text:
# Serre Finiteness and Serre Vanishing For Non-commutative ℙ¹-bundles

## 1. introduction

Non-commutative $`^1`$-bundles over curves play a prominent role in the theory of non-commutative surfaces. For example, certain non-commutative quadrics are isomorphic to non-commutative $`^1`$-bundles over curves . In addition, every non-commutative deformation of a Hirzebruch surface is given by a non-commutative $`^1`$-bundle over $`^1`$ \[9, Theorem 7.4.1, p. 29\].

The purpose of this paper is to prove versions of Serre finiteness and Serre vanishing (Theorem 3.5 (1) and (2), respectively) for non-commutative $`^1`$-bundles over smooth projective schemes of finite type over a field $`K`$. As a corollary to the first of these results, we prove that such non-commutative $`^1`$-bundles are $`\mathrm{Ext}`$-finite. This fact is used to prove that non-commutative $`^1`$-bundles over smooth curves have a Riemann-Roch theorem and an adjunction formula .

We now review some important notions from non-commutative algebraic geometry in order to recall the definition of non-commutative $`^1`$-bundle. We conclude the introduction by relating the results of this paper to Mori’s intersection theory.

If $`X`$ is a quasi-compact and quasi-separated scheme, then $`\mathrm{𝖬𝗈𝖽}X`$, the category of quasi-coherent sheaves on $`X`$, is a Grothendieck category. This leads to the following generalization of the notion of scheme, introduced by Van den Bergh in order to define a notion of blowing-up in the non-commutative setting.

###### Definition 1.1.

 A quasi-scheme is a Grothendieck category $`\mathrm{𝖬𝗈𝖽}X`$, which we denote by $`X`$. $`X`$ is called a noetherian quasi-scheme if the category $`\mathrm{𝖬𝗈𝖽}X`$ is locally noetherian. $`X`$ is called a quasi-scheme over $`𝐊`$ if the category $`\mathrm{𝖬𝗈𝖽}X`$ is $`K`$-linear.

If $`R`$ is a ring and $`\mathrm{𝖬𝗈𝖽}R`$ is the category of right $`R`$-modules, $`\mathrm{𝖬𝗈𝖽}R`$ is a quasi-scheme, called the non-commutative affine scheme associated to $`R`$. If $`A`$ is a graded ring, $`\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}A`$ is the category of graded right $`A`$-modules, $`\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗋𝗌}A`$ is the full subcategory of $`\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}A`$ consisting of direct limits of right bounded modules, and $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}A`$ is the quotient category $`\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}A/\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗋𝗌}A`$, then $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}A`$ is a quasi-scheme called the non-commutative projective scheme associated to $`A`$. If $`A`$ is an Artin-Schelter regular algebra of dimension 3 with the same hilbert series as a polynomial ring in 3 variables, $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}A`$ is called a non-commutative $`^2`$.

The notion of non-commutative $`^1`$-bundle over a smooth scheme $`X`$ generalizes that of commutative $`^1`$-bundle over $`X`$. In order to recall the definition of non-commutative $`^1`$-bundle, we review some preliminary notions. Let $`S`$ be a scheme of finite type over $`\mathrm{Spec}K`$ and let $`X`$ be an $`S`$-scheme. For $`i=1,2`$, let $`\mathrm{pr}_i:X\times _SXX`$ denote the standard projections, let $`\delta :XX\times _SX`$ denote the diagonal morphism, and let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ denote the image of $`\delta `$.

###### Definition 1.2.

A coherent $`𝓞_𝑿`$-bimodule, $``$, is a coherent $`𝒪_{X\times _SX}`$-module such that $`\mathrm{pr}_{i|\mathrm{Supp}}`$ is finite for $`i=1,2`$. A coherent $`𝒪_X`$-bimodule $``$ is locally free of rank $`n`$ if $`\mathrm{pr}_i`$ is locally free of rank $`n`$ for $`i=1,2`$.

Now assume $`X`$ is smooth. If $``$ is a locally free $`𝒪_X`$-bimodule, then let $`^{}`$ denote the dual of $``$ \[9, p. 6\], and let $`^j`$ denote the dual of $`^{j1}`$. Finally, let $`\eta :𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒪_X}^{}`$ denote the counit from $`𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to the bimodule tensor product of $``$ and $`^{}`$ \[9, p. 7\].

###### Definition 1.3.

\[9, Section 4.1\] Let $``$ be a locally free $`𝒪_X`$-bimodule. The non-commutative symmetric algebra generated by $``$, $`𝒜`$, is the sheaf-$``$-algebra generated by the $`^j`$ subject to the relations $`\eta (𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta })`$.

A more explicit definition of non-commutative symmetric algebra is given in Section 2. We now recall the definition of non-commutative $`^1`$-bundle.

###### Definition 1.4.

 Suppose $`X`$ is a smooth scheme of finite type over $`K`$, $``$ is a locally free $`𝒪_X`$-bimodule of rank 2 and $`𝒜`$ is the non-commutative symmetric algebra generated by $``$. Let $`\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜`$ denote the category of graded right $`𝒜`$-modules, let $`\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗋𝗌}𝒜`$ denote the full subcategory of $`\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜`$ consisting of direct limits of right-bounded modules, and let $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}𝒜`$ denote the quotient of $`\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜`$ by $`\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗋𝗌}𝒜`$. The category $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}𝒜`$ is a non-commutative $`^\mathrm{𝟏}`$-bundle over $`𝐗`$.

This notion generalizes that of a commutative $`^1`$-bundle over $`X`$ as follows. Let $``$ be an $`𝒪_X`$-bimodule on which $`𝒪_X`$ acts centrally. Then $``$ can be identified with the direct image $`\mathrm{pr}_i`$ for $`i=1,2`$. If, furthermore, $``$ is locally free of rank 2 and $`𝒜`$ is the non-commutative symmetric algebra generated by $``$, Van den Bergh proves \[9, Lemma 4.2.1\] that the category $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}𝒜`$ is equivalent to the category $`\mathrm{𝖬𝗈𝖽}_X(\mathrm{pr}_i)`$, where $`_X()`$ is the usual (commutative) projectivization.

One of the major problems in non-commutative algebraic geometry is to classify non-commutative surfaces. Since intersection theory on commutative surfaces facilitates the classification of commutative surfaces, one expects intersection theory to be an important tool in non-commutative algebraic geometry. Mori shows \[3, Theorem 3.11\] that if $`Y`$ is a noetherian quasi-scheme over a field $`K`$ such that

1. $`Y`$ is $`\mathrm{Ext}`$-finite,
2. the cohomological dimension of $`Y`$ is $`2`$, and
3. $`Y`$ satisfies Serre duality

then versions of the Riemann-Roch theorem and the adjunction formula hold for $`Y`$. Let $`X`$ be a smooth curve over $`\mathrm{Spec}K`$. In , we prove that a non-commutative $`^1`$-bundle over $`X`$ satisfies (2) and (3) above (see Section 4 for a precise statement of these results). In this paper we prove that a non-commutative $`^1`$-bundle over a projective scheme of finite type satisfies (1) (Corollary 3.6). We conclude the paper by stating the versions of the Riemann-Roch theorem and the adjunction formula which hold for non-commutative $`^1`$-bundles.

In what follows, $`K`$ is a field, $`X`$ is a smooth, projective scheme of finite type over $`\mathrm{Spec}K`$, $`\mathrm{𝖬𝗈𝖽}X`$ denotes the category of quasi-coherent $`𝒪_X`$-modules, and we abuse notation by calling objects in this category $`𝒪_X`$-modules.
Acknowledgment: We thank Izuru Mori for showing us his preprint  and for helping us understand the material in Section 4.

## 2. preliminaries

Before we prove Serre finiteness and Serre vanishing, we review the definition of non-commutative symmetric algebra and the definition and basic properties of the internal Hom functor $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}}_{\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜}(,)`$ on $`\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜`$.

###### Definition 2.1.

Let $``$ be a locally free $`𝒪_X`$-bimodule. The non-commutative symmetric algebra generated by $``$ is the sheaf-$``$-algebra $`𝒜=\underset{i,j}{}𝒜_{ij}`$ with components

* $`𝒜_{ii}=𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }`$
* $`𝒜_{i,i+1}=^i`$,
* $`𝒜_{ij}=𝒜_{i,i+1}\mathrm{}𝒜_{j1,j}/_{ij}`$ for $`j>i+1`$, where $`_{ij}𝒜_{i,i+1}\mathrm{}𝒜_{j1,j}`$ is the $`𝒪_X`$-bimodule

$$\underset{k=i}{\overset{j2}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}𝒜_{i,i+1}\mathrm{}𝒜_{k1,k}𝒬_k𝒜_{k+2,k+3}\mathrm{}𝒜_{j1,j},$$

and $`𝒬_i`$ is the image of the unit map $`𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }𝒜_{i,i+1}𝒜_{i+1,i+2}`$, and
* $`𝒜_{ij}=0`$ if $`i>j`$

and with multiplication, $`\mu `$, defined as follows: for $`i<j<k`$,

$`𝒜_{ij}𝒜_{jk}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{𝒜_{i,i+1}\mathrm{}𝒜_{j1,j}}{_{ij}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜_{j,j+1}\mathrm{}𝒜_{k1,k}}{_{jk}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜_{i,i+1}\mathrm{}𝒜_{k1,k}}{_{ij}𝒜_{j,j+1}\mathrm{}𝒜_{k1,k}+𝒜_{i,i+1}\mathrm{}𝒜_{j1,j}_{jk}}}`$
by \[5, Corollary 3.18\]. On the other hand,

$$_{ik}_{ij}𝒜_{j,j+1}\mathrm{}𝒜_{k1,k}+𝒜_{i,i+1}\mathrm{}𝒜_{j1,j}_{jk}+$$

$$𝒜_{i,i+1}\mathrm{}𝒜_{j2,j1}𝒬_{j1}𝒜_{j+1,j+2}\mathrm{}𝒜_{k1,k}.$$

Thus there is an epi $`\mu _{ijk}:𝒜_{ij}𝒜_{jk}𝒜_{ik}`$.

If $`i=j`$, let $`\mu _{ijk}:𝒜_{ii}𝒜_{ik}𝒜_{ik}`$ be the scalar multiplication map $`{}_{𝒪}{}^{}\mu :𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }𝒜_{ik}𝒜_{ik}`$. Similarly, if $`j=k`$, let $`\mu _{ijk}:𝒜_{ij}𝒜_{jj}𝒜_{ij}`$ be the scalar multiplication map $`\mu _𝒪`$. Using the fact that the tensor product of bimodules is associative, one can check that multiplication is associative.

###### Definition 2.2.

Let $`\mathrm{𝖡𝗂𝗆𝗈𝖽}𝒜𝒜`$ denote the category of $`𝒜𝒜`$-bimodules. Specifically:

* an object of $`\mathrm{𝖡𝗂𝗆𝗈𝖽}𝒜𝒜`$ is a triple

$$(𝒞=\{C_{ij}\}_{i,j},\{\mu _{ijk}\}_{i,j,k},\{\psi _{ijk}\}_{i,j,k})$$

where $`𝒞_{ij}`$ is an $`𝒪_X`$-bimodule and $`\mu _{ijk}:𝒞_{ij}𝒜_{jk}𝒞_{ik}`$ and $`\psi _{ijk}:𝒜_{ij}𝒞_{jk}𝒞_{ik}`$ are morphisms of $`𝒪_{X^2}`$-modules making $`𝒞`$ an $`𝒜`$-$`𝒜`$ bimodule.
* A morphism $`\varphi :𝒞𝒟`$ between objects in $`\mathrm{𝖡𝗂𝗆𝗈𝖽}𝒜𝒜`$ is a collection $`\varphi =\{\varphi _{ij}\}_{i,j}`$ such that $`\varphi _{ij}:𝒞_{ij}𝒟_{ij}`$ is a morphism of $`𝒪_{X^2}`$-modules, and such that $`\varphi `$ respects the $`𝒜𝒜`$-bimodule structure on $`𝒞`$ and $`𝒟`$.

Let $`𝔹`$ denote the full subcategory of $`\mathrm{𝖡𝗂𝗆𝗈𝖽}𝒜𝒜`$ whose objects $`𝒞=\{C_{ij}\}_{i,j}`$ have the property that $`𝒞_{ij}`$ is coherent and locally free for all $`i,j`$.

Let $`𝔾𝗋𝒜`$ denote the full subcategory of $`𝔹`$ consisting of objects $`𝒞`$ such that for some $`n`$, $`𝒞_{ij}=0`$ for $`in`$ (we say $`𝒞`$ is left-concentrated in degree $`n`$).

###### Definition 2.3.

\[6, Definition 3.7\] Let $`𝒞`$ be an object in $`𝔹`$ and let $``$ be a graded right $`𝒜`$-module. We define $`\underset{\mathbf{¯}}{𝓗\mathrm{𝒐𝒎}}_{\mathrm{𝗚𝗿}𝓐}\mathbf{(}𝓒\mathbf{,}𝓜\mathbf{)}`$ to be the $``$-graded $`𝒪_X`$-module whose $`k`$th component is the equalizer of the diagram

(1)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\underset{𝑖}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i𝒞_{ki}^{}& \stackrel{\alpha }{}& \underset{𝑗}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_j𝒞_{kj}^{}\\ \beta & & \gamma & & \\ \underset{𝑗}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(\underset{𝑖}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(_j𝒜_{ij}^{})𝒞_{ki}^{})& \underset{\delta }{}& \underset{𝑗}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(\underset{𝑖}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_j(𝒞_{ki}𝒜_{ij})^{})\end{array}$$

where $`\alpha `$ is the identity map, $`\beta `$ is induced by the composition

$$_i\stackrel{𝜂}{}_i𝒜_{ij}𝒜_{ij}^{}\stackrel{𝜇}{}_j𝒜_{ij}^{},$$

$`\gamma `$ is induced by the dual of

$$𝒞_{ki}𝒜_{ij}\stackrel{𝜇}{}𝒞_{kj},$$

and $`\delta `$ is induced by the composition

$$(_j𝒜_{ij}^{})𝒞_{ij}^{}_j(𝒜_{ij}^{}𝒞_{ki}^{})_j(𝒞_{ki}𝒜_{ij})^{}$$

whose left arrow is the associativity isomorphism and whose right arrow is induced by the canonical map \[6, Section 2.1\]. If $`𝒞`$ is an object of $`𝔾𝗋𝒜`$ left-concentrated in degree $`k`$, we define $`𝓗\mathrm{𝒐𝒎}_{\mathrm{𝗚𝗿}𝓐}\mathbf{(}𝓒\mathbf{,}𝓜\mathbf{)}`$ to be the equalizer of (1).

Let $`\tau :\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗋𝗌}𝒜`$ denote the torsion functor, let $`\pi :\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}𝒜`$ denote the quotient functor, and let $`\omega :\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}𝒜\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜`$ denote the right adjoint to $`\pi `$. For any $`k`$, let $`e_k𝒜`$ denote the right-$`𝒜`$-module $`\underset{lk}{}𝒜_{kl}`$. We define $`e_k𝒜_{k+n}`$ to be the sum $`\underset{i0}{}e_k𝒜_{k+n+i}`$ and we let $`𝒜_n=\underset{𝑘}{}e_k𝒜_{k+n}`$.

###### Theorem 2.4.

If $``$ is an object in $`\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜`$ and $`𝒞`$ is an object in $`𝔹`$, $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}}_{\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜}(𝒞,)`$ inherits a graded right $`𝒜`$-module structure from the left $`𝒜`$-module structure of $`𝒞`$, making $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}}_{\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜}(,):𝔹^{op}\times \mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜`$ a bifunctor.

Furthermore

1. $`\tau ()\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}}_{\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜}(𝒜/𝒜_n,)`$,
2. If $``$ is a coherent, locally free $`𝒪_X`$-bimodule,

$$\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}_{\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜}(e_k𝒜,)()_k^{}$$

and
3. If $``$ is an $`𝒪_X`$-module and $``$ is an object of $`\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜`$,

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{𝒪_X}(,\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}_{\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜}(e_k𝒜,))\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜}(e_k𝒜,).$$

###### Proof.

The first statement is \[6, Proposition 3.11\], (1) is \[6, Proposition 3.19\], (2) is \[6, Theorem 3.16(4)\] and (3) is a consequence of \[6, Proposition 3.10\]

By Theorem 2.4 (2), $`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}_{\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜}(,)`$ is $`e_k𝒜`$-acyclic when $``$ is a coherent, locally free $`𝒪_X`$-bimodule. Thus, one may use the resolution \[9, Theorem 7.1.2\] to compute the derived functors of $`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}_{\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜}(𝒜/𝒜_1,)`$. By Theorem 2.4(1), we may thus compute the derived functors of $`\tau `$:

###### Theorem 2.5.

The cohomological dimension of $`\tau `$ is $`2`$. For $`i<2`$ and $``$ a coherent, locally free $`𝒪_X`$-module,

$$\mathrm{R}^i\tau (e_k𝒜)=0$$

and

$$(\mathrm{R}^2\tau (e_l𝒜))_{l2i}\{\begin{array}{cc}𝒬_{l2}^{}𝒜_{l2i,l2}^{}\hfill & \text{if }i0,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

The first result is \[6, Corollary 4.10\], while the remainder is \[6, Lemma 4.9\]. ∎

## 3. Serre finiteness and Serre vanishing

In this section let $`I`$ denote a finite subset of $`\times `$. The proof of the following lemma is straightforward, so we omit it.

###### Lemma 3.1.

If $``$ is a noetherian object in $`\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜`$, $`\pi `$ is a noetherian object in $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}𝒜`$ and $``$ is locally coherent.

###### Lemma 3.2.

If $``$ is a noetherian object in $`\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜`$, $`\mathrm{R}^i\tau `$ is locally coherent for all $`i0`$.

###### Proof.

The module $`𝒪_X(j)e_k𝒜`$ is noetherian by \[6, Lemma 2.17\] and the lemma holds with $`=\underset{(j,k)I}{}𝒪_X(j)e_k𝒜`$ by Theorem 2.5.

To prove the result for arbitrary noetherian $``$, we use descending induction on $`i`$. For $`i>2`$, $`\mathrm{R}^i\tau =0`$ by Theorem 2.5, so the result is trivial in this case. Since $``$ is noetherian, there is a finite subset $`I\times `$ and a short exact sequence

$$0\underset{(j,k)I}{}𝒪_X(j)e_k𝒜0$$

by \[6, Lemma 2.17\]. This induces an exact sequence of $`𝒜`$-modules

$$\mathrm{}(\mathrm{R}^i\tau (\underset{(j,k)I}{}𝒪_X(j)e_k𝒜))_l(\mathrm{R}^i\tau )_l(\mathrm{R}^{i+1}\tau )_l\mathrm{}$$

The left module is coherent by the first part of the proof, while the right module is coherent by the induction hypothesis. Hence the middle module is coherent since $`X`$ is noetherian. ∎

###### Corollary 3.3.

If $``$ is a noetherian object in $`\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜`$, $`\mathrm{R}^i(\omega ()_k)(\pi )`$ is coherent for all $`i0`$ and all $`k`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`()_k:\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜\mathrm{𝖬𝗈𝖽}X`$ is an exact functor, $`\mathrm{R}^i(\omega ()_k)(\pi )\mathrm{R}^i\omega (\pi )_k`$.

Now, to prove $`\omega (\pi )_k`$ is coherent, we note that there is an exact sequence in $`\mathrm{𝖬𝗈𝖽}X`$

$$0\tau _k_k\omega (\pi )_k(\mathrm{R}^1\tau )_k0$$

by \[6, Theorem 4.11\]. Since $`_k`$ and $`(\mathrm{R}^1\tau )_k`$ are coherent by Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 3.2 respectively, $`\omega (\pi )_k`$ is coherent since $`X`$ is noetherian.

The fact that $`\mathrm{R}^i\omega (\pi )_k`$ is coherent for $`i>0`$ follows from Lemma 3.2 since, in this case,

(2)
$$(\mathrm{R}^i\omega (\pi ))_k(\mathrm{R}^{i+1}\tau )_k$$

by \[6, Theorem 4.11\]. ∎

###### Lemma 3.4.

For $`𝒩`$ noetherian in $`\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜`$, $`\mathrm{R}^1\omega (\pi 𝒩)_k=0`$ for $`k>>0`$.

###### Proof.

When $`𝒩=\underset{(l,m)I}{}(𝒪_X(l)e_m𝒜)`$, the result follows from (2) and Theorem 2.5.

More generally, there is a short exact sequence

$$0\pi (\underset{(l,m)I}{}𝒪_X(l)e_m𝒜)\pi 𝒩0$$

which induces an exact sequence

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{R}^1\omega (\pi (\underset{(l,m)I}{}𝒪_X(l)e_m𝒜))\mathrm{R}^1\omega (\pi 𝒩)\mathrm{R}^2\omega ()=0.$$

where the right equality is due to (2) and Theorem 2.5. Since the left module is $`0`$ in high degree, so is $`\mathrm{R}^1\omega (\pi 𝒩)`$. ∎

###### Theorem 3.5.

For any noetherian object $`𝒩`$ in $`\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜`$,

1. $`\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}𝒜}^i(\underset{(j,k)I}{}\pi (𝒪_X(j)e_k𝒜),\pi 𝒩)`$ is finite-dimensional over $`K`$ for all $`i0`$, and
2. for $`i>0`$, $`\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}𝒜}^i(\underset{(j,k)I}{}\pi (𝒪_X(j)e_k𝒜),\pi 𝒩)=0`$ whenever $`j<<0`$ and $`k>>0`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`d`$ denote the cohomological dimension of $`X`$. Since $`\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}𝒜}^i(,\pi 𝒩)`$ commutes with finite direct sums, it suffices to prove the theorem when $`I`$ has only one element.

$`\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}𝒜}(\pi (𝒪_X(j)e_k𝒜),\pi 𝒩)`$ $`\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜}(𝒪_X(j)e_k𝒜,\omega \pi 𝒩)`$
$`\mathrm{Hom}_{𝒪_X}(𝒪_X(j),\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}_{\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜}(e_k𝒜,\omega \pi 𝒩))`$
$`\mathrm{Hom}_{𝒪_X}(𝒪_X(j),\omega (\pi 𝒩)_k)`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒪_X(j)\omega ()_k)(\pi 𝒩)`$
where the second isomorphism is from Theorem 2.4 (3), while the third isomorphism is from Theorem 2.4 (2). Thus,

$$\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}𝒜}^i(\pi (𝒪_X(j)e_k𝒜),\pi 𝒩)\mathrm{R}^i(\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒪_X(j)\omega ()_k))\pi 𝒩.$$

If $`i=0`$, (1) follows from Corollary 3.3 and \[1, III, Theorem 5.2a, p. 228\].

If $`0<i<d+1`$, the Grothendieck spectral sequence gives us an exact sequence

(3)
$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{R}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒪_X(j)\omega (\pi 𝒩)_k)\mathrm{R}^i(\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒪_X(j)\omega ()_k)\pi 𝒩$$

$$\mathrm{R}^{i1}\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{R}^1(𝒪_X(j)\omega ()_k)\pi 𝒩\mathrm{}$$

Since $`\omega (\pi 𝒩)_k`$ and $`\mathrm{R}^1(𝒪_X(j)\omega ()_k)\pi 𝒩𝒪_X(j)\mathrm{R}^1(\omega ()_k)\pi 𝒩`$ are coherent by Corollary 3.3, the first and last terms of (3) are finite-dimensional by \[1, III, Theorem 5.2a, p.228\]. Thus, the middle term of (3) is finite-dimensional as well, which proves (1) in this case. To prove (2) in this case, we note that, since $`\omega (\pi 𝒩)_k`$ is coherent, the first module of (3) is $`0`$ for $`j<<0`$ by \[1, III, Theorem 5.2b, p.228\]. If $`i>1`$, the last module of (3) is $`0`$ for $`j<<0`$ for the same reason. Finally, if $`i=1`$, the last module of (3) is $`0`$ since $`\mathrm{R}^1\omega (\pi 𝒩)_k=0`$ for $`k>>0`$ by Lemma 3.4.

If $`i=d+1`$, the Grothendieck spectral sequence gives an isomorphism

$$\mathrm{R}^{d+1}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒪_X(j)\omega ()_k)\pi 𝒩\mathrm{R}^d\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{R}^1(𝒪_X(j)\omega ()_k)\pi 𝒩.$$

In this case, (1) again follows from Corollary 3.3 and \[1, III, Theorem 5.2a, p.228\], while (2) follows from Lemma 3.4. ∎

###### Corollary 3.6.

If $``$ and $`𝒩`$ are noetherian objects in $`\mathrm{𝖦𝗋}𝒜`$, $`\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}𝒜}^i(\pi ,\pi 𝒩)`$ is finite-dimensional for $`i0`$.

###### Proof.

Since $``$ is noetherian, there is an exact sequence

$$0\pi (\underset{(j,k)I}{}𝒪_X(j)e_k𝒜)\pi 0.$$

Since the central term is noetherian by Lemma 3.1, so is the $``$. Since $`\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}𝒜}(,\pi 𝒩)`$ is left exact, there are exact sequences

(4)
$$0\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}𝒜}(\pi ,\pi 𝒩)\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}𝒜}(\pi (\underset{(j,k)I}{}𝒪_X(j)e_k𝒜),\pi 𝒩)$$

and, for $`i1`$,

(5)
$$\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}𝒜}^{i1}(,\pi 𝒩)\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}𝒜}^i(\pi ,\pi 𝒩)\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}𝒜}^i(\pi (\underset{(j,k)I}{}𝒪_X(j)e_k𝒜),\pi 𝒩)$$

Since $`\pi `$ commutes with direct sums, the right-hand terms of (4) and (5) are finite-dimensional by Theorem 3.5(1), while the left hand term of (5) is finite-dimensional by the induction hypothesis. ∎

## 4. Riemann-Roch and Adjunction

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective curve, let $`𝒜`$ be the noncommutative symmetric algebra generated by a locally free $`𝒪_X`$-bimodule $``$ of rank 2, and let $`Y=\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}𝒜`$. In this section, we state the Riemann-Roch theorem and adjunction formula for $`Y`$. In order to state these results, we need to define an intersection multiplicity on $`Y`$. This definition depends on the fact that $`Y`$ has well behaved cohomology, so we begin this section by reviewing relevant facts regarding the cohomology of $`Y`$.

Let $`𝒪_Y=\pi \mathrm{pr}_2e_0𝒜`$. By \[6, Theorem 5.20\], $`Y`$ satisfies Serre duality, i.e., there exists an object $`\omega _Y`$ in $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}𝒜`$, called the canonical sheaf on $`Y`$, such that

(6)
$$\mathrm{Ext}_Y^{2i}(𝒪_Y,)^{}\mathrm{Ext}_Y^i(,\omega _Y)$$

for all $`0i2`$. Furthermore, the canonical sheaf $`\omega _Y`$ is noetherian .

By \[6, Theorem 4.16\], $`Y`$ has cohomological dimension two, i.e.

(7)
$$2=\mathrm{sup}\{i|\mathrm{Ext}_Y^i(𝒪_Y,)0\text{ for some noetherian object }\text{ in }\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}𝒜\}.$$

We write $`D:YY`$ for an autoequivalence, $`D:YY`$ for the inverse of $`D`$, and $`(D):=D()`$ for $`Y`$.

###### Definition 4.1.

\[3, Definition 2.3\] A weak divisor on $`Y`$ is an element $`𝒪_DK_0(Y)`$ of the form $`𝒪_D=[𝒪_Y][𝒪_Y(D)]`$ for some autoequivalence $`D`$ of $`Y`$.

We now define an intersection multiplicity on $`Y`$ following . Let $``$ be a noetherian object in $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}𝒜`$, and let $`[]`$ denote its class in $`K_0(Y)`$. We define, for $`𝒪_D`$ a weak divisor on $`Y`$, a map $`\xi (𝒪_D,):K_0(Y)`$ by

$$\xi (𝒪_D,[])=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^i(\mathrm{dim}_K\mathrm{Ext}_Y^i(𝒪_Y,)\mathrm{dim}_K\mathrm{Ext}_Y^i(𝒪_Y(D),)).$$

This map is well defined by (7) and Corollary 3.6. We define the intersection multiplicity of $`𝒪_D`$ and $``$ by

$$𝒪_D:=\xi (𝒪_D,[]).$$

Finally, we define a map $`\chi ():K_0(Y)`$ by

$$\chi ([]):=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^i\mathrm{dim}_K\mathrm{Ext}_Y^i(𝒪_Y,).$$

###### Corollary 4.2.

Let $`Y=\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}𝒜`$, let $`\omega _Y`$ denote the canonical sheaf on $`Y`$, and suppose $`𝒪_D`$ is a weak divisor on $`Y`$. Then we have the following formulas:

1. (Riemann-Roch)

$$\chi (𝒪_Y(D))=\frac{1}{2}(𝒪_D𝒪_D𝒪_D\omega _Y+𝒪_D𝒪_Y)+1+p_a$$

where $`p_a:=\chi ([𝒪_Y])1`$ is the arithmetic genus of $`Y`$.
2. (Adjunction)

$$2g2=𝒪_D𝒪_D+𝒪_D\omega _Y𝒪_D𝒪_Y$$

where $`g:=1\chi (𝒪_D)`$ is the genus of $`𝒪_D`$.

###### Proof.

The quasi-scheme $`Y`$ is $`\mathrm{Ext}`$-finite by Corollary 3.6, has cohomological dimension 2 by \[6, Theorem 4.16\], and satisfies Serre duality with $`\omega _Y`$ by \[6, Theorem 5.20\]. Thus, $`Y`$ is classical Cohen-Macaulay, and the result follows \[3, Theorem 3.11\]. ∎

In stating the Corollary, we defined the intersection multiplicity only for specific elements of $`K_0(Y)\times K_0(Y)`$. In order to define an intersection multiplicity on the entire set $`K_0(Y)\times K_0(Y)`$, one must first prove that $`Y`$ has finite homological dimension. In \[4, Section 6\], Mori and Smith study noncommutative $`^1`$-bundles $`Y=\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗃}𝒜`$ such that $`𝒜`$ is generated by a bimodule $``$ with the property that $``$ contains a nondegenerate invertible bimodule. In this case, they use the structure of $`K_0(Y)`$ to prove that $`Y`$ has finite homological dimension. They then compute various intersections on $`Y`$ without the use of either the Riemann-Roch theorem or the adjunction formula. In particular, they prove that distinct fibers on $`Y`$ do not meet, and that a fiber and a section on $`Y`$ meet exactly once.


format: text

text:
# Multi-loop Amplitudes and Resummation

## 1 Introduction

The past few years have seen a breakthrough in the calculation of two-loop matrix elements and amplitudes in QCD . At the same time significant progress has occured in the resummation of logarithmic corrections to all orders in perturbation theory . In this paper, we hope to contribute toward linking advances in fixed-order QCD amplitudes and in resummation. We attempt to clarify how the factorization properties of QCD hard scattering amplitudes influence calculations at fixed order.

We will see how the single pole structure found at the level of two loops in matrix elements can be understood in terms of properties of a hitherto uncalculated two-loop anomalous dimension for soft radiation. The knowledge of this two-loop soft function is an important part of resummations at the level of next-to-next-to-leading logarithms. In addition, we will relate Catani’s very successful proposal  for the $`ϵ`$-pole structure of dimensionally regularized ($`D=42ϵ`$) amplitudes at one and two loops to known factorization and resummation properties of QCD amplitudes. These results will be illustrated for amplitudes involving quarks and antiquarks.

## 2 The factorized hard scattering amplitude

Consider the partonic process

$$\mathrm{f}:f_A(\mathrm{}_A,r_A)+f_B(\mathrm{}_B,r_B)f_1(p_1,r_1)+f_2(p_2,r_2),$$
(1)
which involves four partons with flavors $`f_i`$, momenta $`\{\mathrm{}_i,p_i\}`$ and color $`r_i`$. In perturbation theory, the hard scattering amplitude $`^{[\mathrm{f}]}`$ associated with this process can be written as a matrix in the space of the color indices of its external partons $`r_i=\{r_A,r_B;r_1,r_2\}`$. It is convenient to express these amplitudes in a basis of color tensors, $`\left(c_I\right)_{r_i}`$, so that

$`_{\{r_i\}}^{[\mathrm{f}]}(\{\mathrm{}_j\},{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ)=_L^{[\mathrm{f}]}(\{\mathrm{}_j\},{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ)\left(c_L\right)_{\{r_i\}}.`$ (2)
Here $`i,j=A,B,1,2`$ and $`Q^2`$ is the overall hard-scattering scale, which we may choose as $`s`$ for $`22`$ scattering. The vectors $`\mathrm{}_j=p_j/\sqrt{s/2}`$, specify the directions of the incoming and outgoing lines and hence the full kinematics of the process111For more than two particles in the final state, we must include information on the relative energies of the outgoing lines.. After renormalization, these amplitudes retain poles in $`ϵ`$, due to infrared and collinear singularities. The singular behavior of the $`22`$ amplitude is entirely due to internal lines that carry momenta that are either soft or collinear to one of the external lines. For gauge-invariant sets of diagrams, these singularities are entirely logarithmic in four dimensions, corresponding to poles at $`ϵ=0`$.

The amplitude $`^{[\mathrm{f}]}`$ for partonic process f can be factorized into products of functions that organize the contributions of momentum regions relevant to $`ϵ`$ poles in the scattering amplitude . These are: i) process-dependent functions $`h_I^{[\mathrm{f}]}`$ that describe the short-distance dynamics of the hard scattering, one function for each of the elements of the basis of color exchange; ii) a matrix of functions, $`S_{LI}^{[\mathrm{f}]}`$ that describes the coherent soft radiation arising from the overall color flow and iii) a function $`J^{[\mathrm{f}]}`$, dependent only on the list of external partons, and otherwise independent of the color flow, which describes the perturbative evolution of the incoming and outgoing partons for flavors $`f_i=q,\overline{q},g`$. In these terms, the factorized form of the amplitude associated with the process $`\mathrm{f}`$ of Eq. (1) is

$`_L^{[\mathrm{f}]}(\mathrm{}_i,{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`J^{[\mathrm{f}]}({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ)S_{LI}^{[\mathrm{f}]}(\mathrm{}_i,{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ)`$ (3)
$`\times h_I^{[\mathrm{f}]}(\mathrm{}_i,{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2)),`$
where we collect the various virtual ”jet” factors associated with external partons in

$`J^{[\mathrm{f}]}({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=A,B,1,2}{}}J_{(\mathrm{virt})}^{[f_i]}({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ).`$ (4)
The products are over the two incoming lines, and over the two outgoing lines (or more, in the cases where we generalize the $`22`$ process of Eq. (1)). Notice that in Eq. (3) only the soft and hard-scattering functions depend on the momenta $`\mathrm{}_i`$222To shorten the notation, $`S_{LI}`$ and $`h_I`$ dependence on $`\mathrm{}_i`$ , will be implicit.. The parameter $`\mu `$ remains the renormalization scale while the factorization scale is chosen as the hard scale $`Q`$.

The predictive power of the factorized form of the amplitude follows from the properties of its individual functions. The jet functions in $`J^{[\mathrm{f}]}`$ include all collinear dynamics, and hence all double poles in dimensional regularization, which arise from the overlap of infrared and collinear enhancements in perturbation theory. The matrix of soft functions $`S_{LI}^{[\mathrm{f}]}`$ provides at most a single infrared pole per loop and, although it depends on the process kinematics it is otherwise completely determined by a set of anomalous dimensions that can be computed in the eikonal approximation. The hard-scattering functions $`h_I^{[\mathrm{f}]}`$ are fully infrared finite. The jet functions and the soft function can be defined in terms of specific QCD matrix elements .

The independence of the amplitude $``$ from the choice of the factorization scale $`Q`$ leads, by the usual connection between factorization and evolution, to the renormalization group equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}Q}}S_{LI}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{LJ}^{[\mathrm{f}]}S_{JI},`$ (5)
where the variations of the jet functions and the soft matrix with the scale $`Q`$ are compensated by variations of the hard function.

There is still considerable freedom in the construction of the jet and soft functions. For examples, we may shift infrared finite contributions between the jet and hard scattering functions, and/or single-logarithmic, process-independent soft contributions between the soft matrix and the jets. Specifically, the soft matrix $`S_{LI}`$ is defined only up to any multiple of the identity matrix in the color basis space. Below, we will identify a convenient, but by no means unique, scheme for the definition of the various functions in (3).

Of primary importance here is the observation that mixing of color structures as a result of soft parton exchange is entirely contained within the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[\mathrm{f}]}`$, and is therefore summarized by the following solution to the renormalization group for the soft function,

$`𝐒^{[\mathrm{f}]}({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ)=\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{Q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{\mu }^2}{\stackrel{~}{\mu }^2}}𝚪^{[\mathrm{f}]}\left(\overline{}\alpha _s({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\stackrel{~}{\mu }^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ)\right)\right],`$ (6)
where P stands for path ordering. In the dimensionally-regularized theory, the effective coupling should be thought of as expanded in powers of $`\alpha _s(\mu ^2)`$. To the accuracy we work, this is given by the one-loop form

$`\overline{}\alpha _s({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\stackrel{~}{\mu }^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _s(\mu ^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\stackrel{~}{\mu }^2}}\right)^ϵ{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0}{4\pi ϵ}}\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\stackrel{~}{\mu }^2}}\right)^ϵ1\right)\alpha _s(\mu ^2)\right]^n`$ (7)
where

$$\beta _0=\frac{11}{3}C_A\frac{2}{3}N_F.$$

The integrals arising in the exponential of Eq. (6) are quite simple and for comparison to fixed $`n`$th-order calculations, we only need to collect all contributions up to $`𝒪\left(\alpha _s^n(\mu ^2)\right)`$. All the one-loop anomalous dimensions in these equations have been computed previously in Refs. , so that the color mixing due to single soft gluon exchange can be predicted (and checked) for specific processes.

In the next section we will use a specific definition of the jet function, based on factorization and on the application of Eq. (3) to the simplest color flow of all, the time-like Sudakov form factor.

## 3 Jet and soft functions

A convenient explicit expression for jet functions may be developed by applying the factorization in Eq. (3) to the singlet form factors for quarks and gluons, which we denote by $`^{[i\overline{i}1]}`$. To be specific, we consider the quark Sudakov form factor. In this case, there is no color mixing at all, and the soft anomalous dimension reduces to a number. In the following, we shall absorb this number into the evolution of the jets, and reduce the soft function to unity by definition. Similarly, given that the anomalous dimension for any electroweak vertex vanishes in QCD, we may also reduce the hard function to unity in this case.

We thus define our jet functions by the relation

$`J^{[i]}({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ)=J^{[\overline{i}]}({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[^{[i\overline{i}1]}({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
where $`Q^2`$ is the characteristic momentum transfer, $`\mu `$ is the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ renormalization scale ($`\mu ^2=\mu _0^2\mathrm{exp}[ϵ(\gamma _E\mathrm{ln4}\pi )]`$) and the electromagnetic Sudakov form factor in $`D=42ϵ`$ dimensions is given by333A similar definition may be given for gluon jets in terms of matrix elements of conserved, singlet operators.

$`^{[i\overline{i}1]}({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ)`$ $`=\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{Q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi ^2}{\xi ^2}}[𝒦^{[i]}(\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ)`$
$`+𝒢^{[i]}(1,\overline{}\alpha _s({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\xi ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ,)ϵ)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\xi ^2}^{\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{\mu }^2}{\stackrel{~}{\mu }^2}}\gamma _K^{[i]}\left(\overline{}\alpha _s({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\stackrel{~}{\mu }^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ)\right)]\}.`$
In Eq. (3) the $`\xi `$ integration is defined order by order in perturbation theory and as in our discussion of the soft function, the running coupling $`\overline{}\alpha _s`$ is thought of as being expanded in powers of $`\alpha _s(\mu ^2)`$. As described in , the functions $`\gamma _K^{[i]}`$, $`𝒦^{[\mathrm{f}]}`$ and $`𝒢^{[i]}`$ may be read off by comparison to explicit fixed-order calculations . In particular, $`𝒦^{[i]}`$ is defined as a series of poles in $`ϵ`$, while $`𝒢^{[i]}(1,\alpha _s,ϵ)`$ includes the non-singular $`ϵ`$-dependence before integration. Notice that in Eq. (3) all the $`Q`$ dependence of the Sudakov form factor is organized by the dimensionally-regulated running coupling and that by construction $`𝒦^{[q]}=𝒦^{[\overline{q}]}`$, $`𝒢^{[q]}=𝒢^{[\overline{q}]}`$ and $`\gamma _K^{[q]}=\gamma _K^{[\overline{q}]}`$ .

Following the method of Refs. , we verify that $`\gamma _K^{[\mathrm{i}]}`$ is the familiar Sudakov double-logarithmic anomalous dimension known up to two loops  to be

$$\gamma _K^{[\mathrm{i}]}=2C_i\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\right)\left[1+\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\right)\frac{K}{2}\right]$$
(10)
with $`C_q=C_F,C_g=C_A`$ and $`K=C_A(67/18\zeta (2))N_F(5/9))`$.

Before going on to elastic scattering amplitudes, we observe that our choice of jet function (3) corresponds to a particular scheme for the factorization of the Sudakov amplitude in which the hard-scattering and soft functions are set to unity, $`h^{[i\overline{i}1]}=1`$ in Eq. (5) for the form factor. In this scheme, the hard scattering and soft functions of $`22`$ amplitudes will be computed with these “Sudakov-defined” jet functions. In particular, the matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[\mathrm{f}]}`$ found in this way correspond to those calculated in Refs.  at one loop. We will return to the issue of alternative choices below.

## 4 Pole structure for multi-loop hard-scattering amplitudes

The combination of Eqs. (6) and (3) for the soft and jet functions applied to Eq. (3), allow us to give a useful expression for an arbitrary hard-scattering amplitude at two loops and beyond. In particular, the all-orders structure of any $`2n`$ amplitiude at wide angles is readily understood as the exponentiation of an appropriate power of the singlet form factors times the expansion of the exponentiated soft anomalous dimension. With input to $`n+1`$ loops in the singlet form factors of quark and gluon, and $`n`$ loops in the soft anomalous dimension, we can predict the full n$`th`$-next-to-leading poles in dimensional regularized amplitudes, in much the same way we predict powers of logarithms in threshold or other resummations.

In particular, on the basis of two-loop calculations for the jet functions and of the Sudakov form factor, we can predict almost the entire two-loop single-pole term for explicit calculations involving quarks. Conversely, on the basis of two-loop calculations we can also determine the soft anomalous dimensions at this order, and proceed to a full next-to-next-to-leading pole approximation.

For ease of comparison, we follow Refs.  and denote the vector in color space $`_{r_i}`$ with components $`_L`$ in Eq. (2) projected into the orthogonal basis $`\{c_i\}`$ as

$`|^{[\mathrm{f}]}_L^{[\mathrm{f}]}(\{\mathrm{}_j\},{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s,ϵ)\left(c_L\right)_{\{r_i\}}`$ (11)
whose perturbative expansion is

$`|^{[\mathrm{f}]}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu ^2)}{\pi }}\right)^m|^{[\mathrm{f}(m)]}.`$ (12)
Applying Eqs. (6) – (3) to the factorized form of the amplitude in Eq. (3), we easily collect all the singular structure of the one-loop amplitude, using $`𝒦^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}=\gamma _K^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}/(2ϵ)`$, into a function $`𝑭^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}`$ as444In the following, we use the subscript fin to denote finite functions and the subscript ren to denote renormalized functions.

$`|_{ren}^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}`$ $`=`$ $`𝑭^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}(ϵ)|^{[\mathrm{f}(0)]}+|_{fin}^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]},`$ (13)
with the lowest order amplitude

$`|^{[\mathrm{f}(0)]}`$ $`=`$ $`|^{[\mathrm{Born}]}.`$ (14)
The function $`𝑭^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}(ϵ)`$ in (13) is given in terms of the one-loop coefficients in Eqs. (6) and (3) by

$`𝑭^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}(ϵ)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _K^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}}{2ϵ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒢_0^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}}{ϵ}}\right)\mathrm{𝟏}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝚪^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}}{ϵ}}\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{Q^2}}\right)^ϵ.`$ (15)
Here, we define

$`𝒢^{[\mathrm{f}]}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i\mathrm{f}}{}}𝒢^{[i]},\gamma _K^{[\mathrm{f}]}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i\mathrm{f}}{}}\gamma _K^{[i]},`$ (16)
and $`𝒢_0^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}𝒢(Q^2/\mu ^2=1,ϵ=0)`$. The $`ϵ`$-poles at $`𝒪\left(\alpha _s\right)`$ are organized by this divergent function into those that are color uncorrelated, which are given by Sudakov exponentiation through $`𝒢`$ and $`\gamma _K`$, and those that are color correlated, which are collected by the one-loop soft anomalous dimension matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}`$.

The finite reminder in Eq. (13) is the one-loop hard scattering function of Eq. (3), in the notation,

$$|_{fin}^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}=h_I^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}(\mathrm{}_i,\frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2})\left(c_I\right)_{\{r_i\}}$$
(17)
At two loops, we can conveniently organize the expansion of Eq. (3) by making use of the divergent structure identified at one loop through $`𝑭^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}`$, and by taking into account that $`𝒦^{[\mathrm{f}(2)]}=\beta _0\gamma _K^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}/(16ϵ^2)+\gamma _K^{[\mathrm{f}(2)]}/(4ϵ)`$ and $`\gamma _K^{[\mathrm{f}(2)]}=\frac{\mathrm{K}}{2}\gamma _K^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}`$. We find

$`|_{ren}^{[\mathrm{f}(2)]}`$ $`=`$ $`𝑭^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}(ϵ)|^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}+𝑭^{[\mathrm{f}(2)]}(ϵ)|^{[\mathrm{f}(0)]}+|_{fin}^{[\mathrm{f}(2)]}`$
where

$`𝑭^{[\mathrm{f}(2)]}(ϵ)`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[𝑭^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}(ϵ)\right]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{K}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0}{2ϵ}}\right)𝑭^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}(2ϵ)`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0}{4ϵ}}𝑭^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}(ϵ)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝑳^{[\mathrm{f}(2)]}(2ϵ)`$
with

$`𝑳^{[\mathrm{f}(2)]}(ϵ)`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\left[\left(𝒢_0^{[\mathrm{f}(2)]}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{K}}{2}}𝒢_0^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}\right)\mathrm{𝟏}+𝚪^{[\mathrm{f}(2)]}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{K}}{2}}𝚪^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{Q^2}}\right)^ϵ.`$ (20)
To evaluate the expressions given above, we use

$`𝒢_0^{[\mathrm{q}(1)]}`$ $``$ $`𝒢^{[\mathrm{q}(1)]}\left(Q^2/\mu ^2=1,ϵ=0\right)`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`C_F{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},`$
$`𝒢_0^{[\mathrm{q}(2)]}`$ $``$ $`𝒢^{[\mathrm{q}(2)]}\left(Q^2/\mu ^2=1,ϵ=0\right)`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`C_F\{3({\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\zeta (2)+\zeta (3))C_F+({\displaystyle \frac{2545}{108}}+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}}\zeta (2)13\zeta (3)){\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{4}}`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{209}{108}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\zeta (2))T_RN_F\},`$
which are found by direct comparison of Eq. (3) with the known fixed-order results  for the quark form factor.

From Eqs. (13) – (15), we see that the bulk of the one-loop singular behavior is determined by a combination of the Sudakov amplitudes $`^{[i\overline{i}1]}`$, from which we can find $`\gamma _K^{[\mathrm{f}]}`$ and $`𝒢^{[\mathrm{f}]}`$, and the one-loop anomalous dimension matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}`$. Together, these functions control the two-loop singular behavior from $`ϵ^4`$ down to $`ϵ^2`$. Information specific to a $`2n`$ process at this order appears first at $`𝒪\left(ϵ^1\right)`$ in the contribution of the two-loop anomalous dimension matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[\mathrm{f}(2)]}`$, which can be determined by comparison to an explicit calculation. We may verify that the expressions above coincide with the proposal of Catani for the structure of two-loop hard scattering amplitudes, by direct comparison with Ref. .

As an application, consider the explicit two-loop calculation for the process $`q\overline{q}q\overline{q}`$ . To express the amplitude as in Eq. (2), we employ the basis of $`t`$-channel singlet and octet color exchange (with $`T^a`$ the group generators in the fundamental representation) ,

$`c_1=\delta _{r_1r_A}\delta _{r_2r_B}`$ , $`c_2={\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}T_{r_1r_A}^aT_{r_2r_B}^a.`$ (23)
In this basis the one-loop soft anomalous dimension matrix555It corresponds to the one presented in Eq.(51) of Ref. , when we choose the scale to be the $`\mu ^2=\widehat{s}=(\mathrm{}_A+\mathrm{}_B)^2`$. is given by

$`𝚪^{[\mathrm{q}(1)]}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{ccc}2C_F𝒯& & \frac{C_F}{N}\left(𝒮𝒰\right)\\ 2\left(𝒮𝒰\right)& & \frac{N^22}{N}𝒮\frac{1}{N}\left(𝒯2𝒰\right)\end{array}\right]`$ (26)
where

$`𝒮\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{\mu ^2}}\right),𝒯\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{\mu ^2}}\right),𝒰\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{\mu ^2}}\right)`$ (27)
and $`\{s,t,u\}`$ are the usual Mandelstam variables.

If we use Eq. (26) and apply the explicit expressions for $`\gamma _K^{[\mathrm{q}(1)]}`$, $`\gamma _K^{[\mathrm{q}(2)]}`$ and $`𝒢_0^{[\mathrm{q}(1)]}`$ given above, we derive predictions for the poles $`ϵ^4`$, $`ϵ^3`$ and $`ϵ^2`$ that are in complete agreement with the explicit calculation of . We can therefore use the $`ϵ^1`$ term of this calculation to determine the contribution of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[\mathrm{f}(2)]}`$ for this process. More precisely, we can determine its color-uncorrelated part, since this is what is given in .

This direct comparison of the color uncorrelated amplitudes found Refs.  for $`q\overline{q}`$ scattering matrix-elements by diagrammatic evaluation gives the following surprisingly simple result

$`^{(0)}|\left(𝚪_S^{(2)}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{K}}{2}}𝚪_S^{(1)}\right)|^{(0)}=C_F\beta _0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (2)}{16}}+1\right)^{(0)}|\mathrm{𝟏}|^{(0)}.`$ (28)
Thus, comparison of Eqs. (4) – (20) with the explicit calculation shows that most of the pole terms at two loops are understandable through exponentiation. The remaining coherent part, sensitive to the details of the process, is much simplified once exponentiation is taken into account.

Even this remaining part is subject to further simplification, as is strongly suggested by the presence of the overall factor $`\beta _0`$, on the right of Eq. (28). In the scheme we have used above, the Sudakov form factor directly determines the jet definition. As we have pointed out, this is equivalent to setting $`h^{[i\overline{i}1]}=1`$. It is easy to show that choosing a nonzero $`h^{[i\overline{i}1(1)]}`$ for $`^{[i\overline{i}1(1)]}`$ produces a corresponding change in $`𝒢^{(\mathrm{f},2)}`$ proportional to $`\beta _0h^{[i\overline{i}1(1)]}`$. The importance of the analogous scheme dependence in $`k_T`$-resummation has been emphasized recently in Ref. . Thus, by using our freedom to modify the hard-scattering function in the Sudakov form factor, or equivalently to change the normalization of the jet function, we can easily impose the condition

$`^{(0)}|\left(𝚪_S^{(2)}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{K}}{2}}𝚪_S^{(1)}\right)|^{(0)}=0.`$ (29)
Given our ability to impose Eq. (29), the uncorrelated part of the single poles can be absorbed entirely into appropriately-chosen jet functions. This freedom explains the relations found in Refs. . There, on the basis of direct calculations it was found that for any $`22`$ QCD process $`\mathrm{f}`$ with $`n_g`$ external gluons and $`n_q`$ external quarks and antiquarks

$`H^{[\mathrm{f}(2)]}=n_qH_q^{(2)}+n_gH_g^{(2)},`$ (30)
where $`H^{[\mathrm{f}(2)]}`$ is the coefficient of the identity in $`𝑳^{[\mathrm{f}(2)]}(ϵ)`$ on Eq. (20).

To determine the two-loop anomalous dimension fully, we will need two-loop amplitudes as vectors in the basis states, not only in uncorrelated form. These have been given so far for gluon-gluon scattering , with an expression for single-pole terms that is consistent with our results.

## 5 Higher orders

It is clear that the pattern described above extends to higher orders. For example, the three-loop hard scattering amplitude has the structure

$`|_{ren}^{[\mathrm{f}(3)]}=𝑭^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}(ϵ)|^{[\mathrm{f}(2)]}+𝑭^{[\mathrm{f}(2)]}(ϵ)|^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}+𝑭^{[\mathrm{f}(3)]}(ϵ)|^{[\mathrm{f}(0)]}+|_{fin}^{[\mathrm{f}(3)]}`$
where

$`𝑭^{[\mathrm{f}(3)]}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[𝑭^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}(ϵ)\right]^3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}𝑭^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}(ϵ)𝑭^{[\mathrm{f}(2)]}(ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}𝑭^{[\mathrm{f}(2)]}(ϵ)𝑭^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}(ϵ)`$ (32)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0}{4ϵ}}\right)^2𝑭^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}(3ϵ)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0}{4ϵ}}\right)\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[𝑭^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}(ϵ)\right]^2𝑭^{[\mathrm{f}(2)]}(ϵ)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{K}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0}{2ϵ}}\right)\left[2𝑭^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}(3ϵ)𝑭^{[\mathrm{f}(1)]}(2ϵ)\right]`$
$`+𝑳^{[\mathrm{f}(2)]}(3ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝑳^{[\mathrm{f}(2)]}(2ϵ)\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝑳^{[\mathrm{f}(3)]}(3ϵ),`$
and

$`𝑳^{[\mathrm{f}(3)]}(ϵ)`$ $`\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _K^{[\mathrm{f}(3)]}}{2ϵ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒢_0^{[\mathrm{f}(3)]}}{ϵ}}\right)\mathrm{𝟏}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝚪^{[\mathrm{f}(3)]}}{ϵ}}\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{Q^2}}\right)^ϵ.`$ (33)
These expressions enable us to predict the poles in $`ϵ`$ from sixth order down to fourth on the basis of the two-loop Sudakov form factor and the one-loop soft anomalous dimension matrices. Beyond this level, the three-loop666The fermionic contributions to $`\gamma _K^{[\mathrm{f}(3)]}`$ have been calculated recently  $`\gamma _K^{[\mathrm{f}(3)]}`$ and two-loop soft anomalous dimension matrices will control all pole structure down to double poles, while the color correlations in the single poles will determine $`𝚪^{[\mathrm{f}(3)]}`$.

## 6 Conclusions and outlook

We have shown how the factorization properties of hard-scattering amplitudes enable us to understand many of the complexities of their infrared poles in dimensional regularization. In particular, the universality of exponentiated collinear and soft singularities associated with incoming and outgoing partons provides a way of understanding important regularities predicted for and found in explicit two-loop calculations. They also predict the structure, and for the leading terms the coefficients, of poles to any order.

The program of calculating two-loop dimensionally-regulated amplitudes is a step toward standard model hard-scattering cross sections beyond next-to-leading order. In this context, it is useful to note that the factorization in Eq. (3) for amplitudes is shared by cross sections in the limit of partonic threshold, where the parton center-of-mass energy is just large enough to produce the final state. At any fixed order in perturbation theory, leading collinear and infrared singularities occur at partonic threshold. Therefore, the exponentiated structure of singularities in $`ϵ`$ for amplitudes will reoccur in the singularities of cross sections with radiation. This observation is the basis for threshold resummation, which may be a useful guide in organizing the very challenging phase space integrals in next-to-next-to-leading order cross sections.

Here we have explored singularities associated with purely virtual corrections, but the simplifications that we have found suggest that a similar analysis may be useful for inelastic processes. Leading singularities in cross sections cancel between sets of cut diagrams that include the elastic amplitudes at two loops. The structure of singularities in these amplitudes, as organized above, may help streamline the calculation of cross sections at two loops and beyond.

This work is supported in part by the National Science Foundation grant PHY-0098527. We would like to thank C. Anastasiou, C. F. Berger, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, A. Kulesza and S. Moch for helpful discussions. Thanks also to Z. Bern and L. Dixon for critical readings of the original version.


text:
# Invariant bilinear forms on a vertex algebra and the radical

## Introduction

Invariant bilinear forms on vertex algebras have been around for quite some time now. They were mentioned by Borcherds in  and were used in many early works on vertex algebras, especially in relation with the vertex algebras associated with lattices . The first systematic study of invariant forms on vertex algebras is due to Frenkel, Huang and Lepowsky . This theory was developed further by Li .

However, these authors imposed certain assumptions on their vertex algebras which are too restrictive for the applications we have in mind. Specifically, this paper is motivated by the study of vertex algebras of OZ type generated by their Griess subalgebras . We show that all the results of Li  hold in the greatest possible generality, basically, as long as the definitions make sense. We construct a linear space that parameterizes all bilinear forms on a given vertex algebra with values in a arbitrary linear space, and also prove that every invariant bilinear form on a vertex algebra is symmetric. Our methods, however, are very different from the methods used in  and .

As an application, we introduce a very useful notion of radical of a vertex algebra. It is equal to the radical of a certain canonical invariant bilinear form. We prove that a radical-free vertex algebra $`A`$ is non-negatively graded, and its component $`A_0`$ of degree 0 is a commutative associative algebra, so that all structural maps and operations on $`A`$ are $`A_0`$-linear. We also show that in this case $`A`$ is simple if and only if $`A_0`$ is a field.

## 1. Definitions and notations

Here we fix the notations and give some minimal definitions. For more details on vertex algebras the reader can refer to the books . All spaces and algebras are considered over a field $`𝕜`$ of characteristic 0. We use the following notation for divided powers:

$$x^{(n)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}(x^n)/n!\hfill & \text{if}n0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

### 1.1. Definition of vertex algebras

###### Definition 1.

A vertex algebra is a linear space $`A`$ equipped with a family of bilinear products $`aba(n)b`$, indexed by integer parameter $`n`$, and with an element $`\mathrm{𝟙}A`$, called the unit, satisfying the identities (i)–(iv) below. Let $`D:AA`$ be the map defined by $`Da=a(2)\mathrm{𝟙}`$. Then

* $`a(n)b=0`$ for $`n0`$,
* $`\mathrm{𝟙}(n)a=\delta _{n,1}a`$ and $`a(n)\mathrm{𝟙}=D^{(n1)}a`$,
* $`D(a(n)b)=(Da)(n)b+a(n)(Db)`$ and $`(Da)(n)b=na(n1)b`$,
* $`a(m)\left(b(n)c\right)b(n)\left(a(m)c\right)={\displaystyle \underset{s0}{}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{s}}\right)\left(a(s)b\right)(m+ns)c`$

for all $`a,b,cA`$ and $`m,n`$.

This is not the only known definition of vertex algebras. Often the axioms are formulated in terms of the left adjoint action map (a. k. a. state-field correspondence) $`Y:AA[[z,z^1]]`$ defined by $`Y(a)(z)=_na(n)z^{n1}`$, where $`a(n):AA`$ is the operator given by $`ba(n)b`$. The most important property of these maps is that they are local: for any $`a,bA`$ there is $`N`$ such that

$$[Y(a)(w),Y(b)(z)](wz)^N=0.$$

The minimal $`N=N(a,b)`$ for which this identity holds is called the locality index of $`a`$ and $`b`$. In fact, $`N(a,b)=\mathrm{min}\left\{n|a(m)b=0mn\right\}`$. From (iii) we get $`Y(Da)(z)=_zY(a)(z)`$, which in terms of coefficients means

(1)
$$\mathbf{[}D,a(m)\mathbf{]}=ma(m1).$$

Among other identities that hold in vertex algebras are the associativity

(2)
$$\left(a(n)b\right)(m)c=\underset{s0}{}(1)^s\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{s}\right)a(ns)\left(b(m+s)c\right)\underset{sn}{}(1)^s\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{ns}\right)b(m+s)\left(a(ns)c\right),$$

and the quasi-symmetry

(3)
$$a(n)b=\underset{i0}{}(1)^{n+i}D^{(i)}\left(b(n+i)a\right).$$

For $`n0`$ the associativity identity (2) simplifies to

$$\left(a(n)b\right)(m)c=\underset{s=0}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^s\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{s}\right)\mathbf{[}a(ns),b(m+s)\mathbf{]}c,$$

which is just another form of the identity (iv) of Definition 1.

A vertex algebra $`A`$ is called graded (by the integers) if $`A=_dA_d`$ is a graded space, $`A_i(n)A_jA_{i+jn1}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟙}A_0`$.

It is often required that a vertex algebra $`A`$ is graded and $`A_2`$ contains a special element $`\omega `$ such that $`\omega (0)=D`$, $`\omega (1)|_{A_d}=d`$ and the coefficients $`\omega (n)`$ generate a representation of the Virasoro Lie algebra:

$$\mathbf{[}\omega (m),\omega (n)\mathbf{]}=(mn)\omega (m+n1)+\delta _{m+n,2}\frac{1}{2}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m1}{3}\right)c$$

for some constant $`c𝕜`$ called the central charge of $`A`$. In this case $`A`$ is called conformal vertex algebra or vertex operator algebra, especially when $`dimA_d<\mathrm{}`$.

### 1.2. The action of $`sl_2`$

In order to work with bilinear forms, we need to deal with vertex algebras equipped with certain additional structure. First of all we will assume that our vertex algebra $`A=_dA_d`$ is graded. We will also need a locally nilpotent operator $`D^{}:AA`$ of degree $`1`$, such that $`D^{}\mathrm{𝟙}=0`$ and

(4)
$$\mathbf{[}D^{},a(m)\mathbf{]}=(2dm2)a(m+1)+(D^{}a)(m)$$

for every $`aA_d`$. Let $`\delta :AA`$ be the grading derivation, defined by $`\delta |_{A_d}=d`$. It is easy to compute that

(5)
$$\mathbf{[}D^{},D\mathbf{]}=2\delta ,\mathbf{[}\delta ,D\mathbf{]}=D,\mathbf{[}\delta ,D^{}\mathbf{]}=D^{},$$

so that $`D^{},D`$ and $`\delta `$ span a copy of $`sl_2`$.

An element $`aA`$ such that $`D^{}a=0`$ is called minimal. It is easy to see that if $`A`$ is generated by minimal elements, then any operator $`D^{}:AA`$ satisfying (4) must be locally nilpotent. For any $`aA`$ define $`\mathrm{ord}a=\mathrm{min}\left\{k_+|(D^{})^{k+1}a=0\right\}`$, so that $`\mathrm{ord}a=0`$ for a minimal $`a`$.

Vertex algebras with an action of $`sl_2`$ as above were called quasi-vertex operator algebras in  and minimal elements are sometimes called quasi-primary.

If $`A`$ has a Virasoro element $`\omega `$, then we always have $`D=\omega (0)`$ and $`\delta =\omega (1)`$, and we can take $`D^{}=\omega (2)`$.

Throughout this paper we will always assume that all vertex algebras have an $`sl_2`$-structure, and all ideals, homomorphisms, etc must agree with this structure. For example, we call a vertex algebra simple if it does not have $`D^{}`$-invariant ideals. Note that any $`D^{}`$-invariant ideal is homogeneous, because it must be stable under the grading derivation $`\delta `$.

In the sequel we will need the following easy property of $`sl_2`$-modules of the above type:

###### Proposition 1.

Let $`M=_iM_i`$ be a graded module over the Lie algebra $`sl_2=𝕜D+𝕜\delta +𝕜D^{}`$, where $`\mathrm{deg}D=1`$, $`\mathrm{deg}D^{}=1`$, $`D^{}`$ is locally nilpotent, $`\delta |_{M_d}=d`$ and the commutation relations (5) hold. Then $`M_d=(D^{})^{d+1}M_1`$ for any $`d<0`$.

###### Proof.

Let us first prove that $`M_d=D^{}M_{d+1}`$ for $`d<0`$. Take some element $`aM_d`$ of $`\mathrm{ord}a=k`$. Set

$$b=D^{}Da(k+1)(2dk)a=DD^{}ak(2dk1)aM_d.$$

If $`a`$ is minimal, then $`b=0`$. Otherwise, using that $`(D^{})^{k+1}Da=(k+1)(2dk)(D^{})^ka`$, we get $`(D^{})^kb=0`$, therefore $`\mathrm{ord}b<k`$. By induction we can assume that $`bD^{}M_{d+1}`$, and hence also $`aD^{}M_{d+1}`$, because $`(k+1)(2dk)0`$ for $`d<0`$ and $`k0`$.

Now the proposition follows from the following claim:

$$M_0=D^{}M_1+\mathrm{Ker}D^{}.$$

Take an element $`aM_0`$ of $`\mathrm{ord}a=k`$. We will prove by induction on $`k`$ that $`aD^{}M_1+\mathrm{Ker}D^{}`$. If $`k=0`$ then $`a\mathrm{Ker}D^{}`$. Otherwise, take as before $`b=D^{}Da+k(k+1)a`$ so that $`\mathrm{ord}b<k`$. By induction, $`bD^{}M_1+\mathrm{Ker}D^{}`$, and therefore also $`aD^{}M_1+\mathrm{Ker}D^{}`$, since $`k(k+1)0`$ for $`k>0`$. ∎

It follows from Proposition 1 that $`DM_1D^{}M_1`$. Indeed, if $`aM_1`$, then $`a=D^{}b`$ for some $`bM_0`$, and we have $`Da=DD^{}b=D^{}Db`$.

For the case when $`M=A`$ is a vertex algebra we will obtain that $`A_d=D^{}A_{d+1}`$ as a corollary of Lemma 1 in §3.

###### Remark.

It is possible (but not easy) to show that if a vertex algebra $`A`$ is generated by minimal elements, then $`A_d=D^{}A_{d+1}`$ for all $`d0`$. In contrast to that, the space $`A_0/D^{}A_1`$ is non-zero in most interesting cases. We shall see in §3 that its dual space $`\mathrm{Hom}(A_0/D^{}A_1,𝕜)`$ parameterizes the invariant bilinear forms on $`A`$.

### 1.3. The universal enveloping algebra

For any vertex algebra $`A`$ we can construct a Lie algebra $`L=\mathrm{Coeff}A`$ in the following way . Consider the linear space $`𝕜[t,t^1]A`$, where $`t`$ is a formal variable. Denote $`a(n)=at^n`$ for $`n`$. As a linear space, $`L`$ the quotient of $`𝕜[t,t^1]A`$ by the subspace spanned by the relations $`(Da)(n)=na(n1)`$. The brackets are given by

(6)
$$\mathbf{[}a(m),b(n)\mathbf{]}=\underset{i0}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{i}\right)\left(a(i)b\right)(m+ni),$$

which is precisely the identity (iv) of Definition 1. The spaces $`L_\pm =\mathrm{Span}\left\{a(n)|n<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\right\}L`$ are Lie subalgebras of $`L`$ and we have $`L=L_{}L_+`$.

###### Remark.

The construction of $`L`$ makes use of only the products $`(n)`$ for $`n0`$ and the map $`D`$. This means that it works for a more generic algebraic structure, known as conformal algebra .

The formulas (1) and (4) define derivations $`D:LL`$ and $`D^{}:LL`$ so we get an action of $`sl_2`$ on $`L`$ by derivations. Denote by $`\widehat{L}=Lsl_2`$ the corresponding semi-direct product.

Now assume that the vertex algebra $`A`$ is $``$-graded. Then so is the Lie algebra $`\widehat{L}=\widehat{\mathrm{Coeff}A}`$ and its universal enveloping algebra $`U=U(\widehat{L})`$. The Frenkel-Zhu topology  on a homogeneous component $`U_d`$ is defined by setting the neighborhoods of 0 to be the spaces $`U_d^k=_{ik}U_{di}U_i`$, so that

$$\mathrm{}U_d^{k1}U_d^kU_d^{k+1}\mathrm{}U_d,\underset{k}{}U_d^k=0,\underset{k}{}U_d^k=U_d.$$

Let $`\overline{U}(\widehat{L})=_d\overline{U}_d`$ be the completion of $`U`$ in this topology.

###### Definition 2.

 The universal enveloping algebra $`U(A)`$ of a graded vertex algebra $`A`$ is the quotient of $`\overline{U}(\widehat{\mathrm{Coeff}A})`$ modulo the ideal generated by the relations

$$\left(a(n)b\right)(m)=\underset{s0}{}(1)^s\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{s}\right)a(ns)b(m+s)\underset{sn}{}(1)^s\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{ns}\right)b(m+s)a(ns)$$

for $`a,bA`$ and $`m,n`$.

Note that the relations above are simply the associativity identity (2). It is enough to impose these relations only for $`n<0`$, because for $`n0`$ they are equivalent to (6).

A graded space $`M`$ is a module over a vertex algebra $`A`$ if it is a $`U(A)`$-module that agrees with the Frenkel-Zhu topology on $`U(A)`$, i.e. a convergent sequence of elements from $`U(A)`$ makes sense as an operator on $`M`$.

## 2. The involution on the universal enveloping algebra

Let $`A`$ be a graded vertex algebra with $`sl_2`$-structure, as in §1.2.

###### Proposition 2.

Set

(7)
$$a(m)^{}=(1)^{\mathrm{deg}a}\underset{i0}{}\left(D^{(i)}a\right)(2\mathrm{deg}am2i)$$

for a homogeneous $`aA`$ and $`m`$, and also $`D^{}=D`$ and $`\delta ^{}=\delta `$. Then there is a continuous anti-involution on the enveloping algebra $`U(A)`$ defined by $`xx^{}`$.

Note that $`U(A)_d^{}U(A)_d`$.

###### Remark.

Let $`M`$ be a module over $`A`$. Assume that Proposition 2 is true. Then the graded dual space $`M^{}=_d\mathrm{Hom}(M_d,𝕜)`$ also becomes an $`A`$-module, called the contragredient module of $`M`$, where the action of $`A`$ is given by $`\left(a(n)f\right)(v)=f\left(a(n)^{}v\right)`$, $`(Df)(v)=f(D^{}v)`$ and $`(D^{}f)(v)=f(Dv)`$ for $`aA`$, $`fM^{}`$, $`vM`$ and $`n`$. Contragredient modules were introduced in  without the use of Proposition 2. In fact, it is easy to show that Proposition 2 is equivalent to the existence of the contragredient module. For the sake of completeness though, we present an independent proof of Proposition 2, that avoids the use of formal calculus.

###### Proof of Proposition 2.

It is straightforward to check that $`a(m)^{}=a(m)`$. This is particularly easy to see when $`D^{}a=0`$, and that already settles the case when $`A`$ is generated by minimal elements. The general case is not much more difficult.

Let us show that (7) defines an anti-endomorphism of $`U(A)`$. We do this in three steps.

#### Step 1

We show first that (7) defines an anti-endomorphism of the coefficient Lie algebra $`\widehat{L}=\mathrm{Coeff}(A)sl_2`$. We have to check that

(8)
$$\begin{array}{c}\mathbf{[}b(n)^{},a(m)^{}\mathbf{]}=\underset{s0}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{s}\right)\left(a(s)b\right)(m+ns)^{},\\ \mathbf{[}a(m)^{},D^{}\mathbf{]}=ma(m1)^{}\end{array}$$

for $`a,b`$ running over a set of generators of $`A`$ and $`m,n`$. Let us check this when $`a`$ and $`b`$ are minimal, thus proving (8) for the case when $`A`$ is generated by the minimal elements. The general case is not much different.

Let $`\mathrm{deg}a=d,\mathrm{deg}b=e`$ and $`D^{}a=D^{}b=0`$. Then we get

$`\mathbf{[}b(n)^{},a(m)^{}\mathbf{]}`$ $`=\mathbf{[}(1)^da(2dm2),(1)^eb(2en2)\mathbf{]}`$
$`=(1)^{d+e+1}{\displaystyle \underset{s0}{}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2dm2}{s}}\right)\left(a(s)b\right)(2d+2emns4)`$
On the other hand, using that

$$D^{(i)}\left(a(s)b\right)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2ds2}{i}\right)a(s+i)b,$$

we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{s0}{}}`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{s}}\right)\left(a(s)b\right)(m+ns)^{}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i,s0}{}}(1)^{d+e+s+1}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{s}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2ds2}{i}}\right)\left(a(s+i)b\right)(2d+2emnis4)`$
$`=(1)^{d+e+1}{\displaystyle \underset{j0}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{j}{}}}(1)^s\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{s}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2d2s}{js}}\right)\left(a(j)b\right)(2d+2emnj4),`$
and the first equality of (8) follows from a binomial identity. Similarly, by (4) and (7),

$$\mathbf{[}D^{},a(m)^{}\mathbf{]}=(1)^d\mathbf{[}D^{},a(2dm2)\mathbf{]}=(1)^dma(2dm1)=ma(m1)^{},$$

and this proves the second equality of (8).

#### Step 2

Assume that we have two vertex algebras $`A`$ and $`B`$, both with $`sl_2`$-structures as above. Assume also that for $`B`$ the proposition is known, that is, formula (7) defines an anti-involution of $`U(B)`$, and suppose we have a surjective homomorphism $`\phi :BA`$ of vertex algebras, which preserves the $`sl_2`$-structure. Then the proposition also holds for $`A`$.

Indeed, we can extend $`\phi `$ to a homomorphism $`U(\phi ):U(B)U(A)`$ of enveloping algebras. Since $`\phi `$ is surjective, so is $`U(\phi )`$, and therefore $`U(A)=U(B)/\mathrm{Ker}U(\phi )`$. It is easy to see that $`\mathrm{Ker}U(\phi )`$ is the ideal of $`U(B)`$ generated by the coefficients $`a(m)`$ for all $`a\mathrm{Ker}\phi B`$ and $`m`$. But if $`a\mathrm{Ker}\phi `$, then also $`D^{}a\mathrm{Ker}\phi `$, therefore $`a(n)^{}\mathrm{Ker}U(\phi )`$, and it follows that $`\left(\mathrm{Ker}U(\phi )\right)^{}\mathrm{Ker}U(\phi )`$.

#### Step 3

Consider the Verma $`\widehat{L}`$-module $`B=U(\widehat{L})_{U(L_+)sl_2}𝕜\mathrm{𝟙}`$ generated by a vector $`\mathrm{𝟙}`$ such that $`L_+\mathrm{𝟙}=0`$ and also $`D\mathrm{𝟙}=D^{}\mathrm{𝟙}=0`$. Then $`B`$ has a structure of vertex algebra such that $`U(B)`$ is the completion in the Frenkel-Zhu topology of the universal enveloping algebra $`U=U(\widehat{L})`$ of $`\widehat{L}`$. The action of $`D^{}`$ on $`B`$ is given by (4), therefore Step 1 implies that (7) defines an anti-involution of $`U`$.

Now we show that this anti-involution on $`U`$ is continuous in the Frenkel-Zhu topology, and therefore it can be extended to $`U(B)=\overline{U}`$. Indeed, let $`u_1,u_2,\mathrm{}U_d`$ be a convergent sequence. This means that for any $`k`$ all elements $`u_n`$ with sufficiently large $`n`$ belong to $`U_{di}U_i`$ for some $`ik+d`$. But then $`u_n^{}\left(U_{di}U_i\right)^{}U_iU_{id}U_d^k`$, therefore the sequence $`\{u_n^{}\}`$ also converges in the Frenkel-Zhu topology.

Since $`A`$ is also an $`\widehat{L}`$-module generated by an element $`\mathrm{𝟙}`$ such that $`L_+\mathrm{𝟙}=D\mathrm{𝟙}=D^{}\mathrm{𝟙}=0`$, there is a unique $`\widehat{L}`$-module homomorphism $`\phi :BA`$ such that $`\phi (\mathrm{𝟙})=\mathrm{𝟙}`$. It is well known  that $`\phi `$ must be a vertex algebra homomorphism preserving the $`sl_2`$-module structures. Therefore, Step 2 implies that (7) gives an involution of $`U(A)`$. ∎

## 3. Invariant bilinear forms

Let as before $`A`$ be a vertex algebra with $`sl_2`$-structure. Let $`V`$ be a vector space over $`𝕜`$.

###### Definition 3.

A $`V`$-valued bilinear form $`|`$ on $`A`$ is called invariant if

$$a(m)b|c=b|a(m)^{}c\text{and}Da|b=a|D^{}b$$

for all $`a,b,cA`$ and $`m`$.

The radical $`\mathrm{Rad}|=\{aA|a|b=0bA\}`$ of an invariant form is an ideal of $`A`$. Also, we have

$$\delta a|b=\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{[}D^{},D\mathbf{]}a|b=\frac{1}{2}a|\mathbf{[}D^{},D\mathbf{]}b=a|\delta b,$$

and this implies that $`A_i|A_j=0`$ for $`ij`$.

When $`A`$ is a highest weight module over affine or Virasoro Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ (see e.g. ), then one can choose $`D^{}`$ so that the involution  of §2 is the extension of the Chevalley involution of $`𝔤`$, and the contravariant form on $`A`$ (see e.g. ) will be invariant in the sense of Definition 3. See also the example in §5.1.

###### Remark.

Assume that $`A`$ has an invariant bilinear form $`|`$. Viewing $`A`$ as a module over itself, consider the contragredient module $`A^{}`$, see the Remark following Proposition 2 in §2. Then there is an $`A`$-algebra homomorphism $`\nu :AA^{}`$ given by $`aa|`$. In particular, if $`|`$ is non-degenerate, and all the homogeneous components of $`A`$ are finite dimensional, then $`\nu :AA^{}`$ is an isomorphism. This is a key observation in .

Given an invariant form $`|`$ on $`A`$, one can consider a linear map $`f:A_0V`$ defined by $`f(a)=\mathrm{𝟙}|a`$. Clearly, $`f(D^{}A_1)=0`$, so that $`f\mathrm{Hom}(A_0/D^{}A_1,V)`$, and $`f`$ defines the form uniquely. We show that this in fact gives an isomorphism of the space of all invariant bilinear forms with $`\mathrm{Hom}(A_0/D^{}A_1,V)`$.

###### Theorem 1.

Every invariant bilinear form on $`A`$ is symmetric and there is a one-to-one correspondence between linear maps $`f:A_0/D^{}A_1V`$ and $`V`$-valued invariant bilinear forms $`|`$ on $`A`$, given by $`f(a)=\mathrm{𝟙}|a`$ for $`aA_0`$.

For the proof we need the following lemma.

###### Lemma 1.

For any $`a,bA`$, if either $`m0`$ or $`m<\mathrm{ord}b1`$, then $`a(m)^{}bD^{}A`$.

###### Proof.

Set $`\mathrm{deg}a=d`$ and $`\mathrm{ord}b=k`$. Denote $`\left((D^{})^ja\right)(l)=g_{2(dj)l1}^{djl1}U(A)`$, so that

$$g_m^n=\left((D^{})^{d+nm}a\right)(m2n1).$$

For an operator $`uU(A)`$ write $`u0`$ if $`ubD^{}A`$. Then by (4) we have

$$mg_m^n+g_{m1}^n+g_{m+1}^{n+1}D^{}0.$$

Consider the generating function $`g(x,y)=_{m,n}g_m^nx^my^n`$. Let $`R:U(A)U(A)`$ be the operator given by $`Ru=uD^{}`$. Note that $`R^i0`$ for $`i>k`$, since $`(D^{})^{k+1}b=0`$. Then the above relation reads as

$$x_xg+xg+\frac{R}{xy}g0,$$

therefore

$$g(x,y)\mathrm{exp}\left(x+\frac{R}{xy}\right)g_0(y)$$

for some series $`g_0(y)U(A)[[y^{\pm 1}]]`$. On the other hand,

$$a(m)^{}=(1)^d\underset{i0}{}\left(D^{(i)}a\right)(2dm2i)=(1)^d\underset{i0}{}\frac{1}{i!}g_{m+1i}^{m+1d}.$$

Set $`h_m^n=_{i0}\frac{1}{i!}g_{mi}^n`$, so that $`a(m)^{}=(1)^dh_{m+1}^{m+1d}`$. The generating function for $`h_m^n`$’s is

$$h(x,y)=\underset{m,n}{}h_m^nx^my^n=e^xg(x,y)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{R}{xy}\right)g_0(y).$$

Since $`(R)^i0`$ for $`i>k`$, the only powers of $`x`$ with coefficients $`\sim ̸0`$ in $`h(x,y)`$ are $`x^0`$, $`x^1`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`x^k`$, therefore $`h_m^n0`$ if either $`m>0`$ or $`m<k`$, and the lemma follows. ∎

###### Remark.

As a corollary, we get a proof of the fact that $`A_d=D^{}A_{d+1}`$ different from that ofProposition 1. Indeed, take an element $`aA_d,d<0`$. Write $`a=a(1)\mathrm{𝟙}`$. Then $`a(1)`$ is the dual of $`\pm _{i0}(D^{(i)}a)(2di1)`$. But $`\mathrm{ord}\mathrm{𝟙}=0`$ and $`2di11`$ for all $`i0`$, so Lemma 1 implies that $`a(1)\mathrm{𝟙}D^{}A_{d+1}`$.

###### Proof of Theorem 1.

We need to show that for every linear map $`f:A_0/D^{}A_1V`$ there is a symmetric invariant bilinear form $`|`$ on $`A`$ such that $`f(a)=\mathrm{𝟙}|a`$ for all $`aA_0`$.

For homogeneous $`a,bA`$, define $`a|b=f\left(a(1)^{}b\right)`$ if $`\mathrm{deg}a=\mathrm{deg}b`$ and $`a|b=0`$ otherwise. Let us show first that $`a(n)b|c=b|a(n)^{}c`$ for all $`a,b,cA`$ and $`n`$. Indeed, it is enough to check that $`\left(a(n)b\right)(1)^{}cb(1)^{}a(n)^{}cmodD^{}A`$. But using the associativity (2), we have $`\left(a(n)b\right)(1)a(n)b(1)U(A)L_+`$, and by Lemma 1, $`u^{}AD^{}A`$ for any $`uU(A)L_+`$. Similarly, $`Da|b=f(a(1)^{}D^{}b)=a|D^{}b`$. This proves that the form is invariant.

Now we show that the form $`|`$ is symmetric. We need to have $`a(1)^{}bb(1)^{}amodD^{}A`$ for every $`a,bA`$ of the same degree. Set $`u=a(1)^{}b(1)U(A)`$ so that $`\mathrm{deg}u=0`$. We have to show that

(9)
$$(uu^{})\mathrm{𝟙}D^{}A_1.$$

By (7), $`u`$ is a linear combination of operators of the form $`c(m)b(1)`$ for some $`cA`$ and $`m`$. But $`c(m)b(1)\left(c(m)b\right)(1)modU(A)L_+`$. Hence it is enough to prove (9) for the cases when $`uU(A)L_+`$ and when $`u=a(1)`$ for some $`aA_0`$.

If $`uU(A)L_+`$ then $`u\mathrm{𝟙}=0`$ and $`u^{}\mathrm{𝟙}D^{}A`$ by Lemma 1. If $`u=a(1)`$ for $`aA_0`$, then

$$a(1)a(1)^{}=\left(a(1)^{}a(1)\right)^{}=\underset{i1}{}\left(D^{(i)}a\right)(i1)^{}$$

and again by Lemma 1 we conclude that $`\left(a(1)a(1)^{}\right)\mathrm{𝟙}D^{}A_1`$, since $`\mathrm{ord}\mathrm{𝟙}=0`$. ∎

###### Remark.

It follows from Theorem 1 that if $`uU(A),\mathrm{deg}u=d,`$ is such that $`u\mathrm{𝟙}=0`$, then $`u^{}A_dD^{}A_1`$. Indeed, $`0=u\mathrm{𝟙}|A_d=\mathrm{𝟙}|u^{}A_d`$ for every invariant bilinear form on $`A`$. In fact, using techniques from  one can show that $`\left\{uU(A)\right|u\mathrm{𝟙}=0\}=U(A)L_+`$.

## 4. Radical of a vertex algebra

### 4.1. The ideal generated by $`D^{}A_1`$

Let $`A`$ be a vertex algebra with an $`sl_2`$-structure as before. Let $`IA`$ be the ideal generated by $`D^{}A_1`$. Denote as usual $`I_d=IA_d`$.

###### Proposition 3.

1. $`I_d=A_d`$ for $`d<0`$.
2. $`I_0=A(1)D^{}A_1`$.
3. $`A_0/I_0`$ is an associative commutative algebra with respect to the operation $`abab=a(1)b`$, and $`\mathrm{𝟙}`$ is its unit.

Denote $`E=A(1)D^{}A_1`$. For the proof of Proposition 3 we need the following lemma.

###### Lemma 2.

Let $`aA_i`$ and $`bA_j`$ for $`i,j0`$, and if $`j=0`$, then $`bD^{}A_1`$. Then $`a(i+j1)bE`$.

###### Proof.

By Proposition 1 we have $`a=(D^{})^ia_0`$ and $`b=(D^{})^jb_0`$ for some $`a_0A_0`$ and $`b_0D^{}A_1`$. Applying (4) $`i`$ times we get that

$$a(i+j1)b(1)^ia_0(i+j1)(D^{})^{ij}b_0modE.$$

If $`d=i+j=0`$, then $`a(i+j1)b=a(1)bE`$ by the definition. We will show by induction on $`d`$ that $`a(d1)(D^{})^dbE`$ for any $`aA_0`$, $`bD^{}A_1`$ and $`d<0`$.

So assume that $`a(k1)(D^{})^kbE`$ for all $`0k>d`$. Then, using (1), we get

$$ED^{}A_1Da(d)(D^{})^db=a(d)D(D^{})^dbda(d1)(D^{})^db.$$

By Proposition 1, $`D(D^{})^db=(D^{})^{1d}b_1`$ for some $`b_1D^{}A_1`$, so by induction, $`a(d)D(D^{})^dbE`$, and hence also $`a(d1)(D^{})^dbE`$. ∎

###### Remark.

In fact, Lemma 2, combined with Lemma 1, shows that $`E=U(A)_0D^{}A_1`$.

###### Proof of Proposition 3.

(a) follows immediately from Proposition 1.

(b) Let $`f:A_0A_0/E`$ be the canonical projection, and let $`R=\mathrm{Rad}|`$ be the radical of the corresponding form on $`A`$. We claim that $`R_0=RA_0=E`$. Indeed, if $`aA_0E`$, then $`f(a)=a|\mathbb{\hspace{0.17em}1}0`$ and therefore $`aR`$. In the other direction, take $`aD^{}A_1`$. Then for an arbitrary $`bA_0`$ we have

$$a|b=f\left(b(1)^{}a\right)=\underset{i0}{}f\left((D^{(i)}b)(1i)a\right)=0,$$

since $`(D^{(i)}b)(1i)aE`$ by Lemma 2. Therefore, $`D^{}A_1R`$, and since $`R`$ is an ideal, we must have $`ER`$. It follows that $`IR_0=E`$, on the other hand obviously $`EI`$, and that proves (b).

(c) Using (2) and Lemma 2 we get

$$\left(a(1)b\right)(1)c=\underset{s0}{}a(1s)b(1+s)c+\underset{s0}{}b(2s)a(s)ca(1)b(1)cmodI_0$$

for any $`a,b,cA_0`$. By (3) we have $`a(1)bb(1)amodDA_1`$, and we know that $`DA_1D^{}A_{i+1}I_0=E`$. So the statement (c) follows. ∎

### 4.2. The radical

###### Definition 4.

The radical $`\mathrm{Rad}A`$ of a vertex algebra $`A`$ is the radical $`\mathrm{Rad}|`$ of the invariant bilinear form $`|`$ corresponding to the projection $`f:A_0A_0/A_0(1)D^{}A_1`$.

###### Remark.

This definition has nothing to do with the radical defined in .

Recall that by Proposition 3 (b), the space $`I_0=A_0(1)D^{}A_1`$ is the degree 0 component of the ideal $`IA`$ generated by $`D^{}A_1`$. From the proof of Proposition 3 (b) it follows that $`(\mathrm{Rad}A)_0=I_0`$. Moreover, the following is true:

###### Proposition 4.

1. The radical $`R=\mathrm{Rad}A`$ is the maximal among all the ideals $`JA`$ such that $`J_0=A_0(1)D^{}A_1`$.
2. $`\mathrm{Rad}(A/R)=0`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`JA`$ be an ideal such that $`J_0=A_0(1)D^{}A_1`$. Then for any $`aJ_d`$ and $`bA_d`$ we get $`a|b=f\left(b(1)^{}a\right)=0`$, therefore $`aR`$. This proves (a). The statement (b) follows from the fact that the form $`|`$ becomes non-degenerate on $`A/R`$. ∎

### 4.3. Radical-free algebras

Assume that $`R=\mathrm{Rad}AA`$. We would like to investigate the quotient vertex algebra $`A/R`$. By Proposition 4 (b) we have $`\mathrm{Rad}A/R=0`$, so we can assume that $`\mathrm{Rad}A=0`$. Then $`D^{}A_1=I=0`$, the projection $`f:A_0A_0/I_0`$ is the identity map, and the corresponding canonical invariant $`A_0`$-valued bilinear form $`|`$ is non-degenerate.

The following theorem summarizes the properties of radical-free algebras.

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`A`$ be a vertex algebra such that $`\mathrm{Rad}A=0`$.

1. $`A_d=0`$ for $`d<0`$.
2. $`A_0`$ is an associative commutative unital algebra with respect to the product $`abab=a(1)b`$, with unit $`\mathrm{𝟙}`$.
3. $`A`$ is a vertex algebra over the associative commutative algebra $`A_0`$.
4. Let $`IA`$ be an ideal. Then $`IA_0=0`$ if and only if $`I=0`$.
5. For any ideal $`J_0A_0`$ the space $`J_0A`$ is an ideal of $`A`$ such that $`J_0AA_0=J_0`$. It follows that $`A`$ is simple if and only if $`A_0`$ is a field.

Note that all the definitions in §1 make sense when $`𝕜`$ is a commutative ring containing $``$. So the statement (c) means that elements from $`A_0A`$ behave like constants, i.e. $`A_0`$ acts on each component $`A_d`$ by $`ab=a(1)b`$ for $`aA_0`$, $`bA_d`$, all structural maps $`a(m),D,D^{}:AA`$ are $`A_0`$-linear, and therefore $`DA_0=0`$ and $`A_0(n)A_d=0`$ for $`n1`$. Also, the canonical non-degenerate $`A_0`$-valued form $`|`$ on $`A`$ is $`A_0`$-bilinear.

Recall that a vertex algebra with $`sl_2`$-structure is called simple if it does not have any $`D^{}`$-invariant ideals.

###### Proof.

The statements (a) and (b) follow from Proposition 3 (a) and (c) respectively, while (d) follows from Proposition 4 (a).

Since $`D^{}A_1=0`$, we have $`Da|b=0`$ for any and $`aA_0`$$`bA_1`$, therefore $`DA_0\mathrm{Rad}A=0`$. But then $`a(n)=0`$ for $`n1`$ as an element in the Lie algebra $`\mathrm{Coeff}A`$, see §1.3. Now the statement (c) follows easily from the formulas (1), (2) and (4) in §1.1.

Finally, $`I_0A`$ is an ideal of $`A`$ by (c), and therefore, if $`A`$ is simple, then $`A_0`$ must be a field. This proves one direction of (e). The other direction follows from (d). ∎

###### Remark.

Let $`A`$ be a vertex algebra with $`\mathrm{Rad}A=0`$ as above. Since $`DA_0=0`$, the formulas (2) and (3) imply that $`A_1`$ is a Lie algebra with the bracket $`\mathbf{[}a,b\mathbf{]}=a(0)b`$. The bilinear form $`|`$ on $`A`$ is an invariant symmetric $`A_0`$-bilinear form on that Lie algebra, and we have $`a|b=a(1)b`$ for any $`a,bA_1`$. The Lie algebra $`A_1`$ acts on $`A`$ by derivations of degree 0, so that $`ab=a(0)b`$ for $`aA_1`$ and $`bA`$. If $`A`$ is simple, then $`A_1(0)A=0`$, since $`A_1(0)A`$ is always an ideal of $`A`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟙}A_1(0)A`$.

If $`𝕜=`$ and $`A`$ is a simple radical-free vertex algebra, generated by countably many elements, then we must have $`A_0=`$. We see that radical-free vertex algebras are very close to be of a CFT type, after we set $`𝕜=A_0`$. The only thing that might be missing is the condition $`dimA_d<\mathrm{}`$.

Question. Are there any radical-free vertex algebras $`A`$ with $`sl_2`$-structure, such that the homogeneous components $`A_d`$ have infinite rank over $`A_0`$?

## 5. Examples

### 5.1. Heisenberg algebra

Let $`A`$ be the Heisenberg vertex algebra. By definition, it is generated by a single element $`aA_1`$ such that the locality $`N(a,a)=2`$ and $`a(0)a=0`$, $`a(1)a=\mathrm{𝟙}`$. One can show (see e.g. ) that these conditions define $`A`$ uniquely. We have $`A_0=𝕜\mathrm{𝟙}`$ and $`A_1=𝕜a`$. It is well known, that $`A`$ is a simple vertex algebra in the sense that it does not have any ideals at all, regardless of any $`sl_2`$-structure.

For every $`k𝕜`$ the element $`\omega _k=\frac{1}{2}a(1)a+kDaA_2`$ is a Virasoro element of $`A`$. If we set $`D^{}=\omega _0(2)`$, then $`D^{}a=0`$, hence $`A_0/D^{}A_1=𝕜\mathrm{𝟙}`$, and therefore $`A`$ has only one invariant bilinear form $`|`$, up to a scaling factor, and in this case $`\mathrm{Rad}A=\mathrm{Rad}|=0`$. If instead we set $`D^{}=\omega _k(2)`$ for $`k0`$, then $`D^{}a=2k\mathrm{𝟙}`$. In this case $`A_0/D^{}A_1=0`$, $`\mathrm{Rad}A=A`$, and $`A`$ does not have any invariant bilinear forms.

### 5.2. Free vertex algebras

Let $`𝒢`$ be a set and $`N:𝒢\times 𝒢`$ be a symmetric function such that $`N(a,a)2`$. In  we have constructed a vertex algebra $`F=F_N(𝒢)`$ which we called the free vertex algebra generated by $`𝒢`$ with respect to locality bound $`N`$. It is generated by $`𝒢`$ so that the locality of any $`a,b𝒢`$ is exactly $`N(a,b)`$, and for any other vertex algebra $`A`$ generated by $`𝒢`$ with the same bound on locality, there is a homomorphism $`FA`$ preserving $`𝒢`$. The algebra $`F`$ is graded by the semilattice $`_+[𝒢]`$, we refer to this grading as the grading by weights. Also, $`F`$ is graded by degrees if we set $`\mathrm{deg}a=\frac{1}{2}N(a,a)`$ for $`a𝒢`$. If we denote by $`F_{\lambda ,d}`$ the space of all elements of $`F`$ of weight $`\lambda _+[𝒢]`$ and degree $`d`$, then

$$F_{\lambda ,k}(n)F_{\mu ,l}F_{\lambda +\mu ,k+ln1},DF_{\lambda ,k}F_{\lambda ,k1}\text{and}\mathrm{𝟙}F_{0,0}.$$

It is not difficult to see that we can define an operator $`D^{}:FF`$, satisfying (4), by setting $`D^{}a=0`$ for all $`a𝒢`$. Then we have $`D^{}F_{\lambda ,d}F_{\lambda ,d+1}`$.

It is shown in  that for any weight $`\lambda =a_1+\mathrm{}+a_l_+[𝒢]`$ there is the minimal degree

$$d_{\mathrm{min}}(\lambda )=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{l}{}}N(a_i,a_j)$$

such that $`dim_𝕜F_{\lambda ,d_{\mathrm{min}}(\lambda )}=1`$ and $`dim_𝕜F_{\lambda ,d}=0`$ for $`d<d_{\mathrm{min}}(\lambda )`$. For $`d>d_{\mathrm{min}}(\lambda )`$ the dimension of $`F_{\lambda ,d}`$ is equal to the number of partitions of $`dd_{\mathrm{min}}(\lambda )`$ into a sum of $`l`$ non-negative integers colored by $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_l`$.

It is also proved in  that $`F`$ is embedded into the vertex algebra $`V_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ corresponding to the lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=[𝒢]`$. The scalar product on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is defined by $`a|b=N(a,b)`$ for $`a,b𝒢`$.

Since $`D^{}`$ is homogeneous with respect to both weights and degrees, and the only element of weight 0 in $`F`$ is $`\mathrm{𝟙}`$, up to a scalar, it follows that $`\mathrm{𝟙}D^{}F_1`$. So one can always define a functional $`f:F_0/D^{}F_1𝕜`$ so that $`f(\mathrm{𝟙})=1`$ and $`f(F_{\lambda ,0})=0`$ for every weight $`\lambda 0`$. The corresponding invariant bilinear form on $`F`$ is a restriction of the canonical bilinear form on $`V_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. If $`N(𝒢,𝒢)<0`$, then this will be the only form on $`F`$, up to a scalar. If, on the contrary, the localities $`N(a_i,a_j)`$ are large, then $`dimF_{\lambda ,0}`$ grows as $`\lambda `$ gets longer, and it follows from the results of  that $`dimF_{\lambda ,0}/(\mathrm{Rad}F)_{\lambda ,0}>0`$ when $`\lambda _+[𝒢]`$ is big enough. Hence, in this case there are infinitely many different invariant bilinear forms on $`F`$, and infinitely many simple radical-free vertex algebras, which are homomorphic images of $`F`$.

###### Remark.

It appears that the algebra $`\overline{F}=F/\mathrm{Rad}F`$ is a very interesting object from combinatorial point of view. It is possible to show that the commutative associative algebra $`\overline{F}_0`$ is isomorphic to a polynomial algebra in infinitely many variables. Also, the Question at the end of §4 is equivalent to asking whether the components $`\overline{F}_d`$ have finite rank as modules over $`\overline{F}_0`$.

### Acknowledgments

I thank Haisheng Li for inspiring discussions and for pointing out an inaccuracy in an earlier version of this paper.