format: text

text:
# Algebraic Deformations Arising from Orbifolds with Discrete Torsion

## 1. Introduction

Our motivation for this paper was a desire to provide a mathematical basis for physics statements in the paper  of Vafa and Witten. Specifically, we expect that the chiral numbers of an orbifold with discrete torsion come from the Hochschild cohomology groups of associated crossed product rings, and that geometric deformations of the orbifold correspond with algebraic deformations of these rings. In Section 2 we make these ideas more precise, and propose a mathematical definition of some of the chiral numbers. This gives the proper context for results in the remainder of the paper. We also describe in detail there the central example of , which consists of the quotient of the product of three elliptic curves by an action of the Klein four-group. A local version of this is our motivating example throughout the paper.

Specifically, let $`R=[x,y,z]`$, $`X=^3=\mathrm{Spec}R`$, and let $`G=/2\times /2`$ act on $`X`$ by pairwise negation on two coordinates, leaving the third one fixed. There are three curves in $`X`$ on which the action of $`G`$ is not free (the coordinate axes), all meeting in the origin, which is fixed by $`G`$. Details are given in Example 3.4. We also include in Section 3 the definitions (more generally) of the crossed product ring $`R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G`$ (where $`\alpha `$ is a two-cocycle), and of the Hochschild cohomology groups and deformations of a ring.

Results of Ştefan  imply that (over $``$) the Hochschild cohomology group $`\mathrm{HH}^{}(R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G)`$ is the subspace of $`\mathrm{HH}^{}(R,R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G)`$ invariant under an action of $`G`$. Letting $`R=[x,y,z]`$, we will use the Koszul resolution of $`R`$ over $`RR`$ to find $`\mathrm{HH}^{}(R,R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G)`$ explicitly, and we will want an action of $`G`$ on the Koszul complex. This action is given in Lemma 4.6 in case $`G`$ is a finite abelian group. We apply these ideas to find $`\mathrm{HH}^{}(R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G)`$ when $`G=/2\times /2`$ in Example 4.7. For this example, unlike the compact example of Vafa and Witten, the Hochschild cohomology groups that we compute are infinite dimensional as vector spaces over $``$.

In general, elements of $`\mathrm{HH}^2(R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G)`$ coincide with infinitesimal (or first order) deformations of the multiplication of $`R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G`$. In order to find explicit formulas for the deformations in case $`R=[x,y,z]`$, we must relate the Koszul complex for $`R`$ to the Hochschild complex for $`R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G`$. In Section 5 we develop a general method for doing so, and apply it to find the infinitesimal deformations of our example $`A=[x,y,z]\mathrm{\#}_\alpha (/2\times /2)`$. In Section 6 we continue and show that for our example, in the presence of discrete torsion ($`\alpha `$ nontrivial), the infinitesimal deformations of $`R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G`$ not coming from $`R`$ lift to formal deformations of $`R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G`$. This follows from the application of a universal deformation formula based on a particular bialgebra, using results of . Our example is of independent interest in this context: it is the first example that we know of a formal deformation arising from a noncocommutative bialgebra.

In the last section of the paper we study the behavior of the center $`Z(R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G)`$, which is simply the $`G`$-invariant subring $`R^G`$, under deformation. In our example, the three curves of singularities of $`\mathrm{Spec}R^G`$ are smoothed out after formal deformation, and an isolated singularity is left at the origin. We give explicit equations for this singularity in terms of the polynomials arising in the first order deformation.

We have now described briefly some of the calculations in this paper. They indicate that the behavior of our local picture closely mimics the picture described by Vafa and Witten in their example. This supports our belief that the mathematical study of an orbifold with discrete torsion should begin with the study of the Hochschild cohomology groups and deformations of associated crossed product rings, followed by an understanding of the behavior of the centers of these rings under deformation.

## 2. Physical and mathematical context

We begin with some motivating ideas from physics and describe in particular an example of Vafa and Witten.

### 2.1. Chiral numbers for Calabi-Yau manifolds and orbifolds

Given an action of a finite group $`G`$ on a space $`X`$ satisfying certain properties, one can construct several physics theories which represent the $`G`$-equivariant physics of $`X`$. There is more than one such theory because their construction takes as additional input a two-cocycle $`\alpha :G\times G^\times `$, called the discrete torsion of the theory. We denote (in a loose sense) the $`G`$-equivariant physics theory on $`X`$, with discrete torsion $`\alpha `$, by $`\mathrm{Physics}^{G,\alpha }(X)`$. A similar construction exists in the non-equivariant setting (without any contribution from discrete torsion), assigning to a Calabi-Yau threefold $`X`$ a physics theory $`\mathrm{Physics}(X)`$.

Every such theory has associated to it chiral numbers $`h^{ij}`$ ($`i,j=0,\mathrm{},3`$) which are defined as certain physical quantities. We are interested in giving a mathematical definition of these numbers in situations of interest to physicists.

For a non-equivariant theory arising from an ordinary Calabi-Yau threefold $`X`$ it is well known that

$$h^{ij}(\mathrm{Physics}(X))=h^{ij}(X),$$

the ordinary Hodge numbers of $`X`$. An important observation is that $`h^{12}(X)`$ is the dimension of the space of complex deformations of $`X`$, which is also the dimension of the space of deformations of the multiplication of the structure sheaf $`𝒪_X`$ of $`X`$.

Chiral numbers are also well understood for a theory arising from a group action $`G`$ on a space $`X`$, but with trivial discrete torsion. Physics predicts that the chiral numbers of such a theory should be the Hodge numbers of a crepant resolution of the singularities of $`X/G`$.111A resolution $`YX/G`$ of the singularities of $`X/G`$ is crepant if the relative canonical bundle is trivial. In situations of interest in physics, this is equivalent to $`Y`$ being Calabi-Yau. This follows from the general principle of Kontsevich that (at least some of) the data contained in the physics model can be extracted from a certain derived category. For a theory built from an ordinary Calabi-Yau threefold $`X`$ this category is $`𝐃_{\mathrm{coh}}^b(X)`$, the derived category of coherent sheaves on $`X`$. In the equivariant setting this should be replaced by the derived category $`𝐃_{\mathrm{coh}}^b([X/G])`$ of $`G`$-equivariant sheaves on $`X`$. Results of Bridgeland, King and Reid , combined with further results of Bridgeland  show that in the cases of interest in physics there is an equivalence

$$𝐃_{\mathrm{coh}}^b([X/G])𝐃_{\mathrm{coh}}^b(Y)$$

for any crepant resolution $`Y`$ of the singularities of $`X/G`$. Since one should be able to extract $`h^{ij}(\mathrm{Physics}^G(X))`$ from $`𝐃_{\mathrm{coh}}^b([X/G])`$, the above isomorphism would yield

$`h^{ij}(\mathrm{Physics}^G(X))`$ $`=h^{ij}(𝐃_{\mathrm{coh}}^b([X/G]))=h^{ij}(𝐃_{\mathrm{coh}}^b(Y))=h^{ij}(\mathrm{Physics}(Y))`$
$`=h^{ij}(Y).`$
This argument is unsatisfactory for two reasons: first, there is no good notion of Hodge numbers for an arbitrary derived category, so the above equalities should be thought of only as general principles, not as mathematical statements. Second, there is no generalization of the above argument regarding chiral numbers in the presence of discrete torsion.

It should be mentioned here that there is another, topological approach to chiral numbers for orbifolds, called orbifold cohomology. See  and  for details.

### 2.2. Hochschild cohomology

Noncommutative geometry provides a different approach. Some of the following ideas have been around for a while, see for example Connes’ book .

If $`R`$ is a commutative ring with an action of a finite group $`G`$, we can construct the crossed product ring $`R\mathrm{\#}G`$ (see Section 3 for a definition). It is an associative, noncommutative ring with the property that $`R\mathrm{\#}G`$-modules correspond with $`G`$-equivariant $`R`$-modules. When the finite group $`G`$ acts on a scheme $`X`$, this construction yields a coherent sheaf $`𝒪_X\mathrm{\#}G`$ of noncommutative algebras on $`X`$, with the property that coherent sheaves of $`𝒪_X\mathrm{\#}G`$-modules are identified with $`G`$-equivariant coherent sheaves of $`𝒪_X`$-modules on $`X`$. More generally if $`\alpha \mathrm{H}^2(G,^\times )`$, we may construct a crossed product ring $`R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G`$ twisted by $`\alpha `$. Again this construction globalizes to schemes.

The proper choice of cohomology theory for noncommutative rings is Hochschild cohomology, which is defined for sheaves of algebras in . Hochschild homology is defined for schemes in , and even more generally, Hochschild homology is defined for exact categories . Standard formalism gives as well Hochschild cohomology for exact categories . Thus one can consider the Hochschild cohomology of the exact category of sheaves of $`𝒪_X\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G`$-modules on a scheme $`X`$. Hochschild homology has been shown to be invariant with respect to derived equivalences coming from localization of pairs , and the same techniques can be applied for cohomology as well. In fact Hochschild cohomology for a scheme $`X`$ can be shown to be invariant under Fourier-Mukai transforms  (following ideas in , where the affine case is studied). In particular, the Bridgeland-King-Reid equivalence

$$𝐃_{\mathrm{coh}}^b([X/G])𝐃_{\mathrm{coh}}^b(Y),$$

to which we referred earlier, yields an isomorphism on Hochschild cohomology

$$\mathrm{HH}^i(𝒪_X\mathrm{\#}G)\mathrm{HH}^i(𝒪_Y)$$

for every $`i`$. For a smooth quasi-projective scheme $`Y`$ we have

$$\mathrm{HH}^i(𝒪_Y)\underset{p+q=i}{}\mathrm{H}^p(Y,\stackrel{q}{}T_Y),$$

where $`T_Y`$ is the tangent bundle of $`Y`$. Thus for a smooth Calabi-Yau threefold $`Y`$, for which we have

$$\stackrel{q}{}T_Y\stackrel{3q}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y,$$

the dimensions of $`\mathrm{HH}^i(𝒪_Y)`$ are given by

$$1,0,h^{12}(Y),2h^{11}(Y)+2,h^{12}(Y),0,1.$$

In the case of a Calabi-Yau threefold then, the physical statement that

$$h^{ij}(\mathrm{Physics}^G(X))=h^{ij}(\mathrm{Physics}(Y))$$

can be viewed as a consequence of the mathematical statement that

$$\mathrm{HH}^i(𝒪_X\mathrm{\#}G)\mathrm{HH}^i(𝒪_Y)$$

for all $`i`$. (Note that knowing the dimensions of the Hochschild cohomology groups for a Calabi-Yau threefold allows us to recover its Hodge numbers $`h^{11}`$ and $`h^{12}`$.) In higher dimensions we do not expect to recover all the chiral numbers but rather only the sums

$$dim\mathrm{HH}^i=\underset{n+pq=i}{}h^{pq},$$

where $`n`$ is the dimension of the underlying space.

In the case of a Calabi-Yau threefold $`X`$, we could define the chiral numbers $`h^{11}`$ and $`h^{12}`$ as

$$h^{11}=\frac{1}{2}dim\mathrm{HH}^3(𝒪_X)1\text{ and }h^{12}=dim\mathrm{HH}^2(𝒪_X).$$

The same definition makes sense for an orbifold $`[X/G]`$ (possibly with discrete torsion $`\alpha `$), in which case we replace $`𝒪_X`$ by $`𝒪_X\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G`$. This allows us to talk about chiral numbers in the generalized setting of orbifolds.

A further argument that this definition is the right one is the following observation: for an arbitrary algebra $`A`$, $`\mathrm{HH}^2(A)`$ is the space of infinitesimal (first order) deformations of $`A`$ (see Section 3). In the case $`Y`$ is a Calabi-Yau threefold, we know that these deformations are measured by $`h^{12}(X)`$. Thus defining $`h^{12}=dim\mathrm{HH}^2`$ for Calabi-Yau-like spaces agrees with the interpretation of these numbers as dimensions of first order deformation spaces.

### 2.3. The example of Vafa and Witten

Let $`X=E_1\times E_2\times E_3`$ be the product of three elliptic curves, let $`G=/2\times /2`$, and consider the action of $`G`$ on $`X`$ in which every non-identity element of $`G`$ acts by negation on two of the $`E_i`$’s and leaves the third one fixed. Note that the nonzero holomorphic 3-form on $`X`$ is invariant with respect to the action of $`G`$, so that $`X/G`$ is in a natural sense a (singular) Calabi-Yau 3-space. There are 48 curves in $`X`$ where the action is not free, and these curves intersect in the 64 points that are fixed by all of $`G`$.

The discrete torsion group (or Schur multiplier) $`\mathrm{H}^2(G,^\times )`$ is equal to $`/2`$. Thus there are precisely two physical theories that we can build on the orbifold $`[X/G]`$ corresponding to the two choices of discrete torsion $`\alpha \mathrm{H}^2(G,^\times )`$: no discrete torsion ($`\alpha =1`$) and nontrivial discrete torsion ($`\alpha 1`$).

Vafa and Witten computed the chiral numbers of these physical theories ,

$`h^{11}=51,h^{12}=3`$ $`\text{when }\alpha =1,`$
$`h^{11}=3,h^{12}=51`$ $`\text{when }\alpha 1.`$
The case $`\alpha =1`$ is again perfectly understood: essentially $`h^{12}=3`$ means that every deformation of $`𝒪_X\mathrm{\#}G`$ must arise from a deformation of $`X`$ (note that $`h^{12}(X)=3`$ corresponding to the possible changes of complex structure on each elliptic curve). The fact that $`h^{11}=51`$ corresponds to the fact that to obtain a crepant resolution of $`X/G`$ one needs to blow-up the 48 curves of singularities in $`X/G`$, thus obtaining 48 new Kähler deformations of the resolution $`Y`$. (Again, $`h^{11}(X)=3`$, corresponding to a choice of volume for each elliptic curve.)

The surprise lies in the value $`h^{12}=51`$ in the presence of discrete torsion. In general, given a singular theory whose singularities are resolved by blow-ups (as in the resolution $`YX/G`$), physics predicts the existence of another theory which removes the singularities by deforming them. Thus one does expect to have more deformations. The problem is that the total number of deformations of $`X/G`$ is 115, which exceeds $`h^{12}`$, and so some deformations of $`X/G`$ are not allowed in the physical model. Vafa and Witten guessed that this means the allowed deformations of $`X/G`$ only partially smooth $`X/G`$, that is they are required (for some mysterious reason) still to have 64 ordinary double points. An explanation for the appearance of these 64 ordinary double points has since been given by the first author , following ideas of Aspinwall, Morrison and Gross .

From the perspective of noncommutative geometry, this situation can be described as follows: the data of $`\mathrm{Physics}^{G,\alpha }(X)`$ (both with and without discrete torsion) is encoded in the derived category $`𝐃_{\mathrm{coh}}^b(𝒪_X\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G)`$. Deformations of the ring $`𝒪_X\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G`$ are measured by the chiral number $`h^{12}`$, and each deformation of this ring yields a deformation of its center, which coincides with the ring of invariants $`(𝒪_X)^G=𝒪_{X/G}`$. In each case we get an allowable set of deformations of $`𝒪_{X/G}`$. In the absence of discrete torsion, there is only a 3-dimensional space of allowable deformations (that all come from deformations of $`X`$), while in the presence of discrete torsion, there is a 51-dimensional space of deformations, all of which deform the center $`𝒪_{X/G}`$ to the structure sheaf of a space which has at least 64 ordinary double points.

### 2.4. Our example

For the purposes of our calculations we simplify Vafa and Witten’s example by replacing the product of three elliptic curves by affine 3-space. One important difference is that in our case, deformations of arbitrary degree are allowed. (The situation is analogous to the difference between affine and projective geometry: for example if $`X`$ is the affine scheme $`\mathrm{Spec}k[x]`$, then $`\mathrm{H}^0(X,𝒪_X)`$ consists of all polynomials in $`k[x]`$ of arbitrary degree, while if $`X^{}`$ is the projective scheme $`\mathrm{Proj}k[x,y]`$, the global sections $`\mathrm{H}^0(X^{},𝒪_X^{}(n))`$ of a line bundle $`𝒪_X^{}(n)`$ will correspond only to homogeneous polynomials of fixed degree $`n`$). In our example then, the Hochschild cohomology groups $`\mathrm{HH}^{}(R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G)`$ that we will compute will be infinite dimensional. When $`\alpha =1`$, there is another difference between our local picture and the one described by Vafa and Witten: $`\mathrm{HH}^2(R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G)`$ picks up many first order deformations of $`A`$ that do not arise from deformations of $`R`$ (see Example 4.7).

The deformations of $`Z(R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G)=R^G`$, corresponding to those of $`R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G`$ that we will calculate, exhibit different behaviors for different degrees involved. Similar to the example of Vafa and Witten, in all cases the three curves of singularities of $`\mathrm{Spec}R^G`$ are smoothed out after a formal deformation and an isolated singularity is left at the origin. However, a surprising consequence of our calculations is that in order to see this, calculations to first order do not suffice: first order deformations of $`R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G`$ do not give rise to nontrivial first order deformations of $`R^G`$ (see Section 7).

This could be described geometrically as follows: if there were a geometric germ of a moduli space $`(\mathrm{Def}_{R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G},0)`$ of formal deformations of $`R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G`$ such that maps from $`\mathrm{Spec}k[[t]]`$ to $`\mathrm{Def}_{R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G}`$ that map the closed point of $`\mathrm{Spec}k[[t]]`$ to $`0`$ correspond to formal deformations of $`R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G`$, then the tangent space to $`\mathrm{Def}_{R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G}`$ at $`0`$ would be naturally isomorphic to $`\mathrm{HH}^2(R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G)`$, the space of first-order deformations of $`R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G`$. The same picture can be imagined for $`R^G`$ with a germ of a moduli space $`(\mathrm{Def}_{R^G},0)`$. The operation of taking a ring to its center would give a (partially defined) map $`\mathrm{Def}_{R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G}\mathrm{Def}_{R^G}`$, which in turn would induce a partially defined map on tangent spaces at the origin $`\mathrm{HH}^2(R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G)\mathrm{HH}^2(R^G)`$. (The reason this map is only partially defined is that there are flat deformations of $`R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G`$ over $`\mathrm{Spec}k[[t]]`$ whose center is not flat over $`\mathrm{Spec}k[[t]]`$.) Our statement in the previous paragraph amounts to the statement that this map on tangent spaces is zero whenever it is defined. In other words, the map $`\mathrm{Def}_{R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G}\mathrm{Def}_{R^G}`$ is completely ramified at $`0`$. However, when we move from the map on tangent spaces to the map on deformation spaces the map stops being constant, and this yields the change in the type of singularity.

## 3. Definitions

In this section, we recall some needed ideas regarding algebraic deformations (see  for the details), Hochschild cohomology (see ), and crossed products (see ). A formal deformation of an associative $``$-algebra $`A`$ is an algebra $`A[[t]]`$ over the formal power series ring $`[[t]]`$ in one variable, with multiplication defined by

$$uv=uv+\mu _1(uv)t+\mu _2(uv)t^2+\mathrm{}$$

($`u,vA`$), where the $`\mu _i:AAA`$ are linear maps. Associativity of $`A[[t]]`$ imposes constraints on the $`\mu _i`$. In particular, the infinitesimal (or first order) deformation $`\mu _1`$ must satisfy

(3.1)
$$\mu _1(uv)w+\mu _1(uvw)=\mu _1(uvw)+u\mu _1(vw)$$

for all $`u,v,wA`$, that is $`\mu _1`$ is a Hochschild two-cocycle (a representative of an element in $`\mathrm{HH}^2(A)`$). Here, as $`A`$ is an algebra over a field, its Hochschild cohomology may be defined as

$$\mathrm{HH}^{}(A):=\mathrm{Ext}_{A^e}^{}(A,A),$$

where $`A^e:=AA^{op}`$ acts on $`A`$ by left and right multiplication. Often this is expressed in terms of the (acyclic) Hochschild complex, that is the $`A^e`$-free resolution of $`A`$ given by:

(3.2)
$$\mathrm{}\stackrel{\delta _3}{}A^4\stackrel{\delta _2}{}A^3\stackrel{\delta _1}{}A^e\stackrel{m}{}A0,$$

where $`m`$ is the multiplication map and

$$\delta _n(a_0a_1\mathrm{}a_{n+1})=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^ia_0\mathrm{}a_ia_{i+1}\mathrm{}a_{n+1}.$$

Removing the term $`A`$ from the complex (3.2) and applying $`\mathrm{Hom}_{A^e}(,A)`$, we obtain the Hochschild (cochain) complex

(3.3)
$$0\mathrm{Hom}_{A^e}(A^e,A)\stackrel{\delta _1^{}}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{A^e}(A^3,A)\stackrel{\delta _2^{}}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{A^e}(A^4,A)\stackrel{\delta _3^{}}{}\mathrm{}$$

Thus $`\mathrm{HH}^n(A)=\mathrm{Ker}(\delta _{n+1}^{})/\mathrm{Im}(\delta _n^{})`$. Since $`\mathrm{Hom}_{A^e}(A^{(n+2)},A)\mathrm{Hom}_{}(A^n,A)`$, we may identify $`\mathrm{HH}^2(A)`$ with a subquotient of $`\mathrm{Hom}_{}(A^2,A)`$, the space of infinitesimal deformations of $`A`$ mentioned earlier (see (3.1)). Obstructions to lifting an infinitesimal deformation $`\mu _1`$ to a formal deformation $`A[[t]]`$ of $`A`$ lie in $`\mathrm{HH}^3(A)`$ .

More generally, if $`M`$ is any $`A`$-bimodule (equivalently, $`A^e`$-module), then

$$\mathrm{HH}^{}(A,M):=\mathrm{Ext}_{A^e}^{}(A,M).$$

Next we recall the definition of a crossed product ring. Let $`G`$ be a finite group acting by automorphisms on a $``$-algebra $`R`$. Let $`\alpha :G\times GR^\times `$ be a two-cocycle (where $`R^\times `$ is the group of units of $`R`$), that is

$$(\rho \alpha (\sigma ,\tau ))\alpha (\rho ,\sigma \tau )=\alpha (\rho ,\sigma )\alpha (\rho \sigma ,\tau )$$

for all $`\rho ,\sigma ,\tau G`$. We assume that the image of $`\alpha `$ is central in $`R`$. (More generally, the image of $`\alpha `$ need not be central, and the action of $`G`$ is twisted by $`\alpha `$. See for example .) In fact we will mainly be interested in two-cocycles $`\alpha `$ with image in $`^\times `$. Sometimes we will identify $`\alpha `$ with its cohomology class in $`\mathrm{H}^2(G,R^\times )`$. Let

$$A:=R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G$$

(or $`R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G`$) be the corresponding crossed product ring. That is, as a vector space, $`A=R_{}G`$, where $`G`$ is the group algebra, and the multiplication is given by

$$(p\sigma )(q\tau )=p(\sigma q)\alpha (\sigma ,\tau )\sigma \tau $$

for all $`p,qR`$ and $`\sigma ,\tau G`$. To shorten notation, we will write $`\overline{\sigma }:=1\sigma `$, so $`p\overline{\sigma }:=p\sigma `$. (Note that $`R`$ is subalgebra of $`A`$, but $`G`$ is a subalgebra only if $`\alpha `$ is a coboundary.) The action of $`G`$ on $`R`$ becomes an inner action on $`A`$, as

$$\sigma p=\overline{\sigma }p(\overline{\sigma })^1\left(\text{where }(\overline{\sigma })^1=\alpha ^1(\sigma ,\sigma ^1)\overline{\sigma ^1}\right)$$

for all $`\sigma G`$, $`pR`$.

We will obtain specific information about Hochschild cohomology and deformations of $`A`$ when $`R=[x,y,z]`$ and $`G`$ is abelian. The following algebra will be the main example of this paper.

###### Example 3.4.

Let $`G=/2\times /2`$ be the Klein four-group whose elements will be denoted $`1,a,b,c`$. We define an action of $`G`$ as automorphisms on $`R=[x,y,z]`$ by

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}\hfill ax& \hfill =& \hfill x,& \hfill ay& \hfill =& \hfill y,& \hfill az& \hfill =& \hfill z,\\ \hfill bx& \hfill =& \hfill x,& \hfill by& \hfill =& \hfill y,& \hfill bz& \hfill =& \hfill z.\end{array}$$

Up to coboundaries, there is exactly one nontrivial two-cocycle $`\alpha :G\times G^\times `$, which we take to be given by $`\alpha (1,\sigma )=1=\alpha (\sigma ,1)=\alpha (\sigma ,\sigma )`$ for all $`\sigma G`$, and

$$\alpha (a,b)=𝚒=\alpha (b,a),\alpha (b,c)=𝚒=\alpha (c,b),\alpha (c,a)=𝚒=\alpha (a,c),$$

where $`𝚒=\sqrt{1}`$. Then $`A:=R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G`$ is a crossed product algebra, as defined above.

## 4. Hochschild cohomology

We will first state a general result about Hochschild cohomology of the rings $`A=R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G`$, that is an immediate consequence of a result of Ştefan on the Hochschild cohomology of a Hopf Galois extension $`A/R`$ . Alternatively, we provide a more constructive (for our purposes) proof in Section 5 under additional hypotheses. Note that $`A`$ is an $`R`$-bimodule under left and right multiplication. The superscript $`G`$ in the statement of the following proposition denotes the subspace of $`G`$-invariant elements, that is all elements left unchanged by the action of any $`gG`$.

###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $`A=R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G`$. For each $`n0`$, there is an action of $`G`$ on $`\mathrm{HH}^n(R,A)`$ such that

$$\mathrm{HH}^n(A)\mathrm{HH}^n(R,A)^G.$$

###### Proof.

By \[24, Cor. 3.4\] (see also \[24, Prop. 2.3, Prop. 2.4 and Thm. 3.3\]), there is an action of $`G`$ on $`\mathrm{HH}^n(R,A)`$ and a spectral sequence with

$$E_2^{m,n}=\mathrm{H}^m(G,\mathrm{HH}^n(R,A))\mathrm{HH}^{m+n}(A).$$

As we are working in characteristic 0, the cohomology of $`G`$ is concentrated in degree 0, that is

$$\mathrm{H}^{}(G,\mathrm{HH}^n(R,A))=\mathrm{H}^0(G,\mathrm{HH}^n(R,A))\mathrm{HH}^n(R,A)^G.$$

Therefore $`E_2^{m,n}=E_{\mathrm{}}^{m,n}`$ and $`\mathrm{HH}^n(A)\mathrm{HH}^n(R,A)^G`$. ∎

It is again a result of Ştefan that a $`G`$-action on $`\mathrm{HH}^n(R,A)`$ extending the action inherited from $`A`$ on

$$\mathrm{HH}^0(R,A)A^R:=\{uAup=pu\text{ for all }pR\}$$

exists and is unique \[24, Prop. 2.4\]. Therefore, if we can find such a group action on $`\mathrm{HH}^n(R,A)`$, it is necessarily the action to which Proposition 4.1 refers.

Assuming that the image of $`\alpha `$ is in $`^\times `$, the group action in the proposition arises from an action of $`G`$ on the Hochschild complex (3.3) for $`R,A`$:

(4.2)
$$(\sigma f)(p_1\mathrm{}p_n):=\overline{\sigma }f((\sigma ^1p_1)\mathrm{}(\sigma ^1p_n))(\overline{\sigma })^1$$

for all $`\sigma G`$, $`f\mathrm{Hom}_{R^e}(R^n,A)`$. However in case $`R`$ is a polynomial algebra, we would like to have a group action on the Koszul complex, as this is the complex with which we will compute cohomology. We will describe such an action explicitly in case $`R=[x,y,z]`$ and $`G`$ is abelian.

Let

$$f:=x11x,g:=y11y,h:=z11zR^e.$$

The Koszul complex (a free $`R^e`$-resolution of $`R`$) is a complex in which the terms are exterior powers of $`R^e`$ , and it is equivalent to

(4.3)
$$0R^e\stackrel{\delta _3}{}(R^e)^3\stackrel{\delta _2}{}(R^e)^3\stackrel{\delta _1}{}R^e\stackrel{m}{}R0$$

where $`m`$ is multiplication, and

$$\delta _1=(fgh),\delta _2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill h& \hfill 0& \hfill g\\ \hfill 0& \hfill h& \hfill f\\ \hfill f& \hfill g& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),\text{ and }\delta _3=\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill g\\ \hfill f\\ \hfill h\end{array}\right).$$

Dropping the last term $`R`$ from the complex (4.3), mapping into $`A`$, and identifying $`\mathrm{Hom}_{R^e}((R^e)^n,A)`$ with $`A^n`$, we obtain the complex

(4.4)
$$0A\stackrel{\delta _1^{}}{}A^3\stackrel{\delta _2^{}}{}A^3\stackrel{\delta _3^{}}{}A0.$$

Therefore $`\delta _n^{}`$ is just the transpose of $`\delta _n`$ in each case, that is

$$\delta _1^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill f\\ \hfill g\\ \hfill h\end{array}\right),\delta _2^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill h& \hfill 0& \hfill f\\ \hfill 0& \hfill h& \hfill g\\ \hfill g& \hfill f& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),\text{ and }\delta _3^{}=(gfh).$$

We have $`\mathrm{HH}^n(R,A)=\mathrm{Ker}(\delta _{n+1}^{})/\mathrm{Im}(\delta _n^{})`$.

We will need to compute the action of $`G`$ on the complex (4.4) induced by the diagonal action on $`R^e`$ and its exterior powers. In the following lemma, we assume that $`G`$ is abelian, and further that the action is diagonalized so that $`G`$ acts by scalar multiplication on each monomial. We define the symbol $`p(\sigma )`$ by

(4.5)
$$\sigma p=p(\sigma )p(\sigma G,p\text{ a monomial}),$$

that is $`p(\sigma )`$ denotes the scalar by which $`\sigma `$ acts on $`p`$. The lemma below may be verified by direct computation.

###### Lemma 4.6.

Let $`R=[x,y,z]`$, let $`G`$ be an abelian group acting by scalar multiplication on each of $`x,y,z`$, and let $`\alpha \mathrm{H}^2(G,^\times )`$. The action of $`G`$ on $`R`$ induces the following action on the cochain complex (4.4). Letting $`\sigma G`$ and $`u,v,wA=R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G`$, the action is given by:

* (degree 0) $`\sigma u=\overline{\sigma }u\overline{\sigma }^1`$
* (degree 1)

$$\sigma \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill u& & \\ \hfill v& & \\ \hfill w& & \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill x(\sigma ^1)\overline{\sigma }u\overline{\sigma }^1& & \\ \hfill y(\sigma ^1)\overline{\sigma }v\overline{\sigma }^1& & \\ \hfill z(\sigma ^1)\overline{\sigma }w\overline{\sigma }^1& & \end{array}\right)$$
* (degree 2)

$$\sigma \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill u& & \\ \hfill v& & \\ \hfill w& & \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill xz(\sigma ^1)\overline{\sigma }u\overline{\sigma }^1& & \\ \hfill yz(\sigma ^1)\overline{\sigma }v\overline{\sigma }^1& & \\ \hfill xy(\sigma ^1)\overline{\sigma }w\overline{\sigma }^1& & \end{array}\right)$$
* (degree 3) $`\sigma u=xyz(\sigma ^1)\overline{\sigma }u\overline{\sigma }^1`$.

We now have the following algorithm for computing $`\mathrm{HH}^{}(A)`$ under our hypotheses: Find $`\mathrm{HH}^{}(R,A)`$ by direct calculation using the cochain complex (4.4). Then compute the elements of $`\mathrm{HH}^{}(R,A)`$ invariant under the $`G`$-action given in Lemma 4.6. By Proposition 4.1 and the remarks immediately following its proof, $`\mathrm{HH}^{}(A)\mathrm{HH}^{}(R,A)^G`$.

We make one general remark before giving an example: as an $`R`$-bimodule, $`A`$ decomposes into a direct sum $`_{\sigma G}R\overline{\sigma }`$, and so

$$\mathrm{HH}^{}(R,A)\underset{\sigma G}{}\mathrm{HH}^{}(R,R\overline{\sigma }).$$

If $`G`$ is abelian, the action of $`G`$ on cohomology preserves this decomposition, and by Proposition 4.1 we have an additive decomposition

$$\mathrm{HH}^{}(A)\underset{\sigma G}{}\mathrm{HH}^{}(R,R\overline{\sigma })^G.$$

This decomposition of Hochschild cohomology is illustrated in the following example.

###### Example 4.7.

Let $`A=R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha (/2\times /2)`$ as in Example 3.4, where $`\alpha `$ may be either trivial or nontrivial. Note that the $`R`$-bimodule structure of $`A`$ is the same in either of the cases that $`\alpha `$ is trivial or nontrivial, so $`\mathrm{HH}^{}(R,A)`$ is the same in either case. We find $`\mathrm{HH}^0(R,A)A^R=R\mathrm{HH}^0(R)`$, $`\mathrm{HH}^n(R,A)=0`$ ($`n>3`$), and

* $`\mathrm{HH}^1(R,A)R^3\mathrm{HH}^1(R)`$
* $`\mathrm{HH}^2(R,A)=\{\left(\begin{array}{c}p_1+q_1\overline{a}\\ p_2+q_2\overline{c}\\ p_3+q_3\overline{b}\end{array}\right)p_iR,q_1[y],q_2[x],q_3[z]\}`$

$`=R^3[y]\overline{a}[z]\overline{b}[x]\overline{c}`$
* $`\mathrm{HH}^3(R,A)=\{p_1+p_2\overline{a}+p_3\overline{b}+p_4\overline{c}p_1R,p_2[y],p_3[z],p_4[x]\}`$

$`=R[y]\overline{a}[z]\overline{b}[x]\overline{c}`$.

Applying Lemma 4.6, we have $`\mathrm{HH}^0(A)[x^2,y^2,z^2,xyz]=Z(A)`$, the center of $`A`$ (as expected), $`\mathrm{HH}^n(A)=0`$ ($`n>3`$), and

* In either the case that $`\alpha `$ is trivial or that $`\alpha `$ is nontrivial,

$`\mathrm{HH}^1(A)=\{\left(\begin{array}{c}p_1\\ p_2\\ p_3\end{array}\right)\begin{array}{c}p_1x[x^2,y^2,z^2]+yz[x^2,y^2,z^2]\hfill \\ p_2y[x^2,y^2,z^2]+xz[x^2,y^2,z^2]\hfill \\ p_3z[x^2,y^2,z^2]+xy[x^2,y^2,z^2]\hfill \end{array}\}`$
* $`\mathrm{HH}^2(A)=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{c}p_1+q_1\overline{a}\\ p_2+q_2\overline{c}\\ p_3+q_3\overline{b}\end{array}\right)\right\}`$, where $`p_1y[x^2,y^2,z^2]+xz[x^2,y^2,z^2]`$,
$`p_2x[x^2,y^2,z^2]+yz[x^2,y^2,z^2]`$, and $`p_3z[x^2,y^2,z^2]+xy[x^2,y^2,z^2]`$. If $`\alpha `$ is trivial, we take $`q_1y[y^2]`$, $`q_2x[x^2]`$, and $`q_3z[z^2]`$. If $`\alpha `$ is nontrivial, we take $`q_1[y^2]`$, $`q_2[x^2]`$, and $`q_3[z^2]`$.
* $`\mathrm{HH}^3(A)=\{p_1+p_2\overline{a}+p_3\overline{b}+p_4\overline{c}\}`$, where $`p_1Z(A)`$. If $`\alpha `$ is trivial, we take $`p_2[y^2]`$, $`p_3[z^2]`$, and $`p_4[x^2]`$. If $`\alpha `$ is nontrivial, we take $`p_2y[y^2]`$, $`p_3z[z^2]`$, and $`p_4x[x^2]\}`$.

## 5. Infinitesimal deformations

Under some hypotheses on $`A=R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G`$, we find in this section an explicit formula for the infinitesimal deformation $`\mu _1:AAA`$ corresponding to a given element of $`\mathrm{HH}^2(A)`$. We assume that $`\mathrm{HH}^2(A)`$ has been computed via Proposition 4.1, using an $`R^e`$-projective resolution of $`R`$ that itself carries an action of $`G`$. (See for example Lemma 4.6.) Since our elements of $`\mathrm{HH}^2(A)`$ are given as $`G`$-invariant elements of $`\mathrm{HH}^2(R,A)`$, we will therefore need to relate the Hochschild complex for $`A`$ to this resolution of $`R`$. With this in mind, we will now give a more constructive (for our purposes) proof of Proposition 4.1, using the action (4.2) of $`G`$ on the Hochschild complex.

We assume now that the image of $`\alpha `$ is contained in $`^\times `$. Let

$$\mathrm{\Delta }:=\underset{\sigma G}{}R\overline{\sigma }R\overline{\sigma }^1,$$

a subalgebra of $`A^e=AA^{op}`$ containing $`R^e`$. Then $`R`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-module and $`A(A^e)_\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ as an $`A^e`$-module (see \[4, Lemma 3.3\]). Note that $`A^e=_{\sigma G}\mathrm{\Delta }(\overline{\sigma }1)`$ is a free $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-module. Therefore by the Eckmann-Shapiro Lemma \[2, Corollary 2.8.4\],

$$\mathrm{Ext}_{A^e}^n(A,A)\mathrm{Ext}_{A^e}^n((A^e)_\mathrm{\Delta }R,A)\mathrm{Ext}_\mathrm{\Delta }^n(R,A).$$

Once we show that $`\mathrm{Ext}_\mathrm{\Delta }^n(R,A)\left(\mathrm{Ext}_{R^e}^n(R,A)\right)^G`$, we will have proved Proposition 4.1.

Let $`\mathrm{}\stackrel{\delta _3}{}P_2\stackrel{\delta _2}{}P_1\stackrel{\delta _1}{}P_0\stackrel{\delta _0}{}R0`$ be a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-projective resolution of $`R`$. By restriction, it is an $`R^e`$-projective resolution of $`R`$, and there is an inclusion $`\mathrm{Hom}_\mathrm{\Delta }(P_n,A)\mathrm{Hom}_{R^e}(P_n,A)`$ for each $`n`$. Moreover, there is an action of $`G`$ on the complex given by $`\sigma p=\overline{\sigma }p\overline{\sigma }^1`$ (as the image of $`\alpha `$ is in $`^\times `$), and a corresponding action on the cochain complex given by $`(\sigma f)(p)=\overline{\sigma }f((\overline{\sigma })^1p\overline{\sigma })(\overline{\sigma })^1`$ for all $`\sigma G,pP_n,`$ and $`f\mathrm{Hom}_{R^e}(P_n,A)`$. Therefore $`\mathrm{Hom}_\mathrm{\Delta }(P_n,A)=\mathrm{Hom}_{R^e}(P_n,A)^G`$. As $`|G|`$ is invertible in $``$, the subspace of $`G`$-invariant elements is just the image of the trace map $`\frac{1}{|G|}_{\sigma G}\sigma `$, and so $`(\mathrm{Ker}(\delta _{n+1}^{})/\mathrm{Im}(\delta _n^{}))^G\mathrm{Ker}(\delta _{n+1}^{})^G/\mathrm{Im}(\delta _n^{})^G`$. Further, if $`f=\delta _n^{}(f^{})`$ is $`G`$-invariant, then $`f=\frac{1}{|G|}_{\sigma G}\sigma \delta _n^{}(f^{})=\delta _n^{}(\frac{1}{|G|}_{\sigma G}\sigma f^{})`$ is in the image of $`\delta _n^{}`$ restricted to $`G`$-invariant homomorphisms, that is $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-homomorphisms. Therefore $`\mathrm{Ext}_\mathrm{\Delta }^n(R,A)\left(\mathrm{Ext}_{R^e}^n(R,A)\right)^G`$, which proves Proposition 4.1 under the assumption that $`\alpha \mathrm{H}^2(G,^\times )`$.

We will find useful the following $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-projective resolution of $`R`$. For each $`n0`$, let

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_n:=\{p_0\overline{\sigma _0}\mathrm{}p_{n+1}\overline{\sigma _{n+1}}p_iR,\sigma _iG\text{ and }\sigma _0\mathrm{}\sigma _{n+1}=1\},$$

a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-submodule of $`A^{(n+2)}`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and each $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ is a projective $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-module. Consider the complex

(5.1)
$$\mathrm{}\stackrel{\delta _3}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_2\stackrel{\delta _2}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_1\stackrel{\delta _1}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_0\stackrel{m}{}R0$$

where $`m`$ denotes multiplication and the maps $`\delta _n`$ are restrictions of the standard maps from the Hochschild complex (3.2). The above complex (5.1) is exact, as there is a chain contraction $`s_n:\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1}\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ given by

$$s_n(u_0\mathrm{}u_n)=u_0\mathrm{}u_n1.$$

Therefore (5.1) is a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-projective resolution of $`R`$.

The Hochschild complex (3.2) is just the complex (5.1) induced from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to $`A^e`$. Thus the isomorphism $`\mathrm{Ext}_{A^e}^n(A,A)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{Ext}_\mathrm{\Delta }^n(R,A)`$ is given at the chain level simply by restricting maps from $`\mathrm{Hom}_{A^e}(A^{(n+2)},A)`$ to $`\mathrm{Hom}_\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Delta }_n,A)`$. As discussed above, the isomorphism $`\mathrm{Ext}_\mathrm{\Delta }^n(R,A)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{Ext}_{R^e}^n(R,A)^G`$ is given at the chain level by inclusion of $`\mathrm{Hom}_\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Delta }_n,A)`$ into $`\mathrm{Hom}_{R^e}(\mathrm{\Delta }_n,A)`$. Now there is a map from (5.1) to the Hochschild complex for $`R`$, as they are both $`R^e`$-projective resolutions of $`R`$. Under the assumption that $`\alpha \mathrm{H}^2(G,^\times )`$, this is given by

$$p_0\overline{\sigma _0}p_1\overline{\sigma _1}p_2\overline{\sigma _2}\mathrm{}p_{n+1}\overline{\sigma _{n+1}}$$

(5.2)
$$\left(\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}\alpha (\sigma _0\mathrm{}\sigma _i,\sigma _{i+1})\right)p_0\sigma _0p_1(\sigma _0\sigma _1)p_2\mathrm{}(\sigma _0\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _n)p_{n+1}.$$

In particular, this map is the identity on the submodule $`R^{(n+2)}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$.

Now suppose that

(5.3)
$$\mathrm{}P_2P_1P_0R0$$

is any other $`R^e`$-projective resolution of $`R`$ carrying an action of $`G`$. Let

$$\psi _n:R^{(n+2)}P_n(n0)$$

be $`R^e`$-homomorphisms giving a map of chain complexes from the Hochschild complex (3.2) for $`R`$ to the above complex (5.3). The next result is an explicit formula for the infinitesimal deformation $`\mu _1:AAA`$ corresponding to an element of $`\mathrm{HH}^2(A)\mathrm{HH}^2(R,A)^G`$ expressed as a cochain in terms of (5.3).

###### Theorem 5.4.

Let $`A=R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G`$ with $`\alpha \mathrm{H}^2(G,^\times )`$. Let $`f:P_nA`$ be a function representing an element of $`\mathrm{HH}^n(R,A)^G\mathrm{HH}^n(A)`$ expressed in terms of the complex (5.3). The corresponding function $`\stackrel{~}{f}\mathrm{Hom}_{}(A^n,A)\mathrm{Hom}_{A^e}(A^{(n+2)},A)`$ of the Hochschild complex (3.3) is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{f}(p_1\overline{\sigma _1}\mathrm{}p_n\overline{\sigma _n})=((f\psi _n)(1p_1\sigma _1p_2\mathrm{}(\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _{n1})p_n1))\overline{\sigma _1}\mathrm{}\overline{\sigma _n}.$$

In particular, if $`n=2`$, we obtain the infinitesimal deformation $`\mu _1:AAA`$,

$$\mu _1(p\overline{\sigma }q\overline{\tau })=((f\psi _2)(1p\sigma q1))\overline{\sigma }\overline{\tau }.$$

###### Proof.

Identifying $`\mathrm{Hom}_{}(A^n,A)`$ with $`\mathrm{Hom}_{A^e}(A^{(n+2)},A)`$ and applying the map (5.2), we have

$`\stackrel{~}{f}(1p_1\overline{\sigma _1}\mathrm{}p_n\overline{\sigma _n}1)`$
$`=`$ $`\alpha ^1(\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _n,\sigma _n^1\mathrm{}\sigma _1^1)\stackrel{~}{f}\left(1p_1\overline{\sigma _1}\mathrm{}p_n\overline{\sigma _n}\overline{\sigma _n^1\mathrm{}\sigma _1^1}\right)\overline{\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _n}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\alpha (\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _i,\sigma _{i+1})((f\psi _n)(1p_1\sigma _1p_2\mathrm{}(\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _{n1})p_n)1))\overline{\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _n}`$
$`=`$ $`((f\psi _n)(1p_1\sigma _1p_2\mathrm{}(\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _{n1})p_n1)\overline{\sigma _1}\mathrm{}\overline{\sigma _n}.`$
We will use Theorem 5.4 to calculate the infinitesimal deformations for Example 3.4, that is for $`A=[x,y,z]\mathrm{\#}_\alpha (/2\times /2)`$ (whose Hochschild cohomology was given in Example 4.7). Let $`R=[x,y,z]`$ for the rest of this section. There are $`R^e`$-homomorphisms giving a map from the Hochschild complex (3.2) to the Koszul complex (4.3) for $`R`$,

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}\mathrm{}\stackrel{\delta _4}{}& R^5& \stackrel{\delta _3}{}& R^4& \stackrel{\delta _2}{}& R^3& \stackrel{\delta _1}{}& R^2& \stackrel{m}{}& R& 0\\ & \psi _3& & \psi _2& & \psi _1& & ||& & ||& \\ 0& R^e& \stackrel{\delta _3}{}& (R^e)^3& \stackrel{\delta _2}{}& (R^e)^3& \stackrel{\delta _1}{}& R^e& \stackrel{m}{}& R& 0.\end{array}$$

A computation shows that such maps may be defined as follows (cf. ):

$$\psi _1(1x^iy^jz^k1)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{i}{}}x^i\mathrm{}y^jz^kx^\mathrm{}1\\ \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{j}{}}y^j\mathrm{}z^ky^\mathrm{}1x^i\\ \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k}{}}z^k\mathrm{}x^iy^jz^\mathrm{}1\end{array}\right)$$

$$\psi _2(1x^iy^jz^kx^ry^sz^t1)=$$

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\underset{m=1}{\overset{t}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{i}{}}x^i\mathrm{}y^{j+s}z^{k+tm}x^{r+\mathrm{}1}z^{m1}\\ \underset{m=1}{\overset{t}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{j+s}{}}y^{j+s\mathrm{}}z^{k+tm}x^{i+r}y^\mathrm{}1z^{m1}\underset{m=1}{\overset{t}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{s}{}}x^iy^{j+s\mathrm{}}z^{k+tm}x^ry^\mathrm{}1z^{m1}\\ \underset{m=1}{\overset{s}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{i}{}}x^i\mathrm{}y^{j+sm}z^kx^{r+\mathrm{}1}y^{m1}z^t\end{array}\right)$$

$$\psi _3(1x^iy^jz^kx^ry^sz^tx^uy^vz^w1)=$$

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{v}{}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{t}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{i}{}}x^i\mathrm{}y^{j+s+n1}z^{k+tm}x^{r+u+\mathrm{}1}y^{vn}z^{w+m1}.$$

###### Example 5.5.

Let $`A=[x,y,z]\mathrm{\#}_\alpha (/2\times /2)`$ as in Example 3.4, where $`\alpha `$ may be either trivial or nontrivial. For any integer $`i`$, let $`\overline{i}`$ be its reduction modulo 2, that is $`\overline{i}=0`$ if $`i`$ is even and $`\overline{i}=1`$ if $`i`$ is odd. Direct computation yields the following: the infinitesimal deformation $`\mu _1:AAA`$ given by Theorem 5.4 and map $`\psi _2`$ above, and corresponding to the element $`(p_1,p_2,p_3;q_1\overline{a};q_2\overline{c};q_3\overline{b})`$ of Example 4.7(v) is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mu _1(x^iy^jz^k\overline{\sigma }x^{\mathrm{}}y^mz^n\overline{\tau })\hfill & \\ =x^{\mathrm{}}y^mz^n(\sigma )\hfill & \{(x^{i+\mathrm{}1}y^{j+m}z^{k+n1})(inp_1+\overline{in}(1)^{\mathrm{}}q_1\overline{a})\hfill \\ & +(x^{i+\mathrm{}}y^{j+m1}z^{k+n1})\left(jnp_2+\overline{jn}(1)^mq_2\overline{c}\right)\hfill \\ & +(x^{i+\mathrm{}1}y^{j+m1}z^{k+n})(imp_3+\overline{im}(1)^{\mathrm{}}q_3\overline{b})\}\overline{\sigma }\overline{\tau }.\hfill \end{array}$$

Here the scalar $`x^{\mathrm{}}y^mz^n(\sigma )`$ is defined by (4.5), and a negative power of $`x,y`$ or $`z`$ indicates that the term is 0.

## 6. Formal deformations

We will give a universal deformation formula (definition below) that will apply in particular to $`A=[x,y,z]\mathrm{\#}_\alpha (/2\times /2)`$, producing a formal deformation that lifts some of its infinitesimal deformations in case $`\alpha `$ is nontrivial. Our formula was inspired by an unpublished result of the second author and Zhang, and uses results in their paper .

A universal deformation formula based on a bialgebra $`B`$ is an element $`F(BB)[[t]]`$ satisfying the equations

(6.1)
$$\begin{array}{c}(ϵ\mathrm{id})(F)=11=(\mathrm{id}ϵ)(F)\hfill \\ \hfill \text{and }[(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{id})(F)](F1)=[(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })(F)](1F),\end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{id}`$ is the identity map. The virtue of such a formula is that if $`S`$ is any $`B`$-module algebra, then $`F`$ provides a formal deformation of $`S`$ . Specifically, if $`x,yS`$, then the deformed product is given by $`xy=(mF)(xy)`$, where $`m:SSS`$ is the ordinary multiplication.

Let $`H_1`$ be the associative $``$-algebra generated by the elements $`D_1`$, $`D_1^{}`$, and $`\beta _1`$, subject to the relations

$$D_1^2=0=(D_1^{})^2,D_1D_1^{}=D_1^{}D_1,D_1\beta _1=\beta _1D_1,D_1^{}\beta _1=\beta _1D_1^{},\text{ and }\beta _1^2=1.$$

Then $`H_1`$ is a bialgebra with comultiplication determined by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(D_1)=D_1\beta _1+1D_1,\mathrm{\Delta }(D_1^{})=D_1^{}1+\beta _1D_1^{},\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta _1)=\beta _1\beta _1,$$

and counit $`ϵ(D_1)=0=ϵ(D_1^{})`$, $`ϵ(\beta _1)=1`$. In fact $`H_1`$ is a quotient of the Drinfel’d double of a Taft algebra (see \[22, Lemma 4.4\]). Let $`H_1[[t]]=H_1_{}[[t]]`$ be the Hopf algebra $`H_1`$ with coefficients extended to the formal power series ring $`[[t]]`$. Take $`H_2`$ and $`H_3`$ to be two more copies of the Hopf algebra $`H_1`$ (with appropriately changed indices), and $`H=H_1H_2H_3`$, the tensor product Hopf algebra.

###### Lemma 6.2.

The element $`F_i=11+tD_iD_i^{}`$ of $`H_i[[t]H_i[[t]]`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) is a universal deformation formula. Consequently, the product $`F=F_1F_2F_3`$ is a universal deformation formula, based on $`H[[t]]H[[t]]`$.

###### Proof.

It is straightforward to check the equations (6.1) for each $`F_i`$. The second statement of the lemma follows, as the product of universal deformation formulas is again a universal deformation formula, based on the tensor product of the bialgebras. ∎

###### Example 6.3.

Let $`A=[x,y,z]\mathrm{\#}_\alpha (/2\times /2)`$, as in Example 3.4. We assume the cocycle $`\alpha \mathrm{H}^2(/2\times /2,^\times )`$ is nontrivial. We claim that $`A`$ is an $`H`$-module algebra, that is the $`D_i`$ and $`D_i^{}`$ act as skew derivations, and the $`\beta _i`$ act as automorphisms. Let $`q_1[y^2]`$, $`q_2[x^2]`$, and $`q_3[z^2]`$ (see Example 4.7(v)). Define, for all $`i,j,k^0`$ and $`\sigma /2\times /2`$,

$$D_1(x^iy^jz^k\overline{\sigma })=\overline{i}x(\sigma )x^{i1}y^jz^k\overline{\sigma },D_1^{}(x^iy^jz^k\overline{\sigma })=(1)^i\overline{k}x^iy^jz^{k1}q_1\overline{a}\overline{\sigma },$$

$$D_2(x^iy^jz^k\overline{\sigma })=\overline{j}z(\sigma )x^iy^{j1}z^kq_2\overline{c}\overline{\sigma },D_2^{}(x^iy^jz^k\overline{\sigma })=\overline{k}x^iy^jz^{k1}\overline{\sigma },$$

$$D_3(x^iy^jz^k\overline{\sigma })=\overline{i}y(\sigma )x^{i1}y^jz^kq_3\overline{b}\overline{\sigma },D_3^{}(x^iy^jz^k\overline{\sigma })=\overline{j}x^iy^{j1}z^k\overline{\sigma },$$

$$\beta _1(x^iy^jz^k\overline{\sigma })=(1)^ix(\sigma )x^iy^jz^k\overline{\sigma },$$

$$\beta _2(x^iy^jz^k\overline{\sigma })=(1)^kz(\sigma )x^iy^jz^k\overline{\sigma },$$

$$\beta _3(x^iy^jz^k\overline{\sigma })=(1)^jy(\sigma )x^iy^jz^k\overline{\sigma },$$

where the scalars $`x(\sigma )`$, $`y(\sigma )`$, and $`z(\sigma )`$ are defined in (4.5). Then $`A`$ is a left $`H`$-module algebra under the above operations: from their definitions, it is clear that $`\beta _1`$, $`\beta _2`$, and $`\beta _3`$ are automorphisms on $`A`$, and that they commute with each other. It is straightforward to verify that the $`D_i`$, $`D_i^{}`$ are skew derivations on $`A`$ with respect to the automorphisms $`\beta _i`$, in accordance with their coproducts in $`HH`$. From their definitions we have $`D_i^2=0=(D_i^{})^2`$ and $`\beta _i^2=\mathrm{id}`$. Again it may be verified directly that $`D_i\beta _i=\beta _iD_i`$, and $`D_i^{}\beta _i=\beta _iD_i^{}`$ as operators on $`A`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$), and that all other pairs of these operators commute.

Now set $`p_1=p_2=p_3=0`$ in Example 5.5. We claim that the corresponding infinitesimal deformation $`\mu _1`$ of $`A`$ lifts to a formal deformation of $`A`$ over the power series ring $`[[t]]`$: by \[13, Thm. 1.3 and Defn. 1.11\] and Lemma 6.2, the universal deformation formula $`F`$ gives a formal deformation of $`A`$. From their definitions, as operators on $`A`$, we see that

$$D_1D_3_A=0,D_2D_3^{}_A=0,\text{ and }D_1^{}D_2^{}_A=0.$$

Therefore we may write the universal deformation formula $`F`$, as an operator on $`AA`$, as

(6.4)
$$F|_{AA}=11+t(D_1D_1^{}+D_2D_2^{}+D_3D_3^{})+t^2D_2D_3D_2^{}D_3^{}.$$

It may be verified that $`D_1D_1^{}+D_2D_2^{}+D_3D_3^{}`$, composed with multiplication in $`A`$, yields the infinitesimal deformation $`\mu _1`$ given in Example 5.5.

In case the functions $`p_i`$ are not all 0, we recover the infinitesimal deformation $`\mu _1`$ of Example 5.5 from the following skew derivations $`d_i,d_i^{}`$ and automorphisms $`\gamma _i`$:

$$d_1(x^iy^jz^k\sigma )=iz(\sigma )zx^{i1}y^jz^kp_1\sigma ,d_1^{}(x^iy^jz^k\sigma )=kx^iy^jz^{k1}\sigma ,$$

$$d_2(x^iy^jz^k)=jz(\sigma )zx^iy^{j1}z^kp_2\sigma ,d_2^{}=d_1^{},$$

$$d_3(x^iy^jz^k\sigma )=iy(\sigma )x^{i1}y^jz^kp_3\sigma ,d_3^{}(x^iy^jz^k\sigma )=jx^iy^{j1}z^k\sigma ,$$

$$\gamma _1(x^iy^jz^k\sigma )=z(\sigma )x^iy^jz^k\sigma ,\gamma _2=\gamma _1,\gamma _3(x^iy^jz^k\sigma )=y(\sigma )x^iy^jz^k\sigma .$$

The functions $`d_1d_1^{}`$, $`d_2d_2^{}`$, and $`d_3d_3^{}`$ on $`AA`$ produce the infinitesimal deformations $`\mu _1`$ of Example 5.5 corresponding to $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$, and $`p_3`$, respectively. However, it may be checked for example that $`d_1d_1^{}d_1^{}d_1`$ in general, so $`A`$ is not an $`H_1`$-module algebra under the actions of $`d_1,d_1^{}`$ and $`\gamma _1`$. Therefore Lemma 6.2 does not produce a formal deformation of $`A`$ lifting the infinitesimal $`\mu _1`$ in this case.

###### Remark 6.5.

In case $`A=[x,y,z]\mathrm{\#}_\alpha (/2\times /2)`$ with $`\alpha `$ trivial, $`A`$ is an $`H_i`$-module algebra for each $`i`$, under the operators $`D_i,D_i^{}`$ and $`\beta _i`$ defined above, but with $`q_1y[y^2],q_2x[x^2]`$ and $`q_3z[z^2]`$ (see Example 4.7(v)). So for example, if $`q_1y[y^2]`$ and $`q_2=q_3=p_1=p_2=p_3=0`$, the universal deformation formula $`F=11+tD_1D_1^{}`$ of Lemma 6.2 yields a formal deformation of $`A`$ lifting the infinitesimal deformation $`\mu _1`$ of Example 5.5. However, $`D_1D_2D_2D_1`$ in general in this case, and so $`A`$ is not an $`H`$-module algebra, and the universal deformation formula of Lemma 6.2 based on $`H[[t]]`$ does not apply to $`A`$ in case $`q_1q_20`$.

## 7. The center of the deformed algebra

In this section, we consider only the example $`A=[x,y,z]\mathrm{\#}_\alpha (/2\times /2)`$, where $`\alpha `$ is nontrivial. Let $`A_F`$ denote the deformed algebra over $`[[t]]`$ given in Example 6.3, in the case $`p_1=p_2=p_3=0`$. The center of the original algebra $`A`$ is generated by $`x^2`$, $`y^2`$, $`z^2`$, and $`xyz`$. Inspection of the universal deformation formula $`F`$ given in (6.4) shows that the images of $`x^2`$, $`y^2`$, and $`z^2`$ remain central in $`A_F`$, but that this is not necessarily the case for $`xyz`$. In the next lemma, we adjust the element $`xyz`$ so that it is central in $`A_F`$. The resulting elements generate the new center.

###### Lemma 7.1.

Let $`F`$ be the universal deformation formula given in (6.4) above. Let $`Z`$ be the $`[[t]]`$-subalgebra of $`A_F`$ generated by $`x^2`$, $`y^2`$, $`z^2`$, and

$$w=xyz+\frac{1}{2}t(yq_1\overline{a}+xq_2\overline{c}+zq_3\overline{b}).$$

The center of $`A_F`$ is the completion $`\widehat{Z}`$ of $`Z`$ with respect to the ideal $`(t)`$.

###### Proof.

The element $`w`$ will be central in $`A_F`$ once we see that $`wx^iy^jz^k\overline{\sigma }=x^iy^jz^k\overline{\sigma }w`$ for any $`\sigma G`$ and nonnegative integers $`i,j,k`$. In either product, the resulting term in $`A`$ is $`x^{i+1}y^{j+1}z^{k+1}\overline{\sigma }`$. Lengthy calculations show that the coefficients of $`t`$, $`t^2`$, and $`t^3`$ in the products $`wx^iy^jz^k\overline{\sigma }`$ and $`x^iy^jz^k\overline{\sigma }w`$ are equal. Clearly this implies that $`\widehat{Z}`$ is contained in the center of $`A_F`$.

Now suppose that

(7.2)
$$v=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t^iv_i$$

is in the center of $`A_F`$. Then $`v_0`$ must be in the center of $`A`$, and so is equal to a polynomial in $`x^2`$, $`y^2`$, $`z^2`$, and $`xyz`$, say $`v_0=P_0(x^2,y^2,z^2,xyz)`$. Let $`v_0^{}=P_0(x^2,y^2,z^2,w)`$ as an element of $`A_F`$, known to be central by our previous argument. Note that $`v_0^{}=v_0mod(t)`$. Write

$$v=v_0^{}+\left((v_0v_0^{})+\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t^iv_i\right),$$

a sum of an element in $`Z`$ and an element with constant term 0. Again, the coefficient of $`t`$ in the expression $`(v_0v_0^{})+_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}t^iv_i`$ must be central in $`A`$, and so must be a polynomial in $`x^2`$, $`y^2`$, $`z^2`$, and $`xyz`$, say $`P_1(x^2,y^2,z^2,xyz)`$. Let $`v_1^{}=P_1(x^2,y^2,z^2,w)`$, and note that $`v_1^{}`$ is equivalent to the coefficient of $`t`$ in $`(v_0v_0^{})+_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}t^iv_i`$, modulo $`(t^2)`$. By induction, for any positive integer $`n`$, we may find $`v_0^{},v_1^{},\mathrm{},v_{n1}^{}`$ with

$$v=v_0^{}+tv_1^{}+\mathrm{}+t^{n1}v_{n1}^{}mod(t^n).$$

As $`\widehat{Z}:=\underset{}{lim}Z/(t^n)`$, we may identify $`v`$ with an element of $`\widehat{Z}`$. ∎

Finally, for homogeneous $`q_1,q_2`$ and $`q_3`$, we will find a presentation of the central subalgebra $`Z`$ of $`A_F`$ generated by $`x^2`$, $`y^2`$, $`z^2`$, and $`w`$. To this end, we calculate

$$ww=x^2y^2z^2+\frac{1}{4}t^2(y^2q_1^2+x^2q_2^2+z^2q_3^2)\frac{1}{4}𝚒t^3q_1q_2q_3,$$

where $`𝚒=\sqrt{1}`$. Letting $`\widehat{x}=x^2`$, $`\widehat{y}=y^2`$, $`\widehat{z}=z^2`$, and $`\widehat{w}=w`$ in $`A_F`$, and choosing $`q_1=\widehat{y}^j/2`$, $`q_2=\widehat{x}^i/2`$, and $`q_3=\widehat{z}^k/2`$ for nonnegative integers $`i,j,k`$, we have a single relation in $`Z`$,

(7.3)
$$\widehat{w}^2=\widehat{x}\widehat{y}\widehat{z}+t^2(\widehat{x}^{2i+1}+\widehat{y}^{2j+1}+\widehat{z}^{2k+1})2𝚒t^3\widehat{x}^i\widehat{y}^j\widehat{z}^k.$$

Thus $`Z`$ is generated by $`\widehat{x},\widehat{y},\widehat{z}`$, and $`\widehat{w}`$, subject to the relation (7.3).

A few comments are in order here:

1. The deformed defining equation (7.3) of the center $`Z`$ has no terms in $`t^1`$. Therefore, to first order $`Z`$ does not deform. This explains our statement in the introduction that the map $`\mathrm{Def}_{R\mathrm{\#}_\alpha G}\mathrm{Def}_{R^G}`$ is totally ramified at 0.
2. Unlike the compact situation of Vafa and Witten , we never obtain ordinary double points as our singularities. In this respect the local picture is more similar to the second example studied in \[loc. cit.\].
3. The deformation smooths out the initial three curves of singularities, leaving only a singularity at the origin, as can be verified by direct calculation.


text:
# THEP 02/14 University of Freiburg 11th October 2002 math-ph/0210024 The Presentation of the Algebra of Observables of the Closed Bosonic String in 1+3 Dimensions: Calculation up to Order ℏ⁷

## 1 Introduction

Closed bosonic strings can be described by an infinite set of parametrization invariant generators and their algebra. On the classical level they form a Poisson algebra (). Without loss of generality we restrict ourselves to the investigation of the subalgebra of “right-movers” $`𝔥^{}`$, or rather to its quantum counterpart $`\widehat{𝔥}^{}`$. Furthermore, we consider the case of massive strings moving in $`1+3`$ dimensional Minkowski space.

In the following it is assumed that the reader is familiar with the content of ref.  (for a recent review, cf. ref. ). In the present letter, we will adhere to the notation and terminology employed there.

$`\widehat{𝔥}^{}`$ carries an $``$-gradation in the $`\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}`$-scaling dimension of its elements ($`\alpha ^{}`$ denoting the inverse string tension), for short in “powers of $`\mathrm{}`$”. Moreover, $`\widehat{𝔥}^{}`$ carries a representation of the $`O(3)`$ symmetry of the target space. Hence, its elements can be organized in powers of $`\mathrm{}`$ and in $`so(3)`$ spin-parity multiplets, denoted by $`J^P`$. The spin of a given multiplet in the algebra will be indicated by a subscript. In particular, commutator ($`[,]`$) and anticommutator ($`\{,\}`$) operations can be organized to yield $`so(3)`$ multiplets again: let $`[,]_j`$ and $`\{,\}_j`$ be the respective spin $`j`$ multiplets.

In ref. , an algorithm has been given for the construction of a presentation both of the classical and of the quantum algebras, starting from the spin operator $`\widehat{𝒥}_1`$ of order $`\mathrm{}`$ and the elements $`\widehat{𝒮}_1`$, $`\widehat{𝒮}_2`$, $`\widehat{𝒯}_2`$ and $`\widehat{}_0^{(1)}`$of power $`\mathrm{}^2`$ and subsequently increasing cycle by cycle the $`\mathrm{}`$-power by one, introducing new generators $`\widehat{}_0^{(2l+1)}`$ of the subalgebra $`\widehat{𝔞}`$ in every even order $`\mathrm{}^{2l+2}`$, $`l=(0),1,2,\mathrm{}`$. Recall from (\[1, p. 25\]) that $`\widehat{𝒥}_1`$, $`\widehat{𝒮}_1`$, $`\widehat{𝒮}_2`$, $`\widehat{𝒯}_2`$ and $`\widehat{}_0^{(2l+1)}`$ are of spin-parity $`1^+`$, $`1^{}`$, $`2^{}`$, $`2^+`$ and $`0^+`$, respectively.

The consistency of the results of the previous cycles of this algorithm, in particular their agreement with the guiding principle of structural correspondence between the classical and the quantum algebra, has been proved recently by Meusburger and Rehren ().

On the classical level, the set of elements $`𝒥_1`$, $`𝒮_1`$, $`𝒮_2`$, $`𝒯_2`$ generates a Poisson subalgebra $`𝔘`$ of $`𝔥^{}`$, while the infinite set of elements $`_0^{(2l+1)}`$, $`l=0,1,\mathrm{}`$, forms an abelian subalgebra $`𝔞`$ of $`𝔥^{}`$. Moreover, it has been observed previously that the two Poisson subalgebras $`𝔞`$ and $`𝔘`$ of $`𝔥^{}`$, at least up to a “grade” (\[1, p. 27\]) which would correspond to order $`\mathrm{}^8`$ in the respective quantum algebras, are disjoint and that the Poisson bracket action of the first two elements of $`𝔞`$, $`\widehat{}_0^{(1)}`$ and $`\widehat{}_0^{(3)}`$, on the elements of $`𝔘`$ is semidirect. Among other things our analysis below will clarify the relevance of this observation for the quantum algebras, with $`\widehat{𝔞}`$ and $`\widehat{𝔘}`$ denoting the respective quantum counterparts.

## 2 Presentation of the results

We have computed the cycle of “degree $`5`$” (\[1, pp. 39\]) concerning all the relations in $`\widehat{𝔘}`$ of order $`\mathrm{}^6`$.

For this, the only new generating relation of order $`\mathrm{}^6`$ had to be taken into account. The classical version of this relation has been calculated by one of us (G.H.), after its existence had been established in the course of the computation of the quantum action of the generator $`\widehat{}_0^{(3)}`$ on the elements of $`\widehat{𝔘}`$ (). The complete quantum relation is given in the appendix.The fact that this relation appears to be a rather long expression depends crucially on the basis chosen111 In our algorithm, this basis is determined by the order in which the elements of a given power in $`\mathrm{}`$ are to be arranged. For instance, for pure commutator basis elements, apart from the general techniques developed by M. Hall () for the presentation of free Lie algebras, we have, roughly speaking, chosen the following scheme. (The treatment of pure anticommutators and mixtures of commutators and anticommutators proceeds similarly – it can be deduced from the arrangement of the terms in the $`\mathrm{}^6`$, $`0^+`$ relation.) First, sort the pure commutator terms by the number of times each of the generators $`\widehat{𝒯}_2`$, $`\widehat{𝒮}_2`$, $`\widehat{𝒮}_1`$ occurs separately in each term. Introduce the ordering $`\widehat{𝒯}_2>\widehat{𝒮}_2>\widehat{𝒮}_1`$. Arrange the expressions with equal numbers of occuring $`\widehat{𝒯}_2`$, $`\widehat{𝒮}_2`$, $`\widehat{𝒮}_1`$ according to the length of the longest uninterupted iterated commutator, i.e. of the longest sequence of the form (we suppress the spin subscripts) $`[\mathrm{}[[g,g^{}],g^{\prime \prime }],\mathrm{},g^{(n)}]`$, where the $`g^{(i)}`$ denote generators. Then, arrange all pure commutators according to the following rules (let $`f`$ and $`g`$ be pure commutators): $`[f,g]_l>[f^{},g^{}]_l^{}`$ if $`f>f^{}`$ or if $`f=f^{}`$ and $`g>g^{}`$, or if $`f=f^{}`$, $`g=g^{}`$ and $`l>l^{}`$.  in order $`\mathrm{}^3`$ and higher. Its existence and content, however, are independent of the choice of such a basis.

For the definition of the quantum relation, the most general correction term has been added, introducing 14 parameters of order $`\mathrm{}`$, 12 of order $`\mathrm{}^2`$ and 2 of order $`\mathrm{}^4`$ \[sic!\]. Note that there are no elements of the algebra $`\widehat{𝔥}^{}`$ that are of order $`\mathrm{}^3`$ and spin-parity $`0^+`$ (\[1, p. 27\]); hence, there cannot be any $`\mathrm{}^3`$ correction terms. Among the added terms which are linearly independent of each other, there are exactly two, $`\widehat{}_0^{(3)}`$and $`\widehat{}_0^{(1)}`$, from the infinitely generated abelian subalgebra $`\widehat{𝔞}`$. Their pertinent coefficients will be denoted by $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$. They are of respective order $`\mathrm{}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{}^4`$. At first sight, two more $`\mathrm{}^4`$ correction terms (other than $`\widehat{}_0^{(3)}`$) seem to be allowed, to wit the anticommutators $`\{\{\widehat{𝒥}_1,\widehat{𝒥}_1\}_0,\widehat{}_0^{(1)}\}_0`$ and $`\{\widehat{}_0^{(1)},\widehat{}_0^{(1)}\}_0`$. However, a computation reveals that e.g. their commutators with $`\widehat{𝒮}_1`$ yield two polynomially independent elements not contained in $`\widehat{𝔘}`$ which cannot be compensated by other commutators. On the other hand, by the already established correspondence between classical and quantum algebras in the subleading orders of $`\mathrm{}`$, there is no room for additional relations (below $`\mathrm{}^6`$). Therefore, the respective coefficients of the above mentioned terms must vanish in the quantum relation.

Following the construction algorithm with the help of computer-algebraic software222 We are using Mathematica routines that have been developed by C. Nowak and G. Handrich in the course of their lower $`\mathrm{}`$-order investigation (). In order to cope with the sheer numbers of equations and variables occurring at the present $`\mathrm{}`$-order – in some sectors, systems of as many as $`10^4`$ equations in around $`10^4`$ variables arise – we have translated part of the routines into the symbolic manipulation language FORM . we have obtained the following results:

1. The cycle of induction into the $`J^P=0^+`$, $`\mathrm{}^7`$-sector shows that vanishing coefficients have to be assigned to all of the $`14`$ correction terms of order $`\mathrm{}`$, in accordance with the $`_2`$-grading of the quantum corrections that has been observed in ref. \[1, p. 48\].
2. All of the relations of order $`\mathrm{}^7`$ can be obtained by the induction of relations of order $`\mathrm{}^4`$ and lower. This observation is based on the fact that the number of independent elements of a given $`\mathrm{}`$-power and spin-parity is known explicitly and the fact that there do not exist generating relations of order $`\mathrm{}^5`$. In other words, granting the knowledge of the $`\widehat{}_0^{(1)}`$\- and $`\widehat{}_0^{(3)}`$-actions on $`\widehat{𝒮}_1`$, $`\widehat{𝒮}_2`$, $`\widehat{𝒯}_2`$ (the former being given in ref. , the latter in ref. ), the set of relations given in ref. plus the sole generating relation of order $`\mathrm{}^6`$ gives a complete description of the finitely generated $`\widehat{𝔘}`$-part of the algebra of observables at least up to order $`\mathrm{}^7`$.
3. Regarding the requirement of correspondence, no restrictions on the (as yet undetermined) parameters $`f`$, $`g_1`$, $`g_2`$ have been found. (These parameters have been introduced in the course of definition of quantum relations of lower power of $`\mathrm{}`$ in ref. \[1, p. 44\] and ref. . Should their values ever be determined in cycles of higher power of $`\mathrm{}`$, they will assume rational values, cf. ref. \[1, p. 47\].) However, all of the $`12`$ surviving $`\widehat{𝔘}`$-contributions to the quantum correction of the $`\mathrm{}^6`$, $`0^+`$ relation can be expressed in terms of $`f`$ and $`g_2`$. More precisely, the eleven coefficients of order $`\mathrm{}^2`$ are linear functions of $`f`$, and the remaining $`\mathrm{}^4`$ coefficient is quadratic in $`f`$ and linear in $`g_2`$.
4. The parameter $`x_1`$ that describes the contribution of $`\widehat{}_0^{(3)}`$ in the quantum relation turns out to be nonzero. The numerical value for $`x_1`$ can be inferred from the quantum relation given in the appendix. The fact that $`x_1`$ is nonzero means that the semidirect decomposition of the classical algebra $`𝔥^{}`$ into a sum of the abelian subalgebra $`𝔞`$ and the finitely generated subalgebra $`𝔘`$ cannot be carried over to the quantum case.

At hindsight, one could have anticipated that elements from the abelian subalgebra $`\widehat{𝔞}`$ had to be included in the quantum corrections to the new classical generating relation: observe that the generating relation of order $`\mathrm{}^6`$ is the first encounter with such a relation of characteristic $`J^P=0^+`$ and that, in addition, it is of even order in powers of $`\mathrm{}`$, invoking, in accordance with the $`_2`$-grading, $`0^+`$ quantum corrections of even orders in powers of $`\mathrm{}`$. The generators of the abelian subalgebra, $`\widehat{}_0^{(2l+1)}`$, $`l=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ are all of this type. Thus they must be considered as candidates for the quantum corrections. Moreover, for every generator333In this argument, we disregard the generator $`\widehat{}_0^{(1)}`$ because it commutes with the $`\widehat{}_0^{(2l+1)}`$-quantum corrections by construction. $`\widehat{𝒮}_1`$, $`\widehat{𝒮}_2`$, $`\widehat{𝒯}_2`$ there is exactly one way to induce such a relation together with its most general quantum correction into $`J^P=1^{},2^{},2^+`$ relations of $`\mathrm{}`$-order increased by one, respectively. Further, for the present case, notice that there are only three Lie-type basis elements (i.e. basis elements that can be expressed as pure commutators of the generators) contained in the vector space of characteristic $`\mathrm{}^4`$, $`J^P=0^+`$, not belonging to the subalgebra $`\widehat{𝔞}`$. Hence, upon the above inductions – apart from the generator $`\widehat{}_0^{(3)}`$ of the abelian algebra $`\widehat{𝔞}`$ – only these three elements give rise to linear combinations of Lie-type basis elements of order $`\mathrm{}^5`$ (besides elements not of Lie-type). In other words, at most three linearly independent such combinations contained in the pertinent vector spaces can be obtained in turn by this procedure. However, this number is rather poor in comparison with the numbers $`16`$, $`15`$ and $`14`$ of Lie-type elements of the respective vector spaces. Small wonder that assistance by the generator $`\widehat{}_0^{(3)}`$ of the abelian subalgebra is badly needed as an additional quantum correction, which, upon the inductions by $`\widehat{𝒮}_1`$, $`\widehat{𝒮}_2`$ and $`\widehat{𝒯}_2`$, each time gives rise to one additional independent linear combination of Lie-type basis elements of order $`\mathrm{}^5`$, among other things.

Because of the ambiguity in the definition of the subalgebra $`\widehat{𝔞}`$ (, see also ref. ), one might hope that by a different choice for the generators $`\widehat{}_0^{(2l+1)}`$ of $`\widehat{𝔞}`$ the (quantum) breaking of the semidirect splitting (of the classical algebra $`𝔥^{}`$) could be avoided. This is in fact impossible, since already for the present case every different choice for the generator $`\widehat{}_0^{(3)}`$ in the $`\mathrm{}^4`$-power quantum corrections to the generating $`\mathrm{}^6`$-$`0^+`$-relation results in a mere redefinition of some of the coefficients of the $`\widehat{𝔘}`$-terms in this part of the relation.
5. The other parameter, $`x_2`$, characterizing the $`\widehat{}_0^{(1)}`$ dependence, is given as a function linear both in $`f`$ and in $`g_1`$.

Using a concrete realization of the algebra of observables, Meusburger and Rehren found the variables $`f`$, $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ to take on certain rational numbers, the latter property in agreement with the results of ref. . Insertion of these values into the formula for $`x_2`$ reveals a non-vanishing contribution of $`\widehat{}_0^{(1)}`$ to the quantum corrections as well.

A conservative a priori estimate would suggest that the parameters of the quantum corrections would be roughly tenfold overdetermined. As yet, the reason for the fact that they are not overdetermined has not been identified in terms of special properties of the generating relations and the actions of $`\widehat{}_0^{(2l+1)}`$, $`l=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. Instead, Meusburger and Rehren () give a reason in terms of the properties of an embedding algebra.

## Acknowledgments

This project has been carried out under the supervision of K. Pohlmeyer. The authors wish to thank him for thorough discussions on the interpretation of the results and for many suggestions concerning the manuscript. Also, we would like to thank D. Giulini for a critical reading of the final version of this letter. This work was supported in part by the DFG-Forschergruppe Quantenfeldtheorie, Computeralgebra und Monte-Carlo Simulation.

## Appendix A The defining relation of order $`\mathrm{}^6`$

In order to make the elements of the quantum algebra of observables and their relations scale invariant, and in order to make contact with refs.  and  easier, the generators $`\widehat{𝒥}_1`$, $`\widehat{𝒮}_1`$, $`\widehat{𝒮}_2`$, $`\widehat{𝒯}_2`$ have been rescaled according to

$$\widehat{𝒥}_1=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1,$$

$$\widehat{𝒮}_1=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}\right)^2\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒮}_2=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}\right)^2\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒯}_2=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}\right)^2\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2$$

$$\widehat{}_0^{(2l+1)}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}\right)^{2(l+1)}\widehat{}\backslash _0^{(2l+1)}.$$

The defining quantum relation with its quantum corrections fixed by consistency is given by the following expression. The rational valued parameters $`f`$, $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ remain undetermined.

$$\begin{array}{cc}& 0=\hfill \\ & \frac{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}729}i}{5}\sqrt{2}[[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1]_0105i\sqrt{2}[[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2]_0\hfill \\ & +\frac{364i}{5}\sqrt{6}[[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1]_0808i\sqrt{\frac{7}{3}}[[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_3,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_3,[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_3]_0\hfill \\ & +\frac{1217i}{5}\sqrt{\frac{7}{6}}[[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_3,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2]_0+881i\sqrt{\frac{14}{3}}[[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_3,[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_3]_0\hfill \\ & +259i\sqrt{\frac{1}{30}}[[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2]_0105i\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}[[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1]_0\hfill \\ & +\frac{567i}{5}\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}[[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2]_0273i\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}[[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1]_0\hfill \\ & 424\sqrt{\frac{1}{15}}[[[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_0+170\sqrt{3}[[[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_0\hfill \\ & +214\sqrt{\frac{1}{5}}[[[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_053\sqrt{15}[[[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_0,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_0\hfill \\ & +\mathrm{25\hspace{0.17em}200}i\sqrt{5}\{[[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2]_1,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2]_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0+\mathrm{110\hspace{0.17em}315}\sqrt{\frac{2}{21}}\{[[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_3,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2]_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & \mathrm{372\hspace{0.17em}614}\sqrt{\frac{2}{15}}\{[[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2]_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0+\frac{\mathrm{854\hspace{0.17em}096}}{5}\sqrt{2}\{[[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2]_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & \mathrm{30\hspace{0.17em}876}\sqrt{2}\{[[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2]_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0+\frac{\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}074}}{5}\sqrt{6}\{[[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2]_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & \frac{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}931\hspace{0.17em}782}}{5}\sqrt{\frac{6}{7}}\{[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_3,[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2]_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & +\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}277\hspace{0.17em}904}\sqrt{\frac{2}{15}}\{[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2]_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}559\hspace{0.17em}548}}{5}\sqrt{2}\{[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1]_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & \mathrm{656\hspace{0.17em}256}\sqrt{6}\{[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1]_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\frac{\mathrm{29\hspace{0.17em}176}}{9}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\{[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1]_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & \frac{\mathrm{32\hspace{0.17em}359\hspace{0.17em}359}i}{35}\sqrt{\frac{1}{5}}\{[[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{63\hspace{0.17em}250\hspace{0.17em}109}i}{14}\sqrt{\frac{3}{5}}\{[[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & \frac{\mathrm{825\hspace{0.17em}828\hspace{0.17em}733}i}{189}\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\{[[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & \frac{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}890\hspace{0.17em}226\hspace{0.17em}561}i}{378}\sqrt{\frac{1}{5}}\{[[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{23\hspace{0.17em}594\hspace{0.17em}413\hspace{0.17em}118}i}{\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}725}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{15}}\{[[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_0,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{\mathrm{423\hspace{0.17em}738\hspace{0.17em}593}}{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}350}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}}\{[[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}882}\sqrt{\frac{1}{7}}\{[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_3,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & +\mathrm{17\hspace{0.17em}848}i\sqrt{\frac{14}{5}}\{[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2]_2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2\}_0+\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}792}\sqrt{\frac{1}{5}}\{[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & \mathrm{25\hspace{0.17em}928}i\sqrt{2}\{[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2]_2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2\}_0\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}212}\sqrt{3}\{[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & \frac{\mathrm{98\hspace{0.17em}796}i}{5}\sqrt{\frac{2}{35}}\{[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2]_2,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2\}_0+\frac{\mathrm{27\hspace{0.17em}896}i}{5}\sqrt{2}\{[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2]_2,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2\}_0\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{190\hspace{0.17em}378}}{75}\sqrt{\frac{1}{7}}\{[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_3,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2\}_0+\frac{\mathrm{34\hspace{0.17em}592}}{15}\sqrt{\frac{1}{5}}\{[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2\}_0\hfill \\ & \frac{\mathrm{82\hspace{0.17em}412}}{25}\sqrt{3}\{[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2\}_0+\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}492}\sqrt{7}\{[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_3,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2\}_0\hfill \\ & \mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}836}\sqrt{\frac{1}{5}}\{[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2\}_0+\frac{\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}883}i}{5}\sqrt{\frac{6}{5}}\{[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & \frac{336}{5}\sqrt{3}\{[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2\}_0+\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}439}i\sqrt{\frac{2}{5}}\{[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}539}}{5}\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\{[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1\}_0+\frac{\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}186}i}{5}\sqrt{2}\{[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2]_1,[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1\}_0\hfill \\ & +8\sqrt{\frac{1}{15}}\{[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2]_1,[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1\}_0\frac{\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}648}}{5}\sqrt{3}\{[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2]_1,[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2]_1\}_0\hfill \\ & \frac{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}144}i}{5}\sqrt{2}\{[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2]_1,[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1\}_0\frac{\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}888}}{5}\{[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2]_0,[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2]_0\}_0\hfill \\ & \mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}522}\sqrt{7}\{[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_3,[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_3\}_0\frac{\mathrm{15\hspace{0.17em}128}}{3}\sqrt{\frac{1}{5}}\{[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2\}_0\hfill \\ & \mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}392}\sqrt{3}\{[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1\}_0+784\sqrt{7}\{[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_3,[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_3\}_0\hfill \\ & +\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}708}\sqrt{5}\{[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2\}_0\frac{\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}076}}{5}\sqrt{3}\{[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1\}_0\hfill \\ & \mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}841}i\sqrt{\frac{2}{5}}\{[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1\}_0+\frac{\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}188\hspace{0.17em}112}}{5}\sqrt{3}\{[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2]_1,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2]_2,\{\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_2\}_0\hfill \\ & \frac{\mathrm{67\hspace{0.17em}419\hspace{0.17em}551\hspace{0.17em}597}i}{\mathrm{14\hspace{0.17em}175}}\sqrt{\frac{2}{5}}\{[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2]_0,\{\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\}_0\hfill \\ & \frac{\mathrm{233\hspace{0.17em}715\hspace{0.17em}466\hspace{0.17em}133}i}{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}450}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{70}}\{[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2]_2,\{\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_2\}_0\hfill \\ & \frac{\mathrm{531\hspace{0.17em}966\hspace{0.17em}503}i}{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}025}}\sqrt{\frac{2}{5}}\{[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2]_0,\{\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\}_0\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{514\hspace{0.17em}231\hspace{0.17em}474\hspace{0.17em}987}i}{\mathrm{85\hspace{0.17em}050}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}\{[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2]_2,\{\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_2\}_0\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{21\hspace{0.17em}685\hspace{0.17em}633\hspace{0.17em}366\hspace{0.17em}363}}{1275750}\sqrt{\frac{1}{7}}\{[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_3,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\{\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_2\}_0\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}240\hspace{0.17em}597\hspace{0.17em}014\hspace{0.17em}967}}{\mathrm{72\hspace{0.17em}900}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{5}}\{[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\{\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_2\}_0\hfill \\ & \frac{\mathrm{168\hspace{0.17em}553\hspace{0.17em}073\hspace{0.17em}449}}{\mathrm{283\hspace{0.17em}500}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\{[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\{\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_2\}_0\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{236\hspace{0.17em}150\hspace{0.17em}183}}{27}\sqrt{\frac{1}{15}}\{[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_0,\{\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\}_0\hfill \\ & \frac{\mathrm{906\hspace{0.17em}152}}{5}\sqrt{2}\{\{[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2]_1,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2\}_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0+\frac{\mathrm{350\hspace{0.17em}113\hspace{0.17em}272}}{35}\sqrt{2}\{\{[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2\}_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & \frac{\mathrm{87\hspace{0.17em}423\hspace{0.17em}547}i}{189}\sqrt{\frac{5}{3}}\{\{[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1\}_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\frac{\mathrm{29\hspace{0.17em}973\hspace{0.17em}292\hspace{0.17em}978}i}{525}\sqrt{\frac{1}{15}}\{\{[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2]_0,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1\}_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & \frac{\mathrm{265\hspace{0.17em}518\hspace{0.17em}812}i}{125}\sqrt{\frac{1}{7}}\{\{[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_3,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2\}_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\frac{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}114\hspace{0.17em}384\hspace{0.17em}911}i}{525}\sqrt{\frac{1}{5}}\{\{[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2\}_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}839\hspace{0.17em}347\hspace{0.17em}537}}{27}\sqrt{\frac{1}{30}}\{\{[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1\}_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0+\frac{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}848\hspace{0.17em}857\hspace{0.17em}113}i}{875}\sqrt{3}\{\{[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2\}_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & \frac{\mathrm{31\hspace{0.17em}670\hspace{0.17em}688}}{25}\sqrt{\frac{2}{5}}\{\{[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1\}_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\frac{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}013\hspace{0.17em}633\hspace{0.17em}886}i}{375}\sqrt{\frac{1}{7}}\{\{[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_3,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2\}_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{20\hspace{0.17em}403\hspace{0.17em}199\hspace{0.17em}969}i}{525}\sqrt{\frac{1}{5}}\{\{[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2\}_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{\mathrm{371\hspace{0.17em}746\hspace{0.17em}530\hspace{0.17em}749}i}{7875}\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\{\{[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2\}_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & \frac{\mathrm{234\hspace{0.17em}320\hspace{0.17em}627}}{27}\sqrt{\frac{1}{10}}\{\{[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2\}_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\frac{\mathrm{682\hspace{0.17em}624}}{5}\sqrt{\frac{3}{35}}\{\{\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2\}_2,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2\}_0\hfill \\ & \frac{\mathrm{767\hspace{0.17em}912}}{5}\sqrt{\frac{3}{35}}\{\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\{\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2\}_2\}_0\frac{\mathrm{307\hspace{0.17em}388}i}{5}\sqrt{\frac{2}{15}}\{\{\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2\}_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & \frac{\mathrm{106\hspace{0.17em}292}}{5}\sqrt{\frac{1}{5}}\{\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\{\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1\}_2\}_0\frac{\mathrm{92\hspace{0.17em}992\hspace{0.17em}488}}{5}\sqrt{\frac{2}{5}}\{[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2]_1,\{\{\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_1\}_0\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}630\hspace{0.17em}367\hspace{0.17em}098\hspace{0.17em}038}i}{\mathrm{127\hspace{0.17em}575}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{7}}\{[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_3,\{\{\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_2,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_3\}_0\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}636\hspace{0.17em}102\hspace{0.17em}359\hspace{0.17em}228}i}{14175}\sqrt{\frac{1}{15}}\{[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\{\{\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_1\}_0\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}365\hspace{0.17em}929\hspace{0.17em}648}}{6075}\sqrt{2}\{[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\{\{\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_1\}_0\hfill \\ & \frac{\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}665\hspace{0.17em}642\hspace{0.17em}269\hspace{0.17em}132}}{\mathrm{14\hspace{0.17em}175}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{105}}\{\{\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2\}_2,\{\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_2\}_0\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{19\hspace{0.17em}829\hspace{0.17em}436\hspace{0.17em}064}}{225}\sqrt{\frac{1}{15}}\{\{\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2\}_0,\{\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\}_0\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}095\hspace{0.17em}167\hspace{0.17em}528\hspace{0.17em}133}}{\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}725}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{105}}\{\{\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2\}_2,\{\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_2\}_0\hfill \\ & \frac{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}993\hspace{0.17em}696\hspace{0.17em}992}}{25}\sqrt{\frac{1}{15}}\{\{\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2\}_0,\{\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\}_0\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{513\hspace{0.17em}902\hspace{0.17em}779\hspace{0.17em}661}i}{\mathrm{42\hspace{0.17em}525}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{30}}\{\{\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1\}_2,\{\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_2\}_0\hfill \\ & \frac{\mathrm{915\hspace{0.17em}331\hspace{0.17em}544}}{405}\sqrt{\frac{1}{5}}\{\{\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1\}_2,\{\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_2\}_0+\frac{\mathrm{8\hspace{0.17em}485\hspace{0.17em}612\hspace{0.17em}798}}{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}025}}\{\{\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1\}_0,\{\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\}_0\hfill \\ & \frac{\mathrm{17\hspace{0.17em}522\hspace{0.17em}730\hspace{0.17em}542\hspace{0.17em}752}}{\mathrm{33\hspace{0.17em}075}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{15}}\{\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\{\{\{\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_2\}_0\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}827\hspace{0.17em}421\hspace{0.17em}370\hspace{0.17em}752}}{\mathrm{496\hspace{0.17em}125}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\{\{\{\{\{\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & (\frac{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}854\hspace{0.17em}884}}{5}+\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}662}f)i\sqrt{\frac{2}{15}}[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2]_0\hfill \\ & (\frac{\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}801\hspace{0.17em}972}}{5}+\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}662}f)i\sqrt{\frac{2}{15}}[[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_2,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2]_0(\frac{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}727\hspace{0.17em}516}}{5}+\frac{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}765}}{2}f)\sqrt{\frac{1}{5}}[[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_0\hfill \\ & +(\frac{\mathrm{599\hspace{0.17em}013\hspace{0.17em}984}}{5}+\mathrm{8\hspace{0.17em}389\hspace{0.17em}263}f)\sqrt{\frac{2}{15}}\{[\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2]_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & (\frac{\mathrm{260\hspace{0.17em}572\hspace{0.17em}262\hspace{0.17em}312}}{\mathrm{14\hspace{0.17em}175}}+\frac{\mathrm{931\hspace{0.17em}520\hspace{0.17em}317}}{45}f)i\sqrt{\frac{1}{5}}\{[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & +(\frac{\mathrm{18\hspace{0.17em}480\hspace{0.17em}912\hspace{0.17em}493\hspace{0.17em}714}}{\mathrm{70\hspace{0.17em}875}}+\frac{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}771\hspace{0.17em}689\hspace{0.17em}913}}{450}f)\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}}\{[\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1]_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & (\frac{\mathrm{42\hspace{0.17em}282\hspace{0.17em}912}}{25}+\frac{\mathrm{345\hspace{0.17em}444}}{5}f)\sqrt{\frac{1}{5}}\{\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2\}_0(\frac{\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}908\hspace{0.17em}848}}{5}\mathrm{49\hspace{0.17em}014}f)\sqrt{\frac{1}{5}}\{\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _2\}_0\hfill \\ & +(\frac{\mathrm{16\hspace{0.17em}180\hspace{0.17em}048}}{25}\frac{\mathrm{38\hspace{0.17em}094}}{5}f)\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\{\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒮}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & +(\frac{\mathrm{324\hspace{0.17em}253\hspace{0.17em}499\hspace{0.17em}648\hspace{0.17em}732}}{\mathrm{165\hspace{0.17em}375}}+\frac{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}411\hspace{0.17em}823\hspace{0.17em}717\hspace{0.17em}407}}{\mathrm{28\hspace{0.17em}350}}f)\sqrt{\frac{1}{5}}\{\widehat{𝒯}\backslash _2,\{\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_2\}_0\hfill \\ & +(\frac{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}843\hspace{0.17em}448\hspace{0.17em}661\hspace{0.17em}981\hspace{0.17em}888}}{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}480\hspace{0.17em}625}}+\frac{\mathrm{8\hspace{0.17em}793\hspace{0.17em}725\hspace{0.17em}709\hspace{0.17em}388}}{\mathrm{70\hspace{0.17em}875}}f)\{\{\{\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & (\frac{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}309\hspace{0.17em}038\hspace{0.17em}497\hspace{0.17em}626\hspace{0.17em}688}}{\mathrm{826\hspace{0.17em}875}}+\frac{\mathrm{35\hspace{0.17em}892\hspace{0.17em}576\hspace{0.17em}098\hspace{0.17em}324}}{\mathrm{23\hspace{0.17em}625}}f+\frac{\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}805\hspace{0.17em}728\hspace{0.17em}654}}{75}f^2\mathrm{75\hspace{0.17em}264}g_2)\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\{\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1,\widehat{𝒥}\backslash _1\}_0\hfill \\ & \mathrm{50\hspace{0.17em}176}\widehat{}\backslash _0^{(3)}+(\frac{\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}513\hspace{0.17em}476\hspace{0.17em}864}}{135}+\frac{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}747\hspace{0.17em}136}}{5}f+\mathrm{50\hspace{0.17em}176}g_1)\widehat{}\backslash _0^{(1)}\hfill \end{array}$$

The last eleven lines constitute the quantum corrections to the classical relation.