format: text

text:
# The Formation of Globular Cluster Systems

## 1. Introduction

The past decade has witnessed a remarkable advance in our understanding of globular cluster (GC) systems. Optical and ultraviolet imaging from HST has been used to study GC systems belonging to nearly one hundred (mostly early type) galaxies. Spectra from 4-10m class telescopes have yielded radial velocities for more than a thousand extragalactic GCs, along with metallicities for subset of the brighter objects. Infrared photometry for extragalactic GCs is appearing in the literature at an ever-increasing rate, promising to refine our understanding of how these systems formed and evolved.

Indeed, theorists are now hard pressed to produce a single model for the formation of GC systems that explains — or, at least, is consistent with — the enormous amount of observational material that has been accumulated. This is a daunting task, since any viable formation model must reproduce and explain the apparently constant number of GCs per unit baryonic mass, the striking complexity of GC metallicity distribution functions (MDFs), the observed spatial distributions of GCs about their host galaxy, and the emerging constraints on the ages and kinematics of the metal-poor (MP) and metal-rich (MR) GC subpopulations. What is ultimately required is a model that explains not just these observational properties, but also their variations (if any) with host galaxy environment and morphology. Although several important issues remain unresolved, I will argue below that there may be an emerging consensus on the origin of the MP GC subpopulations associated with bright galaxies. The origin of the MR subpopulation remains very much open to debate.

## 2. Formation Scenarios

It is convenient to divide models for the formation of GC systems into three broad categories: pre-, proto- and post-galactic. While these divisions are useful for heuristic purposes, they should not be taken too literally since the classification is, in some cases, rather subjective. It is also worth noting that some models that have historically been considered quite distinct ($`e.g.`$, Ashman & Zepf 1992 and Côté $`etal.`$ 1998) actually rely on similar mechanisms — mergers and accretions — to explain the formation of GC systems. These models differ mainly the assumed nature of the merger/accretion process: most notably in the assumed mass spectrum of the progenitors, the epoch of galaxy assembly, and the amount of dissipation and star/GC formation (if any) induced by the merger/accretion process.

### Pre-galactic:

In this picture, the formation of GCs predates that of their host galaxy. First suggested by Dicke & Peebles (1968), who noted that the Jeans mass at recombination was similar to the mean mass of Galactic GCs, this model was later revised by Peebles (1984) to explain GC formation in a cold dark matter (CDM) dominated universe. We now recognize the GC mass distribution to have a roughly double power-law form with a break at $`M10^5M_{}`$, weakening the original Jeans mass argument.

Recently, Cen (2001) has proposed a variant of this model in which the MP GCs surrounding galaxies form during reionization, when the external radiation field produces inward shocks in low-mass, low-spin dark matter halos. Such shocks, he argues, will compress the baryons and lead to the formation of GCs. While this model gives roughly the correct mass spectrum for GCs more massive than about $`10^5M_{}`$, the mechanism itself is quite unlike that observed in star- and cluster-forming molecular clouds in the local universe (and leaves the formation of the MR GCs unexplained). Moreover, it seems inevitable that this model should predict many intergalactic GCs in the local universe. Although the properties of some GCs associated with a few galaxies like M87 are consistent with an intergalactic origin (see Côté $`etal.`$ 2001), there is still no case in which even a single GC can be said with certainty to be truly intergalactic in nature.

### Proto-galactic:

It was suggested by Harris & Pudritz (1994) that GCs form within the dense cores of supergiant molecular clouds (SGMCs): $`i.e.`$, an hypothesized population of pressure-confined, self-gravitating, isothermal, magnetized clouds. These SGMCs, they argued, were supported against gravitational collapse by magnetic field pressure and Alfvénic turbulence. Though most SGMCs would presumably have been disrupted during the assembly of the host galaxy, any surviving SGMCs would, if left in isolation, have masses of $`M10^9M_{}`$ and diameters of $`D1`$ kpc. In short, they would resemble dwarf galaxies.

Subsequent cosmological N-body/TREESPH simulations by Weil & Pudritz (2001) confirmed that gravitationally-bound objects having masses and sizes similar to these SGMCs do indeed form, and that they have a roughly power-law mass spectrum, $`N(M)M^\alpha dM`$, with $`\alpha 1.7`$. Since star and GC formation was not included in their simulations, no conclusion could be drawn regarding GC MDFs.

An empirical method of studying GC MDFs has been has been explored in a series of papers by my collaborators and I (Côté $`etal.`$ 1998, 2000, 2002) where a Monte-Carlo algorithm was developed to simulate the GC MDFs of galaxies that are assembled from “proto-galactic fragments”. In this picture, both the total number of GCs and their metallicities are determined solely by the mass of the proto-galactic fragment in which they formed; no GCs are formed during the merger and accretion process. The left panels of Figure 1 show simulated and observed MDFs for nine of the 28 galaxies examined in Côté $`etal.`$ (2002). The right panel shows proto-galactic mass spectra for the 28 galaxies, along with the ensemble mass spectrum. These simulations suggest that the mass spectrum of proto-galactic fragments had an approximate power-law form with index $`\alpha 1.8`$, in close agreement with the N-body results.

It is remarkable that two completely independent lines of evidence ($`i.e.`$, N-body simulations of the gravitational collapse of primordial density fluctuations and Monte-Carlo simulations of the GC MDFs) point to a steep proto-galactic mass spectrum. Although this agreement lends credibility to the results, it is important to recall that the inferred mass spectrum is much steeper than measured luminosity function of galaxies in the local universe. Thus, the formation of GC systems seems inevitably linked to the so-called “missing satellite” problem (Klypin $`etal.`$ 1999; Moore $`etal.`$ 1999).

In a recent paper that further demonstrates the utility of GC systems in constraining cosmological models of galaxy formation, Beasley $`etal.`$ (2002) used the GALFORM semi-analytic code to simulate the GC systems of 450 elliptical galaxies. The relative number of MP and MR GCs in their simulations — which include shock heating of the gas, radiative cooling, feedback, mergers and stellar evolution — were then compared to the observed numbers in M49, where the census of GCs is very nearly complete. This comparison revealed that two ad hoc assumptions were necessary to reproduce the MP and MR GCs in the correct numbers. First, the formation efficiency of MR GCs must exceed that of MP GCs by a factor of $``$ 3-4 (see below for an examination of the plausibility of this assumption). Second, the formation of MP GCs, which occur in low-mass halos that Beasley $`etal.`$ term “proto-galactic disks”, must be truncated abruptly at $`z_{\mathrm{trunc}}5`$. Without these assumptions, the predicted population of MP GCs would dominate the MR population by up to two orders of magnitude at $`z=0`$. Unlike previous simulations, Beasley $`etal.`$ were able to estimate ages for the GCs. The MP GCs have, by virtue of the assumed value of $`z_{\mathrm{trunc}}`$, a mean age of $`T`$ 12 Gyr. The MR GCs are then found to be 1–7 Gyr younger, with a mean age difference of 3 Gyr, although this too hinges on the assumed $`z_{\mathrm{trunc}}`$.

### Post-Galactic:

Building upon a suggestion by Schweizer (1987), Ashman & Zepf (1992) examined the possibility that a factor-of-two difference in specific frequency, $`S_N`$, between normal elliptical and spiral galaxies ($`e.g.`$, Harris 1991) might be explained if: (1) normal elliptical galaxies formed as a result of major mergers of disk galaxies, and (2) the merger process led to the formation of new, presumably MR, GCs. There seems to be little doubt that a process of this sort has played in role in the formation of some elliptical galaxies, in light of the detection of young clusters forming in interacting galaxies ($`e.g.`$, Whitmore $`etal.`$ 2001). But is it plausible that major mergers of disk-galaxy pairs is the generic mechanism for the formation of normal elliptical galaxies, more than half of which show bimodal GC MDFs ($`e.g.`$, Larsen $`etal.`$ 2001)?

The most comprehensive study of GC formation in disk mergers is that of Bekki $`etal.`$ (2002), who used an N-body/TREESPH code to investigate mergers of pairs of gas-rich disk galaxies. These disks were posited to contain a pre-existing population of exclusively MP GCs. Using a simple pressure criterion for the onset of GC formation, Bekki $`etal.`$ showed that the end-products of such mergers do indeed resemble elliptical galaxies, with distinct MP and MR GC subpopulations. The newly-formed MR GCs show a greater degree of concentration toward the center of the merger remnant, as is observed. Bekki $`etal.`$ also examined the kinematic properties of the MP and MR GC subpopulations, finding the MP component to show a large velocity dispersion and a net rotation; by contrast, the MR component was found to show a lower dispersion and modest rotation. By examining the GC MDFs of the merged galaxy, Bekki $`etal.`$ also noted that the mean metallicity of the MR GCs far exceeded those measured for MR GCs in real ellipticals. As no plausible change in the assumed range of gas metallicities, abundance gradients in the progenitor disks, or GC formation criteria was able to alter this basic result, they concluded that “if most elliptical galaxies are formed by major mergers, then it must have occurred at high redshift”.

## 3. The Globular Cluster Systems of M87 and M49 Compared

Let us now consider how the various models fare in explaining the GC systems of real ellipticals. I will focus on a comparison of two thoroughly-studied ellipticals: M49 and M87, the first- and second-ranked members of the Virgo cluster, respectively. Although they differ in $`V`$-band luminosity by only $``$ 20%, the GC specific frequency of M87 exceeds that of M49 by a factor of 2-3 (Harris 1991). Together, these galaxies form a “second parameter” pair in terms of their GC systems, and any viable formation scenario must account for the observed differences and similarities.

The primary motivation of the Ashman & Zepf (1992) merger model was an explanation of the higher specific frequencies of early-type galaxies relative to disk galaxies. In this picture, mergers serve to increase specific frequency through the formation of MR GCs. Thus, galaxies with high specific frequencies — of which M87 is the prototype — are expected to have predominantly MR GC systems according to this model. In the specific case of M87, this “excess” population relative to M49 should amount to $`7000`$ additional MR GCs.

As Figure 3 shows, this expectation is not borne out by the observations. The measured GC color distributions for the two galaxies (based on deep HST imaging in identical filters from Kundu $`etal.`$ 1999 and Kundu & Whitmore 2001) are remarkably similar. Parameterizing each distribution with a double-Gaussian yields the percentages of MP and MR GCs given in Table 1. This table also give the total number of GCs belonging to each galaxy, $`N_{\mathrm{tot}}`$, from McLaughlin (1999), who showed that the observed difference in specific frequency between these two galaxies is likely due to the greater mass in X-ray emitting gas in the vicinity of M87.

Defining the GC formation efficiency, $`ϵ_{\mathrm{tot}}`$, as the total mass in GCs normalized to the total baryonic mass ($`i.e.,`$ stars and gas), McLaughlin found the GC formation efficiencies given in Table 1. The overall efficiency with which GCs formed in M87 and M49 are not only consistent with each other, they are indistinguishable from the “universal” GC formation efficiency of $`ϵ_{\mathrm{tot}}=0.26\pm 0.05`$% found by McLaughlin (1999) from an analysis of nearly one hundred early-type galaxies (see also Blakeslee $`etal.`$ 1997). In any event, it is clear from Table 1 and Figure 1 that the similar relative number of MP and MR GCs in the two galaxies is certainly at odds with the predictions of the merger model.

Combining the values of $`f_{\mathrm{MP}}`$ and $`f_{\mathrm{MR}}`$ from Table 1 with McLaughlin’s best estimates for $`ϵ_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ in the two galaxies, I find the values of $`ϵ_{\mathrm{MP}}`$ and $`ϵ_{\mathrm{MR}}`$ given in Table 1. To within the uncertainties, the MP and MR GC systems have identical formation efficiencies. The observed values of $`ϵ_{\mathrm{MP}}`$ are roughly consistent with the formation efficiency of MP GCs, $`ϵ_{\mathrm{MP}}=0.2`$%, used by Beasley $`etal.`$ (2002) in their semi-analytic simulations. However, their assumed value of $`ϵ_{\mathrm{MR}}=0.7`$% exceeds the measured value by a factor of six. Strictly speaking, the GC formation efficiencies in Table 1 are measured relative to the baryonic mass, whereas those of Beasley $`etal.`$ are measured with respect to the total mass ($`i.e.`$, including dark matter). However, inside $``$ 50 kpc, the $`R`$-band mass-to-light ratios of M49 and M87 are virtually identical, with $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_R35`$ (Côté $`etal.`$ 2001; 2003), so the comparison should be valid in this case.

Now let us examine the kinematical properties of the two GC systems. A dynamical analysis of the M87 GC system based on Washington photometry and radial velocities for 278 confirmed GCs was presented recently in Côté $`etal.`$ (2001) and a similar analysis for the M49 GC system, based on velocities for 263 GCs, is now underway (Côté $`etal.`$ 2003). Figure 2 shows the radial variation in kinematic parameters ($`i.e.`$, velocity dispersion, $`\sigma _p`$, projected rotation amplitude, $`\mathrm{\Omega }R`$, position angle of the rotation axis, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0`$, and the ratio of rotation amplitude to velocity dispersion, $`\mathrm{\Omega }R/\sigma _p`$) for the MP and MR GCs in M87. Global results for the two galaxies are presented in Table 2.

A detailed discussion of the results is beyond the scope of this review, but the main findings can be summarized as follows. In M87, both the MP and MR GC systems show significant rotation, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }R/\sigma 0.45`$. The MR GCs rotate about the galaxy’s minor axis everywhere, as do the MP GCs beyond $`R15`$ kpc. Inside this radius, however, the MP GCs appear to rotate about the major axis. In the case of M49, the MP GCs show modest minor axis rotation everywhere, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }R/\sigma _p0.27`$, while the MR GCs show little or no rotation. (The formal best-fit actually suggests that the MR GCs are counter-rotating).

Clearly, the GC subsystems in M87 and M49 show some rather dramatic kinematic differences. This apparent complexity becomes is all the more puzzling when one considers that the two spiral galaxies have the best studied GC systems, the Milky Way and M31, have $`\mathrm{\Omega }R/\sigma 0.32`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }R/\sigma 0.85`$ for the MP components, respectively. For their MR GC subpopulations, rotation is even more important, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }R/\sigma 1.05`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }R/\sigma 1.10`$ respectively (Côté 1999; Perrett $`etal.`$ 2002).

What implications do these results have for GC formation models? First, the rotation observed for MP GCs in these galaxies suggests that, if these GCs did indeed originate in numerous, low-mass proto-galactic fragments as suggested by several of the “proto-galactic” models discussed above, then these low-mass fragments must first have coalesced into larger entities before being incorporated into the final galaxy (assuming that the observed rotation reflects the orbital angular momentum of the progenitor galaxies). Secondly, the rapid rotation among the MR GCs in M87 (and in the two spirals) indicates that their formation in mergers may be unlikely, given that angular momentum transport should produce a slowly rotating population. On the other hand, the MR GCs in M49 are consistent with no net rotation, suggesting that angular momentum transport during a major merger may have been effective in this case.

Finally, I consider the critical issue of ages for the MP and MR GCs subpopulations in these galaxies, focusing on two complementary techniques that have been brought to bear upon this issue: integrated-light spectroscopy, and the magnitude difference between the turnovers of the GC luminosity functions (LFs) for the GC subpopulations. The former technique yields absolute ages for the GC subpopulations, while the latter approach gives only their relative ages.

The various age measurements are summarized in Table 3, which reports $`\mathrm{\Delta }TT_{\mathrm{MP}}T_{\mathrm{MR}}`$ for each GC subpopulation and, when available, the corresponding absolute ages. In the case of M87, the spectroscopy of Cohen $`etal.`$ (1998) suggests an old age for both components, with no evidence for a trend between age and metallicity. On the other hand, Kundu $`etal.`$ (1999) found a rather large age difference from the $`V`$ and $`I`$ luminosity functions, with the MR GCs being several Gyr younger. A more recent application of this technique, however, which relies on Strömgren photometry from from HST and makes use of the greater age sensitivity of the $`u`$-band, points to a very small age difference, in agreement with the spectroscopic results (Jordán $`etal.`$ 2002). For M49, both techniques indicate that the GC subpopulations are coeval to within the measurement errors.

The agreement between the photometric and spectroscopic results is generally encouraging. For these two galaxies at least, the MP and MR GCs seem to be truly old objects. Although the error bars remain large, it seems that, if GC formation in mergers of any sort — minor or major — has played the dominant role in producing the MR GCs in these galaxies, then the merger/assembly process must have occurred at high redshift ($`i.e.`$, $`z>4`$ in the currently fashionable $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models). In my opinion, these results suggest that the disparate metallicities of the GC subpopulations in these galaxies likely reflect environmental differences in the local sites of GC formation.

## 4. Conclusions

In both M87 and M49, the efficiency of GC formation is found to have the familiar “universal” value of $`ϵ_{\mathrm{tot}}0.25`$% per unit baryon mass (McLaughlin 1999). In both galaxies, the formation efficiencies of the separate MP and MR components is roughly half that of the GC system as a whole. These findings provide a challenge to models in which MR GCs form exclusively in major mergers, and to models that require different formation efficiencies for the MP and MR GCs.

Kinematic studies of the GC subpopulations in M87 and M49 reveal some interesting differences. In M87, both GC subpopulations show rapid rotation; in M49, the MP GCs show modest rotation, while the MR GCs form a non-rotating population. The existence of rapidly rotating GC subpopulations in these galaxies, and in the Milky Way and M31, suggests that mergers have probably played a role in the formation of the host galaxies, as the amount of angular momentum involved seems to exceed that generated by tidal torques alone (see Côté $`etal.`$ 2001). With the exception of M49, the rapidly rotating MR GCs in these galaxies indicate that the formation of the MR GCs probably predated the mergers. Furthermore, the ages of the GC subpopulations in M87 and M49 suggest that if the mergers were predominantly dissipational in nature, then the mergers must have occurred at high redshift, as noted by Bekki $`etal.`$ (2002) from an analysis of simulated and observed GC MDFs.

Many properties of the MP GCs in M87 and M49 (and in other galaxies) are consistent with the predictions of models in which these GCs form in low-mass, proto-galactic fragments that are later accreted into the main body of the galaxy. These proto-galactic fragments appear to be the analogs of the low-mass subhalos that form in cosmological simulations of structure formation. Indeed, the literature abounds with terminology for these objects: $`e.g.`$, proto-galactic fragments, supergiant molecular clouds, proto-galactic disks, Searle-Zinn fragments, failed dwarfs, $`etc`$. In terms of their physical properties, however, these are the same objects.

While there may be an emerging consensus on the origin of the MP GCs, debate continues on the nature and origin of their MR counterparts. These clusters can be interpreted simply as those that formed in the most massive proto-galactic fragments, or as the endproducts of a star formation burst triggered by gas-rich mergers. The former interpretation has the æsthetic advantage of requiring a single mechanism to explain both GC populations, while the second scenario has strong support from observations of young GCs forming in local mergers. It is likely that both processes have played a part in shaping the GC systems that we observe today, and our task for the decade ahead is to determine which, if either, of these processes has played a dominant role.

I thank Judy Cohen, John Blakeslee, Andres Jordán, Ron Marzke, Dean McLaughlin and Mike West for allowing me to present preliminary results from our ongoing collaborations.

## References

Ashman, K.M., & Zepf, S.E. 1992, ApJ, 384, 50

Beasley, M.A., Baugh, C.M., Forbes, D.A., Sharples, R.M., & Frenk, C.S. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 383

Beasley, M.A., Sharples, R.M.;,Bridges, T.J.;,Hanes, D.A., Zepf, S.E., Ashman, K.M., & Geisler, D. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 1249

Bekki, K., Forbes, D.A., Beasley, M.A., & Couch, W.J. 2002, astro-ph/0206008

Blakeslee, J.P., Tonry, J.L., & Metzger, M.R. 1997, AJ, 114, 482

Cen, R. 2001, ApJ, 560, 592

Cohen, J.G., Blakeslee, J.P., & Ryzhov, A. 1998, ApJ 496, 808

Côté, P. 1999, AJ, 118, 406

Côté, P., Marzke, R.O., & West, M.J. 1998, ApJ, 501, 554

Côté, P., Marzke, R.O., West, M.J., Minniti, D. 2000, ApJ, 533, 869

Côté, P., West, M.J., & Marzke, R.O. 2002, ApJ, 567, 853

Côté, P., McLaughlin, D.E., Hanes, D.A., Bridges, T.J., Geisler, D.; Merritt, D., Hesser, J.E., Harris, G.L.H., & Lee, M.G. 2001, ApJ, 559, 828

Harris, W.E., & Pudritz, R.E. 1994, ApJ, 420, 177

Jordán, A., Côté, P., West, M.J., & Marzke, R.O. 2002, ApJ, in press.

Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A.V., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F. 1999, ApJ, 522, 82

Kundu, A., Whitmore, B.C., Sparks, W.B., Macchetto, F.D., Zepf, S.E., & Ashman, K.M. 1999, ApJ, 513, 733

Kundu, A., & Whitmore, B.C. 2001, AJ, 121, 2950

Moore, B., Ghigna, S., Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T., Stadel, J., & Tozzi, P. 1999, ApJ, 524, L19

McLaughlin, D.E. 1999, AJ, 117, 2398

Peebls, P.J.E., & Dicke, R.H. 1968, ApJ, 154, 891

Peebles, P.J.E. 1984, ApJ, 277, 470

Perrett, K.M., Bridges, T.J., Hanes, D.A., Irwin, M.J., Brodie, J.P., Carter, D., Huchra, J.P., & Watson, F.G. 2002, AJ, 123, 2490

Press, W.H., & Schechter, P. 1974, ApJ, 187, 425

Puzia, T.H., Kissler-Patig, M., Brodie, J. P., & Huchra, J.P. 1999, AJ, 118, 2734

Schweizer, F. 1987 in Nearly Normal Galaxies, ed. S.M. Faber (Springer, New York), p. 18

Weil, M.L., & Pudritz, R.E. 2001, ApJ, 556, 164

Whitmore, B.C., Zhang, Q., Leitherer, C., Fall, S.M., Schweizer, F., & Miller, B.W. 1999, AJ, 118, 1551


text:
# On simple real Lie bialgebras

## Introduction

The theory of Poisson-Lie groups occupies a central place in the theory of Poisson manifolds. The category of connected, simply-connected Poisson-Lie groups is equivalent to the category of Lie bialgebras \[Dr\]. Therefore, a basic problem in the theory of Poisson manifolds is the classification of Lie bialgebras. A fundamental contribution to this question is the Theorem of Belavin and Drinfeld \[BD\], which contains the classification of all the simple factorizable complex Lie bialgebras.

A finite-dimensional real Lie algebra is *absolutely simple* if its complexification is a simple complex Lie algebra; this notation agrees with the tradition in Lie theory to call “absolutely simple” an object that remains simple after any extension of scalars \[D, T\]. It is well-known that a simple real Lie algebra is either absolutely simple, or it is the realification of a complex simple Lie algebra.

In this paper, we obtain the following result.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`(𝔤_0,\delta )`$ be an absolutely simple real Lie bialgebra. Then either $`(𝔤_0,\delta )`$ is triangular, or else it is determined by the pair $`(𝔤_0,r_0)`$ as in Table 1, up to isomorphisms of real Lie bialgebras.

Precisely, there exists a unique Cartan subalgebra $`𝔥`$ of the complexification $`𝔤`$ of $`𝔤_0`$; a system of simple roots $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(𝔤,𝔥)`$; an involution $`\sigma =\varsigma _\mu `$ or $`\omega _{\mu ,J}`$ as in (1.1), (1.2); a BD-triple $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2,T)`$; $`t_{>0}i_{>0}`$; and a continuous parameter $`\lambda 𝔥^2`$; all these data subject to the restrictions in Table 1; such that $`(𝔤_0,\delta )`$ is isomorphic as real Lie bialgebra to $`(𝔤^\sigma ,r_0)`$, where

$$r_0=t\left(\frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Delta }}{}\lambda _{\alpha ,\beta }h_\alpha h_\beta +\frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^+}{}x_\alpha x_\alpha +\underset{\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Phi }^+,\alpha \beta }{}x_\alpha x_\beta \right).$$

Here, $`\lambda \lambda ^{21}=_{\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Delta }}\lambda _{\alpha ,\beta }h_\alpha h_\beta `$, and $`h_\alpha `$, $`x_\beta `$ have the usual meaning, see subsections 1.1, 1.2.

Two data in the table give rise to isomorphic Lie bialgebras if and only if they belong to the same line and the rest of the data is conjugated by an automorphism of the Dynkin diagram of order 2.

Some considerations about real simple Lie bialgebras are already present in \[LQ, A, CGR, Ch, KRR\]. The compact case is well-known, see for example \[KS, LW, M\]. All real classical $`r`$-matrices arising from semisimple Lie algebras are listed in \[CGR\]. A. Panov described in \[P1\], \[P2\], all posible Manin triples in a suitable class up to gauge and weak equivalence; see also \[De\]. One might be able to infer our main result from these papers, with extra work. However, we do not follow this path and deduce the classification directly from the Theorem of Belavin and Drinfeld. The key step in our argument is Lemma 2.1, where we attach a Cartan subalgebra and a choice of positive roots to the pair $`(𝔤_0,r_0)`$.

The complexifications of the Lie bialgebras associated to the pairs $`(𝔤_0,r_0)`$ as in Table 1 are factorizable, as defined in \[RS\]. This is not the case for the real Lie bialgebras themselves; some of them are quasitriangular, some of them are not. We use the term “almost factorizable” to refer to Lie bialgebras that are factorizable after extension of scalars.

The organization of this paper is as follows. In the first section we recall several well-known facts about real Lie algebras (subsections 1.1 and 1.2) and Lie bialgebras (subsection 1.3). The material on real Lie algebras is standard but we decided to present it for completeness of the arguments leading to the main result. In the second section we prove two lemmas that imply the main result. In the last section we compute the Drinfeld double and the dual Lie bialgebra of a real absolutely simple Lie bialgebra. Our result is a consequence of the determination of the Drinfeld double of a factorizable Lie bialgebra \[RS\].

## Acknowledgements

We thank A. Tiraboschi for many conversations, and the referee for some interesting remarks and suggestions. The first author expresses his gratitude to IHES, where the final part of the work in this article was done.

## 1. Preliminaries

### 1.1. Conventions

All Lie algebras are finite-dimensional, unless explicitly stated. We shall say that a Lie bialgebra is simple if the underlying Lie algebra is simple.

Let $`𝔤_0`$ be a semisimple real Lie algebra and let $`𝔤`$ be its complexification. The Killing form on $`𝔤`$, or $`𝔤_0`$, is denoted by $`(|)`$. The Casimir element of $`𝔤`$ is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝔤𝔤`$; that is, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=x_ix^i`$ where $`(x_i)`$, $`(x^i)`$ is any pair of dual basis with respect to the Killing form of $`𝔤`$. Clearly $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝔤_0𝔤_0`$.

Let $`𝔥𝔤`$ be a Cartan subalgebra; we denote by $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(𝔤,𝔥)`$ the set of roots. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a system of simple roots, we denote by $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ the corresponding set of positive roots. We denote by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ the component in $`𝔥𝔥`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$; that is, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=h_ih^i`$ where $`(h_i)`$, $`(h^i)`$ is any pair of dual basis in $`𝔥`$ with respect to the restriction of the Killing form of $`𝔤`$ to $`𝔥`$. If $`\alpha 𝔥^{}`$, we denote by $`h_\alpha 𝔥`$ the unique element in $`𝔥`$ such that $`\alpha (H)=(h_\alpha |H)`$ for all $`H𝔥`$.

If $`V`$ is a complex vector space and $`\sigma :VV`$ is a sesquilinear map with $`\sigma ^2=id`$, then $`\sigma ^{}:V^{}V^{}`$ denotes the sesquilinear map with $`\sigma ^{}(\alpha )(h)=\overline{\alpha (\sigma (h))}`$, $`\alpha V^{}`$, $`hV`$.

### 1.2. Involutions

Let $`𝔤`$ be a complex simple Lie algebra, $`𝔥`$ a Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔤`$ , $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(𝔤,𝔥)`$ a set of simple roots. Let us choose elements $`e_\alpha 𝔤_\alpha `$, $`e_\alpha 𝔤_\alpha `$, $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }`$, such that $`[e_\alpha ,e_\alpha ]=h_\alpha `$.

Let $`\mu :\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be an automorphism of the Dynkin diagram of order 1 or 2. Let $`J`$ be any subset of the set $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu `$ of roots fixed by $`\mu `$; let $`\chi _J:\mathrm{\Delta }\{0,1\}`$ be the characteristic function of $`J`$ . Then there exist unique sesquilinear Lie algebra involutions $`\varsigma _\mu `$, $`\omega _{\mu ,J}`$ of $`𝔤`$ given respectively by

(1.1) $`\varsigma _\mu (e_\alpha )`$ $`=e_{\mu (\alpha )},`$ $`\varsigma _\mu (e_\alpha )`$ $`=e_{\mu (\alpha )},`$
(1.2) $`\omega _{\mu ,J}(e_\alpha )`$ $`=(1)^{\chi _J(\alpha )}e_{\mu (\alpha )},`$ $`\omega _{\mu ,J}(e_\alpha )`$ $`=(1)^{\chi _J(\alpha )}e_{\mu (\alpha )},`$
for all $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }`$. This follows at once from Serre’s theorem on the presentation of $`𝔤`$, see for instance \[Kn\]. Necessarily, $`\varsigma _\mu (h_\alpha )=h_{\mu (\alpha )}`$, $`\omega _{\mu ,J}(h_\alpha )=h_{\mu (\alpha )}`$. We shall abbreviate

$$\varsigma =\varsigma _{id},\omega _J=\omega _{id,J},\omega =\omega _\mathrm{\Delta }.$$

Thus $`\omega `$ is the Chevalley involution of $`𝔤`$, with respect to $`𝔥`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and the fixed point set of $`\omega `$ is a compact form of $`𝔤`$, denoted by $`𝔤_c`$.

###### Lemma 1.1.

Let $`\sigma :𝔤𝔤`$ be a sesquilinear Lie algebra involution such that $`\sigma (𝔥)=𝔥`$. Then $`\sigma ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\sigma (𝔤_\alpha )=𝔤_{\sigma ^{}(\alpha )}`$.

(a). If $`\sigma ^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })=\mathrm{\Delta }`$, there exists a choice of elements $`e_\alpha 𝔤_\alpha `$, $`e_\alpha 𝔤_\alpha `$, $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }`$ as above such that $`\sigma =\varsigma _\mu `$ for a unique automorphism $`\mu :\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the Dynkin diagram of order 1 or 2.

(b). If $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta })^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }`$, there exists a choice of elements $`e_\alpha 𝔤_\alpha `$, $`e_\alpha 𝔤_\alpha `$, $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }`$ as above such that $`\sigma =\omega _{\mu ,J}`$ for a unique automorphism $`\mu :\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$

of the Dynkin diagram of order 1 or 2, and a unique subset $`J`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu `$.

###### Proof.

It is well-known that $`(x|y)=\overline{(\sigma (x)|\sigma (y))}`$ for all $`x`$, $`y𝔤`$, see for example \[H, p. 180\]. If $`H𝔥`$ and $`\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }`$, then for all $`X𝔤_\alpha `$, one has

$$[H,\sigma (X)]=\sigma ([\sigma (H),X])=\overline{\alpha (\sigma (H))}\sigma (X)=\sigma ^{}(\alpha )(H)\sigma (X).$$

Hence $`\sigma ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\sigma (𝔤_\alpha )=𝔤_{\sigma ^{}(\alpha )}`$.

Assume that $`\sigma ^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })=\pm \mathrm{\Delta }`$. Let $`(a_{\alpha ,\beta })_{\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Delta }}`$ be the Cartan matrix of $`𝔤`$. Let $`\mu :\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be given by $`\mu =\pm \sigma ^{}`$, according to the case. Then

$$a_{\alpha ,\beta }=2\frac{(\alpha |\beta )}{(\beta |\beta )}=\overline{2\frac{(\sigma ^{}(\alpha )|\sigma ^{}(\beta ))}{(\sigma ^{}(\beta )|\sigma ^{}(\beta ))}^{}}=a_{\mu (\alpha ),\mu (\beta )},$$

hence $`\mu `$ is an automorphism of the Dynkin diagram, and clearly it has order 1 or 2.

Let $`e_\alpha 𝔤_\alpha `$, $`e_\alpha 𝔤_\alpha `$, $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }`$ be as above. Let $`c_\alpha 0`$ be

such that $`\sigma (e_\alpha )=c_\alpha e_{\sigma ^{}(\alpha )}`$, $`\alpha \pm \mathrm{\Delta }`$. Then, for all $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }`$, we have

(1.3)
$$c_\alpha c_\alpha =1,$$

since $`1=(e_\alpha |e_\alpha )=\overline{(\sigma (e_\alpha )|\sigma (e_\alpha ))}=\overline{c_\alpha c_\alpha (e_{\sigma ^{}(\alpha )})|e_{\sigma ^{}(\alpha )})}=\overline{c_\alpha c_\alpha }`$. Also, $`\sigma ^2=id`$ implies that

(1.4)
$$c_\alpha \overline{c_{\sigma ^{}\alpha }}=1,$$

for all $`\alpha \pm \mathrm{\Delta }`$.

We prove (a). We want to replace $`e_\alpha `$, $`e_\alpha `$ by $`\stackrel{~}{e}_\alpha =d_\alpha e_\alpha `$, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_\alpha =(d_\alpha )^1e_\alpha `$, for well-chosen non-zero scalars $`d_\alpha `$, $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }`$, such that

$$\sigma (\stackrel{~}{e}_\alpha )=\stackrel{~}{e}_{\mu (\alpha )},\sigma (\stackrel{~}{e}_\alpha )=\stackrel{~}{e}_{\mu (\alpha )}.$$

But $`\sigma (\stackrel{~}{e}_\alpha )=\overline{d_\alpha }c_\alpha (d_{\mu (\alpha )})^1\stackrel{~}{e}_{\mu (\alpha )}`$ and $`\sigma (\stackrel{~}{e}_\alpha )=\overline{(d_\alpha )^1}c_\alpha (d_{\mu (\alpha )})\stackrel{~}{e}_{\mu (\alpha )}`$, thus we need to find $`d_\alpha `$ such that $`c_\alpha =\overline{(d_\alpha )^1}d_{\mu (\alpha )}`$. The existence of such $`d_\alpha `$ is clear, and the uniqueness of $`\mu `$ is evident; (a) follows.

We prove (b). We want to replace $`e_\alpha `$, $`e_\alpha `$ by $`\stackrel{~}{e}_\alpha =d_\alpha e_\alpha `$, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_\alpha =(d_\alpha )^1e_\alpha `$, for well-chosen non-zero scalars $`d_\alpha `$, $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }`$. We have $`\sigma (\stackrel{~}{e}_\alpha )=\overline{d_\alpha }c_\alpha e_{\mu (\alpha )}=\overline{d_\alpha }c_\alpha d_{\mu (\alpha )}\stackrel{~}{e}_{\mu (\alpha )}`$ and $`\sigma (\stackrel{~}{e}_\alpha )=\overline{(d_\alpha )^1}c_\alpha (d_{\mu (\alpha )})^1\stackrel{~}{e}_{\mu (\alpha )}`$.

Assume that $`\mu (\alpha )\alpha `$; choose $`d_\alpha `$, $`d_{\mu (\alpha )}`$ such that $`c_\alpha =(\overline{d_\alpha }d_{\mu (\alpha )})^1`$. Then $`\sigma (\stackrel{~}{e}_\alpha )=\stackrel{~}{e}_{\mu (\alpha )}`$, but also $`\sigma (\stackrel{~}{e}_\alpha )=\stackrel{~}{e}_{\mu (\alpha )}`$ by (1.3) and $`\sigma (\stackrel{~}{e}_{\pm \mu (\alpha )})=\stackrel{~}{e}_\alpha `$ by (1.3) and (1.4).

Assume that $`\mu (\alpha )=\alpha `$. Then $`c_\alpha `$ by (1.3) and (1.4). Let $`J:=\{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }:c_\alpha <0\}`$. Clearly, we can choose $`d_\alpha `$ such that $`c_\alpha |d_\alpha |^2=1`$, resp. 1, if $`\alpha J`$, resp. if $`\alpha J`$.

The uniqueness of $`\mu `$ and $`J`$ is evident, and (b) follows. ∎

###### Remark 1.2.

The change of generators $`e_\alpha `$, $`e_\alpha `$ by $`\stackrel{~}{e}_\alpha =d_\alpha e_\alpha `$, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_\alpha =(d_\alpha )^1e_\alpha `$ amounts to composing with an automorphism of $`𝔤`$ which preserves $`𝔥`$.

### 1.3. Real Lie algebras and Vogan diagrams

We first briefly recall the main ingredients of the theory of real simple Lie algebras, in particular Vogan diagrams; see \[Kn, Chapter VI\]. Next we apply these methods to the study of the real Lie algebras corresponding to the involutions in the preceding subsection.

Let $`𝔤`$ be a complex simple Lie algebra and let $`\sigma `$ be a sesquilinear Lie algebra involution of $`𝔤`$. Let $`𝔤_0`$ be the real form $`𝔤_0=𝔤^\sigma `$ of $`𝔤`$. Let $`\theta _0`$ be a Cartan involution of $`𝔤_0`$ and let $`𝔥_0`$ be a Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔤_0`$ with $`\theta (𝔥_0)=𝔥_0`$. Let $`\theta :𝔤𝔤`$ be the complexification of $`\theta _0`$. Let $`𝔤_0=𝔨_0𝔭_0`$, respectively $`𝔤=𝔨𝔭`$, be the Cartan decomposition associated to $`\theta _0`$, respectively $`\theta `$. Denote $`𝔱_0:=𝔥_0𝔨_0`$, $`𝔞_0:=𝔥_0𝔭_0`$. Let $`\mathrm{dc}(𝔥_0)=dim(𝔱_0)`$, $`\mathrm{dnc}(𝔥_0)=dim(𝔞_0)=dim𝔥_0\mathrm{dc}(𝔥_0)`$. The Cartan subalgebra $`𝔥_0`$ is *maximally compact*, resp. *maximally non-compact* if $`\mathrm{dc}(𝔥_0)`$ is maximal, resp. minimal, among the $`\mathrm{dc}`$ of $`\theta _0`$-stable Cartan subalgebras of $`𝔤_0`$. The *rank* of the associated symmetric space coincides with $`\mathrm{dnc}(𝔥_0)`$ if $`𝔥_0`$ is a maximally non-compact Cartan subalgebra.

Recall that a root $`\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }`$ is called

* *imaginary* if $`\alpha `$ vanishes on $`𝔞_0`$,
* *real* if $`\alpha `$ vanishes on $`𝔱_0`$,
* *complex* otherwise.

Also, an imaginary root $`\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }`$ is called

* *compact* if $`𝔤_\alpha 𝔨`$, *i. e.* if $`\theta `$ is the $`id`$ on $`𝔤_\alpha `$,
* *non-compact* if $`𝔤_\alpha 𝔭`$, *i. e.* if $`\theta `$ is $`id`$ on $`𝔤_\alpha `$.

A *Vogan diagram* consists of the following data: a Dynkin diagram $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, an involution $`\mu \mathrm{Aut}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, and a subset $`P`$ of roots in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu `$. The roots in $`P`$ are “painted” in the graphical description of the Vogan diagram. The Vogan diagram of a simple real Lie algebra $`𝔤_0`$ is as follows: the Dynkin diagram corresponds to the complexification $`𝔤`$. Then one fixes a Cartan involution $`\theta _0`$ and takes a maximally compact $`\theta `$-stable Cartan subalgebra $`𝔥_0`$, together with a system of simple roots $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(𝔤,𝔥)`$ which is stable under the transpose of $`\theta `$; $`\mu `$ is the restriction of $`{}_{}{}^{t}\theta `$. Finally, $`P`$ is the set of non-compact simple roots.

A *normalized Vogan diagram* is a Vogan diagram with at most one painted vertex, *i. e.* at most one non-compact simple root.

The notion of normalized Vogan diagram helps to take care of redundancies in the classification of real simple Lie algebras. Indeed, the Theorem of Borel and de Siebenthal \[Kn, Th. 6.96\] allows to go from the Vogan diagram of a simple real Lie algebra $`𝔤_0`$ to another one with at most one painted simple root, just by changing appropriately the choice of the system of simple roots.

Let now $`𝔥`$ be a fixed Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔤`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(𝔤,𝔥)`$ be a fixed system of simple roots. Assume that $`\sigma `$ is a sesquilinear Lie algebra involution of the form $`\varsigma _\mu `$ or $`\omega _{\mu ,J}`$, for $`\mu :\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ an automorphism of the Dynkin diagram of order 1 or 2, and $`J`$ any subset of the set $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu `$. Let $`𝔤_0`$ be the real form $`𝔤_0=𝔤^\sigma `$ of $`𝔤`$. Let $`𝔥_0:=𝔥𝔤_0`$, a Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔤_0`$. Our goal is to determine $`𝔤_0`$, and the isomorphism classes of pairs $`(𝔤_0,𝔥_0)`$.

Since $`\sigma `$ commutes with $`\omega `$, $`\omega `$ preserves $`𝔤_0`$. Let $`\theta _0:𝔤_0𝔤_0`$ be the linear Lie algebra involution given by the restriction of $`\omega `$. Then $`\theta _0`$ is a Cartan involution of $`𝔤_0`$ and $`\theta _0(𝔥_0)=𝔥_0`$; its complexification is clearly $`\theta =\sigma \omega `$. If $`\sigma =\omega _{\mu ,J}`$ the transpose of $`\theta `$ preserves $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and in fact coincides with $`\mu `$; if $`\sigma =\varsigma _\mu `$ the transpose of $`\theta `$ coincides with $`\mu `$.

###### Lemma 1.3.

Assume that $`P=\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu J`$ has at most one element. Then the pair $`(𝔤_0,𝔥_0)`$ determined by $`\sigma `$ is as in Table 2.

###### Proof.

Let us analyze the different possibilities for $`\sigma `$.

(i). $`\sigma =\varsigma `$. Then $`𝔥_0`$ is the real span of $`h_\alpha `$, $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }`$; it is a split Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔤_0`$ and this last is the split real form of $`𝔤`$. Also, $`\mathrm{dc}(𝔥_0)=0`$, $`\mathrm{dnc}(𝔥_0)=\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

(ii). $`\sigma =\varsigma _\mu `$, $`\mu id`$. Then $`𝔥_0=𝔱_0𝔞_0`$, where $`𝔱_0`$ is the real span of $`\{i(h_\alpha h_{\mu (\alpha )}):\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu \}`$; and $`𝔞_0`$ is the real span of $`\{h_\alpha :\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^\mu \}`$ $`\{h_\alpha +h_{\mu (\alpha )}:\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu \}`$. In this case, $`\sigma `$ is a *Steinberg normal form, i. e.*, it leaves a Borel subalgebra invariant. The list of all such is well-known, see for example \[W1, W2\]. For the sake of completeness we briefly complete the argument.

It is easy to see that there are no imaginary roots; therefore, $`𝔥_0`$ is maximally non-compact by \[Kn, Prop. 6.70\]. Also, $`\mathrm{dc}(𝔥_0)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\#}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu )}{2}}`$, $`\mathrm{dnc}(𝔥_0)=\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\#}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu )}{2}}=\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\#}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu )}{2}}=`$ rank of the associated symmetric space. We can not apply the results in \[Kn, Chapter VI\]. However, the necessary information can be obtained looking at the classification of symmetric spaces in \[H, Table V, p. 518\].

If $`𝔤`$ is of type $`A_{2n}`$, then the rank of the associated symmetric space is $`n`$. We conclude that $`𝔤_0=𝔰𝔲(n,n+1)`$. If $`𝔤`$ is of type $`A_{2n+1}`$, then the rank of the associated symmetric space is $`n+1`$. We conclude that $`𝔤_0=𝔰𝔲(n+1,n+1)`$. If $`𝔤`$ is of type $`D_n`$, $`n4`$, then the rank of the associated symmetric space is $`n1`$. We conclude that $`𝔤_0=𝔰𝔬(n1,n+1)`$. If $`𝔤`$ is of type $`E_6`$, then the rank of the associated symmetric space is $`4`$. We see that $`𝔤_0`$ is of type EII.

(iii). $`\sigma =\omega _J`$. Then $`𝔥_0`$ is the real span of $`ih_\alpha `$, $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }`$; it is clearly maximally compact and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is $`\theta `$-stable. It is easy to see that $`P=\mathrm{\Delta }J`$, *i. e.* that the compact roots are precisely those in $`J`$. Also, $`\mathrm{dnc}(𝔥_0)=0`$, $`\mathrm{dc}(𝔥_0)=\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We can then apply the results in \[Kn, Chapter VI, pages 355 to 362\].

(iv). $`\sigma =\omega _{\mu ,J}`$, $`\mu id`$. Then $`𝔥_0`$ is the real span of $`\{ih_\alpha :\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^\mu \}`$ $`\{i(h_\alpha +h_{\mu (\alpha )}):\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu \}`$ $`\{h_\alpha h_{\mu (\alpha )}:\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu \}`$. Clearly, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is $`\theta `$-stable. It is easy to see that there are no real roots; therefore, $`𝔥_0`$ is maximally compact by \[Kn, Prop. 6.70\]. It is easy to see that $`P=\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu J`$, *i. e.* that the compact roots are precisely those in $`J`$. Also, $`\mathrm{dnc}(𝔥_0)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\#}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu )}{2}}`$, $`\mathrm{dc}(𝔥_0)=\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\#}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu )}{2}}`$. We can then apply the results in \[Kn, Chapter VI, pages 355 to 362\]. ∎

### 1.4. Lie bialgebras

Recall that a quasitriangular Lie bialgebra $`(𝔤,r)`$ is called *factorizable* if $`r+r^{21}S^2𝔤`$ defines a nondegenerate inner product on $`𝔤^{}`$ \[RS\].

###### Definition 1.4.

We shall say that a real Lie bialgebra $`(𝔩_0,\delta )`$ is *almost factorizable* if the complexification $`(𝔩,\delta )`$ is factorizable.

We shall consider the following particular class of almost factorizable Lie bialgebras. A Lie bialgebra $`(𝔩_0,\delta )`$ is *imaginary factorizable* if the complexification $`(𝔩,\delta )`$ is factorizable and $`r𝔩𝔩`$ is given by

(1.5)
$$r=r_\mathrm{\Lambda }+ir_\mathrm{\Omega },\text{where }r_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(𝔩_0),r_\mathrm{\Omega }S^2(𝔩_0).$$

Real factorizable Lie bialgebras are of course almost factorizable, but we shall see that the converse is not true. In fact, real simple Lie bialgebras are triangular, factorizable or imaginary factorizable.

Doubles and duals of imaginary factorizable Lie bialgebras are computed in Proposition 3.1 below.

###### Lemma 1.5.

Let $`(𝔤_0,\delta )`$ be an absolutely simple real Lie bialgebra. Then $`\delta =r_0`$ for a unique $`r_0\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(𝔤_0)`$ and $`(𝔤_0,\delta )`$ is either triangular or almost factorizable.

###### Proof.

Let $`𝔤`$ be the complexification of $`𝔤_0`$. By Whitehead’s Lemma, there exists $`r_0\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(𝔤_0)`$ such that $`\delta (x)=\text{ad }_xr_0`$ for all $`x𝔤_0`$, and *a fortiori* for all $`x𝔤`$. (Note that $`r_0`$ is uniquely defined by $`\delta `$ since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(𝔤_0)^{𝔤_0}=0`$). Then $`[r_0^{12},r_0^{13}]+[r_0^{12},r_0^{23}]+[r_0^{13},r_0^{23}]\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(𝔤_0)^{𝔤_0}`$, and there exists $`c`$ such that $`[r_0^{12},r_0^{13}]+[r_0^{12},r_0^{23}]+[r_0^{13},r_0^{23}]=c^2[\mathrm{\Omega }^{13},\mathrm{\Omega }^{23}]`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝔤_0𝔤_0`$, $`c^2`$. If $`c=0`$, $`(𝔤_0,\delta )`$ is triangular. Assume $`c0`$, let $`t=2ic`$ and let

(1.6)
$$r=r_0+ic\mathrm{\Omega }=r_0+\frac{t}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }.$$

Then $`(𝔤,\delta )`$ is quasitriangular, with $`\delta =r`$; and it is furthermore factorizable since $`r+r^{21}=2ic\mathrm{\Omega }`$. ∎

Let $`t`$ be as in the proof of the Lemma; it is defined up to a sign, since $`c^2`$ is unique.

If $`t0`$, then $`(𝔤_0,\delta )`$ is quasitriangular with $`r`$ given by (1.6).

If $`ti0`$, then $`(𝔤_0,\delta )`$ is *not* quasitriangular, but *imaginary factorizable*.

The distinction between these cases is already present in \[CGR, Ch, P1, S\], from a different point of view. There are quantizations of these Lie bialgebras: these are $``$-Hopf algebras in the imaginary factorizable case, and real Hopf algebras in the factorizable case.

### 1.5. The theorem of Belavin and Drinfeld

Let $`𝔤`$ be a complex simple Lie algebra and let $`𝔥𝔤`$ be a Cartan subalgebra. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a choice of a set of simple roots.

###### Definition 1.6.

A Belavin-Drinfeld triple (BD-triple for short) is a triple $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2,T)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ are subsets of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`T:\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ is a bijection that preserves the inner product and satisfies the nilpotency condition: for any $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ there exists a positive integer $`n`$ for which $`T^n(\alpha )`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ but not to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$.

Let $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2,T)`$ be a Belavin–Drinfeld triple. Let $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i}`$ be the set of positive roots lying in the subgroup generated by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$, for $`i=1,2`$. There is an associated partial ordering on $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ given by $`\alpha \beta `$ if $`\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}`$, $`\beta \widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}`$, and $`\beta =T^n(\alpha )`$ for a positive integer $`n`$.

A *continuous parameter* for the Belavin–Drinfeld triple $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2,T)`$ is an element $`\lambda 𝔥^2`$ such that

(1.7) $`(T(\alpha )1)\lambda +(1\alpha )\lambda `$ $`=0,\text{for all }\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_1,`$
(1.8) $`\lambda +\lambda ^{21}`$ $`=\mathrm{\Omega }_0.`$
Let $`𝔞_1`$, $`𝔞_2`$ be the reductive subalgebras of $`𝔤`$ with Cartan subalgebras generated by $`h_\alpha `$, $`\alpha `$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, resp. in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, and with Dynkin diagrams $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, resp. in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. We extend $`T`$ to a Lie algebra isomorphism $`\widehat{T}:𝔞_1𝔞_2`$.

###### Theorem 2.

(Belavin–Drinfeld, see \[BD\]). Let $`(𝔤,\delta )`$ be a factorizable complex simple Lie bialgebra. Then there exist a Cartan subalgebra $`𝔥`$, a system of simple roots $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, a Belavin–Drinfeld triple $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2,T)`$, a continuous parameter $`\lambda `$ and $`t0`$ such that the $`r`$-matrix is given by

(1.9)
$$r=t\left(\lambda +\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^+}{}x_\alpha x_\alpha +\underset{\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Phi }^+,\alpha \beta }{}x_\alpha x_\beta \right),$$

where $`x_\beta 𝔤_\beta `$, $`\beta \pm \mathrm{\Phi }^+`$, are root vectors normalized by

(1.10) $`(x_\beta |x_\beta )=1,\text{for all }\beta \mathrm{\Phi }^+,`$
(1.11) $`\widehat{T}(x_\beta )=x_{T(\beta )},\text{for all }\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }_1.`$
Clearly, $`r+r^{21}=t\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

## 2. Proof of the main theorem

The proof of the main result is split into two lemmas.

###### Lemma 2.1.

(I). Let $`(𝔤_0,\delta )`$ be an absolutely simple real Lie bialgebra. Let $`𝔤`$ be the complexification of $`𝔤_0`$ and let $`\sigma `$ be the sesquilinear involution of $`𝔤`$ whose fixed-point set is $`𝔤_0`$. Assume that $`(𝔤_0,\delta )`$ is almost factorizable. Then there exist:

* a complex number $`c0`$ with $`c^2`$; set $`t=2ic`$ and fix the choice $`t_{>0}i_{>0}`$;
* a Cartan subalgebra $`𝔥`$ of $`𝔤`$;
* a system of simple roots $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(𝔤,𝔥)`$;
* a Belavin-Drinfeld triple $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2,T)`$ and a continuous parameter $`\lambda 𝔥^2`$;

such that

* $`𝔥`$ is stable under $`\sigma `$ (we denote $`𝔥_0:=𝔥𝔤_0`$).
* $`\sigma ^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is either $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$; furthermore $`\mu :=\sigma ^{}:\mathrm{\Delta }\pm \mathrm{\Delta }`$ is an automorphism of the Dynkin diagram. If $`\sigma ^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ then there exists an automorphism $`\mu `$ of the Dynkin diagram such that, for an appropriate choice of the $`e_\alpha `$’s, $`\sigma `$ is $`\varsigma _\mu `$.

If $`\sigma ^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ then there exists an automorphism $`\mu `$ of the Dynkin diagram and $`J\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu `$ such that, for an appropriate choice of the $`e_\alpha `$’s, $`\sigma `$ is $`\omega _{\mu ,J}`$.
* $`\delta =r_0`$ where $`r_0\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(𝔤_0)`$ is given by the formula

(2.1)
$$r_0=t\left(\frac{1}{2}(\lambda \lambda ^{21})+\frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^+}{}x_\alpha x_\alpha +\underset{\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Phi }^+,\alpha \beta }{}x_\alpha x_\beta \right).$$

(II). Let $`(𝔤_0,\delta )`$, $`(𝔤_0^{},\delta ^{})`$ be two almost factorizable absolutely simple real Lie bialgebras. Let $`\psi :𝔤_0^{}𝔤_0`$ be an isomorphism of Lie bialgebras. Let $`\sigma `$, $`\sigma ^{}`$ be the involutions corresponding to $`𝔤_0`$, $`𝔤_0^{}`$. Let $`𝔥^{}`$, $`𝔥_0^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }(𝔤,𝔥^{})`$; $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{},T^{})`$, $`\lambda ^{}𝔥_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, $`c^{}`$, etc., be the corresponding objects for the Lie bialgebra $`𝔤_0^{}`$. Then

* $`\psi (𝔥^{})=𝔥`$.
* If $`\sigma ^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })=\mathrm{\Delta }`$, resp. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, then $`\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$, resp. $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$.
* $`\psi `$ induces an isomorphism of Dynkin diagrams $`\psi ^{}:\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$;
* $`\mu ^{}\psi ^{}=\psi ^{}\mu `$, $`J^{}=\psi ^{}(J)`$;
* $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{},T^{})=(\psi ^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1),\psi ^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2),\psi ^{}T\psi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})`$.

In other words, the Lemma says that, for an appropriate choice of the $`e_\alpha `$’s, $`\sigma `$ is either $`\varsigma `$ or $`\varsigma _\mu `$ with $`\mu id`$, or $`\omega _J`$, or $`\omega `$, or $`\omega _{\mu ,J}`$ with $`\mu id`$; and that this does not depend on the isomorphism class as Lie bialgebra.

The uniqueness in Part II uses in an essential way that the parameter $`t`$ is in $`_{>0}i_{>0}`$. Changing $`t`$ to $`t`$ would affect (2.1) by changing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, etc.

###### Proof.

(I). By the Theorem of Belavin and Drinfeld, there exist a Cartan subalgebra $`𝔥`$ of $`𝔤`$, a system of simple roots $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, a Belavin-Drinfeld triple $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2,T)`$, a continuous parameter $`\lambda 𝔥^2`$ and a non-zero complex number $`c`$ (with $`c^2`$ by Lemma 1.5) such that the complexification $`(𝔤,\delta )`$ is quasitriangular with $`r`$-matrix $`r`$ given by (1.9) and $`t=2ic`$. Then $`\delta =r_0`$, where $`r_0`$ is given by (2.1); and $`r_0\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(𝔤_0)`$ by the uniqueness in Lemma 1.5.

Let $`H`$ be the image of $`r_0`$ under the Lie bracket $`[,]:𝔤_0𝔤_0𝔤_0`$; then $`H=2ic_{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^+}h_\alpha `$. Indeed, if $`\alpha \beta `$ then $`[x_\alpha ,x_\beta ]=0`$ because $`\alpha \beta `$ but both have the same level with respect to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Note that here the nilpotency condition on the BD-triple is used. Since $`H`$ is a regular element of $`𝔥`$ by \[Hu, 13.3\], $`𝔥=Cent_𝔤(H)`$ is a Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔤`$; since $`𝔥`$ is the complexification of $`Cent_{𝔤_0}(H)`$, we see that $`𝔥`$ is stable under $`\sigma `$. By Lemma 1.1, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝔤,𝔥)`$ is stable under $`\sigma ^{}`$, and $`\sigma (𝔤_\alpha )=𝔤_{\sigma ^{}(\alpha )}`$, for all $`\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }(𝔤,𝔥)`$.

Let

$$W=\underset{\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Phi }:\alpha +\beta =0}{}𝔤_\alpha 𝔤_\beta ,U=\underset{\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Phi }:\alpha +\beta 0}{}𝔤_\alpha 𝔤_\beta .$$

It is clear that

$$(\sigma \sigma )\left(\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^+}{}x_\alpha x_\alpha \right)W,(\sigma \sigma )\left(\underset{\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Phi }^+,\alpha \beta }{}x_\alpha x_\beta \right)U.$$

Assume that $`ci`$, *i. e.* that $`(𝔤_0,\delta )`$ is quasitriangular. It follows that $`(\sigma \sigma )(_{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^+}x_\alpha x_\alpha )=_{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^+}x_\alpha x_\alpha `$. Since the elements $`x_\alpha x_\alpha `$ are linearly independent in $`W`$, we conclude that $`\sigma ^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })=\mathrm{\Delta }`$; $`\mu `$ is an automorphism of the Dynkin diagram by Lemma 1.1.

Similarly, if $`c`$, *i. e.* if $`(𝔤_0,\delta )`$ is imaginary factorizable, we conclude that $`\sigma ^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mu `$ is an automorphism of the Dynkin diagram again by Lemma 1.1.

(II). We assume that $`𝔤`$ is the complexification of both $`𝔤_0`$, $`𝔤_0^{}`$ (equality, not just isomorphism); $`\psi _0`$ extends to a Lie algebra automorphism $`\psi `$ of $`𝔤`$, and $`\sigma \psi =\psi \sigma ^{}`$.

Let $`r_0\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(𝔤_0)`$, $`r_0^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(𝔤_0^{})`$ be such that $`\delta =r_0`$, $`\delta ^{}=r_0^{}`$. Thus

$$r_0^{}=t^{}\left(\frac{1}{2}(\lambda ^{}\lambda _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{21})+\frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }(𝔤,𝔥^{})^+}{}x_\alpha ^{}x_\alpha ^{}+\underset{\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Phi }(𝔤,𝔥^{})^+,\alpha ^{}\beta }{}x_\alpha ^{}x_\beta ^{}\right).$$

Since $`r_0`$ is unique, $`(\psi _0\psi _0)(r_0^{})=r_0`$ and *a fortiori* $`\psi (𝔥_0^{})=𝔥_0`$, $`\psi (𝔥^{})=𝔥`$. Thus

$$r_0=t^{}\left(\frac{1}{2}(\psi \psi )(\lambda ^{}\lambda _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{21})+\frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }(𝔤,𝔥^{})^+}{}\psi (x_\alpha ^{}^{})\psi (x_\alpha ^{}^{})+\underset{\alpha ^{},\beta ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }(𝔤,𝔥^{})^+,\alpha ^{}^{}\beta ^{}}{}\psi (x_\alpha ^{}^{})\psi (x_\beta ^{}^{})\right).$$

But also $`\psi `$ induces a bijection $`\psi ^{}:\mathrm{\Phi }(𝔤,𝔥)\mathrm{\Phi }(𝔤,𝔥^{})`$, and $`\psi (𝔤_{\psi ^{}\alpha })=𝔤_\alpha `$. Arguing as above, we conclude that

(2.2) $`t^{}(\psi \psi )(\lambda ^{}\lambda _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{21})`$ $`=t(\lambda \lambda ^{21}),`$
(2.3) $`t^{}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }(𝔤,𝔥^{})^+}{}}\psi (x_\alpha ^{}^{})\psi (x_\alpha ^{}^{})`$ $`=t{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^+}{}}x_\alpha x_\alpha ,`$
(2.4) $`t^{}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ^{},\beta ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }(𝔤,𝔥^{})^+,\alpha ^{}^{}\beta ^{}}{}}\psi (x_\alpha ^{}^{})\psi (x_\beta ^{}^{})`$ $`=t{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Phi }^+,\alpha \beta }{}}x_\alpha x_\beta .`$
Now, $`(𝔤_0,\delta )`$, $`(𝔤_0^{},\delta ^{})`$ are either both quasitriangular, or both imaginary factorizable; that is, are either both $`t`$, $`t^{}`$ are in $`_{>0}`$, or both in $`i_{>0}`$. By (2.3), $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝔤,𝔥^{})^+=\psi ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }(𝔤,𝔥)^+)`$ and hence $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=\psi ^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$.

Hence, (2.4) implies that $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{},T^{})=(\psi ^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1),\psi ^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2),\psi ^{}T\psi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})`$.

From the equality $`\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\psi ^{}=\psi ^{}\sigma ^{}`$ we conclude that $`\mu ^{}\psi ^{}=\psi ^{}\mu `$.

Finally, recall from the proof of the Lemma 1.1 that $`J=\{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^\mu :\sigma (e_\alpha )=c_\alpha e_{\sigma ^{}\alpha }`$ with $`c_\alpha <0\}`$. It follows without difficulties that $`J^{}=\psi ^{}(J)`$. ∎

###### Remark 2.2.

The description of $`r_0`$ in (2.1) depends on the choice of a family $`x_\alpha 𝔤_\alpha `$, $`\alpha \pm \mathrm{\Phi }^+`$, satisfying (1.10), (1.11). Such a family can be constructed starting from any choice of $`x_\alpha 𝔤_\alpha `$ for $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$; different choices do not affect (2.1).

On the other hand, the choice of elements $`e_\alpha `$ in Lemma 1.1 is independent of the $`x_\beta `$’s; the arguments in the preceding and next lemmas do not depend on the explicit form of the $`x_\alpha `$ but on which root space they are living in.

###### Definition 2.3.

Let $`\mu `$ be an automorphism of the Dynkin diagram. A BD-triple $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2,T)`$ is *$`\mu `$-stable* if $`\mu (\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, $`\mu (\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, and $`T\mu =\mu T`$. A BD-triple $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2,T)`$ is *$`\mu `$-antistable* if $`\mu (\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, $`\mu (\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, and $`T^1\mu =\mu T`$. In particular, if $`\mu =id`$ then all BD-triples are $`\mu `$-stable, and the only BD-triple $`\mu `$-antistable has $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=\mathrm{}`$.

###### Lemma 2.4.

Let $`𝔤`$ be a simple complex Lie algebra, $`𝔥`$ a Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔤`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(𝔤,𝔥)`$ a system of simple roots, $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2,T)`$ a BD-triple, $`\lambda 𝔥^2`$ a continuous parameter and $`t`$ a complex number. Write

$$\lambda \lambda ^{21}=\underset{\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Delta }}{}\lambda _{\alpha ,\beta }h_\alpha h_\beta .$$

By convention, $`\lambda _{\alpha ,\beta }=\lambda _{\beta ,\alpha }`$ for all $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Delta }`$. Let $`r_0`$ be given by formula (2.1). Let $`\sigma `$ be an involution of the form $`\varsigma ,\omega ,\omega _J`$, or $`\varsigma _\mu `$, $`\omega _{\mu ,J}`$ with $`\mu id`$. Let $`𝔤_0`$ be the real Lie algebra of vectors fixed by $`\sigma `$. Then:

(a). Assume that $`\sigma =\varsigma `$. Then $`r_0\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(𝔤_0)`$ if and only if $`t`$, $`\lambda _{\alpha ,\beta }`$ for all $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ (no restrictions on the BD-triple).

(b). Assume that $`\sigma =\varsigma _\mu `$. Then $`r_0\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(𝔤_0)`$ if and only if $`t`$, $`\lambda _{\alpha ,\beta }=\overline{\lambda _{\mu (\alpha ),\mu (\beta })}`$ for all $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the BD-triple is $`\mu `$-stable.

(c). Assume that $`\sigma =\omega _J`$, or $`\sigma =\omega `$. Then $`r_0\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(𝔤_0)`$ if and only if $`ti`$, $`\lambda _{\alpha ,\beta }i`$, for all $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the BD-triple has $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=\mathrm{}`$.

(d). Assume that $`\sigma =\omega _{\mu ,J}`$. Then $`r_0\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(𝔤_0)`$ if and only if $`ti`$, $`\lambda _{\alpha ,\beta }=\overline{\lambda _{\mu (\alpha ),\mu (\beta })}`$, for all $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the BD-triple is $`\mu `$-antistable.

###### Proof.

Since $`\sigma \sigma `$ is the sesquilinear involution of $`𝔤𝔤`$ corresponding to $`𝔤_0𝔤_0`$, it is clear that $`r_0\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(𝔤_0)`$ if and only if $`(\sigma \sigma )(r_0)=r_0`$. The lemma follows by a direct computation that we include below for completeness. Note that

$$(\sigma \sigma )(r_0)=\overline{t}\left(\frac{1}{2}(\sigma \sigma )(\lambda \lambda ^{21})+\frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^+}{}(\sigma \sigma )(x_\alpha x_\alpha )+\underset{\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Phi }^+,\alpha \beta }{}(\sigma \sigma )(x_\alpha x_\beta )\right)=r_0$$

if and only if

(2.5) $`\overline{t}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Delta }}{}}\overline{\lambda _{\alpha ,\beta }}\sigma (h_\alpha )\sigma (h_\beta )`$ $`=t{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Delta }}{}}\lambda _{\alpha ,\beta }h_\alpha h_\beta ,`$
(2.6) $`\overline{t}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^+}{}}\sigma (x_\alpha )\sigma (x_\alpha )`$ $`=t{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^+}{}}x_\alpha x_\alpha ,`$
(2.7) $`\overline{t}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Phi }^+,\alpha \beta }{}}\sigma (x_\alpha )\sigma (x_\beta )`$ $`=t{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Phi }^+,\alpha \beta }{}}x_\alpha x_\beta ,`$
as in the proof of Lemma 2.1. In cases (a) and (b), (2.6) holds if and only if $`t`$. Then (2.5) holds if and only if $`\lambda _{\alpha ,\beta }`$ –in case (a)– or $`\lambda _{\alpha ,\beta }=\overline{\lambda _{\mu (\alpha ),\mu (\beta })}`$ –in case (b)– for all $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Delta }`$. Finally, in case (b), (2.7) holds if and only if $`_{\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Phi }^+,\alpha \beta }x_{\mu (\alpha )}x_{\mu (\beta )}=_{\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Phi }^+,\alpha \beta }x_\alpha x_\beta `$.

It is then easy to see that equality (2.7) holds if and only if the BD-triple is $`\mu `$-stable. Indeed, let $`𝒫=\{(\alpha ,\beta )\mathrm{\Phi }^+\times \mathrm{\Phi }^+:\alpha \beta \}`$. The equality implies that $`\mu \times \mu (𝒫)=𝒫`$ and that $`\mu (\alpha )\mu (\beta )`$ if $`\alpha \beta `$. Since $`\alpha T\alpha `$ for any $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, we conclude that $`\mu (\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, and similarly, $`\mu (\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. For any $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, we set

$$X(\alpha )=\{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_1:\alpha \gamma \text{ or }\gamma \alpha \text{ or }\gamma =\alpha \}=\{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_1:\gamma =T^m\alpha ,m\}.$$

Clearly, $`\mu (X(\alpha ))=X(\mu (\alpha ))`$. If $`\text{card }X(\alpha )=1`$, it is easy to see that $`T\mu (\alpha )=\mu T(\alpha )`$. Assume that $`\text{card }X(\alpha )>1`$. Now, there exists $`\alpha _0`$ such that $`X(\alpha )=\{\alpha _0,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _s\}`$, where $`\alpha _i\alpha _{i+1}=T\alpha _i`$, $`0i<s`$. Thus, $`\mu (X(\alpha ))=\{\mu (\alpha _0),\mu (\alpha _1),\mathrm{},\mu (\alpha _s)\}`$ and $`T\mu (\alpha _i)=\mu (\alpha _{i+1})=\mu (T\alpha _i)`$ for all $`i`$. This shows that $`T\mu =\mu T`$.

In cases (c) and (d), (2.6) holds if and only if $`ti`$. Then (2.5) holds if and only if $`\lambda _{\alpha ,\beta }i`$ –in case (c)– and $`\lambda _{\alpha ,\beta }=\overline{\lambda _{\mu (\alpha ),\mu (\beta })}`$ –in case (d)– for all $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Delta }`$. Finally, in case (d), (2.7) holds if and only if $`_{\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Phi }^+,\alpha \beta }x_{\mu (\alpha )}x_{\mu (\beta )}=_{\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Phi }^+,\alpha \beta }x_\alpha x_\beta `$.

It is easy then to see that equality (2.7) holds if and only if the BD-triple is $`\mu `$-antistable. Indeed, let $`𝒫^t=\{(\beta ,\alpha )\mathrm{\Phi }^+\times \mathrm{\Phi }^+:\alpha \beta \}`$. The equality implies that $`\mu \times \mu (𝒫)=𝒫^t`$ and that $`\mu (\beta )\mu (\alpha )`$ if $`\alpha \beta `$. Since $`\alpha T\alpha `$ for any $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, we conclude that $`\mu (\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, and similarly, $`\mu (\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$. Keep the notation for $`X(\alpha )`$ as above. For any $`\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, we set

$$Y(\beta )=\{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_2:\beta \delta \text{ or }\delta \beta \text{ or }\delta =\beta \}=\{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_2:\delta =T^m\beta ,m\}.$$

Clearly, $`\mu (X(\alpha ))=Y(\mu (\alpha ))`$. If $`\text{card }X(\alpha )=1`$, it is easy to see that $`T^1\mu (\alpha )=\mu T(\alpha )`$. Assume that $`\text{card }X(\alpha )>1`$. Now, there exists $`\beta _0`$ such that $`Y(\mu (\alpha ))=\{\beta _0,\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _s\}`$, where $`\beta _i\beta _{i+1}=T\beta _i`$, $`0i<s`$. Thus, $`\mu (\alpha _i)=\beta _{si}`$ and $`\mu (T\alpha _i)=\mu (\alpha _{i+1})=\beta _{si1}=T^1\beta _{si}=T^1\mu (\alpha _i)`$ for all $`i`$. This shows that $`T^1\mu =\mu T`$. ∎

We have collected now all the necessary information to prove the main result.

*Proof of Theorem 1.*  By Lemmas 2.1 part (I) and 2.4, we know the existence of $`𝔥`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\sigma `$ of the type $`\varsigma _\mu `$ or $`\omega _{\mu ,J}`$, $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2,T)`$, $`t_{>0}i_{>0}`$, and $`\lambda 𝔥^2`$; such that $`(𝔤_0,\delta )`$ is isomorphic as real Lie bialgebra to $`(𝔤^\sigma ,r_0)`$, where $`r_0`$ is given by (2.1).

It remains to determine when different data in Table 1 give rise to isomorphic Lie bialgebras. By Lemma 2.1 part (II) and Lemma 1.3, isomorphic Lie bialgebras can arise only from data in the same row; then the statement follows from Lemma 2.1 part (II). ∎

###### Remark 2.5.

Let $`𝔥_0=Cent_{𝔤_0}(H)`$, where $`H`$ is the image of $`r_0`$ under the Lie bracket as in the proof of Lemma 2.1. If $`\sigma =\omega _{\mu ,J}`$, or if $`\sigma =\omega _J`$, then $`𝔥_0`$ is a maximally compact Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔤_0`$ and Lemma 2.1 provides a Vogan diagram; however, this Vogan diagram is not normalized. Even if the Theorem of Borel and de Siebenthal \[Kn, Th. 6.96\], says that there exists another system of simple roots which contains at most one non-compact root, the corresponding $`r`$-matrices could give rise to non-isomorphic Lie bialgebras, *cf.* Lemma 2.1 part (II) again. Such a possibility arises when $`\sigma =\omega _J`$, or when $`\sigma =\omega _{\mu ,J}`$ and $`𝔤_0`$ is isomorphic to $`𝔰𝔬(2j+1,2(nj)1)`$, $`EI`$ or $`EIV`$.

## 3. Manin triples

In this section, we compute the Manin triples corresponding to the real absolutely simple Lie bialgebras. We keep the notation of the main result: $`(𝔤_0,\delta )`$ is an absolutely simple, almost factorizable, real Lie bialgebra; $`𝔤`$ is the complexification of $`𝔤_0`$; $`\sigma `$ is the corresponding involution, either of the form $`\varsigma _\mu `$ or $`\omega _{\mu ,J}`$.

We distinguish two cases:

1. The bialgebra is factorizable, *i. e.* the involution $`\sigma `$ is of the form $`\varsigma _\mu `$.
2. The bialgebra is imaginary factorizable, *i. e.* the involution $`\sigma `$ is of the form $`\omega _{\mu ,J}`$.

The difference between “factorizable”, case (a), and “imaginary factorizable”, case (b), can be read off also from the double Lie algebra: in the first case it is $`𝔤_0𝔤_0`$, in the second it is the realification $`𝔤^{}`$ of $`𝔤`$.

### 3.1. Case (a)

In this case, the determination of the Drinfeld double and the dual Lie bialgebra follows from a general result from \[RS\]. Namely, let $`(𝔩,r)`$ be a factorizable (real or complex) Lie bialgebra and let $`(|)`$ be the nondegenerate inner product on $`𝔩`$ induced by $`r+r^{21}S^2𝔩`$ \[RS\]. Let $`r_\pm :𝔩^{}𝔩`$ be the maps induced by $`r`$, given by $`r_+(\mu )=(\mu id)r`$, $`r_{}(\mu )=(id\mu )r`$. The factorization map $`I:𝔩^{}𝔩`$ is $`I=r_+r_{}`$. By hypothesis, $`I`$ is an isomorphism and $`(I(\mu )|I(\tau ))=\tau ,I(\mu )=\mu ,I(\tau )`$.

Let $`𝔩^r`$ be the image of the map $`𝔩^{}𝔩𝔩`$, $`\mu (r_+(\mu ),r_{}(\mu ))`$; it is well-known that $`r_\pm `$ are Lie algebra maps, and that $`𝔩^r`$ is a Lie subalgebra of $`𝔩𝔩`$. Let $`\mathrm{diag}𝔩`$ be the diagonal Lie subalgebra of $`𝔩𝔩`$.

###### Theorem 3.

\[RS\] The Manin triple corresponding to the factorizable Lie bialgebra $`(𝔩,r)`$ is $`(𝔩𝔩,\mathrm{diag}𝔩,𝔩^r)`$ where $`𝔩𝔩`$ is endowed with the bilinear form $`(x,u)|(y,v)=(x|y)(u|v)`$, $`x,y,u,v𝔩`$. ∎

A finer description of $`𝔩^r`$, in terms of the Cayley transform, can be found in \[Y, Section 2.1\]; see also \[Y, Section 3.1\] for the case of complex simple factorizable Lie bialgebras.

### 3.2. Case (b)

We deduce from Theorem 3 the determination of the Manin triples corresponding to imaginary factorizable real Lie bialgebras.

Let $`(𝔩_0,\delta )`$ be a real Lie bialgebra such that its complexification $`(𝔩,\delta )`$ is factorizable with $`r𝔩𝔩`$; let $`\sigma :𝔩𝔩`$ be the involution corresponding to $`𝔩_0`$. *We shall assume that $`𝔩_0`$ is almost factorizable, see definition 1.4.* Let $`(|)`$ be the nondegenerate inner product on $`𝔩`$ induced by $`r+r^{21}=2ir_\mathrm{\Omega }S^2𝔩`$, and let $`r_\pm :𝔩^{}𝔩`$ be the maps induced by $`r`$, as above. We identify $`𝔩_0^{}`$ with a real subspace of $`𝔩^{}`$; namely with $`\{\alpha 𝔩^{}:\alpha (𝔩_0)\}`$. Then $`𝔩^{}=𝔩_0^{}i𝔩_0^{}`$. Let $`\mu 𝔩^{}`$ and write $`\mu =\alpha +i\beta `$, with $`\alpha ,\beta 𝔩_0^{}`$. Then $`I(\mu )=(\beta id)(2r_\mathrm{\Omega })+i(\alpha id)(2r_\mathrm{\Omega })`$; in particular $`𝔩_0=I(i𝔩_0^{})`$. Hence, if $`a=I(i\alpha ),b𝔩_0`$ then $`(a|b)=i\alpha ,bi`$; in other words, $`(|)(𝔩_0\times 𝔩_0)=i`$.

Consider the realification $`𝔩^{}`$ of $`𝔩`$. To avoid confusions, we denote by $`xx^{}`$ the multiplication by $`i`$ considered as a real linear endomorphism of $`𝔩^{}`$. Then $`𝔩^{}=𝔩_0𝔩_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$. The following properties are evident:

$$x^{\prime \prime }=x,[x,y^{}]=[x^{},y]=[x,y]^{},[x^{},y^{}]=[x,y],\sigma (x^{})=\sigma (x)^{},x,y𝔩^{}.$$

The real bilinear form $`\mathrm{Re}(|):𝔩^{}\times 𝔩^{}`$ is invariant and non-degenerate; one has

(3.1)
$$2\mathrm{Re}(u|v)=(u|v)(\sigma (u)|\sigma (v)).$$

Let $`𝔩_0^r:=r_+(𝔩_0^{})`$.

###### Proposition 3.1.

The Manin triple corresponding to the Lie bialgebra $`(𝔩_0,\delta )`$ is $`(𝔩^{},𝔩_0,𝔩_0^r)`$ where $`𝔩^{}`$ is endowed with the bilinear form equal to $`2\mathrm{Re}(|)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }:𝔩𝔩(𝔩^{})^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }:(𝔩^{})^{}𝔩𝔩`$ be given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)=\frac{1}{2}(x+\sigma (y))+\frac{i}{2}(x^{}+\sigma (y)^{}),\mathrm{\Phi }(u+iv)=(u+iv,\sigma ((uiv)),$$

$`x,y𝔩`$, $`u,v𝔩^{}`$. Notice the abuse of notation: in the argument of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`u+iv`$ lives in the complexification of $`𝔩^{}`$ while in the first component $`u+iv`$ lives in $`𝔩`$. A straightforward computation shows that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are mutually inverse isomorphisms of complex Lie algebras. We claim that

1. $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{diag}(𝔩)=𝔩_0i𝔩_0`$.
2. $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝔩^r)=𝔩_0^ri𝔩_0^r`$.
3. $`\mathrm{\Phi }(u+iv)|\mathrm{\Phi }(w+iz)=2\mathrm{Re}(u+iv|w+iz)`$, for $`u,v,w,z𝔩^{}`$, where the form $`|`$ is the form defined in Theorem 3, and $`2\mathrm{Re}(|)`$ is the complexification of the real form with the same name.

If $`x𝔩`$ then $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,x)=\frac{1}{2}(x+\sigma (x))\frac{i}{2}(x^{}+\sigma (x^{}))`$; this proves (i). Let $`\mu 𝔩^{}`$; say $`\mu =\alpha +i\beta `$, with $`\alpha ,\beta 𝔩_0^{}`$. If we consider $`r_\pm :𝔩^{}𝔩^{}`$, we have

$`r_+(\mu )`$ $`=\left[(\alpha id)r_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\beta id)r_\mathrm{\Omega }\right]+\left[(\alpha id)r_\mathrm{\Omega }+(\beta id)r_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]^{},`$
$`r_+(\mu )^{}`$ $`=\left[(\alpha id)r_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\beta id)r_\mathrm{\Omega }\right]^{}\left[(\alpha id)r_\mathrm{\Omega }+(\beta id)r_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right],`$
$`r_{}(\mu )`$ $`=\left[(\alpha id)r_\mathrm{\Lambda }+(\beta id)r_\mathrm{\Omega }\right]+\left[(\alpha id)r_\mathrm{\Omega }+(\beta id)r_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]^{},`$
$`\sigma (r_{}(\mu ))`$ $`=\left[(\alpha id)r_\mathrm{\Lambda }+(\beta id)r_\mathrm{\Omega }\right]+\left[(\alpha id)r_\mathrm{\Omega }(\beta id)r_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]^{},`$
$`\sigma (r_{}(\mu ))^{}`$ $`=\left[(\alpha id)r_\mathrm{\Lambda }+(\beta id)r_\mathrm{\Omega }\right]^{}+\left[(\alpha id)r_\mathrm{\Omega }+(\beta id)r_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right].`$
Hence $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r_+(\mu ),r_+(\mu ))=\frac{1}{2}(r_+(\mu )+\sigma (r_{}(\mu )))+\frac{i}{2}(r_+(\mu )^{}+\sigma (r_{}(\mu ))^{})=r_+(\alpha )+ir_+(\beta )`$; this proves (ii). Finally, the verification of (iii) is a straightforward computation using (3.1).

We conclude from the claim, by Theorem 3, that $`(𝔩^{},𝔩_0,𝔩_0^r)`$ is a Manin triple. The induced cobracket on $`𝔩_0`$ is well the initial one, again by Theorem 3; the proof is finished. ∎

Given a Manin triple $`(𝔭,𝔭_1,𝔭_2)`$, the isotropic Lie subalgebra $`𝔭_2`$ is not determined by $`𝔭_1`$. Compare Proposition 3.1 with the Manin triple of a compact Lie algebra (with trivial BD-triple) in \[LW, M\].


text:
# On three-body B decays to charm

## 1 $`B^0D^{()}D^{()0}K^+`$ AND CHARMED MESON SPECTROSCOPY

Important physical information can be obtained analyzing nonleptonic many-body $`B`$ decays, once clean channels have been recognized and selected. Remarkable examples are the three-body modes into pairs of charmed mesons and a light pseudoscalar meson, for which one can attempt a theoretical treatment based on heavy quark and chiral light meson symmetries . A few of such modes have been recently observed. Here I consider

$`B^0`$ $``$ $`D^{}D^{()0}K^+`$ (1)
$`B^0`$ $``$ $`D^{}D^{()0}K^+`$ (2)
observed by the BABAR  and BELLE  collaborations with a (preliminary) measurement of the branching fractions. Such modes are useful for shedding light on open issues of the charmed meson spectroscopy; from the theoretical point of view, they can be used to assess, e.g., the validity of the factorization ansatz.

The main idea is that the decays (1) and (2) essentially proceed through two-body intermediate states, $`B^0D^{()}D_s^X`$, followed by the strong transition $`D_s^XD^{()0}K^+`$ (fig.1), the intermediate $`D_s^X`$ being charmed strange mesons.

In the factorization approach , the $`B^0D^{()}D_s^X`$ amplitudes are expressed as the product of the semileptonic $`B^0D^{()}`$ matrix element and the $`D_s^X`$ current-vacuum matrix element. When the infinite charm quark mass limit is exploited, the only contributions with non-vanishing $`D_s^X`$ current-vacuum matrix elements correspond to the states $`D_s^X=D_s^{}`$ and $`D_{s0}`$ (with their radial excitations) for $`B^0D^{}D^0K^+`$, and $`D_s^X=D_s^{}`$, $`D_s`$ and $`D_{s1}^{}`$ (together with their radial excitations) for $`B^0D^{}D^0K^+`$. Analogous selection rules hold for $`B^0D^{}D^{()0}K^+`$. $`D_{s0}`$ and $`D_{s1}^{}`$ are charmed mesons with $`J^P=0^+,1^+`$, respectively, belonging to the $`s_{\mathrm{}}^P=\frac{1}{2}^+`$ heavy meson $`(\overline{s}c)`$ doublet, $`s_{\mathrm{}}^P`$ being the spin-parity of the light degrees of freedom in the meson. Such states are still unobserved, therefore it is worth identifying suitable channels for individually studying their features.

In order to calculate the amplitudes in fig.1 one needs the effective couplings parametrizing the vertices $`D^0K^+D_s^{}`$, $`D^0K^+D_{s0}`$, $`D^0K^+D_s^{}`$, $`D^0K^+D_s`$, $`D^0K^+D_{s1}^+`$ (and analogous vertices involving radial $`D_s^X`$ resonances). In the heavy quark limit, all the couplings can be expressed in terms of two independent coupling constants, $`g`$ and $`h`$ for negative and positive parity $`D_s^X`$ states, respectively. This can be shown considering the effective QCD lagrangian, with heavy quark spin-flavour and light quark chiral symmetries , that describes the interactions of heavy negative and positive parity mesons with the light pseudoscalar mesons:

$`_I`$ $`=`$ $`igTr\{H_b\gamma _\mu \gamma _5𝒜_{ba}^\mu \overline{H}_a\}`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`[ihTr\{H_b\gamma _\mu \gamma _5𝒜_{ba}^\mu \overline{S}_a\}+h.c.].`$
The fields $`H_a`$ in (3) describe the $`J^P=(0^{},1^{})`$ $`\overline{q}Q`$ mesons with $`s_{\mathrm{}}^P=\frac{1}{2}^{}`$:

$$H_a=\frac{(1+\text{v}/)}{2}[P_{a\mu }^{}\gamma ^\mu P_a\gamma _5],$$
(4)
the operators $`P_a^\mu `$ and $`P_a`$ respectively annihilating the $`1^{}`$ and $`0^{}`$ mesons of four-velocity $`v`$ ($`a=u,d,s`$ is a light flavour index). Analogously, the fields $`S_a`$ describe positive parity $`s_{\mathrm{}}^P=\frac{1}{2}^+`$ states:

$$S_a=\frac{(1+\text{v}/)}{2}[P_{a\mu }^{}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5P_a^{}].$$
(5)
The octet of the light pseudoscalar mesons is included in (3) through the field $`\xi =\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{f_\pi }}\right)`$, with $`f_\pi =131MeV`$ and $``$ given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}\pi ^0+\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}}\eta & \pi ^+& K^+\\ \pi ^{}& \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}\pi ^0+\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}}\eta & K^0\\ K^{}& \overline{K}^0& \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\eta \end{array}\right).$$

Moreover, $`𝒜_{\mu ba}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\xi ^{}_\mu \xi \xi _\mu \xi ^{}\right)_{ba}`$.

It is straightforward to derive the relations of $`g_{D_s^{}DK},g_{D_s^{}D^{}K}`$ and $`g_{D^{}D_sK}`$ to the effective coupling $`g`$, and of $`g_{D_{s0}DK}`$ and $`g_{D_{s1}^{}D^{}K}`$ to $`h`$, using (3)-(1). The full widths of the intermediate states can also be expressed in terms of $`g`$ and $`h`$, in the approximation of dominance of two-body decay modes. The masses of positive parity mesons can be taken from theoretical determinations: $`m_{D_{s0}}m_{D_{s1}^{}}=m_{D_s}+\mathrm{\Delta }`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }0.5GeV`$ .

The calculation of $`BD^{()}D_s^X`$, in the factorization approach, requires the semileptonic $`B^0D^{()}`$ matrix element and the $`D_s^X`$ decays constant. In the heavy quark limit, the former is given in terms of the Isgur-Wise function $`\xi _{IW}`$, while the decay constants $`f_{D_s}`$ and $`f_{D_s^{}}`$, as well as $`f_{D_{s0}}`$ and $`f_{D_{s1}^{}}`$, are simply related . Other parameters, CKM elements and QCD coefficients, appear in the same combination as in the two-body $`B^0D^{}D_s^{}`$ amplitude, the branching ratio of which is rather accurately known ; therefore, it is useful to express such combinations in terms of the $`D^{}D_s^{}`$ branching fraction.

The contributions to the channels (1),(2) related to the radial excitations of negative and positive parity intermediate mesons can be estimated to represent less than $`15\%`$ than the contribution of the corresponding low-lying states, using, e.g., the approach described in ref..

The measurement of the ratios $`(B^0D^{}D^0K^+)/(B^0D^{}D_s^{})`$ and $`(B^0D^{}D^0K^+)/(B^0D^{}D_s^{})`$  constrains the effective couplings $`g`$ and $`h`$. The experimental central values are obtained for $`(g,h)=(0.05,0.59)`$ and $`(g,h)=(0.0,+0.60)`$. As depicted in fig.2, the allowed regions in the plane $`(g,h)`$ are tightly bounded along the $`h`$ direction, in the range $`|h|=0.6\pm 0.2`$ compatible with the expectations , while the dependence on $`g`$ is mild, the range extending over all the presently permitted values between $`g=0`$, the result $`g=0.59\pm 0.01\pm 0.07`$ obtained by the CLEO collaboration  and the upper bound $`g<0.76`$ from the ACCMOR collaboration ,. This means that the main contributions to the processes in (1) are not the $`0^{}`$ and $`1^{}`$, $`D_s`$ and $`D_s^{}`$ intermediate states, but the positive parity $`0^+`$ and $`1^+`$ states $`D_{s0}`$ and $`D_{s1}^{}`$, and therefore the $`B^0D^{}D^0K^+`$ and $`B^0D^{}D^0K^+`$ decay modes are well suited for separately studying the properties of the $`D_{s0}`$ and $`D_{s1}^{}`$ resonances by the analysis of Dalitz plots that are expected as depicted in fig.3. Broad resonances should be observed in the $`D^{()0}K^+`$ invariant mass, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(D_{s0})180`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(D_{s1}^{})165`$ MeV. The same structures are expected in the modes $`B^0D^{}D^0K^+`$ and $`B^0D^{}D^0K^+`$.

An interesting problem concerns the reduction of the two main uncertainties of the approach, i.e. the use of the heavy quark limit both for beauty and charm quarks, and the factorization ansatz employed in the nonleptonic matrix elements. From the theoretical point of view, a quantitative assessment of the role of such approximations is a nontrivial task and one has to analyze hints from the measurements. The decay modes (1,2) are different from the processes for which factorization has been proved in the infinite $`b`$ mass limit . Nevertheless, for channels of the class we are considering, i.e. color allowed B transitions to pairs of charmed mesons, the factorization model produces results in agreement with the available data, within the current experimental uncertainties . The approach proposed here can be considered as a further test of factorization for three-body decays. The other main uncertainty is the use of the infinite mass limit for the charm quark. Finite charm quark mass effects can be at the origin of a deviation observed in the (preliminary) measurement of the branching fractions of (2) with respect to the results obtained in the infinite limit.

## 2 $`B^0(\overline{B^0})(t)D^+D^{}\pi ^0`$ AND THE WEAK PHASE $`\beta `$

At the B factories, the analysis of the time-dependent Dalitz plot of the three-body modes $`B^0(\overline{B^0})D^{}D^+\pi ^0`$ would be useful for the investigation of CP violating effects in neutral $`B`$ decays and, in particular, to get new information on the weak phase $`\beta `$ . This can be easily understood, since the time-dependent decay probabilities of states identified at $`t=0`$ as $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B^0}`$ respectively read:

$`|A(B^0(t)D^+D^{}\pi ^0|^2G_0(s_+,s_{})`$
$`+G_c(s_+,s_{})\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }mt)G_s(s_+,s_{})\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }mt),`$
$`|A(\overline{B^0}(t)D^+D^{}\pi ^0|^2G_0(s_{},s_+)`$
$`G_c(s_{},s_+)\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }mt)+G_s(s_{},s_+)\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }mt)],`$
with

$`G_s(s_+,s_{})=`$ $``$ $`2\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{G}_s(s_+,s_{})`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`2\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{G}_s(s_+,s_{}).`$
Therefore, through the analysis of $`B^0(\overline{B^0})(t)D^{}D^+\pi ^0`$ one envisages the possibility to access both $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )`$, and therefore to solve the discrete ambiguity $`\beta \frac{\pi }{2}\beta `$ still present in current measurements from, e.g., CP asymmetries in $`BJ/\psi (\psi (2S),\mathrm{})K_S`$. This is an important issue, if one wants to answer the question whether the weak angles measured in experiments that test CP violation match the angles that are being determined by measuring quantities that conserve CP, e.g. the lenghts of the sides of the unitarity triangle .

The measurement is feasible: various amplitudes with different strong phases, corresponding to the decay chain $`B^0(\overline{B^0})(t)D^+D^{}+D^{}D^++\mathrm{}D^+D^{}\pi ^0`$, contribute to the final state producing sizeable interferences in the Dalitz plot. The coefficient of $`\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )`$ in (6), $`\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{G}_s`$, depicted in fig.4, is expected to be different from zero over a large portion of the Dalitz plot, thus allowing the identification of the $`\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )`$ term. The application of the method to other three-body modes has been investigated in ref..

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank F. De Fazio, G. Nardulli, N. Paver and Riazuddin for collaboration on the issues discussed in this talk.