text:
# KUNS-1835hep-th/0304163 Time Dependent Solution in Cubic String Field Theory

## 1 Introduction

Recently the time dependent decay of an unstable D-brane has been one of the most active subjects in string theory. The unstable D-brane evolves in time as the tachyon field rolls down to the bottom of the potential corresponding to the stable closed string vacuum. Sen proposed a boundary conformal field theory (BCFT) which describes this time dependent process . This BCFT is exactly solvable  and he found that in the limit of vanishing string coupling the system evolves to a pressureless gas called tachyon matter . Since tachyon matter is classically stable, it could be applied to cosmology as inflaton, and the tachyon matter cosmology has attracted great interest.

Besides such cosmological applications, time dependent solutions themselves are of importance in string theory. For they are expected to reveal new nonperturbative aspects of string dynamics. Much work has been done for the study of the rolling tachyon solutions using various formulations such as conformal field theory, effective field theory, boundary string field theory, supergravity, and so on . However, there are many problems left unresolved. For example, closed string emission and its back reaction in the process of rolling .

In this paper, we study time dependent solutions describing the rolling tachyon in cubic string field theory (CSFT) . We construct time dependent solutions in truncated CSFT and examine whether the solutions have the properties of the rolling tachyon. The desirable properties are as follows:

1. There is a one-parameter family of solutions. This parameter $`\beta `$ corresponds to the initial value of tachyon field.
2. For $`\beta =0`$, the tachyon stays at the unstable perturbative vacuum:

$$t(x;\beta =0)=0.$$
(1.1)
3. There is a specific value $`\beta _c`$ of $`\beta `$. At $`\beta =\beta _c`$ the tachyon field is independent of time and stays at the tachyon vacuum:

$$t(x^0;\beta _c)=t_c.$$
(1.2)
4. For $`0<\beta <\beta _c`$, the tachyon evolves in time and asymptotically approaches the tachyon vacuum $`t_c`$:

$$t(x\mathrm{};\beta 0)=t_c.$$
(1.3)

We expand the component fields in terms of $`\mathrm{cosh}nx^0`$ (and $`\mathrm{sinh}nx^0`$) and solve the equations of motion for the modes . For example, in the truncated system of only the level zero tachyon field $`t(x^0)`$, we express it as

$$t(x^0)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t_n\mathrm{cosh}nx^0,$$
(1.4)
and solve the equations of motion for $`t_n`$ ($`n1`$) by taking $`t_1`$ as a given parameter corresponding to the marginal deformation parameter in the full CSFT system.*** See  for approaches to solving the differential equations of the component fields without using the mode expansion.  However, if we truncate the summation in (1.4) at $`n=N`$ as in the modified level truncation scheme , the solution diverges like $`\mathrm{cosh}Nx^0`$ as $`x^0\mathrm{}`$. A hint on avoiding this divergent behavior is found in the calculation of the coefficient $`f(x^0)`$ of the closed string tachyon in the rolling tachyon boundary state . There, an infinite summation of $`\mathrm{cosh}nx^0`$ gives a finite value at $`x^0\mathrm{}`$ by analytic continuation:

$$f(x^0)=1+2\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\stackrel{~}{\beta })^n\mathrm{cosh}nx^0=\frac{1}{1+\stackrel{~}{\beta }e^{x^0}}+\frac{1}{1+\stackrel{~}{\beta }e^{x^0}}1.$$
(1.5)
Moreover, at a specific value of the parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$; $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=1`$, the summation becomes a constant, which is a desirable property for the rolling tachyon solution. This example suggests that, for getting a convergent function at $`x^0\mathrm{}`$, we have to obtain the coefficients $`t_n`$ for all, and in particular, large $`n`$ and carry out the infinite summation of (1.4).

In this paper, we first solve numerically the equation of motion of $`t_n`$ to study its $`n`$-dependence. We find that $`t_n`$ has a leading $`n`$-dependence of the form $`(\beta )^n\lambda ^{n^2}`$ with $`\beta `$ being proportional to the parameter $`t_1`$. Besides this leading $`n`$-dependence, $`t_n`$ has a peculiar subleading part with peaks at $`n=2^m=4,8,16,32,64,128,\mathrm{}`$. Then we carry out analytical study of the equation of motion of $`t_n`$. Since the original equation of motion is too complicated to be solved analytically, we consider an approximate equation of motion valid for a large $`n`$. This equation is further deformed to a simplified one which still maintains the essential features of the original equation. In fact, this simplified equation can be solved analytically at special values of $`n`$ to reproduce the behavior of $`t_n`$ found by numerical analysis.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In sec. 2, we present the CSFT action and the equation of motion of $`t_n`$. In sec. 3, we carry out the numerical analysis of $`t_n`$ and also the level two modes, and find their $`n`$-dependence. Then in sec. 4, the equation of motion of $`t_n`$ is examined analytically to reproduce their $`n`$-dependence found in sec. 3. The final section (sec. 5) is devoted to a summary and discussions. In the appendix, we present technical details used in sec. 4.

## 2 CSFT action and the equation of motion

The action of cubic string field theory for bosonic open string takes the form

$$S=\frac{1}{g_\mathrm{o}^2}\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }Q_\mathrm{B}\mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\right),$$
(2.1)
where $`Q_\mathrm{B}`$ is the BRST operator and $``$ is the star product between two string fields. The open string field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ contains component fields corresponding to all the states in the first-quantized string Fock space. For more details of CSFT and its application to tachyon condensation, see  and the references therein. First let us keep only the tachyon field $`t(x)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`|\mathrm{\Phi }=b_0|0t(x)`$. The truncated action including only the tachyon field is

$$S=\frac{1}{g_\mathrm{o}^2}d^{26}x\left(\frac{1}{2}t(x)(\mathrm{}+1)t(x)\frac{1}{3}\lambda \left(\lambda ^{(1/3)\mathrm{}}t(x)\right)^3\right),$$
(2.2)
with

$$\mathrm{}=_0^2+^2,\lambda =3^{9/2}/2^6=2.192.$$
(2.3)
We use the convention of $`\alpha ^{}=1`$ throughout this paper. Later we shall take into account of the level two fields.

In the following we are interested in the time dependent and spatially homogeneous solution $`t(x^0)`$ to the equation of motion derived from (2.2):

$$(_0^21)t(x^0)+\lambda ^{1_0^2/3}\left(\lambda ^{_0^2/3}t(x^0)\right)^2=0.$$
(2.4)
As we mentioned in sec. 1, we expand the tachyon field in terms of $`\mathrm{cosh}nx^0`$ following . Here, we do not adopt the modified level truncation scheme , but take into account of all the modes:

$$t(x^0)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t_n\mathrm{cosh}nx^0.$$
(2.5)
Substituting this into the equation of motion (2.4), we have the following equations for each $`t_n`$:

$`t_0+\lambda \left[(t_0)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\lambda ^{2n^2/3}(t_n)^2\right]=0,`$ (2.6)
$`2t_0t_1+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\lambda ^{2k(k+1)/3}t_kt_{k+1}=0,`$ (2.7)
$`(n^21)t_n+\lambda ^{12n^2/3}[2t_0t_n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }_{k=1}^{n1}\lambda ^{2k(kn)/3}t_kt_{nk}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\lambda ^{2k(k+n)/3}t_kt_{n+k}]=0(n2),`$ (2.8)
which are respectively the equations of motion of $`t_0`$, $`t_1`$ and $`t_n`$ ($`n2`$).

From the BCFT analysis of rolling tachyon , it is expected that the full CSFT keeping all the component fields in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has a rolling solution with one free parameter corresponding to the initial value of the tachyon field at $`x^0=0`$ . However, in the approximate analysis with finite number of component fields, we no longer have such a free parameter. Therefore, in our analysis we treat $`t_1`$ as a given parameter and solve (2.6) and (2.8) for $`t_n(t_1)`$ ($`n=0,2,3,\mathrm{}`$) . In the exact CSFT, we can in principle adopt any $`t_n`$ as the free parameter. However, in our approximate analysis the result depends on choice of the free parameter. The present choice is natural since, in the case without the interaction in (2.4), the solution is given by $`t_1\mathrm{cosh}x^0`$ with $`t_1`$ being arbitrary.

Before starting the numerical analysis of $`t_n(t_1)`$, we shall mention that the parameter $`t_1`$ has an upper bound $`t_1^\mathrm{c}`$ above which (2.6) and (2.8) have no real solutions . To understand this fact it is sufficient to consider only $`t_0`$ neglecting other $`t_n`$ with $`n2`$, since they are negligibly small compared with $`t_0`$ as we shall see in later sections. Solving (2.6) with $`t_n=0`$ ($`n2`$), we have two branches of solutions ,

$$t_0^{(\pm )}(t_1)=\frac{1}{2\lambda }\left(1\pm \sqrt{1\left(\frac{t_1}{t_1^\mathrm{c}}\right)^2}\right),$$
(2.9)
with $`t_1^\mathrm{c}`$ given by

$$t_1^\mathrm{c}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\lambda ^{2/3}=0.419.$$
(2.10)
The solutions $`t_0^{(+)}`$ and $`t_0^{()}`$ are those connected with the tachyon vacuum $`t(x)=1/\lambda `$ and the unstable perturbative vacuum $`t(x)=0`$, respectively, and $`t_0^{()}`$ is the rolling solution we are interested in. Both $`t_0^{(\pm )}`$ are real only in the region $`\left|t_1\right|t_1^\mathrm{c}`$.

## 3 Numerical analysis

In this section we shall carry out numerical analysis of the rolling solutions in CSFT. In sec. 3.1, we solve numerically the equation of motion of only the level zero tachyon field $`t(x^0)`$. Then in sec. 3.2 we extend our analysis to the system with level two fields.

### 3.1 Numerical analysis for tachyon field

As we mentioned in the previous section, we solve numerically the equations of motion (2.6) and (2.8) for $`t_0`$ and $`t_n`$ ($`n2`$) for a given value of $`t_1`$. Since numerical calculation cannot be done for an infinite number of variables $`t_n`$, we put $`t_n0`$ for $`n>N`$ with sufficiently large $`N`$ and solve (2.6) and (2.8) for $`nN`$. Here, we take $`N=150`$ and obtain the solution $`t_n`$ ($`n=0,2,3,\mathrm{},150`$) by Newton’s method starting with the point $`t_n=0`$ (namely, we are considering the solution which is reduced to the perturbative vacuum in the limit $`t_10`$). We have obtained $`t_n(t_1)`$ at discrete points $`t_1=0.01,0.02,0.03,\mathrm{},0.41`$ and $`0.418`$. There exists no real solutions for $`t_10.419`$, which is consistent with the simplified analysis of (2.9). Fig. 1 shows $`\mathrm{ln}\left|t_n\right|`$ ($`n2`$) at $`t_1=0.1`$.

Then, let us assume that the $`n`$-dependence of $`t_n`$ at each value of $`t_1`$ is given by

$$t_n^{\mathrm{fit}}=A\lambda ^{\xi n^2}(\beta )^n,(n2),$$
(3.1)
and obtain $`A(t_1)`$, $`\xi (t_1)`$ and $`\beta (t_1)`$ by fitting to our numerical solution $`t_n(t_1)`$. This assumption of (3.1) will be justified by analytical considerations in the next section.

The solution $`t_n`$ and the fitted curve (3.1) at, for example, $`t_1=0.1`$ are shown in fig. 2, which confirms the validity of our assumption (3.1). Fitting by (3.1) works very well also at other values of $`t_1`$. Figs. 3, 4 and 5 show $`\xi (t_1)`$, $`\beta (t_1)`$ and $`A(t_1)`$ obtained by fitting.

These results show that

$`\xi (t_1)1,`$ (3.2)
$`\beta (t_1)t_1\left(0.196t_1\right),`$ (3.3)
and that $`A(t_1)`$ is almost a constant. Fig. 3 (with $`N=150`$) itself tells that $`\xi 1.00026`$ with little $`t_1`$-dependence. For other values of the cutoff $`N`$, we have $`\xi 1.0045`$ ($`N=50`$) and $`\xi 1.00148`$ ($`N=100`$). These results strongly suggest that $`\xi (t_1)`$ approaches a constant which is equal to one in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$. As for $`\beta (t_1)`$, the proportionality constant ($`0.196`$ for $`N=150`$) for other values of $`N`$ are $`0.2391`$ ($`N=50`$) and $`0.2137`$ ($`N=100`$). The proportionality constant gradually decreases as $`N`$ becomes larger, and the value at $`N=\mathrm{}`$ predicted by the fitting using $`a+b/N`$ is $`0.18`$. The value of $`\beta `$ at $`t_1=0.418`$ which is close to the critical $`t_1`$ above which we have no real solutions is $`\beta (0.418)=0.0819`$ for $`N=150`$. For other values of $`N`$, we have $`\beta (0.418)=0.0999`$ ($`N=50`$) and $`\beta (0.418)=0.0893`$ ($`N=100`$).

Then let us consider the deviation of $`t_n`$ from the leading $`n`$-dependence (3.1). Fig. 6 shows

$$\widehat{t}_n=\frac{t_n}{\lambda ^{\xi n^2}(\beta )^n},$$
(3.4)
at $`t_1=0.1`$ and $`0.4`$ ($`\xi `$ and $`\beta `$ in the denominator are those given by figs. 3 and 4). The coefficient $`A`$ of (3.1) is the average value of $`\widehat{t}_n`$ with respect to $`n`$. As seen from fig. 6, the subleading part $`\widehat{t}_n`$ has a peculiar $`n`$-dependence; it has peaks at $`n=2^m=4,8,16,32,64,128`$. In addition, $`\widehat{t}_n(t_1)`$ depends very little on the value of $`t_1`$. These properties of $`\widehat{t}_n`$ will be partially reproduced by analytical consideration in sec. 4.

Finally, fig. 7 shows the LHS of (2.7) for the present solution $`t_n(t_1)`$ and the solution obtained by starting from the tachyon vacuum. It shows how well the equation of motion of $`t_1`$, which we do not take into account in obtaining the solution, is satisfied. As seen from the figure, the equation of motion of $`t_1`$ is fairly well satisfied by the solution connected to the perturbative vacuum. Since $`t_n`$ with larger $`n`$ are negligibly small as seen from (3.1), the behavior of (2.7) given by fig. 7 is almost the same as that obtained by the simplified analysis using (2.9) and neglecting other $`t_n`$.

### 3.2 Inclusion of level 2 fields

We have carried out the same kind of analysis as in the previous subsection by including the level two fields. Taking into account of spatial rotational symmetry, twist symmetry and the invariance under $`XX`$ , the string field $`|\mathrm{\Phi }=b_0|\varphi `$ in the Siegel gauge with component fields up to level two is expanded as follows:

$`|\varphi (x^0)=`$ $`|0t(x^0)+c_1b_1|0u(x^0){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\alpha _1^0\right)^2|0v(x^0)`$
$`i\alpha _2^0|0\chi (x^0)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha _1^i\alpha _1^i|0w(x^0),`$ (3.5)
where $`t`$, $`u`$, $`v`$ and $`w`$ are even functions of $`x^0`$ and hence are expanded by $`\mathrm{cosh}nx^0`$; $`\phi (x^0)=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\phi _n\mathrm{cosh}nx^0`$ ($`\phi =t`$, $`u`$, $`v`$, $`w`$), while $`\chi `$ is an odd function and is expanded by $`\mathrm{sinh}nx^0`$; $`\chi (x^0)=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\chi _n\mathrm{sinh}nx^0`$. These five fields are all hermitian. We have used the level $`(2,6)`$ action in our calculation. Here, we do not adopt the modified level truncation scheme as in , but we assign level zero to $`t_n`$ and level two to $`u_n`$, $`v_n`$, $`\chi _n`$ and $`w_n`$ for all $`n`$. The set of component fields in our level $`(2,6)`$ analysis is not included nor includes that of the modified level $`(4,8)`$ analysis in sec. 7 of . For the common component fields, the correspondence between  (denoted by the superscript MZ) and the present paper is $`v_1^{\mathrm{MZ}}=(1/3)\left(2\sqrt{2}\chi _1v_1\right)`$ and $`z_1^{\mathrm{MZ}}=(1/3)\left(v_1\chi _1/\sqrt{2}\right)`$ ($`t_0`$, $`t_1`$, $`u_0`$, $`u_1`$, $`v_0`$, $`w_0`$ and $`w_1`$ are the same between the two). Comparing the numerical solution at $`t_1=0.05`$ given in sec. 7 of  with ours, we find that $`t_0`$, $`u_0`$, $`v_0`$, $`w_0`$ and $`t_2`$ agree within the accuracy of $`0.1\%`$, while the agreement is only up to factor for $`u_1`$, $`v_1`$ and $`w_1`$.

In this numerical analysis, we adopted $`N=30`$ as the cutoff of the mode number $`n`$ for all the five fields and solved the equation of motion of each mode for a given value of $`t_1`$. Then, fitting the solution $`t_n(t_1)`$ by (3.1), we obtained $`\xi (t_1)`$ and $`\beta (t_1)`$, which are shown in figs. 9 and 9. In obtaining $`\xi (t_1)`$ and $`\beta (t_1)`$ by fitting, we omitted $`t_5`$, $`t_6`$ and $`t_{18}`$. Inclusion of them in the fit leads to $`\xi (t_1)`$ and $`\beta (t_1)`$ with strange $`t_1`$-dependence since $`t_5`$, $`t_6`$ and $`t_{18}`$ change their signs at $`t_10.30`$, $`0.26`$ and $`0.37`$, respectively.

The critical value of $`t_1`$ above which there is no real solution is $`t_1^\mathrm{c}0.46`$ in the present case, which is larger than that in the purely $`t`$ system. Fig. 9 is consistent with our previous result (3.2), $`\xi (t_1)1`$. From fig. 9 we have

$$\beta (t_1)0.50t_1.$$
(3.6)
In particular, the value of $`\beta `$ at the critical $`t_1`$ is $`\beta (t_1=0.46)0.23`$, which is about three times larger than that in the purely $`t`$ system of sec. 3.1. The $`n`$-dependences of other modes $`\phi _n`$ ($`\phi =u,v,w,\chi `$) are similar to that of $`t_n`$.

In our level $`(2,6)`$ analysis with $`N=30`$, the subleading part $`\widehat{t}_n`$ (3.4) does not show such characteristic behavior as in fig. 6. This could be due to that $`N=30`$ is not sufficiently large.

## 4 Analytical consideration

In this section, we would like to understand analytically the $`n`$-dependence of $`t_n`$ found in the previous section, namely, (3.2), (3.3) and the peculiar behavior of the subleading part $`\widehat{t}_n`$ given by fig. 6.

Let us consider the equation of motion (2.8) for large $`n`$. We assume that the solution $`t_n`$ is given by

$$t_n=(1)^n\frac{2}{\lambda }g_n\lambda ^{(2/3)cn^2}(n1),$$
(4.1)
where $`c`$ is a constant and $`g_n`$ has a weaker $`n`$-dependence than the leading term $`\lambda ^{(2/3)cn^2}`$. Concretely, we expect that $`\mathrm{ln}g_n=𝒪(n)`$ for $`n1`$. The front factor $`(1)^n2/\lambda `$ is simply for the sake of later convenience. Note that, if $`t_n`$ is a solution, so is $`(1)^nt_n`$.

We rewrite (2.8) into

$$(n^21)t_n+\lambda ^{1(2/3)n^2}\left(2t_0t_n+Y_n+Z_n\right)=0,$$
(4.2)
where $`Y_n`$ and $`Z_n`$ are defined by

$`Y_n`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\lambda ^{2k(nk)/3}t_{nk}t_k,`$ (4.3)
$`Z_n`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\lambda ^{2k(k+n)/3}t_{n+k}t_k.`$ (4.4)
Substituting the ansatz (4.1) to $`Y_n`$ and $`Z_n`$, we obtain

$`Y_n`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\lambda ^2}}(1)^n\lambda ^{(2/3)(c/21/4)n^2}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1n/2}{\overset{n/21}{}}}\lambda ^{(2/3)(1+2c)k^2}g_{\frac{n}{2}k}g_{\frac{n}{2}+k},`$ (4.5)
$`Z_n`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\lambda ^2}}(1)^n\lambda ^{(2/3)(c/21/4)n^2}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1+n/2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\lambda ^{(2/3)(1+2c)k^2}g_{\frac{n}{2}+k}g_{\frac{n}{2}+k},`$ (4.6)
where the summations with respect to $`k`$ run over integers (half-an-odd integers) when $`n`$ is even (odd). Since the summation in $`Y_n`$ is convergent in the limit $`n\mathrm{}`$, we have

$$Y_n\lambda ^{(2/3)(c/21/4)n^2},(n1).$$
(4.7)
On the other hand, the large $`n`$ behavior of $`Z_n`$ is

$$Z_n\lambda ^{(2/3)(c/21/4)n^2}\times \lambda ^{(2/3)(1+2c)(1+n/2)^2}\lambda ^{(2/3)cn^2},(n1).$$
(4.8)
Therefore, we have

$$Y_nZ_nt_n,(n1),$$
(4.9)
and we can neglect $`2t_0t_n`$ and $`Z_n`$ in the second term of (4.2) for a large $`n`$. The constant $`c`$ is determined by the requirement that the first term $`(n^21)t_n\lambda ^{(2/3)cn^2}`$ of (4.2) and the leading part $`\lambda ^{1(2/3)n^2}Y_n\lambda ^{(c/3+1/2)n^2}`$ of the second term have the same large $`n`$ behavior:

$$c=\frac{3}{2}.$$
(4.10)
Therefore, the equation of motion (4.2) for $`t_n`$ is reduced to

$$g_n=\frac{1}{n^21}\underset{k=1n/2}{\overset{n/21}{}}\lambda ^{(8/3)k^2}g_{\frac{n}{2}k}g_{\frac{n}{2}+k}.$$
(4.11)
Although (4.11) has been derived for a sufficiently large $`n`$, let us assume that it is valid for all $`n(2)`$. Then, since the RHS of (4.11) is given in terms of $`g_k`$ with $`k`$ smaller than $`n`$, (4.11) determines $`g_n`$ recursively once we fix $`g_1=(\lambda ^2/2)t_1`$. In fact, numerical analysis shows that (4.11) reproduces the peculiar subleading behavior of fig. 6.

For analytic evaluation of $`g_n`$, let us make a further simplification on (4.11) which can still reproduce the behavior of $`t_n`$ observed in sec. 3. This simplification is to keep only the term with the smallest $`\left|k\right|`$ in the summation of (4.11) by regarding that $`\lambda ^{8/3}=0.12`$ is sufficiently small:

$$g_n=\frac{1}{n^21}\times \{\begin{array}{cc}\left(g_{n/2}\right)^2\hfill & (n:\mathrm{even})\hfill \\ \eta g_{(n1)/2}g_{(n+1)/2}\hfill & (n:\mathrm{odd})\hfill \end{array},$$
(4.12)
with

$$\eta =2\lambda ^{2/3}=\frac{32}{27}.$$
(4.13)
Eq. (4.12) is still too complicated to be solved analytically for a generic $`n`$. However, we can obtain the solution $`g_n`$ for specific values of $`n`$; $`n=2^m+2^{m1}+\mathrm{}+2^{ma}=2^m(22^a)`$ ($`0am`$) and $`n=2^m+2^{mb}=2^m(1+2^b)`$ ($`0bm`$). These $`n`$ are of the form $`11\mathrm{}100\mathrm{}0`$ and $`10\mathrm{}010\mathrm{}0`$ in the binary notation. For $`n=2^m(22^a)`$, (4.12) gives

$`g_{2^{m+1}2^{ma}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2^{m+1}2^{ma})^21}}\left(g_{2^m2^{ma1}}\right)^2`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{ma1}{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2^{m+1k}2^{mak})^21}})^{2^k}(g_{2^{a+1}1})^{2^{ma}},`$ (4.14)
which in the special case of $`a=0`$ is the equation for $`g_{2^m}`$. Then, using again (4.12), $`g_{2^{a+1}1}`$ on the RHS of (4.14) is given as

$$g_{2^{a+1}1}=\frac{\eta }{(2^{a+1}1)^21}g_{2^a}g_{2^a1}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{a1}{}}\frac{\eta }{(2^{ak+1}1)^21}\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{a}{}}g_{2^a\mathrm{}},$$
(4.15)
and the final factor $`g_{2^a\mathrm{}}`$ in (4.15) is expressed in terms of $`g_1`$ using (4.14) with $`a=0`$ and $`m=a\mathrm{}`$. Completing the calculations we obtain $`g_{n=2^m(22^a)}`$ in a closed form as a function of $`g_1`$ (see appendix A). In particular, for a large $`n=2^m(22^a)`$ we have

$$g_{n=2^m(22^a)}=16\left(\frac{g_1}{G_a}\right)^n\left(n^2\frac{1}{7}+𝒪(n^2)\right).$$
(4.16)
In (4.16), $`G_a`$ depends on only $`a`$ and is given by

$`G_a`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{2^{(a^2+5a+8)/2}}{\eta ^a}}T_a^2e^{S_a}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{a}{}}}(2^k1){\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{a1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{ap1}{}}}\left(2^{2(apq)}1\right)^{2^q}\right)^{1/T_a},`$ (4.17)
where $`T_a`$ and $`S_a`$ are defined by

$`T_a=2^{a+1}1,`$ (4.18)
$`S_a={\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2^{a+1}1\right)^{2p}}{p\left(2^{2p+1}1\right)}}.`$ (4.19)
Similarly, for $`n=2^m(1+2^b)`$ we have

$$g_{n=2^m(1+2^b)}=16\left(\frac{g_1}{\stackrel{~}{G}_b}\right)^n\left(n^2\frac{1}{7}+𝒪(n^2)\right),$$
(4.20)
where $`\stackrel{~}{G}_b`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_b=\left(\frac{32^{(b^2+3b+8)/2}}{\eta ^b}\stackrel{~}{T}_b^2e^{\stackrel{~}{S}_b}\underset{k=0}{\overset{b1}{}}(2^k+1)\underset{p=0}{\overset{b2}{}}\underset{q=0}{\overset{bp2}{}}\left(2^{2(bpq1)}1\right)^{2^q}\right)^{1/\stackrel{~}{T}_b},$$
(4.21)
with

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_b=2^b+1,`$ (4.22)
$`\stackrel{~}{S}_b={\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2^b+1\right)^{2p}}{p\left(2^{2p+1}1\right)}}.`$ (4.23)
In (4.17) and (4.21), the products $`_{k=n}^m`$ with $`n>m`$ are defined to be equal to one. For example, the products in (4.17) are missing for $`G_0`$.

Let us see the behaviors of $`G_a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_b`$. First, we have

$$G_0=G_{\mathrm{}}=\stackrel{~}{G}_0=\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{}}=16e^{S_0}=13.604.$$
(4.24)
The equality of these four quantities is natural since $`a=0`$, $`a=\mathrm{}`$, $`b=0`$ and $`b=\mathrm{}`$ all correspond to the points of the same type $`n=2^m`$. The value $`16e^{S_0}`$ is independent of $`\eta `$. Next, figs. 10 and 11 show $`G_a`$ (dots) and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_b`$ (circles). The horizontal axis is $`22^a`$ for $`G_a`$ and $`1+2^b`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{G}_b`$ (recall that $`n=2^m(22^a)`$ for $`G_a`$, and $`n=2^m(1+2^b)`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{G}_b`$). Since $`a=1`$ and $`b=1`$ correspond to the same $`n=2^m+2^{m1}`$, we have $`G_1=\stackrel{~}{G}_1`$. The difference between figs. 10 and 11 is that we have used the original value $`\eta =32/27`$ of (4.13) in the former, while the smaller value $`\eta =1`$ has been adopted in the latter (see below for the reason why we consider $`\eta `$ different from (4.13)).

Substituting (4.16) and $`g_1=(\lambda ^2/2)t_1`$ into (4.1), we get for $`n1`$

$$t_{n=2^m(22^a)}=\frac{32}{\lambda }(\frac{\lambda ^2}{2G_a}t_1\left)^n\lambda ^{n^2}\right(n^2\frac{1}{7}+𝒪(n^2)).$$
(4.25)
Similarly from (4.20), we obtain $`t_{n=2^m(1+2^b)}`$, which is given by (4.25) with $`G_a`$ replaced by $`\stackrel{~}{G}_b`$. Let us compare this expression of $`t_n`$ with the results of our numerical analysis of sec. 3.1. There $`t_n`$ was given as (we have put $`\xi =1`$)

$$t_n=\widehat{t}_n(\beta )^n\lambda ^{n^2}.$$
(4.26)
In sec. 3.1, we first determined $`\beta `$ (and $`\xi `$) by fitting $`t_n`$ using (4.26) with $`\widehat{t}_n`$ treated as $`n`$-independent quantity $`A`$. We found that the subleading part $`\widehat{t}_n`$ has a peculiar $`n`$-dependence of fig. 6. The correspondence between (4.25) and (4.26) should be as follows:

$`\beta (t_1)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{2\overline{G}}}t_1,`$ (4.27)
$`\widehat{t}_n`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{32}{\lambda }}(n^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{7}}+𝒪(n^2))({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{G}}{G_a}})^n,`$ (4.28)
where $`\overline{G}`$ is the “average value” of $`G_a`$. Here we can treat only the special points of the form $`n=2^m(22^a)`$ and $`2^m(1+2^b)`$. However, $`\overline{G}`$ should be regarded as an average of $`G_a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_b`$ over all $`n`$ points assuming that the formula like (4.25) holds for a generic $`n`$.

Let us consider $`\beta (t_1)`$ of (4.27). If we take $`\overline{G}=14`$, which is a reasonable value as seen from fig. 10, we have $`\lambda ^2/(2\overline{G})=0.17`$. This is close to the proportionality constant of $`\beta (t_1)`$ determined numerically in sec. 3.1 (see below (3.3)).

Eq. (4.28) cannot reproduce the peak behavior of fig. 6 if we adopt as $`\eta `$ the original value (4.13), since $`G_a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_b`$ has minima at points a little off the points $`n=2^m`$ as seen from fig. 10. However, if we take a smaller value $`\eta =1`$ as in fig. 11, (4.28) does reproduce the desired peaks at $`n=2^m`$ since, in particular, $`G_a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_b`$ take the smallest value at these points. The critical value of $`\eta `$ below which $`G_a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_b`$ have minimum at $`n=2^m`$ is $`1.036`$. One would think that adopting $`\eta `$ different from the original value (4.13) is groundless. However, there is no reason to stick to the original value (4.13) in solving (4.12) since we have made two steps of approximations (the first is the large $`n`$ approximation and the second is that of $`\lambda ^{8/3}1`$) in reaching (4.12) from the original equation of motion. It is expected that, by incorporating the effects in making the approximations, the “effective value” of $`\eta `$ in (4.12) is reduced from the original one.

## 5 Summary and discussions

In this paper, we studied time dependent and spatially homogeneous solutions of the truncated version of cubic string field theory. We expanded the component fields in terms of $`\mathrm{cosh}nx^0`$ modes, wrote down the equations of motion of the modes, and solved them both numerically and analytically. Our finding in this paper is that the tachyon modes have the leading $`n`$-dependence of (3.1) multiplied by the subleading dependence with peaks at $`n=2^m=4,8,16,32,64,128,\mathrm{}`$.

Let us return to the question posed in sec. 1: what the tachyon profile would be if we carry out summations over all modes. First, assuming that $`t_n`$ is simply given by its leading part (3.1) with $`\xi =1`$ for all $`n(1)`$, the profile $`t(x^0)`$ is given by

$$t(x^0)=t_0A\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^{n^2}(\beta )^n\mathrm{cosh}nx^0.$$
(5.1)
Unfortunately, this function does not have a desirable behavior as a rolling tachyon solution. It is an oscillating function of $`x^0`$ which grows like $`\mathrm{exp}\left((x^0)^2/(4\mathrm{ln}\lambda )\right)`$ for large $`x^0`$.§§§This is seen from the formula
$$\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^ne^{an^2b|n|}e^{nx}=e^{x^2/(4a)}\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(e^{2|m|b}e^{(x4ma)^2/(4a)}e^{|2m1|b}e^{(x2(2m1)a)^2/(4a)}\right)$$
with $`a`$ and $`b`$ identified with $`\mathrm{ln}\lambda `$ and $`\mathrm{ln}(1/\beta )`$, respectively.

The function (5.1), however, has other apparently equivalent expressions. Rewriting $`\lambda ^{n^2}`$ in (5.1) into $`\lambda ^{_0^2}`$ and moving it outside the summations, we obtain the second expression:

$$t(x^0)=t_0+A\frac{A}{2}\lambda ^{_0^2}\left(\frac{1}{1+\beta e^{x^0}}+\frac{1}{1+\beta e^{x^0}}\right),$$
(5.2)
with $`\lambda ^{_0^2}`$ defined by $`lim_M\mathrm{}_{k=0}^M(\mathrm{ln}\lambda )^k/k!_0^{2k}`$. However, the limit $`M\mathrm{}`$ does not seem to exist since, as $`M`$ becomes larger, (5.2) becomes rapidly oscillating with growing amplitude for intermediate values $`x^0\mathrm{ln}(1/\beta )`$.

The third definition of $`t(x^0)`$ is obtained by reexpanding the quantity in the parenthesis of (5.2) in terms of the power series of $`e^{x^0}`$ and then moving $`\lambda ^{_0^2}`$ inside the series:

$$t(x^0)=t_0+\frac{A}{2}\frac{A}{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^{n^2}(1)^n\left(\beta ^n\beta ^n\right)e^{nx^0}.$$
(5.3)
This function has a convergent limit as $`x^0\mathrm{}`$. However, it is not a monotonic function of $`x^0`$, and what is worse, its derivative at $`x^0=0`$ is not equal to zero in spite of the fact that we started with $`\mathrm{cosh}nx^0`$ modes (see fig. 12).

The origin of the phenomenon that apparently equivalent expressions of $`t(x^0)`$ give completely different functions is the fact that the insertion of $`\lambda ^{n^2}`$ makes any series with finite radius of convergence into another series with infinite radius of convergence. This problem is related to the long standing problem of how to treat the infinite derivative operators like $`\lambda ^{_0^2}`$ in string field theories .

The above argument shows that the leading part (3.1) alone cannot give desirable tachyon profiles. Inclusion of the subleading part $`\widehat{t}_n`$ (3.4) could lead to $`t(x^0)`$ with a desirable profile. For studying this possibility, we have to solve the equation of motion to obtain analytically the subleading part $`\widehat{t}_n`$ for all $`n`$ and carry out the summation over $`n`$. However, it is very likely that the problem of $`\lambda ^{_0^2}`$ persists even if we take into account the subleading part. Another possible way of getting a desirable tachyon profile would be to claim that the tachyon profile should be given by $`T(x^0)\lambda ^{_0^2}t(x^0)`$ rather than $`t(x^0)`$ itself: this new $`T(x)`$ is equal to $`t(x)`$ in the translationally invariant case, and it gives a monotonic and convergent profile for $`t(x^0)`$ of (5.2). Besides the tachyon profile itself, we have to study the time dependence of other physical quantities such as the energy-momentum tensor .

In this paper we have studied time-dependent solutions in truncated CSFT. It is interesting to construct time-dependent exact solutions of the full CSFT . The tachyon vacuum solution of  would be a staring point of the construction. Study of time dependent solutions in vacuum string field theory  is also an interesting research subject.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank S. Sugimoto, T. Takahashi and I. Kishimoto for valuable discussions. The work of H. H. was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (#12640264).

## Appendix A $`𝒈_𝒏`$ for specific values of $`𝒏`$

In this appendix we complete solving (4.12) for $`g_n`$ at $`n=2^m(22^a)`$ and deriving the expression (4.16). The derivation of $`g_n`$ at $`n=2^m(1+2^b)`$ is quite similar.

For $`g_{n=2^m(22^a)}`$ we have (4.14), (4.15) and

$$g_{2^a\mathrm{}}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{a\mathrm{}1}{}}\left[\frac{1}{(2^{a\mathrm{}k})^21}\right]^{2^k}(g_1)^{2^a\mathrm{}}.$$
(A.1)
Substituting (4.15) and (A.1) into (4.14) we obtain a closed expression for $`g_{n=2^m(22^a)}`$:

$`g_{n=2^m(22^a)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{ma1}{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2^{m+1k}2^{mak})^21}})^{2^k}({\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{a1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{(2^{aq+1}1)^21}})^{2^{ma}}`$
$`\times ({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{a}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{a\mathrm{}1}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2^{a\mathrm{}p})^21}}\right]^{2^p}\left)^{2^{ma}}\right(g_1)^n,`$ (A.2)
which is valid for any $`m`$ and $`a`$ ($`0am`$). For obtaining the approximate expression (4.16), we rewrite the first product in (A.2) into

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{ma1}{}}(\frac{1}{(2^{m+1k}2^{mak})^21})^{2^k}=_{k=0}^{ma1}(n^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{2k})^{2^k}_{\mathrm{}=0}^{ma1}(1n^22^2\mathrm{})^2^{\mathrm{}}.$$
(A.3)
The first product on the RHS of (A.3) is given by

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{ma1}{}}\left(n^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{2k}\right)^{2^k}=2^4n^2\left[(4T_a)^{2/T_a}\right]^n,$$
(A.4)
and the second product is evaluated for a large $`n`$ as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{ma1}{}}}\left(1n^22^2\mathrm{}\right)^2^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{ma1}{}}}2^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1n^22^2\mathrm{}\right)\right)`$
$`=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{n^{2p}}{p}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{ma1}{}}}2^{(1+2p)\mathrm{}}\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{nT_a^{2p1}n^{2p}}{p(2^{2p+1}1)}}\right)`$
$`=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S_a}{T_a}}n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{7}}n^2+𝒪(n^4)\right).`$ (A.5)
Plugging (A.3) with (A.4) and (A.5) into (A.2) and rearranging other factors in (A.2), we get (4.16).


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

Classification of Quasifinite Modules over the Lie Algebras of Weyl Type

(appeared in Adv. Math. 174 (2003), 57-68.)

Yucai Su111Supported by a NSF grant 10171064 of China and a Fund from National Education Ministry of China.
Mathematics Subject Classification (1991): 17B10, 17B65, 17B66, 17B68

Department of Mathematics, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200030, P. R. China

For a nondegenerate additive subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the $`n`$-dimensional vector space $`IF^n`$ over an algebraically closed field $`IF`$ of characteristic zero, there is an associative algebra and a Lie algebra of Weyl type $`𝒲(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)`$ spanned by all differential operators $`uD_1^{m_1}\mathrm{}D_n^{m_n}`$ for $`uIF[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ (the group algebra), and $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_n0`$, where $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_n`$ are degree operators. In this paper, it is proved that an irreducible quasifinite $`𝒲(ZZ,1)`$-module is either a highest or lowest weight module or else a module of the intermediate series; furthermore, a classification of uniformly bounded $`𝒲(ZZ,1)`$-modules is completely given. It is also proved that an irreducible quasifinite $`𝒲(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)`$-module is a module of the intermediate series and a complete classification of quasifinite $`𝒲(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)`$-modules is also given, if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not isomorphic to $`ZZ`$.

1. INTRODUCTION

Let $`n`$ be a positive integer. A (classical) Weyl algebra of rank $`n`$ is the associative algebra $`A_n^+=C\text{ }\text{ }[t_1,\mathrm{},t_n,\frac{}{t_1},\mathrm{},\frac{}{t_n}]`$ or $`A_n=C\text{ }\text{ }[t_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},t_n^{\pm 1},\frac{}{t_1},\mathrm{},\frac{}{t_n}]`$ of differential operators over the complex field $`C\text{ }\text{ }`$. The Lie algebra with $`A_n`$ as the underlined vector space and the commutator as the Lie bracket is called a Lie algebra of Weyl type, and denoted by $`𝒲(n)`$. The Lie algebra $`𝒲(n)`$ is a $`ZZ^n`$-graded Lie algebra $`𝒲(n)=_{\alpha ZZ^n}𝒲(n)_\alpha `$ with the grading space $`𝒲(n)_\alpha `$ spanned by

$$t^\alpha D^\mu =t_1^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}t_n^{\alpha _n}D_1^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}D_n^{\mu _n}\text{ for }\mu =(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _n)ZZ_+^n,$$

where $`\alpha =(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n)ZZ^n`$ and $`D_i=t_i\frac{}{t_i}`$. It is known  that $`𝒲(n)`$ has a nontrivial universal central extension if and only if $`n=1`$. The universal central extension $`\widehat{𝒲}(1)`$ of $`𝒲(1)`$ is the well-known Lie algebra $`𝒲_{1+\mathrm{}}`$ of the $`𝒲`$-infinity algebras, which arise naturally in various physical theories such as conformal field theory, the theory of the quantum Hall effect, etc. and which have received intensive studies in the literature (see for example, \[1-6,8-14,16,19-21\]).

Let $`IF`$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero. Consider the vector space $`IF^n`$. An element in $`IF^n`$ is denoted by $`\alpha =(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n)`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be an additive subgroup of $`IF^n`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is nondegenerate, i.e., it contains an $`IF`$-basis of $`IF^n`$. Let $`IF[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ denote the group algebra of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ spanned by $`\{t^\alpha |\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$ with the algebraic operation $`t^\alpha t^\beta =t^{\alpha +\beta }`$ for $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We define the degree operators $`D_i`$ to be the derivations of $`IF[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ determined by $`D_i:t^\alpha \alpha _it^\alpha `$ for $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. The Lie algebra of generalized Weyl type of rank $`n`$ (or simply a Lie algebra of Weyl type, also called a Lie algebra of generalized differential operators) is a tensor product space $`𝒲(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)=IF[\mathrm{\Gamma },D_1,\mathrm{},D_n]=IF[\mathrm{\Gamma }]IF[D_1,\mathrm{},D_n]`$ of the commutative associative algebra $`IF[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ with the polynomial algebra $`IF[D_1,\mathrm{},D_n]`$ of $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_n`$, which is spanned by $`\{t^\alpha D^\mu |\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma },\mu ZZ_+^n\}`$, where $`D^\mu `$ stands for $`_{i=1}^nD_i^{\mu _i}`$, with the Lie bracket:

$$\begin{array}{c}[t^\alpha D^\mu ,t^\beta D^\nu ]=(t^\alpha D^\mu )(t^\beta D^\nu )(t^\beta D^\nu )(t^\alpha D^\mu ),\text{ and}\\ (t^\alpha D^\mu )(t^\beta D^\nu )=\underset{\lambda ZZ_+^n}{}(\begin{array}{c}\mu \\ \lambda \end{array})[\beta ]^\lambda t^{\alpha +\beta }D^{\mu +\nu \lambda },\text{ where}\\ [\beta ]^\lambda =\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\beta _i^{\lambda _i},(\begin{array}{c}\mu \\ \lambda \end{array})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\begin{array}{c}\mu _i\\ \lambda _i\end{array}),(\begin{array}{c}i\\ j\end{array})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{i(i1)\mathrm{}(ij+1)}{j!}\hfill & \text{if }j0,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}\hfill (1.1)\\ \hfill (1.2)\\ \end{array}$$

The associative algebra with the underlined vector space $`𝒲(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)`$ and the product (1.2) is called a generalized Weyl algebra of rank $`n`$, denoted by $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)`$. Then the classical Lie algebra $`𝒲(n)`$ of Weyl type is simply the Lie algebra $`𝒲(ZZ^n,n)`$ by our definition.

Clearly $`𝒲(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded Lie algebra $`𝒲(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)=_{\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }}𝒲(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)_\alpha `$ with the grading space

$$𝒲(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)_\alpha =\mathrm{span}\{t^\alpha D^\mu |\mu ZZ_+^n\}\text{ for }\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }.$$
$`(1.3)`$
It is proved in  that $`𝒲(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)`$ has a nontrivial universal central extension if and only if $`n=1`$. The universal central extension $`\widehat{𝒲}(\mathrm{\Gamma },1)`$ of $`𝒲(\mathrm{\Gamma },1)`$ is defined as follows: The Lie bracket (1.1) is replaced by

$$[t^\alpha [D]_\mu ,t^\beta [D]_\nu ]=(t^\alpha [D]_\mu )(t^\beta [D]_\nu )(t^\beta [D]_\nu )(t^\alpha [D]_\mu )+\delta _{\alpha ,\beta }(1)^\mu \mu !\nu !(\begin{array}{c}\alpha +\mu \\ \mu +\nu +1\end{array})C,$$
$`(1.4)`$
for $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }IF,\mu ,\nu ZZ_+,`$ where $`[D]_\mu =D(D1)\mathrm{}(D\mu +1)`$, and $`C`$ is a central element of $`\widehat{𝒲}(\mathrm{\Gamma },1)`$ (the 2-cocycle of $`𝒲(\mathrm{\Gamma },1)`$ corresponding to (1.4) seems to appear first in ).

A $`𝒲(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)`$-module (or an $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)`$-module) $`V`$ is called a quasifinite module  if $`V=_{\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }}V_\alpha `$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded such that $`𝒲(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)_\alpha V_\beta V_{\alpha +\beta }`$ for $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and such that each grading space $`V_\alpha `$ is finite-dimensional (this is equivalent to saying that a quasifinite module is a module having finite dimensional generalized weight spaces with respect to the commutative subalgebra $`𝒲_0`$). A quasifinite module $`V`$ is called a uniformly bounded module if the dimensions of grading spaces $`V_\alpha `$ are uniformly bounded, i.e., there exists a positive integer $`N`$ such that $`\mathrm{dim}V_\alpha N`$ for all $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. A quasifinite module $`V`$ is called a trivial module if $`𝒲(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)`$ acts trivially on $`V`$.

Clearly an $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)`$-module is a $`𝒲(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)`$-module, but not the converse. Thus it suffices to consider $`𝒲(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)`$-modules. The quasifinite highest weight modules over $`\widehat{𝒲}(1)=\widehat{𝒲}(ZZ,1)`$ were intensively studied in \[1,6,9-11,13,16,21\] (it is also worth mentioning that Block  studied arbitrary irreducible modules over the classical Weyl algebra $`A_1^+`$ of rank 1).

Let $`p1`$. Denote by $`M_{p\times p}(IF)`$ the set of $`p\times p`$ matrices with entries in $`IF`$. Denote

$$M_{p\times p}^n(IF)=\{G=(G_1,\mathrm{},G_n)|G_iM_{p\times p}(IF),G_iG_j=G_jG_i\text{ for }i,j=1,\mathrm{},n\},$$

the set of $`n`$-tuples of commuting $`p\times p`$ matrices. Denote by $`\mathrm{𝟏}_p`$ the $`p\times p`$ identity matrix. Denote $`11=(\mathrm{𝟏}_p,\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝟏}_p)M_{p\times p}^n(IF)`$. Let $`G=(G_1,\mathrm{},G_n)M_{p\times p}^n(IF)`$. Then one can define a quasifinite $`𝒲(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)`$-module $`A_{p,G}`$ as follows: it has a basis $`\{y_\alpha ^{(i)}|\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma },i=1,\mathrm{},p\}`$ such that

$$\begin{array}{c}(t^\alpha D^\mu )Y_\beta =Y_{\alpha +\beta }[\beta 11+G]^\mu \text{ for }\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Gamma },\mu ZZ_+^n,\text{ where}\\ Y_\beta =(y_\beta ^{(1)},\mathrm{},y_\beta ^{(p)}),[\beta 11+G]^\mu =\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\beta _i\mathrm{𝟏}_p+G_i)^{\mu _i}.\end{array}\begin{array}{c}\hfill (1.5)\end{array}$$

Here $`\beta _i\mathrm{𝟏}_p`$ denotes the scalar multiplication of the identity matrix. Clearly $`A_{p,G}`$ is also an $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)`$-module. By , there exists a Lie algebra isomorphism $`\sigma :𝒲(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)𝒲(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)`$ such that

$$\sigma (t^\alpha D^\mu )=(1)^{|\mu |+1}([D^\mu ,t^\alpha ]+t^\alpha D^\mu )\text{ for }\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma },\mu ZZ_+,$$
$`(1.6)`$
where $`|\mu |=_{i=1}^n\mu _p`$ is the level of $`\mu =(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _n)ZZ_+^n`$. This isomorphism is uniquely determined by $`\sigma (t^\alpha )=t^\alpha ,\sigma (D_i^j)=(1)^{j+1}D_i`$ for $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma },i=1,\mathrm{},n,jZZ_+`$. Using this isomorphism, we have another $`𝒲(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)`$-module $`\overline{A}_{p,G}`$, called the twisted module of $`A_{p,G}`$, for the pair $`(p,G)`$, defined by

$$(t^\alpha D^\mu )Y_\beta =(1)^{|\mu |+1}Y_{\alpha +\beta }[(\alpha +\beta )11+G]^\mu \text{ for }\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Gamma },\mu ZZ_+^n.$$
$`(1.7)`$
Obviously, $`\overline{A}_{p,G}`$ is not an $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)`$-module. When $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=ZZ,n=p=1`$, the above modules $`A_{p,G},\overline{A}_{p,G}`$ were obtained in . Clearly, $`A_{p,G}`$ or $`\overline{A}_{p,G}`$ is indecomposable if and only if at least one $`G_i`$ is an indecomposable matrix (here a $`p\times p`$ matrix $`B`$ is called indecomposable if there does not exist an invertible matrix $`P`$ such that $`P^1BP=\mathrm{diag}(B_1,B_2)`$ for some $`p_i\times p_i`$ matrices $`B_i`$ with $`p_i<p,i=1,2`$) and $`A_{p,G}`$ or $`\overline{A}_{p,G}`$ is irreducible if and only if $`p=1`$. When $`p=1`$, we refer $`A_G=A_{1,G}`$ or $`\overline{A}_G=\overline{A}_{1,G}`$ to as a module of the intermediate series (a notion borrowed from that of modules over the Virasoro algebra, cf. ).

Since each grading space in (1.3) is infinite-dimensional, the classification of quasifinite modules is thus a nontrivial problem, as pointed in . The aim of this paper is to prove the following theorem (the analogous results for the affine Lie algebras and the Virasoro algebra were obtained in ).

T$`\mathrm{HEOREM}`$ 1.1. (i) A uniformly bounded module over $`𝒲(1)=𝒲(ZZ,1)`$ or over $`\widehat{𝒲}(1)=\widehat{𝒲}(ZZ,1)`$ is a direct sum of a trivial module, a module $`A_{p,G}`$ and a module $`\overline{A}_{p^{},G^{}}`$ for some positive integers $`p,p^{}`$ and some $`GM_{p\times p}^n(IF),G^{}M_{p^{}\times p^{}}(IF)`$ (in the central extension case, the central element $`C`$ acts trivially on a uniformly bounded module); a quasifinite irreducible module is either a highest or lowest weight module or else a module of the intermediate series.

(ii) Suppose $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not isomorphic to $`ZZ`$. A quasifinite module over $`𝒲(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)`$ or over $`\widehat{𝒲}(\mathrm{\Gamma },1)`$ is a direct sum of a trivial module and a uniformly bounded module; a uniformly bounded module is a direct sum of a trivial module, a module $`A_{p,G}`$ and a module $`\overline{A}_{p^{},G^{}}`$ for some positive integers $`p,p^{}`$ and some $`GM_{p\times p}^n(IF),G^{}M_{p^{}\times p^{}}^n(IF)`$. In particular, a nontrivial quasifinite irreducible module is a module of the intermediate series.

Thus we in particular obtain that an indecomposable uniformly bounded $`𝒲(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)`$-module is simply an $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)`$-module (if the central element $`t^0D^0`$ acts by $`1`$) or its twist (if $`t^0D^0`$ acts by $`1`$), and that there is an equivalence between the category of uniformly bounded $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)`$-modules without the trivial composition factor and the category of the finite dimensional $`𝒲_0`$-modules obtained by restriction to any nonzero graded subspace.

A composition series of a module $`V`$ is a finite or infinite series of submodules $`V=V^{(0)}V^{(1)}V^{(2)}\mathrm{}\{0\}`$ such that each $`V^{(i)}/V^{(i+1)}`$, called a composition factor, is irreducible.

R$`\mathrm{EMARK}`$ 1.2. Note that the definition of quasifiniteness does not require that $`V`$ is a weight module (i.e., the actions of $`D_i,i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ on $`V`$ are diagonalizable). If we require that $`V`$ is a weight module, then each $`G_i`$ in (1.5) is diagonalizable, and thus all uniformly bounded modules are completely reducible. Also note that in Theorem 1.1(ii), if a module have infinite number of the trivial composition factor, then it is not necessarily uniformly bounded since any $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded vector space can be defined as a trivial module.

We shall prove Theorem 1.1(i) and (ii) in Sections 2 and 3 respectively.

2. PROOF OF THEOREM 1.1(i)

For convenience, we shall only work on non-central extension case since the proof of central extension case is exactly similar. In this section we shall consider the Lie algebra $`𝒲(ZZ,1)=\mathrm{span}\{t^iD^j|(i,j)ZZ\times ZZ_+\}`$, which is now denoted by $`𝒲`$. Then $`𝒲`$ is $`ZZ`$-graded $`𝒲=_{iZZ}𝒲_i`$ with $`𝒲_i=\mathrm{span}\{t^iD^j|jZZ_+\}`$, and it has a triangular decomposition $`𝒲=𝒲_+𝒲_0𝒲_{}`$ with $`𝒲_+=_{i>0}𝒲_i,𝒲_{}=_{i<0}𝒲_i`$. Observe that $`𝒲_+`$ is generated by the adjoint action of $`L_{1,0}`$ on $`𝒲_0`$ and that $`\text{ad}_{L_{1,0}}`$ is locally nilpotent on $`𝒲`$, where for convenience, we denote

$$L_{i,j}=t^i[D]_j\text{ for }(i,j)ZZ\times ZZ_+.$$

Note that in fact $`L_{i,j}=t^{i+j}(\frac{d}{dt})^j`$ (cf. notation in (1.4)). Suppose $`V=_{iZZ}V_i`$ is a quasifinite module over $`𝒲`$. For any $`aIF`$, we denote

$$V(a)=\underset{iZZ}{}V(a)_i,\text{ where }V(a)_i=\{vV_i|L_{0,1}v=(a+i)v\}.$$

Since $`[L_{0,1},L_{i,j}]=iL_{i,j}`$, it is straightforward to verify that $`V(a)`$ is a submodule of $`V`$. Since $`V_i`$ is finite-dimensional, there exists at least an eigenvector of $`L_{0,1}`$ in $`V_i`$, i.e., $`V(a)0`$ for some $`aIF`$. If $`V`$ is irreducible, then $`V=V(a)`$ for some $`aIF`$, i.e., $`L_{0,1}`$ is diagonalizable on $`V`$ and so $`V`$ is a weight module. Since $`L_{0,0}=1`$ is a central element and $`L_{0,0}|_{V_0}`$ has at least an eigenvector, we must have

$$L_{0,0}|_V=c\mathrm{𝟏}_V\text{ for some }cIF\text{ if }V\text{ is indecomposable}.$$
$`(2.1)`$
P$`\mathrm{ROPOSITION}`$ 2.1. Suppose $`V`$ is a quasifinite irreducible $`𝒲`$-module which is neither a highest nor a lowest weight module. Then $`L_{1,0}:V_iV_{i+1}`$ and $`L_{1,0}:V_iV_{i1}`$ are injective and thus bijective for all $`iZZ`$. In particular, $`V`$ is uniformly bounded.

Proof. Say $`L_{1,0}v_0=0`$ for some $`0v_0V_i`$. By shifting the grading index if necessary, we can suppose $`i=0`$. Since $`L_{0,0}|_{V_0},L_{0,1}|_{V_0},\mathrm{}`$ are linear transformations on the finite-dimensional vector space $`V_0`$, there exists $`s2`$ such that for all $`ks`$, $`L_{0,k}|_{V_0}`$ are linear combinations of $`L_{0,p}|_{V_0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}p<s`$. This implies that $`𝒲_0v_0=Sv_0`$, where $`S=\mathrm{span}\{L_{0,p}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}p<s\}.`$ Recall that $`\text{ad}_{L_{1,0}}`$ is locally nilpotent such that $`𝒲_k=\text{ad}_{L_{1,0}}^k(𝒲_0)`$ for $`k>0`$. Choose $`m>0`$ such that $`\text{ad}_{L_{1,0}}^m(S)=0`$, then for $`km`$, one has

$$𝒲_kv_0=(\text{ad}_{L_{1,0}}^k(𝒲_0))v_0=L_{1,0}^k𝒲_0v_0=L_{1,0}^kSv_0=(\text{ad}_{L_{1,0}}^k(S))v_0=0.$$

This means

$$𝒲_{[m,\mathrm{})}v_0=0,$$
$`(2.2)`$
where in general, for any $`ZZ`$-graded space $`N`$, we use notations $`N_+,N_{},N_0`$ and $`N_{[p,q)}`$ to denote the subspaces spanned by elements of degree $`k`$ with $`k>0,k<0,k=0`$ and $`pk<q`$ respectively. For any subspace $`M`$ of $`𝒲`$, we use $`U(M)`$ to denote the subspace, which is the span of standard monomials with respect to a basis of $`M`$, of the universal enveloping algebra of $`𝒲`$. Since $`𝒲=𝒲_{[1,m)}+𝒲_0+𝒲_{}+𝒲_{[m,\mathrm{})}`$, using the PBW theorem and the irreducibility of $`V`$, we have

$$V=U(𝒲)v_0=U(𝒲_{[1,m)})U(𝒲_0+𝒲_{})U(𝒲_{[m,\mathrm{})})v_0=U(𝒲_{[1,m)})U(𝒲_0+𝒲_{})v_0.$$
$`(2.3)`$
Note that $`V_+`$ is a $`𝒲_+`$-module. Let $`V_+^{}`$ be the $`𝒲_+`$-submodule of $`V_+`$ generated by $`V_{[0,m)}`$. We want to prove

$$V_+=V_+^{}.$$
$`(2.4)`$
Let $`xV_+`$ have degree $`k`$. If $`0k<m`$, then by definition $`xV_+^{}`$. Suppose $`km`$. Using (2.3), $`x`$ is a linear combination of the form $`u_1x_1`$ with $`u_1𝒲_{[1,m)},x_1V`$. Thus the degree $`\mathrm{deg}u_1`$ of $`u_1`$ satisfies $`1\mathrm{deg}u_1<m`$, so $`0<\mathrm{deg}x_1=k\mathrm{deg}u_1<k`$. By inductive hypothesis, $`x_1V_+^{}`$, and thus $`xV_+^{}`$. This proves (2.4).

(2.4) means that $`V_+`$ is finitely generated as a $`𝒲_+`$-module. Choose a basis $`B`$ of $`V_{[0,m)}`$, then for any $`xB`$, we have $`x=u_xv_0`$ for some $`u_xU(𝒲)`$. Regarding $`u_x`$ as a polynomial with respect to a basis of $`𝒲`$, by induction on the polynomial degree and using the formula $`[u,w_1w_2]=[u,w_1]w_2+w_1[u,w_2]`$ for $`u𝒲,w_1,w_2U(𝒲)`$, we see that there exists a positive integer $`k_x`$ large enough such that $`k_x>m`$ and $`[𝒲_{[k_x,\mathrm{})},u_x]U(𝒲)𝒲_{[m,\mathrm{})}`$. Then by (2.2), $`𝒲_{[k_x,\mathrm{})}x=[𝒲_{[k_x,\mathrm{})},u_x]v_0+u_x𝒲_{[k_x,\mathrm{})}v_0=0`$. Take $`k=\mathrm{max}\{k_x|xB\}`$, then

$$𝒲_{[k,\mathrm{})}V_+=𝒲_{[k,\mathrm{})}U(𝒲_+)V_{[0,m)}=U(𝒲_+)𝒲_{[k,\mathrm{})}V_{[0,m)}=0.$$

Since we have $`𝒲_+𝒲_{[k,\mathrm{})}+[𝒲_{[k^{},0)},𝒲_{[k,\mathrm{})}]`$ for some $`k^{}>k`$, we get $`𝒲_+V_{[k^{},\mathrm{})}=0`$. Now if $`xV_{[k^{}+m,\mathrm{})}`$, by (2.3), it is a sum of elements of the form $`u_1x_1`$ such that $`u_1𝒲_{[1,m)}`$ and so $`x_1V_{[k^{},\mathrm{})}`$, and thus $`u_1x_1=0`$. This proves that $`V`$ has no degree $`k^{}+m`$.

Now let $`p`$ be maximal integer such that $`V_p0`$. Since $`𝒲_0`$ is commutative, there exists a common eigenvector $`v_0^{}`$ of $`𝒲_0`$ in $`V_p`$. Then $`v_0^{}`$ is a highest weight vector of $`𝒲`$, this contradicts the assumption of the proposition.

P$`\mathrm{ROPOSITION}`$ 2.2. Suppose $`V`$ is an indecomposable uniformly bounded $`𝒲`$-module without the trivial composition factor. Then $`V`$ is a module of the form $`A_{p,G}`$ or $`\overline{A}_{p,G}`$.

Proof. First we claim that $`L_{i,0}`$ acts nondegenerately on $`V`$ for all $`i0`$. Say $`L_{i_0,0}v_0=0`$ for some $`i_0>0`$ and some $`0v_0V_0`$. Denote $`𝒲^{}=𝒲(ZZi_0,1)=\mathrm{span}\{L_{i_0j,k}|j,kZZ,k0\}`$, a subalgebra of $`𝒲`$, which is clearly isomorphic to $`𝒲`$. Let $`V^{}`$ be the $`𝒲^{}`$-submodule of $`V`$ generated by $`v_0`$. Then by replacing $`𝒲`$ and $`V`$ by $`𝒲^{}`$ and $`V^{}`$ respectively in the proof of Proposition 2.1, we see that $`V^{}`$ has a highest weight vector $`v^{}`$ with respect to $`𝒲^{}`$ (cf. (2.3), the left-hand side of (2.3) is now $`V^{}`$). Then $`v^{}`$ generates a highest weight $`𝒲^{}`$-submodule $`V^{\prime \prime }`$. Since a nontrivial highest weight $`𝒲^{}`$-module is not uniformly bounded (see for example ), $`V^{\prime \prime }`$ must be a trivial $`𝒲^{}`$-module $`V^{\prime \prime }=IFv^{}`$. Denote $`\text{Vir}=\mathrm{span}\{L_{j,1}|jZZ\}`$, a subalgebra of $`𝒲`$, which is isomorphic to the centerless Virasoro algebra, then $`v^{}`$ generates a uniformly bounded weight Vir-submodule $`U`$ of $`V`$ (note that in general we do not assume $`V`$ is a weight module over $`𝒲`$). Since $`L_{i_0j,1}v^{}=0`$ for all $`jZZ`$, by a well-known result of a uniformly bounded weight Vir-module (see for example, ), we have $`L_{i,1}v^{}=0`$ for all $`iZZ`$. But $`𝒲`$ is generated by $`𝒲^{}`$ and Vir, we obtain that $`IFv^{}`$ is a trivial $`𝒲`$-module. This is a contradiction with the assumption of the proposition. This proves the claim.

So, there exists $`p1`$ such that $`\mathrm{dim}V_k=p`$ for all $`kZZ`$, and one can choose a basis $`Y_0=(y_0^{(1)},\mathrm{},y_0^{(p)})`$ of $`V_0`$ and define a basis $`Y_k=(y_k^{(1)},\mathrm{},y_k^{(p)})`$ of $`V_k`$ by induction on $`|k|`$ such that

$$L_{1,0}Y_k=Y_{k+1}\text{ for }kZZ.$$
$`(2.5)`$
Furthermore, by induction on $`p`$, we see that $`V`$ has a finite number of composition factors.

First note that

$$[t^i(\frac{d}{dt})^j,t^k(\frac{d}{dt})^{\mathrm{}}]=\underset{s}{}\text{(}\text{(}\begin{array}{c}j\\ s\end{array}\text{)}[k]_s\text{(}\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\\ s\end{array}\text{)}[i]_s\text{)}t^{i+ks}(\frac{d}{dt})^{j+\mathrm{}s},$$
$`(2.6)`$
where $`[k]_j=k(k1)\mathrm{}(kj+1)`$ is a similar notation to $`[D]_j`$. Now assume that $`L_{ij,j}Y_n=(t^i(\frac{d}{dt})^j)Y_n=Y_{n+ij}P_{i,j,n}`$ for some $`P_{i,j,n}M_{p\times p}`$. In the following discussion, we remind the reader that $`t^i(\frac{d}{dt})^j`$ is in the grading space $`𝒲_{ij}`$, not in $`𝒲_i`$. Applying $`[t^i(\frac{d}{dt})^j,t]=jt^i(\frac{d}{dt})^{j1}`$ to $`Y_n`$, we obtain $`P_{i,j,n+1}P_{i,j,n}=jP_{i,j1,n}`$. Thus induction on $`j`$ gives

$$\begin{array}{c}P_{i,0,n}=P_i,P_{i,1,n}=\overline{n}P_i+Q_i,\\ P_{i,2,n}=[\overline{n}]_2P_i+2\overline{n}Q_i+R_i,P_{i,3,n}=[\overline{n}]_3P_i+3[\overline{n}]_2Q_i+3\overline{n}R_i+S_i,\end{array}$$
$`(2.7)`$
for some $`P_i,Q_i,R_i,S_iM_{p\times p}`$, where $`\overline{n}=n+G`$ for some fixed $`GM_{p\times p}`$ (here and below, when the context is clear, we identify a scalar with the corresponding $`p\times p`$ scalar matrix), $`[\overline{n}]_j`$ is again a similar notation to $`[D]_j`$, and $`Q_1=0`$ (we use notation $`\overline{n}=n+G`$ in order to have $`Q_1=0`$; note from $`[L_{0,1},L_{i,j}]=iL_{i,j}`$ that $`G`$ commutes with all other matrices involved in the following discussion). Then by (2.1) and (2.5), $`P_0=c,P_1=1`$ and $`P_i`$ is invertible for $`i0`$ by the proof above. Applying $`[\frac{d}{dt},t^2]=2t`$ to $`Y_n`$ and comparing the coefficients of $`\overline{n}^0`$, we obtain $`2cP_2+[Q_0,P_2]=2`$ (where $`[P_2,Q_0]=P_2Q_0Q_0P_2`$ denotes the usual commutator of matrices). Comparing the traces of matrices in this equation shows $`c0`$. Thus all $`P_i`$ are invertible.

Now we encounter the difficulty that though $`P_i,Q_i,R_i,S_i`$ satisfy lots of relations, most nontrivial relations are too complicated to be used; since the products of matrices are not commutative nor the cancellation law holds in general, there is still a problem in finding the solutions for $`P_i,Q_i,R_i,S_i`$. Our strategy is first to find some relatively simple nontrivial relations among $`P_i`$ (cf. (2.9) below).

First from $`[t^i,t^j]=0`$, we obtain that $`[P_i,P_j]=0`$. Applying $`[\frac{d}{dt},t^i]=it^{i1}`$ to $`Y_n`$ and comparing the coefficients of $`\overline{n}^0`$, we obtain that $`[Q_0,P_i]=icP_i+iP_{i1}`$. By induction on $`i0`$, we obtain an important fact that $`P_i^{}=_{s=0}^i(_s^i)(c)^sP_s`$, if not zero, is an eigenvector for $`\mathrm{ad}_{Q_0}`$ with eigenvalue $`ic`$. Since the operator $`\mathrm{ad}_{Q_0}`$ acting on the finite dimensional vector space $`M_{p\times p}`$ has only a finite number of eigenvalues, we have $`P_i^{}=0`$ for $`i>>0`$. Let $`q0`$ be the least number such that

$$P_i^{}=\underset{s=0}{\overset{i}{}}\text{(}\begin{array}{c}i\\ s\end{array}\text{)}(c)^sP_s=0,$$
$`(2.8)`$
for $`i>q`$. Note that for any $`j0`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}P_{i,j}^{\prime \prime }\hfill & :=\underset{k=0}{\overset{j}{}}(1)^k\text{(}\begin{array}{c}i\\ k\end{array}\text{)}P_k^{}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{j}{}}\underset{s=k}{\overset{s}{}}(1)^k\text{(}\begin{array}{c}i\\ k\end{array}\text{)}\text{(}\begin{array}{c}k\\ s\end{array}\text{)}(c)^sP_s\hfill \\ & =\underset{s=0}{\overset{j}{}}c^s\text{(}\begin{array}{c}i\\ s\end{array}\text{)}\text{(}\underset{k=s}{\overset{j}{}}\text{(}\begin{array}{c}is\\ ks\end{array}\text{)}(1)^{ks}\text{)}P_s=\underset{s=0}{\overset{j}{}}c^s\text{(}\begin{array}{c}i\\ s\end{array}\text{)}\text{(}\begin{array}{c}i1s\\ js\end{array}\text{)}(1)^{js}P_s.\hfill \end{array}$$

In particular letting $`j=i`$, we obtain that $`P_{i,i}^{\prime \prime }=c^iP_i`$ and letting $`j=q`$, by (2.8), we obtain

$$P_i=c^iP_{i,i}^{\prime \prime }=c^iP_{i,q}^{\prime \prime }=c^i\underset{s=0}{\overset{q}{}}\text{(}\begin{array}{c}i\\ s\end{array}\text{)}\text{(}\begin{array}{c}i1s\\ qs\end{array}\text{)}(1)^{qs}c^sP_s,$$
$`(2.9)`$
for $`i>q`$. If $`0iq`$, (2.9) holds trivially. Observe that $`(_s^i)(_{qs}^{i1s})`$ is a polynomial on $`i`$ of degree $`q`$ with the coefficient of $`i^q`$ being $`\frac{1}{s!(qs)!}=\frac{1}{q!}(_s^q)`$. Thus $`(1)^qc^iP_i`$ is a polynomial on $`i`$ (with coefficients in $`M_{p\times p}`$) of degree $`q`$ with the coefficient of $`i^q`$ being $`\frac{1}{q!}_{s=0}^q(_s^q)(c)^sP_s`$.

By (2.6), we have

$$3[t(\frac{d}{dt})^2,[t(\frac{d}{dt})^2,t^i]]2(2i1)[t(\frac{d}{dt})^3,t^i]+[i+1]_4t^{i2}=0.$$

Applying this to $`Y_n`$ and comparing the coefficients of $`\overline{n}^0`$, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}f(i):=\hfill & 3(\text{(}[i1]_2+R_1\text{)}\text{(}[i]_2+R_1\text{)}P_i2\text{(}[i1]_2+R_1\text{)}P_iR_1+P_i\text{(}2+R_1\text{)}R_1)\hfill \\ & 2(2i1)(\text{(}[i]_3+3iR_1+S_1\text{)}P_iP_iS_1)+[i+1]_4P_{i2}=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.10)`$
Using (2.9) in (2.10), we obtain that $`(1)^qc^if(i)`$ is a polynomial on $`i`$ of degree at most $`q+4`$. By comparing the coefficients of $`i^{q+4}`$, we obtain

$$\frac{1}{q!}(c^21)\underset{s=0}{\overset{q}{}}\text{(}\begin{array}{c}q\\ s\end{array}\text{)}(c)^sP_s=0.$$
$`(2.11)`$
If necessary, by using the isomorphism in (1.6) (which interchanges $`A_{p,G}`$ with $`\overline{A}_{p,G}`$), we can always suppose $`c1`$.

Assume that $`c1`$. Then (2.11) shows that (2.8) also holds for $`i=q`$. Thus the minimality of $`q`$ implies that $`q=0`$ and then (2.9) implies

$$P_i=c^{1i},$$
$`(2.12)`$
for $`i0`$. Assume that $`c=1`$. Using (2.9) in (2.10) and comparing the coefficients of $`i^{q+3}`$, we again obtain that (2.8) holds for $`i=q`$. Thus in any case, $`q=0`$ and we have (2.12).

For any $`iZZ`$, choose $`j>0`$ such that $`i+j1>0`$. Applying $`[t^i\frac{d}{dt},t^j]=jt^{i+j1}`$ to $`Y_n`$, we obtain $`j(P_jP_iP_{i+j1})=[Q_i,P_j]=0`$. This implies that (2.12) holds for all $`iZZ`$.

Now using (2.12) and applying $`[(\frac{d}{dt})^2,t^{i+1}]=2(i+1)t^i\frac{d}{dt}+[i+1]_2t^{i1}`$ to $`Y_n`$, by comparing the coefficients of $`\overline{n}^0`$, we obtain

$$(i+1)(\text{(}iP_0+2Q_0\text{)}P_{i+1}\text{(}2Q_i+iP_{i1}\text{)})=[P_{i+1},R_0]=0.$$

Thus $`Q_i=\frac{1}{2}c^{1i}(1c)i+c^iQ_0`$ for $`i1.`$ Letting $`i=1`$, since $`Q_1=0`$, we obtain that $`Q_0=\frac{1}{2}c(1c)`$. Hence

$$Q_i=\frac{1}{2}c^{1i}(1c)(i1)\text{ for }i1.$$
$`(2.13)`$
Applying $`[(\frac{d}{dt})^3,t^{i+1}]=3(i+1)t^i(\frac{d}{dt})^2+3[i+1]_2t^{i1}\frac{d}{dt}+[i+1]_3t^{i2}`$ to $`Y_n`$, we obtain

$$(i+1)(\text{(}[i]_2P_0+3iQ_0+3R_0\text{)}P_{i+1}\text{(}3R_i+3iQ_{i1}+[i]_2P_{i2}\text{)})=[P_{i+1},S_0]=0.$$

Thus

$$R_i=\frac{1}{6}c^{1i}(c1)(54c+\text{(}c2\text{)}i)i+c^iR_0\text{ for }i1.$$
$`(2.14)`$
Using $`[(\frac{d}{dt})^2,t^{i+1}\frac{d}{dt}]=2(i+1)t^i(\frac{d}{dt})^2+[i+1]_2t^{i1}\frac{d}{dt},`$ we obtain

$$([i]_2P_0+2iQ_0)Q_i+2P_{i+1}R_0(2\text{(}i+1\text{)}R_i+[i+1]_2Q_{i1})=[Q_{i+1},R_0]=0.$$
$`(2.15)`$
Using (2.12)-(2.14) in (2.15), by comparing the coefficients of $`i^3,i^2,i`$, we obtain $`c=1,R_0=0`$. Then (2.12)-(2.15) show that $`P_i=1,Q_i=R_i=0`$.

Thus (2.7) shows that $`(t^i(\frac{d}{dt})^j)Y_n=Y_{n+ij}[n+G]_j`$ for $`j2`$. Equivalently, $`(t^iD^j)Y_n=Y_{n+i}(n+G)^j`$ for $`j2`$. Since $`𝒲`$ is generated by $`\{t^iD^j|iZZ,0j2\}`$, we obtain that $`V`$ is the module $`A_{p,G}`$ defined in (1.5) (if we have used the isomorphism in (1.6) in the above proof, then $`V`$ is the module $`\overline{A}_{p,G}`$).

Proof of Theorem 1.1(i). Assume that $`V`$ is a nontrivial indecomposable uniformly bounded module over $`𝒲`$. Then $`V`$ has at least a nontrivial composition factor, so Proposition 2.2 means that $`L_{0,0}`$ must acts as a nonzero scalar on $`V`$. Thus $`V`$ can not contain a trivial composition factor. Thus Theorem 1.1(i) follows from Propositions 2.1 and 2.2.

3. PROOF OF THEOREM 1.2(ii)

In this section, we set $`𝒲=𝒲(\mathrm{\Gamma },n)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not isomorphic to $`ZZ`$. Denote $`\mathrm{𝑊𝑖𝑡𝑡}=\mathrm{span}\{t^\alpha D_i|\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma },i=1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. Then $`\mathrm{𝑊𝑖𝑡𝑡}`$ is a Witt algebra of rank $`n`$. In particular, if $`n=1`$, $`\mathrm{𝑊𝑖𝑡𝑡}`$ is a (generalized centerless) Virasoro algebra.

Denote $`𝒟=\mathrm{span}\{D_i|i=1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. We can define an inner product on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\times 𝒟`$ by

$$\alpha ,d=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\alpha _id_i\text{ for }\alpha =(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n)\mathrm{\Gamma },d=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}d_iD_i𝒟.$$
$`(3.1)`$
Then $`,`$ is nondegenerate in the sense that if $`\alpha ,𝒟=0`$ for some $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ then $`\alpha =0`$ and if $`\mathrm{\Gamma },d=0`$ for some $`d𝒟`$ then $`d=0`$.

P$`\mathrm{ROPOSITION}`$ 3.1. Any quasifinite $`𝒲`$-module $`V^{}`$ with a finite number of the trivial composition factor is a uniformly bounded module.

Proof. Let $`V`$ be a nontrivial composition factor of $`V^{}`$. Then $`V`$ is a weight module over $`𝒲`$ (i.e., $`D_i`$ act diagonalizable on $`V`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$). Regarding $`V`$ as a module over $`\mathrm{𝑊𝑖𝑡𝑡}`$, then $`V`$ is a quasifinite weight module over $`\mathrm{𝑊𝑖𝑡𝑡}`$. If there exists some group embedding $`ZZ\times ZZ\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, then by , $`V`$ is uniformly bounded. If there does not exist a group embedding $`ZZ\times ZZ\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, then $`n=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a rank one group with infinite generators (since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\cong ̸ZZ`$). By choosing a total ordering on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ compatible with its group structure one can prove (as in the proof of Proposition 2.1 or using similar arguments as in  since in this case the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ behaves just like the additive group $`Q\text{ }\text{ }`$ of the rational numbers) that $`V`$ is uniformly bounded. Hence in any case, $`V`$ is uniformly bounded. Thus $`V^{}`$ has only a finite number of nontrivial composition factors and so it is uniformly bounded.

For any pair $`(\alpha ,d)`$ with $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma },d𝒟`$ such that $`\alpha ,d0`$, we have a Lie algebra of Weyl type, denoted by $`𝒲(\alpha ,d)`$, spanned by $`\{t^{i\alpha }d^j|iZZ,jZZ_+\}`$, which is isomorphic to $`𝒲(ZZ,1)`$.

P$`\mathrm{ROPOSITION}`$ 3.2. Let $`V`$ be a uniformly bounded $`𝒲`$-module without the trivial composition factor. Then $`t^\alpha v0`$ for all $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \{0\},vV\backslash \{0\}`$.

Proof. Suppose $`t^\beta v_0=0`$ for some $`\beta 0,v_00`$. By shifting the grading index if necessary, we can suppose $`v_0`$ has degree $`0`$. Let $`V_0^{}=\{vV_0|t^\beta v=0\}`$. Then $`V_0^{}`$ is invariant under the action of $`𝒟`$ since $`[𝒟,t^\beta ]IFt^\beta `$. Thus we can find a common eigenvector (i.e., a weight vector), denoted again by $`v_0`$, of $`𝒟`$ in $`V_0^{}`$. Thus $`t^\beta v_0=0`$ and $`𝒟v_0IFv_0`$. For any $`d^{}𝒟`$ with $`\beta ,d^{}0`$, considering the $`𝒲(\beta ,d^{})`$-submodule $`V^{\prime \prime }`$ of $`V`$ generated by $`v_0`$, by Theorem 1.1(i), and by (1.5) and (1.7), $`V^{\prime \prime }`$ must be the trivial submodule $`IFv_0`$. In particular, $`d^{}v_0=0`$ for all $`d^{}`$ with $`\beta ,d^{}0`$. Since such $`d^{}`$ span $`𝒟`$, we obtain $`𝒟v_0=0`$. If $`t^\alpha v_0=0`$ for all $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \{0\}`$, then by Theorem 1.1(i), $`IFv_0`$ is a trivial submodule over $`𝒲(\alpha ,d)`$ for all pairs $`(\alpha ,d)`$ with $`\alpha ,d0`$, and so it must be a trivial submodule over $`𝒲`$. Thus $`t^\gamma v_00`$ for some $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \{0\}`$. Choose $`d𝒟`$ such that $`\beta ,d0\gamma ,d`$. Then by Theorem 1.1(i) and (1.5), $`v_0`$ generates a submodule of the intermediate series over $`𝒲(\gamma ,d)`$ such that $`(t^{i\gamma }d^j)v_0=0`$ for $`j0`$ and all $`iZZ`$ (note that the coefficient of the right-hand side of (1.5) does not depend on $`\alpha `$). So $`t^{i\beta +j\gamma }v_0=i\beta ,d^1[t^{j\gamma }d,t^{i\beta }]v_0=0`$ if $`i0`$. Similarly, $`(t^{i\beta +j\gamma }d)v_0=0`$ if $`i0`$. Choose some $`i,j`$ with $`i0`$ such that $`a=i\beta +j\gamma ,d0`$, then $`t^\gamma v_0=a^1[t^{i\beta +(1j)\gamma }d,t^{i\beta +j\gamma }]v_0=0`$, a contradiction.

Proof of Theorem 1.1(ii). Suppose $`V`$ is an indecomposable uniformly bounded module without the trivial composition factor. Choose a basis $`Y_0=(y_0^{(1)},\mathrm{},y_0^{(p)})`$ of $`V_0`$ and by Proposition 3.2, we can define basis $`Y_\alpha =t^aY_0`$ of $`V_\alpha `$ for all $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \{0\}`$. For any $`\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \{0\}`$ with $`\beta ,D_i0`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, set $`V[\beta ]=_{kZZ}V_{k\beta }`$, then $`V[\beta ]`$ is a submodule of $`V`$ over $`𝒲(\beta ,D_i)`$ of type $`A_{p,G_i}`$ for some $`G_iM_{p\times p}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Since $`[𝒟,𝒟]=0`$, we have $`G_iG_j=G_jG_i`$ for $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Since $`\{\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }|\beta ,D_i0,i=1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ generates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, it is straightforward to see that $`V`$ is a $`𝒲`$-module of type $`A_{p,G}`$ or $`\overline{A}_{p,G}`$ with $`G=(G_1,\mathrm{},G_n)M_{p\times p}^n(IF)`$. If $`V`$ contains a trivial composition factor, then $`V`$ must be a trivial module as in the proof of Theorem 1.1(i). Thus we obtain Theorem 1.1(ii).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author would like to thank Professor Kaiming Zhao for discussions.

REFERENCES

 H. Awata, M. Fukuma, Y. Matsuo and S. Odake, Character and determinant formulae of quasifinite representations of the $`𝒲_{1+\mathrm{}}`$ algebra, Comm. Math. Phys. 172 (1995), 377-400.

 S. Bloch, Zeta values and differential operators on the circle, J. Alg. 182 (1996), 476-500.

 R. E. Block, The irreducible representations of the Lie algebra $`sl(2)`$ and of the Weyl algebra, Adv. Math. 39 (1981), 69-110.

 R. Blumenhagen, W. Eholzer, A. Honecker, K. Hornfeck and R. Hübel, Unifying $`𝒲`$-algebras, Phys. Lett. B. 332 (1994), 51-60.

 P. Bouwknegt and K. Schoutens, $`𝒲`$-symmetry in conformal field theory, Phys. Rep. 223 (1993), 183-276.

 C. Boyallian, V. Kac, J. Liberati and C. Yan, Quasifinite highest weight modules of the Lie algebra of matrix differential operators on the circle, J. Math. Phys. 39 (1998), 2910-2928.

 V. Chari, Integrable representations of affine Lie algebras, Invent. Math. 85 (1986), 317-335.

 B. L. Feigin, The Lie algebra $`gl(\lambda )`$ and the cohomology of the Lie algebra of differential operators, Uspechi Math. Nauk 35 (1988), 157-158.

 E. Frenkel, V. Kac, R. Radul and W. Wang, $`𝒲_{1+\mathrm{}}`$ and $`𝒲(gl_N)`$ with central charge $`N`$, Comm. Math. Phys. 170 (1995), 337-357.

 V. G. Kac and D. H. Peterson, Spin and wedge representations of infinite dimensional Lie algebras and groups, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 78 (1981), 3308-3312.

 V. G. Kac and A. Radul, Quasi-finite highest weight modules over the Lie algebra of differential operators on the circle, Comm. Math. Phys. 157 (1993), 429-457.

 V. G. Kac and A. Radul, Representation theory of the vertex algebra $`𝒲_{1+\mathrm{}}`$, Trans. Groups 1 (1996), 41-70.

 V. G. Kac, W. Wang and C. H. Yan, Quasifinite representations of classical Lie subalgebras of $`𝒲_{1+\mathrm{}}`$, Adv. Math. 139 (1998), 46-140.

 W. Li, 2-Cocycles on the algebra of differential operators, J. Alg. 122 (1989), 64-80.

 O. Mathieu, Classification of Harish-Chandra modules over the Virasoro Lie algebra, Invent. Math. 107 (1992), 225-234.

 Y. Matsuo, Free fields and quasi-finite representations of $`𝒲_{1+\mathrm{}}`$, Phys. Lett. B. 326 (1994), 95-100.

 V. Mazorchuk, Classification of simple Harish-Chandra modules over $`Q\text{ }\text{ }`$-Virasoro algebra, Math. Nachr. 209 (2000), 171-177.

 Y. Su, Classification of Harish-Chandra modules over the higher rank Virasoro algebras, to appear.

 Y. Su, 2-Cocycles on the Lie algebras of generalized differential operators, Comm. Alg., 30 (2002), 763-782.

 Y. Su and K. Zhao, Isomorphism classes and automorphism groups of algebras of Weyl type, Science in China A, 45 (2002), 953-963.

 K. Zhao, The classification of a kind of irreducible Harish-Chandra modules over algebras of differential operators, (Chinese) Acta Math. Sinica 37 (1994), 332-337.