text:
# Dynamical bar-mode instability of differentially rotating stars: Effects of equations of state and velocity profiles

## 1 INTRODUCTION

In our previous paper, we studied dynamical bar-mode stabilities of differentially rotating stars in Newtonian gravity \[Shibata et al. 2002\]. In that study, we adopted a polytropic equation of state with the polytropic index $`n=1`$ and the so-called “$`j`$-constant-like” angular velocity profile in which the magnitude of the angular velocity decreases as $`\varpi ^2`$ at large values of $`\varpi `$, where $`\varpi `$ denotes the cylindrical radius. We found that rotating stars of a high degree of differential rotation are dynamically unstable even for $`\beta |T/W|0.03`$, where $`T`$ and $`W`$ are rotational and gravitational potential energies. This value is much smaller than the long-believed criterion of $`\beta 0.27`$ for onset of the bar-mode dynamical instability of rotating stars (see Shibata et al. 2002 for a review). We also found that after the instability sets in, such unstable rotating stars with $`0.03<\beta <0.15`$ eventually settle down to nonaxisymmetric ellipsoidal quasi-stationary states.

However, there are two questions which have not been answered in the previous work \[Shibata et al. 2002\]. One is associated with our choice of the $`j`$-constant-like angular velocity profile. It is well known that accretion disks around a central body with constant specific angular momentum are unstable against the Papaloizou-Pringle instability \[Papaloizou & Pringle 1984\]. On the other hand, the accretion disks are stable if the velocity profile is Kepler-like. One could claim that the bar-mode instability which we found would not be universal and might set in only for the very special rotational profile such as the $`j`$-constant-like law as in the Papaloizou-Pringle instability. In addition, we focused only on a stiff equation of state with $`n=1`$ in the previous paper, so that one could also ask if the instability sets in for softer equations of state.

To answer these questions, we have performed numerical simulations of differentially rotating stars varying the polytropic index and the angular velocity profile. In this paper, we report the numerical results. We will show that irrespective of the polytropic index $`n`$ and the angular velocity profile, a rotating star of a high degree of differential rotation is dynamically unstable against the bar-mode deformation even for the case that $`\beta `$ is of order 0.01. We will also show that an unstable star of a small value of $`\beta `$ eventually settles down to a nonaxisymmetric quasi-stationary state, which is a strong emitter of quasi-periodic gravitational waves.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we describe our methods in numerical analysis. In Section 3, the numerical results are presented. Section 4 is devoted to a summary and discussion. Throughout this paper, we use the geometrical units of $`G=c=1`$ where $`G`$ and $`c`$ denote the gravitational constant and the light velocity.

## 2 METHOD

### 2.1 Differentially rotating axisymmetric stars

We set a differentially rotating star in equilibrium, and investigate the dynamical stability. Rotating stars in equilibrium are modeled using the polytropic equations of state as $`P=K\rho ^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`P`$, $`\rho `$, $`K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1+1/n`$ denote the pressure, density, polytropic constant and adiabatic index. In this paper, we choose $`n=1`$, 3/2, and 5/2 ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$, 5/3, and 7/5).

As the angular velocity profile $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\varpi )`$, we choose the so-called $`j`$-constant-like law as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_0A^2}{\varpi ^2+A^2},$$
(1)
and the so-called Kepler-like law as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_0\left[\frac{A^2}{\varpi ^2+A^2}\right]^{3/4},$$
(2)
where $`A`$ is a constant, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ the angular velocity at the symmetric axis. The parameter $`A`$ controls the steepness of the angular velocity profile: For smaller values of $`A`$, the profile is steeper and for $`A\mathrm{}`$, the rigid rotation is recovered. In the present work, the values of $`A`$ are chosen among the range $`0.1\widehat{A}A/R_{\mathrm{eq}}1`$ where $`R_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ is the equatorial radius of rotating stars. For the rotation laws (1) and (2), $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at large cylindrical radius asymptotically behaves as $`\varpi ^2`$ and $`\varpi ^{3/2}`$. This is the reason why we refer to the profiles (1) and (2) as the $`j`$-constant-like and Kepler-like laws.

In the limit of $`A0`$ with the profile (1), the specific angular momentum becomes constant everywhere and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ diverges at $`\varpi =0`$. We note that this profile has been often used in studies of nonaxisymmetric instabilities in tori and annuli \[Papaloizou & Pringle 1984, Goodman & Narayan 1988, Tohline & Hachisu 1990, Andalib & Tohline 1997\]. In this paper, however, we do not consider tori and annuli and focus only on spheroidal stars for which the density is not zero at $`\varpi =0`$. Thus, we cannot adopt this limiting profile.

In terms of $`\beta =T/|W|`$ and $`\widehat{A}`$, one rotating star is determined for a given rotational profile and polytropic index. Thus, in the following, we often refer to these two parameters to specify a rotating star. Here, $`T`$ and $`W`$ are defined as

$`T={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3x\rho \varpi ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2},`$ (3)
$`W={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3x\rho \varphi },`$ (4)
where $`\rho `$ and $`\varphi `$ are the mass density and the Newtonian gravitational potential. To specify a particular model, we may choose the axis ratio of the rotating stars $`C_a`$ instead of $`\beta `$. Here $`C_a`$ is defined as the ratio of the polar radius $`R_p`$ to the equatorial radius $`R_{\mathrm{eq}}`$, i.e., $`C_a=R_p/R_{\mathrm{eq}}`$. For the equations of state and the angular velocity profiles that we study in this paper, the value of $`C_a`$ monotonically decreases with increase of $`\beta `$ for a given set of $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`n`$. This is the reason that $`C_a`$ can be a substitute for $`\beta `$.

### 2.2 Dynamical stability investigation

To investigate the dynamical stability against nonaxisymmetric bar-mode deformations, we have performed the numerical simulation as well as the linear stability analysis. Below we explain the methods for our numerical computation separately.

#### 2.2.1 Numerical simulation

In the hydrodynamic simulation, we initially superimpose a nonaxisymmetric density perturbation to an axisymmetric equilibrium star. We focus mainly on a fundamental bar-mode, and simply add the node-less density perturbation of the form

$$\delta \rho =\delta \rho _0(\varpi ,z)\frac{x^2y^2}{R_{\mathrm{eq}}^2},$$
(5)
where $`\rho _0(\varpi ,z)`$ denotes the density of the axisymmetric configuration and $`\delta `$ constant. Throughout this paper, we choose $`\delta =0.1`$. For simplicity, the velocity is left to be unperturbed at $`t=0`$. The growth of the bar-mode can be followed by monitoring the distortion parameter as

$`\eta (\eta _+^2+\eta _\times ^2)^{1/2},`$ (6)
where

$`\eta _+{\displaystyle \frac{I_{xx}I_{yy}}{I_{xx}+I_{yy}}},`$ (7)
$`\eta _\times {\displaystyle \frac{2I_{xy}}{I_{xx}+I_{yy}}},`$ (8)
and $`I_{ij}(i,j=x,y,z)`$ denotes the quadrupole moment defined by

$`I_{ij}={\displaystyle d^3x\rho x^ix^j}.`$ (9)
Here, $`x^i=(x,y,z)`$. Simulations are performed using a 3D numerical hydrodynamic implementation in Newtonian gravity \[Shibata et al. 1997\] (see also Shibata 2000 for results of various test simulations with the identical hydrodynamic numerical scheme but in general relativity). We adopt a fixed uniform grid with size $`141\times 141\times 141`$ in $`xyz`$, which covers an equatorial radius by 50 grid points initially. We also performed test simulations with size $`71\times 71\times 71`$ (i.e., the grid spacing becomes twice larger) for several selected cases and confirmed that the results depend weakly on the grid resolution. We assume a reflection symmetry with respect to the equatorial plane. Since several rotating stars that we picked up have a flattened configuration, we set the grid spacing of $`z`$ half of that of $`x`$ and $`y`$.

#### 2.2.2 Linear stability analysis

In the linear stability analysis, we employ the scheme developed by Karino et al. (2000, 2001). The Euler perturbations of the physical quantities are replaced by functions of the form $`f(r,\theta )e^{im\phi i\omega t}`$ in the the linearized hydrodynamic equations. Here $`m`$ is an azimuthal mode number. As a result, the problem reduces to the eigenvalue problem for an eigenvalue $`\omega `$ and the corresponding eigenfunctions of the perturbed quantities. We assume an adiabatic relation between the Euler perturbation of the pressure and that of the density. Since the fundamental mode of the $`m=2`$ or bar-type oscillations is node-less, we have checked whether the obtained eigenfunctions satisfy that condition. In this paper, we have analyzed the stability of the equilibrium configurations of $`n=1`$ polytropes for two rotation laws (1) and (2) with several values of $`\widehat{A}`$.

## 3 NUMERICAL RESULTS

### 3.1 Dynamical Bar-mode Stability

#### 3.1.1 Results by numerical simulation

The dynamical stability is studied for various combination of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\beta `$, and for two angular velocity profiles in the numerical simulation. In Figures 1 and 2, we summarize the results with regard to the dynamical bar-mode stability for the $`j`$-constant-like and Kepler-like angular velocity profiles, respectively. Here, the circles (crosses) denote that the stars of a given set of $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\beta `$ are dynamically unstable (stable). We focus only on the spheroidal stars which are located below the dashed curves plotted in Figures 1 and 2. (If the value of $`\beta `$ is larger than that on this curve for a given value of $`\widehat{A}`$, the star is toroidal.)

It is found that many rotating stars of a high degree of differential rotation as $`\widehat{A}=0.1`$ and 0.3 are dynamically unstable even for $`\beta `$ of order 0.01. In the case of the $`j`$-constant-like angular velocity profile, most of rotating stars with $`\beta >0.01`$ and $`\widehat{A}=0.3`$ are dynamical unstable both for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$ and 5/3. In the case of the Kepler-like angular velocity profile, the threshold of $`\widehat{A}`$ for onset of the instability for a given set of $`\beta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ appears to be slightly smaller than that in the $`j`$-constant-like case. This is because the Kepler-like angular velocity profile is not as steep as the $`j`$-constant-like one for the same value of $`\widehat{A}`$. Indeed, for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$ and 5/3 and for $`\widehat{A}=0.3`$, there is a wide parameter space around $`\beta 0.15`$ in which the stars are stable against the bar-mode deformation in the Kepler-like case. Such a wide parameter space is absent in the $`j`$-constant-like angular velocity profile for $`\widehat{A}=0.3`$. However, for $`\widehat{A}=0.1`$, the stars in a wide range of $`\beta `$ are unstable even in the Kepler-like angular velocity profile. Thus, rotating stars of a high degree of differential rotation with $`\beta `$ of order 0.01 are dynamically unstable even in the Kepler-like angular velocity profile.

The threshold of $`\widehat{A}`$ for onset of the dynamical instability for a given angular velocity profile also appears to depend on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$: For a smaller value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the threshold of $`\widehat{A}`$ is smaller. For example, compare the results with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=5/3`$ and 7/5 in Fig. 2. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=5/3`$, the stars of $`\widehat{A}=0.3`$ and $`0.03<\beta <0.1`$ are unstable, but for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=7/5`$, all the stars with $`\beta <0.2`$ that we studied are stable for $`\widehat{A}=0.3`$. The reason is that the rotating stars of smaller values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ have a more centrally condensed structure and as a result the effective degree of differential rotation of the central core for the stars of soft equations of state can become very high only for a sufficiently small value of $`\widehat{A}`$.

The rotating stars of a high degree of differential rotation are also dynamically unstable for a high value of $`\beta (>0.2)`$ (see the results of $`\widehat{A}=0.6`$ and 1 for the $`j`$-constant-like law and of $`\widehat{A}=0.3`$ for the Kepler-like law). The axial ratio $`C_a`$ of these stars is very small ($`C_a<0.3`$). In particular, for the unstable stars of the Kepler-like angular velocity profile with $`\beta >0.2`$ and $`\widehat{A}=0.3`$, $`C_a0.15`$. Thus, they have an almost toroidal shape. On the other hand, for the unstable stars with a small value of $`\beta (<0.10)`$, $`C_a>0.5`$ and, hence, the shape is not significantly toroidal.

An interesting feature is found for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$ and $`\widehat{A}=0.6`$ of the $`j`$-constant-like angular velocity profile, and for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=5/3,2`$ and $`\widehat{A}=0.3`$ of the Kepler-like angular velocity profile. In these cases, the stability does not change monotonically with increase of $`\beta `$: (1) stars of a sufficiently small value of $`\beta (<0.01)`$ are stable (we have not carried out simulations for $`\beta <0.01`$, but since the value of $`C_a`$ with $`\beta <0.01`$ is larger than 0.9 (i.e., the star is almost spherical), we assume that the stars with $`\beta <0.01`$ are stable), (2) stars of $`0.01<\beta <0.1`$ are unstable, (3) stars of $`0.1<\beta <0.2`$ are stable again, and (4) stars of a sufficiently large value of $`\beta (>0.2)`$ are unstable again.

It has been widely believed that the value of $`\beta `$ is a good indicator to distinguish unstable stars from stable ones. However, the examples shown here illustrate that $`\beta `$ is not a good indicator for determination of the dynamical stability of rotating stars of a high degree of differential rotation.

The reason for the fact that the stability does not change monotonically with $`\beta `$ is not clear. The likely reason is that the mode associated with the stability for the high value of $`\beta `$ is different from that for the small value. However, this interpretation cannot be proved at present because of the following reason. The property of the unstable modes for the high value of $`\beta `$ such as the perturbed density profile and the magnitude itself ($`\beta >0.2`$) is essentially the same as that of the well-known bar-mode (i.e, the $`m=2`$ toroidal mode, see Chandrasekhar 1969). Hence, we identify the unstable modes of high value of $`\beta `$ as the $`f`$ mode. On the other hand, for the small value of $`\beta `$, the perturbed density profile is also node-less, and furthermore, the real part of the eigen frequency is approximately proportional to $`(M/R_{\mathrm{eq}}^3)^{1/2}`$ (see Figures 10 and 11). These are the properties that the $`f`$ mode should have. This fact suggests that the unstable modes for the small value of $`\beta `$ might be also the $`f`$ mode.

We suspect that there is something different between two unstable modes of high and low values of $`\beta `$. However, to find the difference, it is necessary to precisely understand the definition of the $`f`$ mode against the bar-deformation for differentially rotating stars. At present, it is not clear for us what properties, besides the node-less density profile and the eigen frequency of order of magnitude $`(M/R_{\mathrm{eq}}^3)^{1/2}`$, characterize the $`f`$ mode. Namely, we do not know what to prove. Precisely defining the $`f`$ mode for differentially rotating stars is beyond scope of this paper, and is left as a problem in future.

Before closing this section, we address the following point. As pointed out by Centrella et al. (2001), the dynamical instability for $`m=1`$ mode may set in for rotating stars of a high degree of differential rotation. In this paper, we have not found the evidence that such instability sets in. This seems to be due to the fact that we adopted only the stiff equations of state. Centrella et al. (2001) studied the instability for differentially rotating stars of a very soft equation of state with $`n=10/3`$. In such a soft equation of state, the instability associated with the $`m=1`$ mode plays an important role. However, this is not likely the case in the stiff equations of state. Indeed, recently, Saijo et al. (2003) have pointed out that the instability of the $`m=1`$ mode sets in only for differentially rotating stars of very soft equations of state ($`n>2.5`$) and of a large value of $`\beta (>0.15)`$.

#### 3.1.2 Results by linear analysis

In Figure 3, we display the numerical results of the linear stability analysis for the same equilibrium models as shown in Figures 1 and 2 for the $`n=1`$ polytrope. These figures show that the results by the numerical simulation agree well with those by the linear stability analysis. This fact confirms the conclusion that rotating stars of a high degree of differential rotation are dynamically unstable even for the small value of $`\beta `$ irrespective of the angular velocity profile. We note that the solid curve in the upper panel of Figure 3 denotes the threshold of the dynamical stability (i.e., above this curve the star is dynamically unstable) against the well-known bar-mode (Chandrasekhar 1969) which was calculated and reported by Karino and Eriguchi (2003).

### 3.2 Fate of unstable stars

In this section, we focus on rotating stars of the Kepler-like angular velocity profile, since the results for the $`j`$-constant-like angular velocity profile with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$ are shown in the previous paper \[Shibata et al. 2002\] and, moreover, we have found that the results for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=5/3`$ show qualitatively identical features.

In Figures 4–7, we display time evolution of $`\eta `$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0t`$ for $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },\widehat{A})=(2,0.3)`$, (5/3, 0.3), (5/3, 0.1), and (7/5, 0.1). As shown here, the value of $`\eta `$ does not reach the value of order 1 but saturates at order 0.1. This implies that the growth of the instability saturates at a weakly nonlinear stage. We note that for unstable stars with $`\beta >0.2`$ and $`\widehat{A}=0.3`$, the value of $`\eta `$ increases to $`1`$ irrespective of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, implying that a highly deformed star is produced. There are a number of numerical works in which such a highly nonaxisymmetric structure is the outcome after onset of dynamical instability of differentially rotating stars with a high value of $`\beta `$ (e.g., Williams & Tohline 1987, 1988; Houser & Centrella 1996). The outcome in the simulations for unstable stars of a high value of $`\beta `$ found in the present numerical computation is qualitatively the same as that in previous papers. Thus, we do not discuss the results for such cases in the following.

After the perturbation saturates, the amplitude of $`\eta `$ settles down toward a value of order 0.1. The approximate final values of $`\eta `$ are

$`\eta _f\{\begin{array}{cc}0.1\hfill & \mathrm{for}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\widehat{A})=(2,0.3),\hfill \\ <0.1\hfill & \mathrm{for}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\widehat{A})=(5/3,0.3),\hfill \\ 0.2\hfill & \mathrm{for}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\widehat{A})=(5/3,0.1),\hfill \\ 0.03\hfill & \mathrm{for}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\widehat{A})=(7/5,0.1).\hfill \end{array}`$ (14)
Comparing the results of $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },\widehat{A})=(5/3,0.3)`$ and (5/3, 0.1) for the identical value of $`C_a`$, it is found that for the smaller value of $`\widehat{A}`$, $`\eta _f`$ is larger. This implies that a stronger degree of differential rotation makes the magnitude of the nonaxisymmetric deformation larger.

It is also found that for the smaller value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the final value of $`\eta `$ is smaller. This is because the stars of smaller values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ have a more centrally-condensed structure and, hence, their effective steepness of the differential rotation is smaller for smaller value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for a given set of $`C_a`$ and $`\widehat{A}`$.

In Figures 8–9, we display the snapshots of the density contour curves in the equatorial plane at selected time steps for $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },\widehat{A},C_a)=(2,0.3,0.7)`$ and (5/3, 0.3, 0.8). The value of $`\beta `$ is about 0.071 and 0.045, respectively. In both cases, the nonaxisymmetric perturbation initially provided grows, changing the shape of the rotating stars to be ellipsoidal. However, the perturbation does not grow to the highly nonlinear stage and, hence, neither a spiral arm nor a large bar is formed in contrast to the outcome in the simulations with a high value of $`\beta >0.2`$. Instead, the slightly deformed ellipsoid is the final outcome. Since the deformed ellipsoid is almost stationary, $`\eta _+`$ and $`\eta _\times `$ oscillate quasi-periodically in the late phase of the simulations. This result is qualitatively the same as for the stars of the $`j`$-constant-like angular velocity profile \[Shibata et al. 2002\].

In Figures 10 and 11, we show the frequency $`f_r`$ of the oscillation of the ellipsoidal star in units of $`(M/R_{\mathrm{eq}}^3)^{1/2}`$ as a function of initial values of $`\beta `$ for various sets of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\widehat{A}`$. The value of $`f_r`$ is determined by the Fourier transform of $`\eta _+`$ in the time domain. We note that the rotational period of the ellipsoid is $`2/f_r`$, and that the frequency of gravitational waves is $`f_r`$. It is interesting to note that for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$ and 5/3, a nondimensional quantity $`\overline{f}_rf_r(R_{\mathrm{eq}}^3/M)^{1/2}`$ is in a narrow range between $`0.2`$ and $`0.35`$ irrespective of $`\widehat{A}`$, $`\beta `$ and angular velocity profile. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=7/5`$, $`\overline{f}_r`$ is between $`0.4`$ and $`0.55`$, which is larger than the values for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$ and 5/3. However, it is still in a narrow range. The fact that the value of $`\overline{f}_r`$ depends weakly on $`\beta `$ suggests that the excited mode may be the $`f`$ mode.

### 3.3 Gravitational waves

As discussed in our previous paper \[Shibata et al. 2002\], the dynamically unstable rotating stars, which are deformed to nonaxisymmetric ellipsoidal objects, are likely to be sources of quasi-periodic gravitational waves. In Figures 1214, we show the gravitational waveforms of the $`+`$ mode along the $`z`$-axis ($`h_+`$) and the luminosity ($`\dot{E}`$) as a function of time for $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },\widehat{A})=(2,0.3)`$, (5/3, 0.1) and (7/5, 0.1). For all the models picked up here, $`C_a=0.705`$. The value of $`\beta `$ is $`0.071`$, 0.046, and 0.047, respectively. We note that the waveforms for the $`\times `$ mode are essentially the same as those for the $`+`$ mode except for the phase difference by $`\pi /4`$. Here, we calculate gravitational waves in the quadrupole formula \[Misner et al. 1973\] and define the waveforms by

$`h_+{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{I}_{xx}\ddot{I}_{yy}}{r}},h_\times {\displaystyle \frac{2\ddot{I}_{xy}}{r}},`$ (15)
and the luminosity by

$`\dot{E}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}I_{ij}^{(3)}I_{ij}^{(3)},`$ (16)
where

$`I_{ij}=I_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ij}}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}I_{kk},`$
$`\ddot{I}_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{d^2I_{ij}}{dt^2}},I_{ij}^{(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{d^3I_{ij}}{dt^3}},`$ (17)
and $`r`$ is the distance from a source to a detector. $`h_+`$ and $`h_\times `$ are the waveforms observed along the $`z`$ axis.

In the early phase before the growth of the nonaxisymmetric perturbation saturates, the amplitude of gravitational waves increases gradually together with the magnitude of $`\eta `$. Then, the growth of the amplitude saturates and subsequently, quasi-periodic gravitational waves are emitted for a much longer time than the rotational period. The amplitude of quasi-periodic gravitational waves depends on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\widehat{A}`$, as in the case of the saturated value of $`\eta `$. For a given set of $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`C_a`$ (or $`\beta `$), it is smaller for smaller values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This is because the star with smaller values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is more centrally condensed and, hence, the magnitudes of the quadrupole moments are smaller for the identical mass and radius.

We found that for the parameters we studied ($`\beta <0.1`$, $`\widehat{A}0.6`$ and angular velocity profiles (1) and (2)), the typical values of the amplitude and luminosity of gravitational waves for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$ are $`rh_{+,\times }0.1`$$`0.2(M^2/R_{\mathrm{eq}})`$ and $`\dot{E}0.005`$$`0.01(M/R_{\mathrm{eq}})^5`$. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=5/3`$, the magnitudes of them are only slightly smaller than those for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$. However, for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=7/5`$, they are smaller by a factor of several as $`rh_{+,\times }0.05(M^2/R_{\mathrm{eq}})`$ and $`\dot{E}0.001(M/R_{\mathrm{eq}})^5`$.

Using the results shown in Figures 1214, we can estimate the expected effective amplitude of gravitational waves from the nonaxisymmetric outcomes formed after the dynamical instability saturates. Here, we pay particular attention to proto-neutron stars which are likely formed soon after the supernovae of mass $`1.4M_{}`$ and radius several 10 km. For the luminosity $`\dot{E}=0.001ϵ(M/R_{\mathrm{eq}})^5`$ where $`ϵ`$ is a parameter of magnitude 1–10, the emission timescale of gravitational waves can be estimated as

$`\tau {\displaystyle \frac{T}{\dot{E}}}`$ $`=`$ $`100\alpha _0ϵ^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{0.1}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_{\mathrm{eq}}}{M}}\right)^4M`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`6.1\mathrm{sec}\alpha _0ϵ^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{0.1}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_{\mathrm{eq}}}{30\mathrm{km}}}\right)^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{1.4M_{}}}\right)^3,`$
where we set $`T=\alpha _0\beta M^2/R_{\mathrm{eq}}`$, and $`\alpha _0`$ is a constant which depends on the value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ but very weakly on $`\widehat{A}`$; for $`\beta <0.1`$, $`\alpha _00.8`$, 0.9, and 1.2 for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$, 5/3, and 7/5, respectively, within $`10\%`$ error.

The characteristic frequency of gravitational waves is denoted as

$`f=f_r790\mathrm{Hz}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{f}_r}{0.3}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_{\mathrm{eq}}}{30\mathrm{km}}}\right)^{3/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{1.4M_{}}}\right)^{1/2}.`$ (19)
Assuming that the nonaxisymmetric perturbation would not be dissipated by viscosities or magnetic fields on the emission timescale of gravitational waves \[e.g., Baumgarte et al. 2000\], the accumulated cycles of gravitational wave-train $`N`$ are estimated as

$`Nf\tau `$ $`=`$ $`4.8\times 10^3\alpha _0\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{5}}\right)^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{f}_r}{0.3}}\right)`$ (20)
$`\times `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{0.1}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_{\mathrm{eq}}}{30\mathrm{km}}}\right)^{5/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{1.4M_{}}}\right)^{5/2}.`$
The effective amplitude of gravitational waves is defined by $`h_{\mathrm{eff}}N^{1/2}h`$ where $`h`$ denotes the characteristic amplitude of periodic gravitational waves. Using this relation, we find

$`h_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $``$ $`3.2\times 10^{22}\alpha _0^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{h}}{0.1}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{5}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{0.1}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{f}_r}{0.3}}\right)^{1/2}`$ (21)
$`\times `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_{\mathrm{eq}}}{30\mathrm{km}}}\right)^{1/4}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{1.4M_{}}}\right)^{3/4}\left({\displaystyle \frac{100\mathrm{Mpc}}{r}}\right)`$
\[Thorne 1987, Lai & Shapiro 1995, Liu & Lindblom 2001, Liu 2002\] where $`\overline{h}hrR_{\mathrm{eq}}/M^2`$. Since $`\overline{f}_r`$, $`\overline{h}`$, $`ϵ`$ and $`\beta `$ depend on the values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\widehat{A}`$, and $`C_a`$, $`h_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ can vary by a factor of $`3`$. However, for all the rotating stars that we studied in this paper, $`h_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is always larger than $`10^{22}`$ at a distance $`r100`$ Mpc with $`R_{\mathrm{eq}}30`$ km and $`M1.4M_{}`$. Furthermore, the frequency of gravitational waves is about 1 kHz for $`R_{\mathrm{eq}}30`$ km and $`M1.4M_{}`$. Thus, gravitational waves from proto-neutron stars of a high degree of differential rotation, of mass $`1.4M_{}`$, and of radius $`>30`$ km at a distance of $`100`$ Mpc are likely to be sources for laser interferometric detectors such as LIGO \[Thorne 1995\], if the other dissipation processes are negligible.

## 4 Summary and discussion

We have studied the dynamical bar-mode instability of differentially rotating stars of polytropic equations of state. We chose three polytropic indices and two angular velocity profiles in this study. We found that rotating stars of a high degree of differential rotation are dynamically unstable against the nonaxisymmetric bar-mode deformation even with $`\beta 0.27`$, irrespective of the polytropic indices and angular velocity profile. The criterion of the value of $`\beta `$ for onset of the instability depends on the rotational profile and the equations of state, but the dependence is very weak if the degree of differential rotation is high enough as $`\widehat{A}0.1`$.

We estimated the effective amplitude of gravitational waves from nonaxisymmetric objects formed after onset of the dynamical instability. For typical proto-neutron stars of mass $`1.4M_{}`$ and radius several $`10`$ km, the effective amplitude of gravitational waves at a distance of $`100`$ Mpc is larger than $`10^{22}`$, and the frequency $``$ 1 kHz. Therefore, the gravitational waves can be sources for laser interferometric detectors such as advanced LIGO (e.g., Thorne 1995).

As we mentioned above, this conclusion is drawn under the assumption that dissipation of nonaxisymmetric perturbations by viscosity and magnetic fields is negligible. The dissipation timescale due to molecular viscosities and magnetic braking is likely to be longer than 10 sec \[e.g., Baumgarte et al. 2000\]. Thus, these effects can be safely neglected. However, turbulent magnetic viscosity \[Balbus & Hawley 1998\] may be relevant for redistribution of the angular momentum profile. This implies that a differentially rotating star might be enforced to a rigidly rotating state on a dynamical timescale and, hence, the nonaxisymmetric structure might disappear. Many theoretical works have clarified that the magnetic viscous effect can redistribute the angular momentum distribution of accretion disks around central objects on a dynamical timescale \[Balbus & Hawley 1998\]. However, to our knowledge, there is no work on the magnetic field effect to self-gravitating rotating stars. The magnetic field would redistribute the angular momentum of the differentially rotating stars on a dynamical timescale, but it is not clear if it is strong enough to enforce the rotating stars to an axisymmetric state in a dynamical timescale. To clarify this problem, it is necessary to carry out MHD simulations for rotating stars. Such work should be done in the future.

## Acknowledgments

We thank L. Lindblom and I. Hachisu for discussion and comments. Numerical simulations were performed on FACOM VPP5000 in the data processing center of National Astronomical Observatory of Japan. This work was in part supported by a Japanese Monbu-Kagaku-Sho Grant (Nos. 12640255, 13740143 and 14047207). SK is supported by JSPS Research Fellowship for Young Scientists.


format: text

text:
# Rankin-Cohen Brackets and the Hopf Algebra of Transverse Geometry

## Introduction

In  H. Cohen constructed a collection of bilinear operations on functions on the complex plane, which are covariant with respect to the ‘slash’ action of $`PSL(2,)`$ and therefore give rise to bi-differential operators on the graded algebra of modular forms. If $`f`$ and $`g`$ denote two modular forms of weight $`k`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$, the $`n`$th Rankin-Cohen bracket of $`f`$ and $`g`$ is given (using the normalization in ) by the formula

$$[f,g]_n:=\underset{r+s=n}{}(1)^r\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+k1}{s}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+\mathrm{}1}{r}\right)f^{(r)}g^{(s)}.$$
(0.1)
Don Zagier later investigated the abstract algebraic structure defined by such bilinear operations .

We noticed in  that the formulas for the perturbations by inner of the action of the Hopf algebra $`_1`$ of  on the modular Hecke algebras were similar to the formulas occuring in Zagier’s definition  of ‘canonical’ Rankin-Cohen algebras. This suggested that there should be a close relationship between Rankin-Cohen brackets and actions of the Hopf algebra $`_1`$. We shall show here that this is indeed the case, by exhibiting canonical bilinear operators that generalize the Rankin-Cohen brackets, for any associative algebra $`𝒜`$ endowed with an action of the Hopf algebra $`_1`$ of  for which the ‘Schwarzian’ derivation $`\delta _2^{}`$ of  is inner,

$$\delta _2^{}(a)=\mathrm{\Omega }aa\mathrm{\Omega },a𝒜.$$
(0.2)
Such an action of the Hopf algebra $`_1`$ defines the noncommutative analogue of a one-dimensional “projective structure”, while $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ plays the role of the quadratic differential.

We had given in  the first term in the deformation as (twice) the fundamental class $`[F]`$ in the cyclic cohomology $`PHC_{Hopf}^{\mathrm{ev}}(_1)`$, i.e. the class of the cyclic $`2`$-cocycle

$$F:=XYYX\delta _1YY,$$
(0.3)
which in the foliation context represents the transverse fundamental class. Since the antipode $`S(X)`$ is given by

$$S(X)=X+\delta _1Y,$$
(0.4)
one has

$$F=S(X)Y+YX,$$

and one could reasonably expect the higher brackets to be increasingly more complicated expressions involving $`S(X),X,Y`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, beginning with the first bracket

$$RC_1(a,b):=S(X)(a)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}Y(b)+2Y(a)X(b),a,b𝒜.$$
(0.5)
We shall obtain in this paper the canonical formulas for the higher brackets. As an illustration, the second bracket $`RC_2`$ is given by

$`RC_2(a,b):=`$ $`S(X)^2(a)Y(2Y+1)(b)+S(X)(2Y+1)(a)X(2Y+1)(b)`$ (0.6)
$`+Y(2Y+1)(a)X^2(b)Y(a)\mathrm{\Omega }Y(2Y+1)(b)`$
$`Y(2Y+1)(a)\mathrm{\Omega }Y(b)`$
The “quadratic differential” $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and its higher derivatives $`X^j(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ always intervene between polynomial expressions $`P(S(X),Y)(a)`$ and $`Q(X,Y)(b)`$. We shall also prove (Theorem 8) that when applied to the modular Hecke algebras they yield a family of associative formal deformations, which in particular incorporate the ‘tangent groupoid’ deformation. This will be achieved by showing that the canonical formula commutes with the crossed product construction under conditions which are realized for the action of Hecke operators on modular forms, and then relying on the results of . The commutation with crossed product will in fact uniquely dictate the general formula. We shall show that the general formula is invariant under inner perturbations of the action of the Hopf algebra. In order to obtain the whole sequence of higher components we shall closely follow the method of  and .

Passing to the general algebraic context, in the last section we establish (Theorem 10) the associativity of the formal deformations corresponding to the Rankin-Cohen brackets for an arbitrary associative algebra endowed with an action of $`_1`$ such that the derivation corresponding to the Schwarzian derivative is inner.

## 1 Zero Quadratic Differential

For the clarity of the exposition, we shall first develop the higher Rankin-Cohen brackets for actions of $`_1`$ in the simplified case when the quadratic differential $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is zero, i.e. when $`\delta _2^{}=0`$.

We recall that as an algebra $`_1`$ coincides with the universal enveloping algebra of the Lie algebra with basis $`\{X,Y,\delta _n;n1\}`$ and brackets

$$[Y,X]=X,[Y,\delta _n]=n\delta _n,[X,\delta _n]=\delta _{n+1},[\delta _k,\delta _{\mathrm{}}]=0,n,k,\mathrm{}1,$$

while the coproduct which confers it the Hopf algebra structure is determined by the identities

$`\mathrm{\Delta }Y`$ $`=`$ $`Y1+1Y,\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _1=\delta _11+1\delta _1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ $`=`$ $`X1+1X+\delta _1Y,`$
together with the property that $`\mathrm{\Delta }:_1_1_1`$ is an algebra homomorphism.

We let $`_s`$ be the quotient of $`_1`$ by the ideal generated by $`\delta _2^{}`$. The basic lemma is to put the antipode $`S(X^n)`$ in normal order, i.e. with the $`\delta ^{}s`$ first then the $`X`$ then the $`Y^{}s`$.

###### Lemma 1.

One has the following identity in $`_\mathrm{s}`$,

$$S(X^n)=(1)^{nk}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)\frac{\delta _1^k}{2^k}X^{nk}(2Y+nk)_k$$

where $`(\alpha )_k:=\alpha (\alpha +1)\mathrm{}.(\alpha +k1)`$.

###### Proof.

For $`n=1`$ one has $`S(X)=X+\delta _1Y`$ and the r.h.s. of the formula gives $`X+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _1}{2}}(2Y)`$. Let us assume that it holds for $`n`$ and check it for $`n+1`$ by multiplication on the left by $`S(X)=X+\delta _1Y`$. One has $`Y{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _1^k}{2^k}}X^{nk}={\displaystyle \frac{\delta _1^k}{2^k}}X^{nk}(Y+n)`$ so that the new terms corresponding to $`\delta _1YS(X^n)`$ give

$$(1)^{nk}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)\frac{\delta _1^{k+1}}{2^{k+1}}X^{nk}(2Y+2n)(2Y+nk)_k$$

One has $`[X,\delta _1^k]=k{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _1^{k+1}}{2}}`$ thus the new terms corresponding to $`XS(X^n)`$ give

$$(1)^{n+1k}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)\frac{\delta _1^k}{2^k}X^{n+1k}(2Y+nk)_k$$

and

$$(1)^{n+1k}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)\frac{\delta _1^{k+1}}{2^{k+1}}X^{nk}k(2Y+nk)_k$$

The first of these two expressions can be written as

$$(1)^{nk}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k+1}\right)\frac{\delta _1^{k+1}}{2^{k+1}}X^{nk}(2Y+nk1)_{k+1}$$

thus all the term are right multiples of

$$(1)^{nk}\frac{\delta _1^{k+1}}{2^{k+1}}X^{nk}(2Y+nk)_k$$

with coefficients

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)(2Y+2n)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)k+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k+1}\right)(2Y+nk1)$$

but this is the same as

$`\left(\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k+1}}\right)\right)(2Y+n)+(nk)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}}\right)(k+1)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k+1}}\right)`$
$`=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{k+1}}\right)(2Y+n)`$
The content of Lemma 1 can be written using the generating function

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(X)(s):=\frac{s^nX^n}{n!}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2Y+n)^1$$
(1.1)
as the equality,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(XZY)(s)=e^{\frac{sZ}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }(X)(s)$$
(1.2)
under the only assumption that the operators $`X,Y,Z`$ fulfill,

$$[Y,X]=X,[Y,Z]=Z,[X,Z]=\frac{1}{2}Z^2,$$
(1.3)
Expanding the tensor product

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(S(X))(s)\mathrm{\Phi }(X)(s)=s^nRC_n^_\mathrm{s}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(2Y+n)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2Y+n))^1$$
(1.4)
dictates the following formula for the higher Rankin-Cohen brackets for an action of $`_s`$ on an algebra $`𝒜`$,

$$RC_n(x,y):=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}(\frac{S(X)^k}{k!}(2Y+k)_{nk})(x)(\frac{X^{nk}}{(nk)!}(2Y+nk)_k)(y)$$
(1.5)
The main preliminary result then is the following.

###### Lemma 2.

Let the Hopf algebra $`_1`$ act on an algebra $`𝒜`$ and $`u𝒜`$ be invertible and such that,

$$X(u)=0,Y(u)=0,\delta _1(u^1\delta _1(u))=0,\delta _2^{}(u)=0.$$

* For all values of $`n`$,

$$RC_n(xu,y)=RC_n(x,uy)x,y𝒜$$
* For all $`x,y𝒜`$,

$$RC_n(ux,y)=uRC_n(x,y),RC_n(x,yu)=RC_n(x,y)u$$
* Let $`\alpha `$ be the inner automorphism implemented by $`u`$ one has,

$$RC_n(\alpha (x),\alpha (y))=\alpha (RC_n(x,y))x,y𝒜$$

###### Proof.

For $`x𝒜`$ let $`L_x`$ be the operator of left multiplication by $`x`$ in $`𝒜`$. One has

$$XL_u=L_u(XL_\nu Y)$$
(1.6)
where $`\nu :=u^1\delta _1(u)=\delta _1(u^1)u`$. Moreover

$$Y(\nu )=\nu ,X(\nu )=\frac{1}{2}\nu ^2.$$

so that the operators $`X,Y,Z:=L_\nu `$ fulfill (1.3) and by (1.2)

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(XL_\nu Y)(s)=L_{e^{\frac{s\nu }{2}}}\mathrm{\Phi }(X)(s)$$
(1.7)
One has

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(S(X))=S(X)1+1S(X)+Y\delta _1$$

and using $`R_x`$ for right multiplication by $`x𝒜`$,

$$S(X)R_u=R_u(S(X)R_\nu ^{}Y)$$
(1.8)
where $`\nu ^{}:=u\delta _1(u^1)`$. Moreover $`\delta _1(\nu ^{})=0`$ and

$$Y(\nu ^{})=\nu ^{},S(X)(\nu ^{})=\frac{1}{2}(\nu ^{})^2,$$

so that $`S(X),Y,R_\nu ^{}`$ fulfill (1.3) and by (1.2)

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(S(X)R_\nu ^{}Y)(s)=R_{e^{\frac{s\nu ^{}}{2}}}\mathrm{\Phi }(S(X))(s)$$
(1.9)
Since $`u\nu =\nu ^{}u`$ we get $`1^0`$ using (1.4) and the commutation of $`Y`$ with $`L_u`$ and $`R_u`$. Statement $`2^0`$ follows from the commutation of $`R_u`$ with $`X`$ and $`Y`$, while $`3^0`$ follows from $`1^0`$ and $`2^0`$. ∎

Let us compute the above brackets for small values of $`n`$. We shall express them as elements

$$RC_n^_\mathrm{s}_\mathrm{s}_\mathrm{s}.$$

For $`n=1`$ we get

$$RC_1^_\mathrm{s}=S(X)2Y+2YX$$

which is $`2`$ times the transverse fundamental class $`F`$ (defined in (0.3)).

For $`n=2`$ we get

$`RC_2^_\mathrm{s}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S(X)^2(2Y)(2Y+1)+S(X)(2Y+1)X(2Y+1)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2Y)(2Y+1)X^2.`$
For $`n=3`$ we get

$`RC_3^_\mathrm{s}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}S(X)^3(2Y)(2Y+1)(2Y+2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S(X)^2(2Y+2)X(2Y+1)(2Y+2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S(X)(2Y+1)(2Y+2)X^2(2Y+2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(2Y)(2Y+1)(2Y+2)X^3.`$
## 2 Arbitrary Quadratic Differential

Let us now pass to the general case where we assume that $`_1`$ acts on an algebra $`𝒜`$ and that the derivation $`\delta _2^{}`$ is inner implemented by an element $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝒜`$ so that,

$$\delta _2^{}(a)=\mathrm{\Omega }aa\mathrm{\Omega },a𝒜$$
(2.1)
where we assume, owing to the commutativity of the $`\delta _k`$,

$$\delta _k(\mathrm{\Omega })=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},k$$
(2.2)
It follows then that

$$\delta _k(X^j(\mathrm{\Omega }))=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},k,j$$
(2.3)
so that by (2.1), $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ commutes with all $`X^j(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and the algebra $`𝒫𝒜`$ generated by the $`X^j(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is commutative, while both $`Y`$ and $`X`$ act as derivations on $`𝒫`$.

To understand how to obtain the general formulas we begin by computing in the above case ($`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$) how the formulas for $`RC_n`$ get modified by a perturbation of the action of the form

$$YY,XX+\mu Y,\delta _1\delta _1+ad(\mu )$$
(2.4)
where $`Y(\mu )=\mu `$ and $`\delta _n(\mu )=0`$ for all $`n`$. The computation shows that $`RC_1`$ is unchanged, while $`RC_2(a,b)`$ gets modified by the following term,

$$\delta RC_2(a,b)=Y(a)\mathrm{\Omega }Y(2Y+1)(b)+Y(2Y+1)(a)\mathrm{\Omega }Y(b)$$
(2.5)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }:=X(\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^2`$. Note that the perturbed action fulfills (2.1) for that value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

This already indicates that in the general case the full formula for $`RC_2(a,b)`$ should be

$`RC_2(a,b):=`$ $`S(X)^2(a)Y(2Y+1)(b)+S(X)(2Y+1)(a)X(2Y+1)(b)`$
$`+Y(2Y+1)(a)X^2(b)Y(a)\mathrm{\Omega }Y(2Y+1)(b)`$
$`Y(2Y+1)(a)\mathrm{\Omega }Y(b)`$
so that the above perturbation then leaves $`RC_2`$ unaffected.

In order to obtain the general formulas, we consider the algebra $`(𝒜)`$ of linear operators in $`𝒜`$. For $`a𝒜`$ we use the short hand notation

$$a:=L_a,a^o:=R_a$$

for the operators of left and right multiplication by $`a`$ when no confusion can arise.

We define by induction elements $`B_n(𝒜)`$ by the equation

$$B_{n+1}:=XB_nn\mathrm{\Omega }(Y\frac{n1}{2})B_{n1}$$
(2.6)
while $`B_0:=1`$ and $`B_1:=X`$. The first values for the $`B_n`$ are the following,

$$B_2=X^2\mathrm{\Omega }Y$$

$$B_3=X^3\mathrm{\Omega }X(3Y+1)X(\mathrm{\Omega })Y$$

and

$$B_4=X^4\mathrm{\Omega }X^2(6Y+4)X(\mathrm{\Omega })X(4Y+1)X^2(\mathrm{\Omega })Y+3\mathrm{\Omega }^2Y(Y+1)$$

Let us define more generally for any two operators $`Z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ acting linearly in $`𝒜`$ and fulfilling

$$[Y,Z]=Z,[Y,\mathrm{\Theta }]=2\mathrm{\Theta }$$

the sequence of operators, $`C_0:=1`$, $`C_1:=Z`$,

$$C_{n+1}:=ZC_nn\mathrm{\Theta }(Y\frac{n1}{2})C_{n1}$$
(2.7)
and the series,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(Z,\mathrm{\Theta })(s):=\frac{s^nC_n}{n!}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2Y+n)^1$$

###### Lemma 3.

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the unique solution of the differential equation

$$s(\frac{d}{ds})^2\mathrm{\Phi }2(Y1)\frac{d}{ds}\mathrm{\Phi }+Z\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{s}{2}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Phi }=0$$

which fulfills the further conditions,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(0)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(2Y)^1,\frac{d}{ds}\mathrm{\Phi }(0)=Z\mathrm{\Gamma }(2Y+1)^1$$

###### Proof.

One has

$$\frac{d}{ds}\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{s^nC_{n+1}}{n!}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2Y+n+1)^1$$

$$s(\frac{d}{ds})^2\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{s^nC_{n+1}}{n!}n\mathrm{\Gamma }(2Y+n+1)^1$$

$$2(Y1)\frac{d}{ds}\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{s^nC_{n+1}}{n!}(2Y+2n)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2Y+n+1)^1$$

$$(n(2Y+2n))\mathrm{\Gamma }(2Y+n+1)^1=\mathrm{\Gamma }(2Y+n)^1$$

so that

$$s(\frac{d}{ds})^2\mathrm{\Phi }2(Y1)\frac{d}{ds}\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{s^nC_{n+1}}{n!}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2Y+n)^1$$

but by (2.6)

$$C_{n+1}=ZC_nn\mathrm{\Theta }(Y\frac{n1}{2})C_{n1}$$

the first term gives -$`Z\mathrm{\Phi }`$ while the second gives,

$$\mathrm{\Theta }\frac{s^nC_{n1}}{n!}(n(Y+\frac{n1}{2}))\mathrm{\Gamma }(2Y+n)^1$$

which equals

$$\frac{s\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}\frac{s^nC_n}{n!}(2Y+n)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2Y+n+1)^1=\frac{s\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }$$

Let now $`\mu `$ be an operator in $`𝒜`$ such that

$$[\mathrm{\Theta },\mu ]=0,[Y,\mu ]=\mu ,[[Z,\mu ],\mu ]=0$$
(2.8)
we let

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(s):=e^{\frac{s\mu }{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }(Z,\mathrm{\Theta })(s)$$

###### Lemma 4.

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(s)`$ satisfies the following differential equation

$$s(\frac{d}{ds})^2\mathrm{\Psi }2(Y1)\frac{d}{ds}\mathrm{\Psi }+(Z+\mu Y)\mathrm{\Psi }\frac{s}{2}(\mathrm{\Theta }+[Z,\mu ]+\frac{\mu ^2}{2})\mathrm{\Psi }=0$$

###### Proof.

One has

$$\frac{d}{ds}\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{\mu }{2}\mathrm{\Psi }+e^{\frac{s\mu }{2}}\frac{d}{ds}\mathrm{\Phi }$$

$$s(\frac{d}{ds})^2\mathrm{\Psi }=s\frac{\mu ^2}{4}\mathrm{\Psi }+s\mu e^{\frac{s\mu }{2}}\frac{d}{ds}\mathrm{\Phi }+e^{\frac{s\mu }{2}}s(\frac{d}{ds})^2\mathrm{\Phi }$$

$$2(Y1)\frac{d}{ds}\mathrm{\Psi }=\mu Y\mathrm{\Psi }+s\mu e^{\frac{s\mu }{2}}\frac{d}{ds}\mathrm{\Phi }+e^{\frac{s\mu }{2}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(Y1)\frac{d}{ds}\mathrm{\Phi }$$

where for the last equality we used $`[Y,\mu ]=\mu `$ to get

$$[2Y,e^{\frac{s\mu }{2}}]=s\mu e^{\frac{s\mu }{2}}$$

thus,

$$(s(\frac{d}{ds})^22(Y1)\frac{d}{ds})\mathrm{\Psi }=s\frac{\mu ^2}{4}\mathrm{\Psi }\mu Y\mathrm{\Psi }+e^{\frac{s\mu }{2}}(s(\frac{d}{ds})^22(Y1)\frac{d}{ds})\mathrm{\Phi }$$

but

$$(s(\frac{d}{ds})^22(Y1)\frac{d}{ds})\mathrm{\Phi }=Z\mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{s}{2}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Phi }$$

and by (2.8) one has,

$$[Z,e^{\frac{s\mu }{2}}]=\frac{s}{2}[Z,\mu ]e^{\frac{s\mu }{2}}$$

so that

$$e^{\frac{s\mu }{2}}(Z)=(Z)e^{\frac{s\mu }{2}}+\frac{s}{2}[Z,\mu ]e^{\frac{s\mu }{2}}$$

and since $`\mu `$ commutes with $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$,

$$(s(\frac{d}{ds})^22(Y1)\frac{d}{ds})\mathrm{\Psi }=s\frac{\mu ^2}{4}\mathrm{\Psi }\mu Y\mathrm{\Psi }Z\mathrm{\Psi }+\frac{s}{2}[Z,\mu ]\mathrm{\Psi }+\frac{s}{2}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Psi }$$

Note also that

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(2Y)^1,\frac{d}{ds}\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=(Z+\mu Y)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2Y+1)^1$$

It thus follows that the following holds.

###### Proposition 5.

Let $`\mu `$ fulfill conditions (2.8), then

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(Z+\mu Y,\mathrm{\Theta }+[Z,\mu ]+\frac{\mu ^2}{2})(s)=e^{\frac{s\mu }{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }(Z,\mathrm{\Theta })(s)$$

One has by construction

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(X,\mathrm{\Omega })(s)=\frac{s^nB_n}{n!}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2Y+n)^1$$

and similarly,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(S(X),\mathrm{\Omega }^o)(s)=\frac{s^nA_n}{n!}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2Y+n)^1$$

where the $`A_n`$ are obtained by induction using,

$$A_{n+1}:=S(X)A_nn\mathrm{\Omega }^o(Y\frac{n1}{2})A_{n1}$$
(2.9)
while $`A_1:=0,A_0:=1`$.

The first values of $`A_n`$ are

$$A_1=S(X)$$

$$A_2=S(X)^2\mathrm{\Omega }^oY$$

$$A_3=S(X)^3\mathrm{\Omega }^oS(X)(3Y+1)+X(\mathrm{\Omega })^oY$$

and

$`A_4=S(X)^4\mathrm{\Omega }^oS(X)^2(6Y+4)+X(\mathrm{\Omega })^oS(X)(4Y+1)`$
$`X^2(\mathrm{\Omega })^oY+3(\mathrm{\Omega }^o)^2Y(Y+1)`$
The general formula for $`RC_n`$ is obtained as in (1.4) by expanding the product

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(S(X),\mathrm{\Omega }^o)(s)(a)\mathrm{\Phi }(X,\mathrm{\Omega })(s)(b)$$

which gives,

$$RC_n(a,b):=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{A_k}{k!}(2Y+k)_{nk}(a)\frac{B_{nk}}{(nk)!}(2Y+nk)_k(b)$$
(2.10)
###### Lemma 6.

Let $`\gamma Z^1(_1,𝒜)`$ be a $`1`$-cocycle such that $`\gamma (X)=\gamma (Y)=0,\delta _k(\gamma (h))=0h_1,k.`$ Then the brackets $`RC_n`$ are invariant under the inner perturbation of the action of $`_1`$ associated to $`\gamma `$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\mu :=\gamma (\delta _1)`$. One has $`\delta _k(\mu )=0k`$. The cocycle law

$$\gamma (hh^{})=\gamma (h_{(1)})h_{(2)}(\gamma (h^{})),h.$$
(2.11)
shows that $`\gamma (\delta _2)=X(\mu )+\mu ^2`$ and $`\gamma (\delta _2^{})=X(\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^2`$, which using $`[\delta _1,\delta _2^{}]=0`$ gives $`[\mu ,X(\mu )]=0`$. We then get

$$[\mathrm{\Omega },\mu ]=0,Y(\mu )=\mu ,[\mu ,X(\mu )]=0$$
(2.12)
The effect of the perturbation on the generators is

$`YY,XX+L_\mu Y,\delta _1\delta _1+L_\mu R_\mu ,`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }+X(\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{2}}`$ (2.13)
where $`L_\mu `$ is the operator of left multiplication by $`\mu `$ and $`R_\mu `$ is right multiplication by $`\mu `$.

We first apply Proposition 5 to the operator $`L_\mu `$ of left multiplication by $`\mu `$, and get, using (2.12) to check (2.8),

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(X+L_\mu Y,\mathrm{\Omega }+X(\mu )+\frac{\mu ^2}{2})(s)=L_{e^{\frac{s\mu }{2}}}\mathrm{\Phi }(X,\mathrm{\Omega })(s)$$
(2.14)
The effect of the perturbation on $`S(X)`$ is

$$S(X)S(X)R_\mu Y,$$
(2.15)
where $`R_\mu `$ is right multiplication by $`\mu `$.

One has

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(S(X),\mathrm{\Omega }^o)(s)=\frac{s^nA_n}{n!}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2Y+n)^1$$

We now apply Proposition 5 to the operator $`R_\mu `$ of right multiplication by $`\mu `$, using $`S(X)(\mu )=X(\mu )`$ and (2.12) to check (2.8) for the operators $`S(X),Y,\mathrm{\Omega }^o=R_\mathrm{\Omega },R_\mu `$ and get,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(S(X)R_\mu Y,(\mathrm{\Omega }+X(\mu )+\frac{\mu ^2}{2})^o)(s)=R_{e^{\frac{s\mu }{2}}}\mathrm{\Phi }(S(X),\mathrm{\Omega })(s)$$
(2.16)
combining (2.14) and (2.16) shows that the product

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(S(X),\mathrm{\Omega }^o)(s)(a)\mathrm{\Phi }(X,\mathrm{\Omega })(s)(b)$$

is unaltered by the perturbation and gives the required invariance. ∎

###### Lemma 7.

Let the Hopf algebra $`_1`$ act on an algebra $`𝒜`$ with $`\delta _2^{}`$ inner as above and $`u𝒜`$ be invertible and such that with $`\mu =u^1\delta _1(u)`$,

$$X(u)=0,Y(u)=0,\delta _n(\mu )=0,n$$

* For all values of $`n`$,

$$RC_n(xu,y)=RC_n(x,uy)x,y𝒜$$
* For all $`x,y𝒜`$,

$$RC_n(ux,y)=uRC_n(x,y),RC_n(x,yu)=RC_n(x,y)u$$
* Let $`\alpha `$ be the inner automorphism implemented by $`u`$ one has,

$$RC_n(\alpha (x),\alpha (y))=\alpha (RC_n(x,y))x,y𝒜$$

###### Proof.

One has $`Y(\mu )=\mu `$, let us show that

$$[X(\mu ),\mu ]=0$$
(2.17)
One has $`\delta _2(u)=[X,\delta _1](u)=X(\delta _1(u))=X(u\mu )=u(X(\mu )+\mu ^2)`$, so that,

$$\delta _2^{}(u)=u\rho ,\rho :=X(\mu )+\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2$$
(2.18)
Since $`\delta _1(X(\mu ))=[X,\delta _1](\mu )=\delta _2(\mu )=0`$, one has $`\delta _1(\rho )=0`$. The commutation $`[\delta _2^{},\delta _1](u)=0`$ then entails

$$u\rho \mu =u\mu \rho ,[\mu ,\rho ]=0$$

which implies (2.17). Then as in (1.6)

$$XL_u=L_u(X+L_\mu Y)$$
(2.19)
where $`\mu :=u^1\delta _1(u)=\delta _1(u^1)u`$. Moreover,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }L_u=L_u(\mathrm{\Omega }+[X,L_\mu ]+\frac{1}{2}L_\mu ^2)$$
(2.20)
which one gets using

$$\delta _2^{}(u)=[\mathrm{\Omega },u]$$

Since $`[\mathrm{\Omega },\mu ]=\delta _2^{}(\mu )=0`$ the hypothesis (2.8) of Proposition 5 is fulfilled by $`X,Y,\mathrm{\Omega },L_\mu `$ and we then get

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(X,\mathrm{\Omega })(s)L_u=L_uL_{e^{\frac{s\mu }{2}}}\mathrm{\Phi }(X,\mathrm{\Omega })(s)$$

In a similar manner,

$$S(X)R_u=R_u(S(X)+R_\mu ^{}Y)$$
(2.21)
where $`\mu ^{}:=\delta _1(u)u^1`$. Moreover

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^oR_u=R_u(\mathrm{\Omega }^o+[S(X),R_\mu ^{}]+\frac{1}{2}R_\mu ^{}^2)$$
(2.22)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }^o`$ really stands for $`R_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. So by Proposition 5 we get

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(S(X),\mathrm{\Omega }^o)(s))R_u=R_uR_{e^{\frac{s\mu ^{}}{2}}}\mathrm{\Phi }(S(X),\mathrm{\Omega })(s).$$

Since $`u\mu =\mu ^{}u`$ we conclude as in the proof of Lemma 2. ∎

We then obtain the following naturality property of the construction of the higher brackets.

###### Theorem 8.

When applied to any of the modular Hecke algebras $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ the functor $`RC_{}`$ yields the reduced algebra of the crossed products of the algebra of modular forms endowed with the Rankin-Cohen brackets by the action of the group $`GL(2,𝔸_f)^0`$.

###### Proof.

The algebra $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is the reduced algebra of $`GL(2,𝔸_f)^0`$ by the projection $`e_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ associated to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (cf. ). With $`u`$ and $`v`$ as in Lemma 7 and $`a`$ and $`b𝒜`$ one gets

$$RC_n(au,bv)=RC_n(a,ubv)=RC_n(a,b^u)uv$$

where $`b^u:=ubu^1`$, which shows that in the crossed product algebra $`𝒜=GL(2,𝔸_f)^0`$ the $`RC_n`$ are entirely determined by their restriction to $``$. ∎

###### Corollary 9.

When applied to any of the algebras $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ the functor $`RC_{}`$ yields associative deformations.

###### Proof.

The crossed product of an associative algebra by an automorphism group is associative, as well as its reduced algebras. ∎

Specifically, the product formula

$$a_tb:=t^nRC_n(a,b)$$

gives an associative deformation. More generally, following , for any $`\kappa `$ the product rule

$$a_t^\kappa b:=t^nRC_n\left(𝐭_n^\kappa (Y1,1Y)(ab)\right),$$
(2.23)
where

$$𝐭_n^\kappa (x,y):=(\frac{1}{4})^n\underset{j}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2j}\right)\frac{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{1}{2}}{j}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\kappa \frac{3}{2}}{j}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{1}{2}\kappa }{j}\right)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x\frac{1}{2}}{j}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{y\frac{1}{2}}{j}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+x+y\frac{3}{2}}{j}\right)}$$
(2.24)
are the twisting coefficients defined in , gives an associative deformation.

## 3 Rankin-Cohen Deformations

We now return to the general case, we let the Hopf algebra $`_1`$ act on an algebra $`𝒜`$ and assume that the derivation $`\delta _2^{}`$ is inner implemented by an element $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝒜`$,

$$\delta _2^{}(a)=\mathrm{\Omega }aa\mathrm{\Omega },a𝒜$$
(3.1)
with

$$\delta _k(\mathrm{\Omega })=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},k$$
(3.2)
Such an action of $`_1`$ on an algebra $`𝒜`$ will be said to define a projective structure on $`𝒜`$, and the element $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝒜`$ implementing the inner derivation $`\delta _2^{}`$ will be called its quadratic differential.

The main result of this section, extending Corollary 9, can be stated as follows.

###### Theorem 10.

The functor $`RC_{}`$ applied to any algebra $`𝒜`$ endowed with a projective structure yields a family of formal associative deformations of $`𝒜`$, whose products are given by formula (2.23).

In preparation for the proof, we shall extend the scalars in the definition of $`_1`$. Let $`𝒫`$ denote the free commutative algebra generated by the indeterminates

$$\{Z_0,Z_1,Z_2,\mathrm{},Z_n,\mathrm{}\}.$$

We define an action of $`_1`$ on $`𝒫`$ by setting on generators

$$Y(Z_j):=(j+2)Z_j,X(Z_j):=Z_{j+1},j0,$$
(3.3)
and then extending $`Y`$, $`X`$ as derivations, while

$$\delta _k(P):=0,P𝒫.$$
(3.4)
Equivalently, the Hopf action of $`_1`$ is lifted from the Lie algebra action defined by (3.3).

We then form the double crossed product algebra

$$\stackrel{~}{}_1=𝒫_1𝒫,$$
(3.5)
whose underlying vector space is $`𝒫_1𝒫`$, with the product defined by the rule

$$PhQP^{}h^{}Q^{}:=\underset{(h)}{}Ph_{(1)}(P^{})h_{(2)}h^{}h_{(3)}(Q^{})Q,$$
(3.6)
where $`P,Q,P^{},Q^{}𝒫`$ and $`h,h^{}_1`$ .

We next proceed to equip $`\stackrel{~}{}_1`$ with the structure of an extended Hopf algebra over $`𝒫`$ (comp. ). First we turn $`\stackrel{~}{}_1`$ into a (free) $`𝒫`$-bimodule, by means of the source and target homorphisms $`\alpha ,\beta :𝒫\stackrel{~}{}_1`$,

$$\alpha (P):=P11,\text{resp.}\beta (Q):=11Q,P,Q𝒫.$$
(3.7)
Note that

$$PhQ=\alpha (P)\beta (Q)h,P,Q𝒫,h_1.$$
(3.8)
Note also that, while the commutation rules of $`h_1`$ with $`\alpha (P)`$ are given by the above action (3.3) of $`_1`$ on $`𝒫`$, the commutation rules with $`\beta (Q)`$ are more subtle ; for example (comp. \[7, 1.12\]),

$$X\beta (Q)\beta (Q)X=\beta (X(Q))+\beta (Y(Q))\delta _1,Q𝒫,h_1.$$
(3.9)
Let $`\stackrel{~}{}_1_𝒫\stackrel{~}{}_1`$ be the tensor square of $`\stackrel{~}{}_1`$ where we view $`\stackrel{~}{}_1`$ as a bimodule over $`𝒫`$, using left multiplication by $`\beta ()`$ to define the right module structure and left multiplication by $`\alpha ()`$ to define the left module structure.

The coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }:\stackrel{~}{}_1\stackrel{~}{}_1_𝒫\stackrel{~}{}_1`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(PhQ):=\underset{(h)}{}Ph_{(1)}1\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}h_{(2)}Q$$
(3.10)
and satisfies the properties listed in \[7, Prop. 6\]. In particular, while the product of two elements in $`\stackrel{~}{}_1_𝒫\stackrel{~}{}_1`$ is not defined in general, the fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is multiplicative, i.e. that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(h_1h_2)=\mathrm{\Delta }(h_1)\mathrm{\Delta }(h_2),h_1,h_2\stackrel{~}{}_1,$$

makes perfect sense because of the property

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(h)\left(\beta (Q)11\alpha (Q)\right)=0,Q𝒫,h\stackrel{~}{}_1,$$

which uses only the right action of $`\stackrel{~}{}_1\stackrel{~}{}_1`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{}_1_𝒫\stackrel{~}{}_1`$ by right multiplication. In turn, since $`_1`$ is a Hopf algebra, it suffices to check the latter on the algebra generators, i.e. for $`h=Y,X`$ or $`\delta _1`$. In that case

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(h)\left(\beta (Q)1\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\alpha (Q)\right)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{(h)}{}}(h_{(1)}\beta (Q)_𝒫h_{(2)}h_{(1)}_𝒫h_{(2)}\alpha (Q))=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{(h)}{}}\left([h_{(1)},\beta (Q)]_𝒫h_{(2)}h_{(1)}_𝒫[h_{(2)},\alpha (Q)]\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},`$
where one needs (3.9) to establish the vanishing.

The counit map $`\epsilon :\stackrel{~}{}_1𝒫`$ is defined by

$$\epsilon (PhQ):=P\epsilon (h)Q,P,Q𝒫,h_1$$

and fulfills the conditions listed in \[7, Prop. 7\].

Finally, the formula for the antipode is

$`S(PhQ):=S(h)_{(1)}(Q)S(h)_{(2)}S(h)_{(3)}(P)=S(h)\alpha (Q)\beta (P).`$
In the same vein, an algebra $`𝒜`$ is a module-algebra over $`\stackrel{~}{}_1|𝒫`$ if, first of all, $`𝒜`$ is gifted with an algebra homomorphism $`\rho :𝒫𝒜`$ (playing the role of the unit map over $`𝒫`$), which turns $`𝒜`$ into a $`𝒫`$-bimodule via left and right multiplication by the image of $`\rho `$, and secondly $`𝒜`$ is endowed with an action $`HaH(a),H\stackrel{~}{}_1,a𝒜`$ satisfying besides the usual action rules

$`(HH^{})(a)`$ $`=`$ $`H(H^{}(a)),H,H^{}\stackrel{~}{}_1,`$ (3.11)
$`1(a)`$ $`=`$ $`a,a𝒜,`$
also the compatibility rules

$`H(a_1a_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{(H)}{}}H_{(1)}(a_1)H_{(2)}(a_2),a_1,a_2𝒜,`$ (3.12)
$`H(1)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho (\epsilon (H)),H\stackrel{~}{}_1.`$
In particular for any $`P𝒫`$,

$$\alpha (P)(a)=\rho (P)a,\text{resp.}\beta (P)(a)=a\rho (P),a𝒜,$$
(3.13)
and therefore more generally for any monomial $`H=PhQ\stackrel{~}{}_1`$ one has

$$PhQ(a)=\rho (P)h(a)\rho (Q).$$
(3.14)
We denote

$$\stackrel{~}{\delta }_2^{}:=\delta _2\frac{1}{2}\delta _1^2\alpha (Z_0)+\beta (Z_0)$$
(3.15)
and remark that it is a primitive element in $`\stackrel{~}{}_1`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{~}{\delta }_2^{})=\stackrel{~}{\delta }_2^{}1+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\stackrel{~}{\delta }_2^{}.$$
(3.16)
We let $`\stackrel{~}{}_\mathrm{s}`$ denote the quotient of $`\stackrel{~}{}_1`$ by the ideal generated by $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_2^{}`$. In view of (3.16), the latter is also a coideal, and therefore $`\stackrel{~}{}_\mathrm{s}`$ inherits the structure of an extended Hopf algebra over $`𝒫`$. Clearly, the action of $`\stackrel{~}{}_1|𝒫`$ on an algebra $`𝒜`$ endowed with a projective structure descends to an action of $`\stackrel{~}{}_\mathrm{s}`$ on $`𝒜`$.

As already mentioned in Section 3, the prototypical examples of projective structures are furnished by the modular Hecke algebras of . For the purposes of this section it will suffice to consider the ‘discrete’ modular Hecke algebra, that is the crossed product

$$𝒜_{G^+()}:=G^+(),G^+()=GL^+(2,).$$

where $``$ is the algebra of modular forms of all levels. We recall that $`𝒜_{G^+()}`$ consists of finite sums of symbols of the form

$$fU_\gamma ^{},\text{with}f,\gamma G^+(),$$

with the product given by the rule

$`fU_\alpha ^{}gU_\beta ^{}=(fg|\alpha )U_{\beta \alpha }^{},`$ (3.17)
where the vertical bar denotes the ‘slash operation’. Under the customary identification

$$f_{2k}\stackrel{~}{f}:=fdz^k$$

of modular forms with higher differentials, the latter is just the pullback

$$f|\gamma \gamma ^{}(\stackrel{~}{f}),\gamma G^+().$$
(3.18)
We further recall that the action of $`_1`$ on $`𝒜_{G^+()}`$ is determined by

$$X(fU_\gamma ^{})=X(f)U_\gamma ^{},Y(fU_\gamma ^{})=Y(f)U_\gamma ^{},\delta _1(fU_\gamma ^{})=\mu _\gamma fU_\gamma ^{},$$
(3.19)
where

$$X(f)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\left(\frac{df}{dz}\frac{d}{dz}(log\eta ^4)Y(f)\right),$$
(3.20)
$`Y`$ stands for the Euler operator,

$$Y(f)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}f,$$
(3.21)
for any $`f`$ of weight $`\mathrm{}`$. Lastly,

$$\mu _\gamma (z)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{d}{dz}log\frac{\eta ^4|\gamma }{\eta ^4}.$$
(3.22)
By \[8, Prop. 10\], the quadratic differential is implemented by the normalized Eisenstein modular form of level $`1`$ and weight $`4`$:

$$\delta _2^{}(a)=[\omega ,a],\omega =\frac{E_4}{72}.$$
(3.23)
More generally, one can conjugate the above action by a $`G^+()`$-invariant $`1`$-cocycle, as in \[8, Prop. 11\]. In particular, given any $`\sigma _2`$, there exists a unique $`1`$-cocycle $`u=u(\sigma )(_1,𝒜_{G^+()})`$ such that

$$u(X)=0,u(Y)=0,u(\delta _1)=\sigma .$$
(3.24)
The conjugate under $`u(\sigma )`$ of the above action of $`_1`$ is given on generators as follows:

$`Y_\sigma =Y,X_\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`X+\sigma Y,`$ (3.25)
$`(\delta _1)_\sigma (a)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _1(a)+[\sigma ,a],a𝒜_{G^+()}.`$
The conjugate under $`u(\sigma )`$ of $`\delta _2^{}`$ is given by the operator

$$(\delta _2^{})_\sigma (a)=[\omega _\sigma ,a]\text{with}\omega _\sigma =\omega +X(\sigma )+\frac{\sigma ^2}{2},a𝒜_{G^+()}.$$
(3.26)
Thus, for any $`1`$-cocycle $`u=u(\sigma )`$ as above, we get an action of $`\stackrel{~}{}_\mathrm{s}|𝒫`$ on $`𝒜_{G^+()}`$, determined by (3.25) and by the homomorphism $`\rho _\sigma :𝒫`$,

$$\rho _\sigma (Z_k)=X_\sigma ^k(\omega _\sigma ),k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(3.27)
For each $`n`$ we let $`\rho _\sigma ^n:𝒫^n^n`$ be the nth tensor power of $`\rho _\sigma `$. We shall first show that the family $`\rho _\sigma `$ is sufficiently large to separate the elements of $`𝒫^n`$.

###### Lemma 11.

For each $`n`$, one has $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma _2}{}}Ker\rho _\sigma ^n=0`$.

###### Proof.

Let us treat the case $`n=1`$ first. Let $`g_2^{}`$ be the “quasimodular” () solution of the equation

$$X(m)+\frac{m^2}{2}+\omega =0.$$
(3.28)
Note that not only $`g_2^{}`$ fulfills (3.28) but also one has

$$X(f)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{d}{dz}fg_2^{}Yf,$$

for any modular form $`f`$. Also

$$\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{d}{dz}g_2^{}\frac{1}{2}(g_2^{})^2=\omega $$

Thus, with $`\alpha :=\sigma g_2^{}`$ we get

$`X_\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dz}}+\alpha Y,`$ (3.29)
$`\omega _\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dz}}\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{2}}`$
which allows to rewrite (3.27) as

$$\rho _\sigma (Z_k)=(\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{d}{dz}+\alpha Y)^k(\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{d}{dz}\alpha +\frac{\alpha ^2}{2}),k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(3.30)
Given $`0P𝒫`$ the set of $`\alpha `$ for which $`\rho _\sigma (P)=0`$ is seen using (3.30) to be contained in the space of holomorphic solutions of an (autonomous) ODE <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Any given quasi-modular form $`\alpha `$ is the solution of a non-trivial autonomous ODE (cf. ), but the latter of course depends on $`\alpha `$. and these only depend on finitely many parameters. Thus, given $`0P𝒫`$, the set of $`\sigma `$ for which $`\rho _\sigma (P)=0`$ is finite dimensional.

Let us now prove by induction that the same result holds for any $`n`$. Given $`P𝒫^n`$ we write

$$P=P_jm_j$$

where $`P_j𝒫^{n1}`$ and the $`m_j`$ belong to the canonical basis of monomials in $`𝒫`$. If $`P0`$ then $`P_j0`$ for some $`j`$ and by the induction hypothesis the set $`E_j`$ of $`\sigma `$ for which $`\rho _\sigma (P_j)=0`$ is finite dimensional. On the complement of $`E_j`$ any $`\alpha :=\sigma g_2^{}`$ such that $`\rho _\sigma (P)=0`$ fulfills a non-trivial (autonomous) ODE of the form

$$\lambda _j\rho _\sigma (m_j)=0$$
(3.31)
where the coefficient $`\lambda _j0`$. Since the space of parameters for equations of the form (3.31) is finite dimensional we get the required finite dimensionality. Since the space of modular forms of weight $`2`$ and arbitrary level is infinite dimensional we conclude the proof. ∎

We next define a map of bimodules

$$\chi _\sigma ^{(n)}:\underset{n\text{times}}{\underset{}{\stackrel{~}{}_\mathrm{s}_𝒫\mathrm{}_𝒫\stackrel{~}{}_\mathrm{s}}}(\underset{n\text{times}}{\underset{}{𝒜_{G^+()}\mathrm{}𝒜_{G^+()}}},𝒜_{G^+()})$$

by means of the assignment

$$\chi _\sigma ^{(n)}(h^1_𝒫\mathrm{}_𝒫h^n)(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)=h_\sigma ^1(a_1)\mathrm{}h_\sigma ^n(a_n),$$
(3.32)
where $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_n𝒜_{G^+()}`$ and with $`h^1,\mathrm{},h^n\stackrel{~}{}_\mathrm{s}`$ acting via $`\rho _\sigma `$.

The following result, which represents a ‘modular’ analogue of \[7, Prop.4\], allows to establish the associativity at the Hopf algebraic level.

###### Proposition 12.

For each $`n`$, one has

$$\underset{\sigma }{}Ker\chi _\sigma ^{(n)}=0.$$

###### Proof.

For the sake of clarity, we shall first treat the case $`n=1`$. An arbitrary element of $`\stackrel{~}{}_\mathrm{s}`$ can be represented uniquely as a finite sum of the form

$$H=\underset{j,k,m,s0}{}\alpha (P_{jkms})\beta (Q_{jkms})\delta _1^jX^kY^m,$$

with $`P,Q𝒫`$. Let us assume $`\chi _\sigma ^{(1)}(H)=0`$, for any $`\sigma `$.

Evaluating $`H`$ on a generic monomial in $`𝒜_{G^+()}`$ one obtains, for any $`f`$ and any $`\gamma G^+()`$,

$$\underset{j,k,m,s0}{}P_{jkms}Q_{jkms}|\gamma \mu _\gamma (\sigma )^jX^k(Y^m(f))=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0};$$
(3.33)
where,

$$\mu _\gamma (\sigma )(z)=\alpha (z)\alpha |\gamma (z)\frac{1}{\pi i}\frac{c}{cz+d}$$
(3.34)
with $`\alpha :=\sigma g_2^{}`$ as above. By continuity, the above holds in fact for any $`\gamma G^+()`$.

For each fixed $`l`$, the differential equation

$$\underset{j,k,m,s}{}P_{jkms}Q_{jkms}|\gamma \mu _\gamma (\sigma )^jl^mX^k(f)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}$$

is satisfied by all modular forms $`f_{2l}`$. In turn, this implies that all its coefficients vanish. Using the freedom in $`l`$, it then follows that

$$\underset{j,s}{}P_{jkms}Q_{jkms}|\gamma \mu _\gamma (\sigma )^j=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
(3.35)
for each $`k`$ and $`m`$.

Given $`zH`$, the following three functions on $`SL(2,)`$ are defined and independent in a neighborhood of $`SL(2,)`$:

$`g_1(a,b,c,d):`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{az+b}{cz+d}},g_2(a,b,c,d):={\displaystyle \frac{1}{cz+d}},`$
$`g_3(a,b,c,d):`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{cz+d}}.`$
Indeed, we recover $`c`$ from $`g_2`$ and $`g_3`$ and then $`d`$ from $`g_3`$, then $`az+b`$ from $`g_1`$ and finally $`a`$ and $`b`$ from $`adbc=1`$. Now the formula for $`\mu _\gamma `$ is of the form

$$\mu _\gamma (\sigma )=\alpha (g_1)(g_2)^2\alpha (z)\frac{1}{i\pi }g_3$$
(3.37)
and thus involves $`g_3`$ nontrivially while the other terms in the formulas do not involve $`g_3`$. For fixed $`z`$ the formula (3.35) remains valid in a neighborhood of $`SL(2,)`$ in $`SL(2,)`$. Fixing $`z,g_1,g_2`$ and varying $`g_3`$ independently this is enough to show that the coefficient of each power $`\mu _\gamma (\sigma )^j`$ vanishes identically. Thus,

$$\underset{s}{}P_{jkms}Q_{jkms}|\gamma =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\gamma SL(2,).$$
(3.38)
Using the independence of the functions $`g_1,g_2`$ and the fact that the identity (3.38) holds true for every homogeneous component of $`Q_{jkms}`$, in view of the freedom to choose $`\sigma `$, it follows from Lemma 11 that $`H=0`$.

The proof of the case $`n>1`$ is obtained by combining the above arguments with the proof of the general case in Lemma 11. An arbitrary element of $`\stackrel{~}{}_\mathrm{s}^n`$ can be represented uniquely as a finite sum of the form

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{j,k,m,s}{}}\alpha (P_{1,j_1k_1m_1s})\beta (Q_{1,j_1k_1m_1s})\delta _1^{j_1}X^{k_1}Y^{m_1}\mathrm{}`$
(3.39)
$`\mathrm{}\alpha (P_{a,j_ak_am_as})\beta (Q_{a,j_ak_am_as})\delta _1^{j_a}X^{k_a}Y^{m_a}\mathrm{}`$
(3.40)
$`\mathrm{}\alpha (P_{n,j_nk_nm_ns})\beta (Q_{n,j_nk_nm_ns})\delta _1^{j_n}X^{k_n}Y^{m_n}`$ (3.41)
Evaluating $`H`$ on a generic monomial in $`𝒜_{G^+()}^n`$ one obtains, for any $`f_j`$ and any $`\gamma _jG^+()`$,

$$\underset{j,k,m,s}{}\underset{a}{}(P_{a,j_ak_am_as}Q_{a,j_ak_am_as}|\gamma _a\mu _{\gamma _a}(\sigma )^{j_a}X_\sigma ^{k_a}(Y^{m_a}(f_a)))|\gamma _{a1}\mathrm{}\gamma _1=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}$$
(3.42)
As in the case $`n=1`$, the freedom in the choice of the $`f_j`$ and $`\gamma _jG^+()`$ shows that for every multiindex $`(j_a,k_a,m_a)_{a\{1,..,n\}}`$, one has

$$\underset{s}{}\underset{a}{}(P_{a,j_ak_am_as}Q_{a,j_ak_am_as}|\gamma _a)|\gamma _{a1}\mathrm{}\gamma _1=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(3.43)
Using once more the independence of the functions $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ together with the reduction to homogeneous components for $`Q_{a,j_ak_am_as}`$, and then applying again Lemma 11, one arrives at the conclusion that $`H=0`$. ∎

As a direct consequence, one obtains a family of ‘universal deformation formulas’ (in the sense of ) based on $`\stackrel{~}{}_\mathrm{s}`$, as follows. From Theorem 8 and Proposition 12, each bilinear operator $`RC_n`$ uniquely determines an element

$$RC_n^_\mathrm{s}\stackrel{~}{}_\mathrm{s}_𝒫\stackrel{~}{}_\mathrm{s}.$$
(3.44)
We then assemble all of them into the element

$$:=\underset{n0}{}t^nRC_n^_\mathrm{s}\stackrel{~}{}_\mathrm{s}[[t]]_{𝒫[[t]]}\stackrel{~}{}_\mathrm{s}[[t]]$$
(3.45)
###### Corollary 13.

The element $`\stackrel{~}{}_\mathrm{s}[[t]]_{𝒫[[t]]}\stackrel{~}{}_\mathrm{s}[[t]]`$ defines a universal deformation formula, i.e. satisfies the identities

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }Id)()(1)`$ $`=`$ $`(Id\mathrm{\Delta })()1;`$ (3.46)
$`(\epsilon Id)()`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}1=(Id\epsilon )().`$ (3.47)
###### Proof.

Indeed, this follows by applying Proposition 12, for $`n=3`$, to the associative deformation of the algebra $`𝒜_{G^+()}`$ provided by Corollary 9. ∎

This result, in conjunction with the twisting operators $`𝐭_n^\kappa `$ of (2.24), immediately imply Theorem 10.

Remark 14. We finally note that by evaluating $``$ at $`Z_k=0,k0`$, one obtains a completely explicit twisting element $`F_\mathrm{s}[[t]]_{[[t]]}_\mathrm{s}[[t]]`$,

$$F=\underset{n0}{}t^n\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{S(X)^k}{k!}(2Y+k)_{nk}\frac{X^{nk}}{(nk)!}(2Y+nk)_k,$$
(3.48)
which defines a deformation of the Hopf algebra $`_\mathrm{s}`$ in the direction of the Hochschild $`2`$-cocycle $`2T=X2Y+2YX+\delta _1Y2Y`$. Although the expressions of its components were found early on, cf. (1.5), the proof of their universal associativity property passes through the treatment of the more general case of an arbitrary quadratic differential.

## 4 Appendix: Explicit Formulas

We display below the formulas of $`RC_n`$ for the first three values of $`n`$, illustrating the rapid increase of their complexity. They are in reduced form, with the terms in $`\alpha []`$ followed by those in $`\beta []`$ appearing in the role of coefficients, and then followed by terms in $`\delta _1`$, in $`X`$ and finally in $`Y`$; the last three types form the analogue of a Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt basis of $`\stackrel{~}{}_\mathrm{s}`$, viewed as a module over $`𝒫𝒫`$. Moreover, taking advantage of the tensoring over $`𝒫`$, no term in $`\beta []`$ appears in the first argument of the tensor square.

In the formulas that follow we shall lighten the notation, using the symbol $`RC_{}`$ instead of $`RC_{}^_\mathrm{s}`$, and $``$ instead of $`_𝒫`$; we shall also write $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ instead of $`Z_0`$.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}RC_1=XY+YX+\delta _1YY.`$ (4.1)
Quite remarkably, the formula for $`A_n`$ appears to contain no term in $`\beta [.]`$, unlike the formula for $`S(X)^n`$. The latter, once put in reduced form, is much more complicated than the expression of $`A_n`$.

The associativity for $`RC_1`$ follows directly from its Hochschild property. It is already harder to check it directly for $`RC_2`$ which is given by the following expression:

$`RC_2=XX2XXY+X^2Y+2X^2Y^2+YX^2`$
$`Y\alpha [\mathrm{\Omega }]Y+2Y^2X^22Y^2\alpha [\mathrm{\Omega }]Y2XYX`$
$`4XYXY\delta _1XY2\delta _1XY^2+\delta _1YX`$
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\delta _1YXY+2\delta _1Y^2X+4\delta _1Y^2XY+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _1^2YY`$
$`+\delta _1^2YY^2+\delta _1^2Y^2Y+2\delta _1^2Y^2Y^2\alpha [\mathrm{\Omega }]YY`$
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\alpha [\mathrm{\Omega }]YY^22\delta _1XYY4\delta _1XYY^2.`$
We did check directly Corollary 13 up to order $`4`$ included, (i.e. the associativity for $`RC_3`$ and $`RC_4`$) with the help of a computer. This is beyond the reach of any ‘bare hands’ computation, as witnessed by the complexity of the following formula for $`RC_3`$. (The expression of $`RC_4`$ is much longer, it would occupy several pages.)

$`RC_3=2XX^22XX^2.Y+2X\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].Y+2X\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].Y^2+2X^2X+6X^2X.Y+`$
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}X^2X.Y^2{\displaystyle \frac{2X^3Y}{3}}2X^3Y^2{\displaystyle \frac{4X^3Y^3}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2YX^3}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}Y\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].X`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}Y\alpha \left[X\left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right]\right].Y2Y\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].X.Y+2Y^2X^32Y^2\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].X2Y^2\alpha \left[X\left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right]\right].Y`$
$`6Y^2\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].X.Y+{\displaystyle \frac{4Y^3X^3}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}Y^3\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].X{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}Y^3\alpha \left[X\left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right]\right].Y4Y^3\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].X.Y`$
$`6X.YX^26X.YX^2.Y+6X.Y\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].Y+6X.Y\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].Y^24X.Y^2X^2`$
$`4X.Y^2X^2.Y+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}X.Y^2\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].Y+4X.Y^2\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].Y^2+2X^2.YX+6X^2.YX.Y`$
$`+4X^2.YX.Y^22\delta _1.XX6\delta _1.XX.Y4\delta _1.XX.Y^2+2\delta _1.X^2Y+6\delta _1.X^2Y^2`$
$`+4\delta _1.X^2Y^3+2\delta _1.YX^2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\delta _1.YX^2.Y2\delta _1.Y\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].Y2\delta _1.Y\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].Y^2`$
$`+6\delta _1.Y^2X^2+6\delta _1.Y^2X^2.Y6\delta _1.Y^2\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].Y6\delta _1.Y^2\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].Y^2+4\delta _1.Y^3X^2`$
$`+4\delta _1.Y^3X^2.Y4\delta _1.Y^3\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].Y4\delta _1.Y^3\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].Y^2\delta _1^2.XY3\delta _1^2.XY^2`$
$`2\delta _1^2.XY^3+\delta _1^2.YX+3\delta _1^2.YX.Y+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\delta _1^2.YX.Y^2+3\delta _1^2.Y^2X+9\delta _1^2.Y^2X.Y`$
$`+6\delta _1^2.Y^2X.Y^2+2\delta _1^2.Y^3X+6\delta _1^2.Y^3X.Y+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\delta _1^2.Y^3X.Y^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\delta _1^3.YY+\delta _1^3.YY^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\delta _1^3.YY^3+\delta _1^3.Y^2Y+3\delta _1^3.Y^2Y^2+2\delta _1^3.Y^2Y^3+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\delta _1^3.Y^3Y+2\delta _1^3.Y^3Y^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\delta _1^3.Y^3Y^3+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].XY+2\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].XY^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].XY^32\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].YX`$
$`6\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].YX.Y4\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].YX.Y^22\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].Y^2X6\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].Y^2X.Y4\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].Y^2X.Y^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\alpha \left[X\left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right]\right].YY+2\alpha \left[X\left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right]\right].YY^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\alpha \left[X\left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right]\right].YY^36\delta _1.X.YX18\delta _1.X.YX.Y`$
$`12\delta _1.X.YX.Y^24\delta _1.X.Y^2X12\delta _1.X.Y^2X.Y8\delta _1.X.Y^2X.Y^2+2\delta _1.X^2.YY`$
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}\delta _1.X^2.YY^2+4\delta _1.X^2.YY^33\delta _1^2.X.YY9\delta _1^2.X.YY^26\delta _1^2.X.YY^3`$
$`2\delta _1^2.X.Y^2Y6\delta _1^2.X.Y^2Y^24\delta _1^2.X.Y^2Y^3+2\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].X.YY+6\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].X.YY^2`$
$`+4\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].X.YY^32\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].\delta _1.YY6\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].\delta _1.YY^24\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].\delta _1.YY^32\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].\delta _1.Y^2Y`$
$`6\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].\delta _1.Y^2Y^24\alpha \left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].\delta _1.Y^2Y^3.`$