charge (the forth Chern number) is

$`N={\displaystyle \frac{1}{384\pi ^4}}\text{tr}\text{O}\text{ }{\displaystyle F^4}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{384\pi ^4}}\text{tr}\text{O}\text{ }{\displaystyle (F_+^2F_+^2F_{}^2F_{}^2)},`$ (11)
where we have used $`F_\pm ^2F_{}^2=0`$. It follows from (10) and (11) that the action is bounded from below,

$`I384\pi ^4|n|,`$
with minima achieved when $`F_\pm ^2=0`$, i.e. for the $``$-dual fields (9). There are one-particle solutions to the quadratic duality equations (9), and these solutions have a geometric interpretation in terms of the forth Hopf map .

It is remarkable but straightforward to verify that $`F=\pm F`$ implies $`F^2=F^2`$. To check this, we need the identity

$`\delta _{}^{\{i}{}_{[k}{}^{}f_{}^{j\}}{}_{lm]}{}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}ϵ_{klmnpqr}f_{}^{i}{}_{np}{}^{}f_{}^{j}{}_{qr}{}^{},`$
where indices included in braces (brackets) are to be symmetrized (antisymmetrized). We can also view $``$ as a “square” of $``$. The relation between the linear and quadratic dualities allows us to proceed with the construction of octonionic multi-instantons.

## 5 Solution

The ADHM construction  gives the most general multi-instanton solutions to the duality equations in four dimensions. We construct octonionic dual fields by a suitable 8D generalization of the ADHM formula. Namely, consider a gauge potential

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{U^{}\text{d}U\text{d}U^{}U}{2(1+U^{}U)}},U^{}=V(BxI)^1,`$ (12)
where the $`k`$-dimensional vector $`V`$ and the $`k\times k`$ matrix $`B`$ have constant octonionic entries. The operator $`L`$ is suppressed as usual, and the symbol “$``$” means matrix transposition combined with octonionic conjugation. The corresponding field strength is

$`F=(1+U^{}U)^2U^{}\text{d}xW\text{d}x^{}U,`$ (13)
where $`W^1=V^{}V+(B^{}x^{}I)(BxI)`$.

For real $`W`$, i.e. when

$`V^{}V+B^{}B\text{is real}`$ (14)
$`\text{and}B\text{is symmetric},`$
$`F`$ involves the expression $`L(\mathrm{}\text{d}x\text{d}x^{}\mathrm{})`$. The $``$-dual of this 2-form is $`L(\mathrm{}(\text{d}x\text{d}x^{})\mathrm{})`$ and, owing to the self-duality of $`\text{d}x\text{d}x^{}`$, $`F`$ is $``$-self-dual itself, but $`F^2`$ is $``$-anti-self-dual. Interchanging $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$, interchanges self-dual and anti-self-dual objects for both dualities.

## 6 Instanton number

For the solution obtained above, the gauge potential vanishes at infinity faster than a pure gauge, and has singularities at the instanton locations. A physically acceptable solution results from a suitable gauge transformation.

The singularities are located at eigenvalues $`\{b_i\}`$ of the $`k\times k`$ matrix $`B`$. Expanding around each singularity, we have approximately

$`A{\displaystyle \frac{y_i^{}\text{d}y_i\text{d}y_i^{}y_i}{2|y_i|^2(1+|y_i|^2)}}\text{for}y_i0,`$ (15)
where $`y_i=(xb_i)V_i^{}`$. A gauge transformation with the gauge function $`g_i=y_i^{}/|y_i|`$ removes the singularity at $`y_i=0`$ in the potential (15), and leads to

$`A_{g_i}{\displaystyle \frac{y_i\text{d}y_i^{}\text{d}y_iy_i^{}}{2(1+|y_i|^2)}}\text{for}y_i0.`$ (16)
Similar to the quaternionic case , all singularities inside a finite $`S^7`$ can be removed. Inside this $`S^7`$, after using (4), the instanton number becomes

$`N={\displaystyle _{𝖱^8}}\text{tr}\text{O}\text{ }F_g^4={\displaystyle _{S^7}}(Q_7)_g,`$ (17)
where asymptotically $`(Q_7)_g\frac{1}{35}\text{tr}\text{O}\text{ }(g^{}\text{d}g)^7`$. Since the field strength corresponding to the gauge potential $`g^{}\text{d}g`$ is zero, we use Stokes’s theorem again to replace the integral over the large $`S^7`$ by the sum of the integrals over $`k`$ small spheres $`S_i^7`$ enclosing singularities $`b_i`$. Around each singularity, $`F_g`$ looks like the field of a single anti-instanton at the origin,

$`F_g={\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}x\text{d}x^{}}{(1+|x|^2)^2}}.`$ (18)
Therefore, the topological charge $`N`$ and minus the instanton number $`k`$ are one and the same.

## 7 Parameters

We now count the number of parameters needed to describe a $`k`$-instanton. The octonions $`V`$ and $`B`$ have, respectively, $`8k`$ and $`8\frac{1}{2}k(k+1)`$ real parameters. There are $`7\frac{1}{2}k(k1)`$ real equations in (14) constraining $`V`$ and $`B`$. When $`V`$ is replaced by $`g^{}V`$, where $`gS^7`$ is constant, the potential (12) is gauge transformed, $`Ag^{}Ag`$, eliminating $`7`$ more parameters. Also, a transformation $`VVT`$, $`BT^1BT`$ with real and constant $`TO(k)`$, which has $`\frac{1}{2}k(k1)`$ parameters, does not change $`A`$. Therefore, the number of effective degrees of freedom desrcibing a $`k`$-instanton is

$`8k+8{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k(k+1)7{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k(k1)7{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k(k1)=16k7.`$ (19)
We do not have a proof that the above construction gives all dual fields, although we suspect it does. At least it does so for the case of a one-instanton , which is described by $`9`$ parameters—instanton’s scale and location. Perhaps completeness of the construction can be proved by using octonionic projective spaces  and generalized twistors in analogy with the 4D case (). Other multi-instanton solutions are subsets of our solutions. For example, one can generalize Witten’s and ’t Hooft’s  4D multi-instanton solutions to 8D.

The single 8D instanton has entered string theory and produced a solitonic member of the brane scan (for a review, see ). We hope our general construction will facilitate further applications to string and M-theory, and perhaps in pure mathematics.


text:
# 1 INTRODUCTION

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The Brans-Dicke theory is defined by a constant coupling function $`\omega `$ and a scalar field $`\varphi `$ .The relative importance is determined by the arbitary coupling function $`\omega `$ .The generalised B-D theory $`[2]`$ involves an extension of original theory to the case of a time dependent coupling function $`\omega =\omega (t)`$. Generalised B-D model is special for more than one reason . It appears naturally in super gravity theory, Kaluza-Klein theories and in all the known effective string actions .It is perhaps the most natural extension of General Relativity $`[3]`$,which may explain its obiquitous appearance in fundamental theories.In the generalised B-D theory,sometimes referred to as graviton-dilaton theory, $`\omega `$ is an arbitary function of the scalar field $`\varphi `$ (dilaton) .Hence it includes a number of models, one for every function $`\omega `$ .GR is obtained when the field $`\varphi `$ = constant and $`\omega (t)=\mathrm{}`$ $`[4,5]`$.

Brans-Dicke theory with a constant $`\omega `$ is a successful theory because it explains almost all the important features of the evolution of the Universe. Some of the problems like inflation $`[6]`$, early and late time behaviour of Universe $`[7]`$, cosmic acceleration and structure formation $`[8]`$, cosmic acceleration,quintessence and coincidence problem $`[9]`$, self -interacting potential and cosmic acceleration $`[10]`$ can be explained in the B-D formalism . For large $`\omega `$ B-D theory gives the correct amount of inflation and early and late time behaviour, and for small negative $`\omega `$ it correctly explains cosmic acceleration, structure formation and coincidence problem .

Brans-Dicke theory with a time dependent $`\omega `$ is also an interesting theory in its own right . Not only it gets a strong support from string and Kaluza-Klein theories, a few attempts have also been taken using this formalism to study the dynamics of the Universe . However, all these attempts address the problems of evolution of universe $`[11]`$, cosmic accleration and quintessence $`[9]`$ etc. in a qualitative way without exibiting the explicit time dependence of $`\omega `$ . Also,Alimi and Serna $`[5]`$ have shown that this time varing $`\omega `$ theory includes a number of models; one each for every time dependence of $`\omega `$ . So it is of natural interest to seek exact derivation of time dependence of $`\omega `$ from the dynamical equations of the Universe .

Our aim, in this paper therefore, is to derive explicit time dependence of $`\omega `$ for simple expanding solutions of field and wave equations in the Brans-Dicke theory for all era which can give some information regarding the early and late time behaviour of the universe .This will also provide the oppertunity to examine if the derived time-dependence of $`\omega `$ can be used to explain atleast some of the presently observed properties of the universe like cosmic accleration, structure formation etc.

## 2  THE GENERAL $`\omega `$

For a Universe filled with perfect fluid and described by Friedmann-Robertson -Walker space-time with scale factor $`a(t)`$ and spatial curvature index $`k`$, the gravitational field equations in B-D theory with time dependent $`\omega `$, are

$$\frac{\dot{a}^2+k}{a^2}+\frac{\dot{a}\dot{\varphi }}{a\varphi }\frac{\omega \dot{\varphi }^2}{6\varphi ^2}=\frac{\rho }{3\varphi }$$
(1)
$$2\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\frac{\dot{a}^2+k}{a^2}+\frac{\omega \dot{\varphi }^2}{2\varphi ^2}+2\frac{\dot{a}\dot{\varphi }}{a\varphi }+\frac{\ddot{\varphi }}{\varphi }=\frac{P}{\varphi }$$
(2)
where $`\rho `$ and P are respectively the energy density and pressure of the fluid distribution . The equation of state of the fluid is given by$`P=\gamma \rho `$. Some of the values of $`\gamma `$ for typical cases are -1 (vacuum), 0 (dust), 1/3 (radiation), 1(massless scalar field) .

The wave equation for Brans-Dicke scalar field when $`\omega `$ is a function of time is $`[2,3,4,5,]`$

$$\ddot{\varphi }+3\frac{\dot{a}\dot{\varphi }}{a}=\frac{\rho 3P}{2\omega +3}\frac{\dot{\omega }\dot{\varphi }}{2\omega +3}.$$
(3)
Energy conservation equation which can be obtaioned from eqs.$`(1)`$,$`(2)`$, and$`(3)`$ is,

$$\dot{\rho }+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\left(\rho +P\right)=0.$$
(4)
One important property of Brans-Dicke theory is that it gives simple expanding solutions for field $`\varphi (t)`$ and scale factor $`a(t)`$ which are compatible with solar system experiments $`[12]`$. To derive the time dependence of $`\omega `$ which satisfies both field and wave equations, we assume the time dependence of the scale factor and scalar field in the following form which provides simple expanding solutions,

$$a=a_0\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^\alpha .$$
(5)
$$\varphi =\varphi _0\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^\beta .$$
(6)
$`a_0`$ and $`\varphi _0`$ are the present values of $`a(t)`$and $`\varphi (t)`$. From eq.(1) and taking $`k=0`$ to be consistent with the paradigm of inflation, we get,

$`\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2+\frac{\dot{a}\dot{\varphi }}{a\varphi }\left(\frac{\rho }{3\varphi }+\frac{\omega (t)\dot{\varphi }^2}{6\varphi ^2}\right)=0`$

.

This immediatly leads to

$`\frac{\dot{a}}{a}`$=$`\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{2\varphi }\pm \left[\frac{(2\omega +3)\dot{\varphi }^2}{12\varphi ^2}+\frac{\rho }{3\varphi }\right]^{1/2}`$

.

This equation can alternatively,be written in the form

$$\left[\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}+\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{2\varphi }\right)^2\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(t)\dot{\varphi }^2}{12\varphi ^2}\right]3\varphi =\rho ,$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)=2\omega (t)+3`$ .
Solving eq.$`(4)`$ one gets

$$\rho =\rho _0a^{3\left(1+\gamma \right)}.$$
(8)
Using eq.$`(5),(6)`$ and $`(8)`$ in $`(7)`$ we get

$`\left[\left(\frac{2\alpha +\beta }{2t}\right)^2\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(t)\beta ^2}{12t^2}\right]3\varphi _0\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^\beta =\rho _0a_0^{3\left(1+\gamma \right)}\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{3\alpha \left(1+\gamma \right)}`$.

From the above equation, one immediatly obtains,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(t)=\frac{4\rho _0t_0^2a_0^{3\left(1+\gamma \right)}}{\beta ^2\varphi _0}\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{3\alpha (1+\gamma )\beta +2}+3\left(\frac{2\alpha +\beta }{\beta }\right)^2.$$
(9)
Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)`$ =2$`\omega (t)`$ +3 ,we are led to the time dependence of $`\omega `$ of the form,

$$\omega (t)=\frac{2}{\beta ^2}\frac{\rho _0t_0^2a_0^{3(1+\gamma )}}{\varphi _0}\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{3\alpha (1+\gamma )\beta +2}.$$
(10)
We now proceed to check the consistency of above time- dependence of $`\omega `$ with eq.$`(3)`$ which is the wave equation for the scalar field $`\varphi (t)`$. Using eqs. $`(5),(6),(8)`$ and $`(9)`$, eq.$`(3)`$ reduces to

$`\left[\beta \left(\beta 1\right)+3\alpha \beta \right]t^{\beta 2}=\frac{\left[\left(13\gamma \right)\frac{2}{\beta }\left(3\alpha \left(1+\gamma \right)+\beta 2\right)\right]t^{3\alpha \left(1+\gamma \right)}}{\frac{4}{\beta ^2}t^{3\alpha \left(1+\gamma \right)\beta +2}}`$.

We neglect $`3\left(\frac{2\alpha +\beta }{\beta }\right)^2`$ in the denominator as we are interested in time dependence only. Thus above equation reduces to

$$\beta \left[\frac{3\left(1\gamma \right)}{4}\beta +\frac{3\alpha \left(1\gamma \right)}{2}\right]=0.$$
(11)
Eq.(11) has obvious solution $`\beta =0`$ or $`\beta =2\alpha `$. Thus, eq.(9) will satisfy both field and wave equations when $`\beta =0`$ or, $`\beta =2\alpha `$.It may be noted in passing that for these two cases in particular the neglect of the term $`3(\frac{2\alpha +\beta }{\beta })^2`$ as noted earlier is evidently justified. We now consider these two cases one by one.

CASE - 1: $`\beta =0`$.

For $`\beta =0`$ eq.(10) gives $`\omega =\mathrm{}`$, eq.(7) gives $`\varphi =\varphi _0=`$ constant and $`a=a_0\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^\alpha `$. Thus, for $`\beta =0`$ Brans- Dicke model goes over to General Relativity $`[5]`$.Here,$`\alpha `$ is not related to $`\beta `$ and its value can be obtained by solving equations of General relativity $`[13]`$.

CASE - 2: $`\beta =2\alpha `$.

Eq.$`(10)`$ in this case reduces to,

$$\omega (t)=\frac{1}{2\alpha ^2}\frac{\rho _0t_0^2a_0^{3(1+\gamma )}}{\varphi _0}\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{3\alpha (1+\gamma )+2\alpha +2}.$$
(12)
For completeness we also write,

$$a=a_0\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^\alpha .$$
(13)
$$\varphi =\varphi _0\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{2\alpha }.$$
(14)
Thus, to work within the B-D model with a time-dependent $`\omega `$ we have to take $`\beta =2\alpha `$ leading to the above solutions. Clearly, for a given $`\alpha >0`$ (non-negative and non-zero )which can be obtained from the observational data $`[12]`$ the time dependence of $`a(t)`$, $`\varphi (t)`$ and $`\omega (t)`$ are fixed through the above equations.

## 3 $`\omega `$ FOR DIFFERENT ERA

It is clear from eq.$`(12)`$ that, the parameter $`\gamma `$ which takes different values in different era, controls the time dependece of $`\omega `$ in the respective era as detailed below.

### 3.1 Vacuum dominated era: $`\gamma =1`$

Here,

$$\omega =\frac{1}{2\alpha ^2}\frac{\rho _0t_0^2}{\varphi _0}\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{2\alpha +2}.$$
(15)
Since for an expanding universe $`\alpha >0`$, the time dependence of $`\omega `$ will always be governed by power of time greater than $`2`$. Hence, $`\omega `$ decreases faster than $`t^2`$ with time.

### 3.2  Radiation dominated era: $`\gamma =1/3`$

.
Here,

$$\omega =\frac{1}{2\alpha ^2}\frac{\rho _0t_0^2}{a_0^4\varphi _0}\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{2\alpha +2}.$$
(16)
.

Here, again $`\omega `$ is a decreasing function of time as the Universe undergoes a deccelerated expansion in this era with $`0<\alpha <1`$.

### 3.3 Matter dominated era :$`\gamma =0`$

Here,

$$\omega =\frac{1}{2\alpha ^2}\frac{\rho _0t_0^2}{a_0^3\varphi _0}\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{\alpha +2}.$$
(17)
The implications of this time dependence is dicussed in the next section.

### 3.4 Massless scalar field dominated era :$`\gamma =1`$

Here,

$$\omega =\frac{1}{2\alpha ^2}\frac{\rho _0t_0^2}{a_0^6\varphi _0}\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{4\alpha +2}.$$
(18)
## 4 $`\omega `$ FOR PRESENT UNIVERSE.

The present observable universe contains cold matter of negligible pressure (dust). We,therefore, take the time dependence of $`\omega `$ as given by eq. $`(17)`$i.e,

$$\omega =\frac{1}{2\alpha ^2}\frac{\rho _0t_0^2}{a_0^3\varphi _0}\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{\alpha +2}.$$
(19)
For present time,taking $`t=t_o`$, one gets,

$$\omega =\frac{1}{2\alpha ^2}\frac{\rho _0t_0^2}{a_0^3\varphi _0}=\omega _0,$$
(20)
where $`\omega _o`$ represents present value of $`\omega `$. $`\rho _0`$,$`\varphi _0`$,$`a_0`$ are positive non-zero constants. However, they can all be set equal to $`1`$ with no loss of generality if time t is measured in units of $`\sqrt{\frac{\varphi _0a_0^3}{\rho _0}}`$ .Therefore,setting $`\frac{\rho _0t_0^2}{a_0^3\varphi _0}=1`$,we get,

$$\omega _0=\frac{1}{2\alpha ^2}.$$
(21)
For the presently observed acceleration to be accomodated $`\alpha `$ needs to be greater than 1.In that case $`\omega _0`$ as given by eq.$`(21)`$ has the minimum value of $`\frac{1}{2}`$ .This result is in agreement with the observation made by Banerjee and Pavon $`[9]`$ that $`\omega `$ value must be greater than $`\frac{3}{2}`$ for Newtonian constant of gravitation G and the scalar field energy density to remain positive .

We now recall that the present observational data for decceleration parameter$`[12]`$ is

$$1<q_0<0.$$
(22)
Since by defination,

$$q_0=\frac{\ddot{a}a}{\dot{a}^2}.$$
(23)
Using eq.$`(5)`$ we get,

$$q_0=\frac{\alpha 1}{\alpha }.$$
(24)
We see from eq. $`(22)`$ and eq. $`(24)`$ that in order to obtain $`q_0`$ between -1 and 0 , $`\alpha `$ need only be greater than $`1`$. Putting $`\alpha =1+ϵ`$, where $`ϵ>0`$ but small, the present day solutions of a $`\omega `$-varying B-D theory can be taken as

$`a=a_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_0}}\right)^{1+ϵ}.`$ (25)
$`\varphi =\varphi _0\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_0}}\right)^{2\left(1+ϵ\right)}.`$ (26)
$`\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(1+ϵ)^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_0}}\right)^{1ϵ}.`$ (27)
Thus, we find that time dependence of $`\omega `$ obtained through consistent solutions of B-D field equations and the wave equation leads to a negative constant $`\omega `$ at the present epoch. This result is consistent with conclusions arrived at by Bertolami and Martins $`[8]`$, N.Banerjee and D.Pavon $`[9]`$,Sen and Seshadri $`[10]`$ that $`\omega `$ should possess a low negative value for a satisfactory explanation of structure formation,cosmic acceleration, coincidence problem, and to avoid the problems of quintessence etc within the formalism of B-D theory.

## 5  DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

.

In this work,we wish to emphasize that we have, for the first time derived the explicit time dependence of the Brans-Dicke parameter $`\omega `$ by solving gravitational field and wave equations of generalised B-D theory consistently, assuming power law behaviour for the scale factor $`a(t)`$ and scalar field $`\varphi (t)`$.Interestingly,we find two consistent solutions of the field and wave equations.One solution leads to General Relativity with the implication that B-D theory is a more general formulation than GR. The other solution, which is of greater interest to us,leads to a time-dependent $`\omega (t)`$ whose time dependence is governed by the EOS parameter $`\gamma `$. Consequently, $`\omega `$ exhibits different temporal behaviour in different epochs of the evolving Universe characterised by its dominant matter/radiation component. This,we believe,is an important result which can be used to study various characteristics of an evolving Universe within the generalised B-D formalism. In particular,for an accelerated expanding universe,the present value of $`\omega `$ comes out to be negative with a minimum value of $`\frac{1}{2}`$. This result, once again, nicely agrees with the conclusions of the earlier works $`[8,9,10]`$ carried within the formalism of constant- $`\omega `$ B-D theory that $`\omega `$ needs to be negative for a successful explanations of the various observed characteristic of the evolving universe.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to DST,Govt.of India for providing financial support.The authors also thank Institute of Physics,Bhubaneswar,India,for providing facility of the computer centre.


text:
# 1 Feynman diagrams

Radiative weak decays of mesons have proved to be a fertile ground for the investigation of models of the strong interactions involved, and of the nonleptonic weak Hamiltonian. This is true for long-distance dominated K decays  as well as for B radiative decays, driven by short-distance dynamics \[2-4\]. One is lead to expect that likewise, radiative decays of D mesons \[5-10\] will bring similar useful insights, as well as providing possible checks \[11-15\] for physics beyond the standard model.

In a recent paper , we have initiated the study of radiative decays of type $`DK\pi \gamma `$, with non resonant $`K\pi `$. In  we studied the Cabibbo allowed decays which have a bremsstrahlung component, $`D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma `$ and $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma `$. The theoretical framework used is that of the effective Lagrangian which contains both heavy flavor symmetry and $`SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R`$ chiral symmetry  and the calculation was carried out with the factorization approximation for the weak matrix elements. The merging of this framework with the known QED requirements for the bremsstrahlung radiation necessitated the development of a specific technique for the treatment  of these decays.

In the present article we undertake the study of decays with neutral mesons $`D^0\overline{K}^0\pi ^0(\eta ,\eta ^{})\gamma `$, which are likewise Cabibbo allowed but do not involve a bremsstrahlung component. Due to this feature, these purely direct radiative decays may provide a cleaner testing ground for the study of the dynamics involved and for exploring the suitability of the theoretical framework employed in their calculation. In  it was found that the branching ratio for the parity-conserving part of the decay $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma `$, which part is of purely ”direct” nature, can be as high as $`10^4`$, while the total branching ratio for photon energies above 50 MeV is close to $`10^3`$. Such relatively high rates, especially for the direct transition, strongly motivates the desirability of studying the decays with neutral mesons which we consider here.

In decays of this type, one does not expect any significant short-distance contribution \[5-10\]. Since the decays $`D^0\overline{K}^0P^0\gamma `$ involve transitions between a rather heavy meson and pseudoscalars, we adopt for our calculation the heavy quark chiral Lagrangian ($`HQ\chi L`$) containing heavy flavor and $`SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R`$ symmetries as the appropriate theoretical framework. However, since virtual vector mesons may play an important role in these decays in the ($`P\gamma `$) channels, we need to complement the Lagrangian  with the light vector mesons. For this purpose we use the generalization of $`HQ\chi L`$ by Casalbuoni et al.  to include the vector mesons in the Lagrangian, in which the original symmetry is now broken spontaneously to diagonal $`SU(3)_V`$ . This framework is described in detail in Refs. , henceforth we recapitulate only the main features. The light meson part of the Lagrangian is written as

$`_{light}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{2}}\{tr(𝒜_\mu 𝒜^\mu )+atr[(𝒱_\mu \widehat{\rho }_\mu )^2]\}`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g_v^2}}tr[F_{\mu \nu }(\widehat{\rho })F^{\mu \nu }(\widehat{\rho })].`$
with $`a=2`$ for exact vector meson dominance . The vector and axial-vector currents are given by

$`𝒱_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(u^{}D_\mu u+uD_\mu u^{})𝒜_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(u^{}D_\mu uuD_\mu u^{}),`$ (2)
where $`u=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i\mathrm{\Pi }}{f}\right)`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ being the matrix of the pseudoscalar fields and $`f=f_\pi =132`$ MeV. $`D_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative. Moreover, $`\widehat{\rho }_\mu =i\frac{g_v}{\sqrt{2}}\rho _\mu `$, with $`\rho _\mu `$ being the matrix of the vector fields:

$`\rho _\mu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\rho _\mu ^0+\omega _\mu }{\sqrt{2}}& \rho _\mu ^+& K_\mu ^+\\ \rho _\mu ^{}& \frac{\rho _\mu ^0+\omega _\mu }{\sqrt{2}}& K_\mu ^0\\ K_\mu ^{}& \overline{K}_{}^{0}{}_{\mu }{}^{}& \mathrm{\Phi }_\mu \end{array}\right).`$ (3)
For the vector coupling $`g_v(m_V^2)`$ we use experimentally determined values from leptonic decays  of vector mesons, which accounts for the symmetry breaking effects.

In the heavy sector, to order $`O(p)`$ one has the Lagrangian

$`_{str}`$ $`=`$ $`Tr(H_aivD_{ab}\overline{H}_b)+igTr(\overline{H}_aH_b\gamma _\mu A_{ba}^\mu \gamma _5),`$ (4)
where $`D_{ab}^\mu H_b=^\mu H_aH_bV_{ba}^\mu `$, while the trace $`Tr`$ runs over Dirac indexes. The flavor indexes are denoted as a and b. Both the heavy pseudoscalar and the heavy vector meson are incorporated in a 4x4 matrix

$`H_a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+\overline{)}v)(P_{\mu a}\gamma ^\mu P_{5a}\gamma _5)`$ (5)
The strong coupling constant has been determined  recently from $`D^{}D\pi `$ decay to be $`g0.59`$ and $`v_\mu `$ is the four-velocity of D meson.

The electromagnetic interaction is introduced by gauging the Lagrangians (1) and (4) with the U(1) photon field, thus amending appropriately the covariant derivatives. However, the gauging procedure alone does not generate the $`D^{}D\gamma `$ transition, thus requiring the introduction of additional terms $`_c`$. There are two such terms in the framework used, giving the direct photon-heavy quark interaction with strength $`\lambda ^{}`$ (being of the order $`1/m_Q`$) and a light vector meson-heavy meson interaction with strength $`\lambda `$ (being of the order $`1/\lambda _\chi `$ where $`\lambda _\chi `$ is the chiral perturbation theory scale). The second term provides photon emission via vector meson dominance (VMD). Thus,

$`_c`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^{}Tr[H_a\sigma _{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }(B)\overline{H}_a]+i\lambda Tr[H_a\sigma _{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }(\widehat{\rho })_{ab}\overline{H}_b].`$ (6)
An additional contributing term to the radiative decays via VMD is the Wess-Zumino-Witten anomalous interaction for the light sector, given by :

$`_{odd}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{C_{VV\mathrm{\Pi }}}{f}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }Tr(_\mu \rho _\nu _\alpha \rho _\beta \mathrm{\Pi }).`$ (7)
In the calculation, instead of using the SU(3) symmetric coupling, we shall rely on the experimentally measured effective couplings of the $`VP\gamma `$ transitions . For $`\lambda `$, $`\lambda ^{}`$ we take $`\lambda =0.49`$ $`GeV^1`$, $`\lambda ^{}=0.102`$ $`GeV^1`$, as determined from $`D^{+,0}`$ electromagnetic and strong decays , the signs chosen as to conform with the quark model. The effective weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }c=1`$ nonleptonic Lagrangian of relevance to the decays investigated here is

$`_{NL}^{eff}(\mathrm{\Delta }c=\mathrm{\Delta }s=1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ud}V_{cs}^{}[a_1O_1+a_2O_2],`$ (8)
where $`O_1=(\overline{s}c)_{VA}^\mu (\overline{u}d)_{\mu ,VA}`$, $`O_2=(\overline{u}c)_{VA}^\mu (\overline{s}d)_{\mu ,VA}`$ and $`V_{ij}`$ are the CKM matrix elements. The effective Wilson coefficients are taken as $`a_1=1.26`$, $`a_2=0.55`$ . In our calculation we rely on factorization, which implies $`<P^0\overline{K}^0|O_1|D^0>=0`$. The heavy-light weak current is bosonized as

$`J_{Q}^{}{}_{a}{}^{\mu }=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ $`i\alpha Tr[\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)H_bu_{ba}^{}]`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`\alpha _1Tr[\gamma _5H_b(\widehat{\rho }^\mu 𝒱^\mu )_{bc}u_{ca}^{}]`$
$`+`$ $`\alpha _2Tr[\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5H_bv_\alpha (\widehat{\rho }^\alpha 𝒱^\alpha )_{bc}u_{ca}^{}]+\mathrm{},`$
The constant $`\alpha `$ is then related to the decay constant $`f_D`$ by $`\alpha =f_D\sqrt{m_D}`$, while $`\alpha _1`$, $`\alpha _2`$ are determined from the values of the form factors appearing in $`DVl\nu `$ decays, as explained in . Their numerical values are then $`|\alpha _1|=0.156`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}^{1/2}`$, $`|\alpha _2|=0.052`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}^{1/2}`$.

The general Lorentz decomposition of the $`D^0\overline{K}^0P^0\gamma `$ amplitude is given by

$`={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{du}V_{cs}^{}\left(F_1\left((q\epsilon )(pk)(p\epsilon )(qk)\right)+F_2ϵ^{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma }\epsilon _\mu v_\alpha k_\beta q_\gamma \right),`$ (10)
where $`F_1`$, $`F_2`$ are the electric and magnetic transitions, which are respectively parity-violating and parity-conserving. The four-momenta of $`P^0`$, $`K`$ and the photon are $`q`$, $`p`$, $`k`$ respectively and $`\epsilon _\mu `$ is the polarization vector of the photon.

In Fig.1 we exhibit the Feynman diagrams contributing to the $`D^0\overline{K}^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay. The diagrams denoted $`A_i`$ (parity-violating) derive from the $`<\pi ^0|J|D^0><\overline{K}^0|J|0>`$ term; the same term gives the parity-conserving terms $`B_i`$, while the parity-conserving terms $`D_i`$ come from $`<0|J|D^0><\pi ^0\overline{K}^0|J|0>`$. The amplitudes $`A_i`$, $`B_i`$, $`D_i`$ are related to the $`F_1`$, $`F_2`$ form factors by

$$F_1(D^0\overline{K}^0P^0\gamma )=A_1,$$
(11)
$$F_2(D^0\overline{K}^0P^0\gamma )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}B_i+\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}D_i.$$
(12)
The sums for each row of the amplitudes in Fig.1 are gauge invariant. The explicit expressions of $`A_i`$, $`B_i`$, $`D_i`$ are listed below, for the $`D^0\overline{K}^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay.

$$A_1=i\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}eg\frac{f_Df_K}{f_\pi }\frac{vk}{vk+vq+\mathrm{\Delta }}\left(\frac{1}{vk+\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{1}{vq+\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)\left(2\lambda ^{^{}}\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\lambda g_v\left(\frac{q_\omega }{3m_\omega ^2}+\frac{q_\rho }{m_\rho ^2}\right)\right)$$

$$ief_Df_Kg_v\lambda M\frac{(vk)(pk)^2}{(v(q+k)+\mathrm{\Delta })}\left(\frac{g_{\rho \pi \gamma }}{(q+k)^2m_\rho ^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho m_\rho }+\frac{g_{\omega \pi \gamma }}{(q+k)^2m_\omega ^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega m_\omega }\right),$$
(13)
$$B_1=\sqrt{2}eM\frac{f_Df_K}{f_\pi }\lambda ^,\left(\frac{1}{vk+\mathrm{\Delta }}+g\frac{vp}{(vq+vk)(vk+\mathrm{\Delta })}+g\frac{vp}{(vq+vk)(vq+\mathrm{\Delta })}\right),$$

$$B_2=\frac{1}{2}Me\frac{f_Df_K}{f_\pi }\lambda g_v(\frac{q_\omega }{3m_\omega ^2}+\frac{q_\rho }{m_\rho ^2})(\frac{1}{vk+\mathrm{\Delta }}+g\frac{vp}{(vq+vk)(vk+\mathrm{\Delta })}$$

$$+g\frac{vp}{(vq+vk)(vq+\mathrm{\Delta })}),$$
(14)
$$B_3=\sqrt{M}eg_vf_K(\alpha _1M\alpha _2vp)\left(\frac{g_{\rho \pi \gamma }}{(q+k)^2m_\rho ^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho m_\rho }+\frac{g_{\omega \pi \gamma }}{(q+k)^2m_\omega ^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega m_\omega }\right)$$

$$\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}eg_{\overline{K}^0\overline{K}^0\gamma }g_K^{}\frac{f_D}{f_\pi }M\frac{1+g\frac{Mvq}{vq+\mathrm{\Delta }}}{(k+p)^2m_K^{}^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_K^{}m_K^{}},$$

$$D_1=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}Mef_D\frac{1}{vk+\mathrm{\Delta }}\left(1+\frac{m_K^{}^2}{(p+q)^2m_K^{}^2+im_K^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_K^{}}\right)\left(2\lambda ^{^{}}\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\lambda g_v\left(\frac{q_\omega }{3m_\omega ^2}+\frac{q_\rho }{m_\rho ^2}\right)\right),$$

$$D_2=M\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}e\frac{f_D}{f_\pi }\left(\frac{g_\rho g_{\rho \pi \gamma }}{(q+k)^2m_\rho ^2+im_\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho }\frac{g_\omega g_{\omega \pi \gamma }}{(q+k)^2m_\omega ^2+im_\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega }\right)$$
(15)
$$\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4}ef_Df_K\frac{M^3}{(M^2m_{\overline{K}^0}^2)}\left(\frac{m_\rho ^2}{g_\rho }\frac{g_{\rho \pi \gamma }}{(q+k)^2m_\rho ^2+im_\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho }\frac{m_\omega ^2}{g_\omega }\frac{g_{\omega \pi \gamma }}{(q+k)^2m_\omega ^2+im_\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega }\right).$$

The treatment of the decays to $`\eta `$, $`\eta ^{}`$ requires the inclusion of $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ mixing. This is usually performed  by the mixing of singlet and octet states via a unitary matrix characterized by an angle $`\theta `$. The analysis of various decays involving $`\eta `$, $`\eta ^{}`$ and of meson masses has led to a mixing angle in the range ($`9^{}`$) to ($`23^{}`$). However, a treatment  based on chiral perturbation theory and a detailed phenomenological analysis indicates that this simple scheme is inadequate and must be extended  to include two mixing angles $`\theta _0`$ and $`\theta _8`$, in addition to the two decay constants. Here we follow this approach with $`|\eta >=\mathrm{cos}\theta _8|\eta _8>\mathrm{sin}\theta _0|\eta _0>`$ and $`|\eta ^{}>=\mathrm{sin}\theta _8|\eta _8>+\mathrm{cos}\theta _0|\eta _0>`$. For the $`D^0\overline{K}^0\eta \gamma `$ and $`D^0\overline{K}^0\eta ^{}\gamma `$ amplitudes the same form as Eqs. (13-15) holds, except for replacement of constants. In order to obtain these amplitudes one has to replace in above Eqs. $`f_\pi `$ by $`f_\eta /(K_d^\eta \sqrt{2})`$ or $`f_\eta ^{}/(K_d^\eta ^{}\sqrt{2})`$, while in amplitude $`D_1`$ one replaces $`\left(1+\frac{m_K^{}^2}{(p+q)^2m_K^{}^2+im_K^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_K^{}}\right)`$ by $`\sqrt{2}\left(K_d^\eta +(K_d^\eta K_s^\eta )\frac{m_K^{}^2}{(p+q)^2m_K^{}^2}\right)`$. Moreover, one replaces $`g_{\rho \pi \gamma }`$, $`g_{\omega \pi \gamma }`$ by $`g_{\rho \eta (\eta ^{})\gamma }`$ and $`g_{\omega \eta (\eta ^{})\gamma }`$. The factors $`K_d^\eta `$, $`K_s^\eta `$, $`K_d^\eta ^{}`$, $`K_s^\eta ^{}`$ are octet-singlet mixing factors, given by

$$K_d^\eta =\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta _8}{\sqrt{6}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _0}{\sqrt{3}},K_d^\eta ^{}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _8}{\sqrt{6}}+\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta _0}{\sqrt{3}},$$
(16)
$$K_s^\eta =\frac{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _8}{\sqrt{6}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _0}{\sqrt{3}},K_s^\eta ^{}=\frac{2\mathrm{sin}\theta _8}{\sqrt{6}}+\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta _0}{\sqrt{3}}.$$
(17)
A recent analysis by Feldmann, Kroll and Stech  has given further clarification of the theoretical basis of this scheme. Following their procedure , we use $`\theta _8=20.2^{}`$, $`\theta _0=9.2^{}`$, $`f_\eta =f_\pi `$ and $`f_\eta ^{}=1.13f_\pi `$. We have used these values in our calculation, as well as checking the sensitivity of the results to the scheme and to the values of above constants within an acceptable range.

Using now Eqs. (13-15) we calculate the differential decay distributions and total decay rates for $`D^0\overline{K}^0\pi ^0\gamma `$, and with appropriate replacements as indicated above, for $`D^0K^0\eta (\eta ^{})\gamma `$. Since $`\rho `$ is a wide resonance we use a momentum dependent width

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (q^2)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (m_\rho ^2)\left(\frac{q^24m_\pi ^2}{m_\rho ^24m_\pi ^2}\right)^{3/2}\frac{m_\rho }{\sqrt{q^2}}\mathrm{\Theta }(4m_\pi ^2).$$
(18)
We are interested in decays to nonresonant $`K\pi `$ final states and we also wish to delete from the final state resonant ($`K\gamma `$) and ($`P\gamma `$) configurations. Accordingly, we subtract the calculated rate given by the diagrams that include above configurations from the total rate. However, our results include the contributions of the remaining virtual vector mesons and their interference with the resonant ones. Our resulting prediction for the major radiative decay is

$$\mathrm{BR}(\mathrm{D}^0\overline{\mathrm{K}}^0\pi ^0\gamma )_{\mathrm{NR}}=3.0\times 10^4.$$
(19)
The parity-conserving and the parity-violating parts of the amplitude contribute approximately 2/3 and 1/3 to the decay rate respectively. Now, if we do not subtract the direct vector mesons contribution, one gets a branching ratio of $`3.0\times 10^3`$ for this channel. Obviously, the two cases have rather different Dalitz plots, the resonances being easily identified in it as they dominate the decay rate in the latter case. On the other hand, if we exclude vector mesons from our Lagrangian, the total decay rate is reduced to $`2.6\times 10^8`$. We have also calculated the size of the rate coming from the direct resonant process $`D^0\overline{K}^0\gamma `$ using our formalism and we find it to be more than two orders of magnitude smaller than (19), in general agreement with previous estimates .

For the decays to $`\eta `$, $`\eta ^{}`$, again after deleting resonant two body channels from the final state, we get:

$$\mathrm{BR}(\mathrm{D}^0\overline{\mathrm{K}}^0\eta \gamma )_{\mathrm{NR}}=1.1\times 10^5,$$
(20)
$$\mathrm{BR}(\mathrm{D}^0\overline{\mathrm{K}}^0\eta ^{}\gamma )_{\mathrm{NR}}=4.3\times 10^8.$$
(21)
Allowing also $`\eta \gamma `$, $`\eta ^{}\gamma `$ in the final state, coming from the intermediate $`D^0\rho (\omega )\gamma `$ decay, these figures are raised to $`3.9\times 10^5`$ and $`1.4\times 10^7`$ respectively. Excluding completely the contribution of vector mesons, these branching ratios are lowered to $`3.7\times 10^8`$ and $`1.3\times 10^9`$. In the decays to $`\eta `$, $`\eta ^{}`$, the dominant contribution to the decay rate is due to the parity conserving part of the amplitude.

The major role played by off-the-mass-shell vector mesons in these decays is evident from the above procedure. In particular, the $`\omega `$-meson exchange is the dominant contribution to the pionic decay (Eq.(20)), while for the decay $`D^0\overline{K}^0\eta \gamma `$, both $`\omega `$ and $`K^{}`$ exchange are giving major contributions. For the decay to $`\eta ^{}`$, the main contribution is due to $`K^{}`$. The contribution of the $`\rho `$ meson is generally much smaller, in all channels.

We have also found that the $`D^0K\eta \gamma `$ rate is smaller than $`D^0K\pi ^0\gamma `$ rate partly due to phase space, but mostly due to the different values of the coupling constants involved. The smallness of the decay with $`\eta ^{}`$ in the final state is mainly due to phase space inhibition.

In Fig.2 we display the Dalitz plots for the three decay channels, and the photon spectra of these decays. The Dalitz plot coordinates are $`m_{12}=\sqrt{(Pk)^2}`$ on x axis and $`m_{23}=\sqrt{(Pp)^2}`$ on y axis and the spectrum is expressed in terms of $`(m_{12})^2=(Mk)^2`$. In the main channel $`D^0\overline{K}^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ the peak of the parity-conserving contribution is at $`E_\gamma =700`$ MeV and of the parity-violating contribution at $`E_\gamma =500`$ MeV. The total spectrum is predicted to peak around $`E_\gamma =650`$ MeV. For the $`\eta `$ decay, the spectrum peaks at $`E_\gamma =300`$ MeV.

Before concluding we wish to make some observations concerning the appropriateness of the theoretical framework we used. By using the Lagrangians (4), (6)-(8) as well as the factorization approximation we can calculate also various decays of type $`DVP`$. In particular, we have calculated the rates for four channels of this type, which relate to the radiative decays we considered. Of these, $`\omega `$ channel is the most important one for the pionic decay while for the $`\eta `$ channel, both the $`\omega `$ and $`K^{}`$ channels are giving the main contribution. We present now the results we obtained, giving in parentheses the observed branching ratios: $`\mathrm{BR}(\mathrm{D}^0\omega \overline{\mathrm{K}}^0)=5.6\%(2.1\%)`$, $`\mathrm{BR}(\mathrm{D}^0\rho \overline{\mathrm{K}}^0)=7\%(1.2\%)`$, $`\mathrm{BR}(\mathrm{D}^0\pi \mathrm{K}^{})=11\%(3.2\%)`$, $`\mathrm{BR}(\mathrm{D}^0\eta \mathrm{K}^{})=3.2\%(1.9\%)`$. The rates we obtain are within factor two-four (the relevant ones are on the lower side of this) of the experimental ones, which leads us to estimate that this is essentially the accuracy of our calculation, including also the uncertainty due to subtraction of the resonant channels from the total rate. We have checked the sensitivity of our results to the values of the mixing angles and the values of $`f_\eta `$, $`f_\eta ^{}`$. Within reasonable values for these constants, the changes in rates are negligible.

We conclude by pointing out that the branching ratio of $`D^0\overline{K}^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ is quite large, due to the contribution of light virtual vector mesons. That makes it rather appealing for the experimental study since in this decay mode there is no need for special treatment of the bremsstrahlung component.

With the abundance of D’s produced at B factories, at Tevatron and at the forthcoming charm factories, we look forward to experimental results for these decays, especially for the $`\pi `$ and $`\eta `$ modes, which are predicted to have sizable rates of $`3\times 10^4`$ and $`1.1\times 10^5`$ respectively.

Acknowledgments

The research of S.F. and A.P. was supported in part by the Ministry of education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia. The research of P.S. was supported in part by Fund of Promotion of Research at the Technion.