text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A partial differential equation that admits a recursion operator which generates an infinite number of local $`x`$\- and $`t`$-independent Lie-Bäcklund symmetries is called integrable .

In the present paper we classify the $`(1+1)`$-dimensional semilinear evolution equation of the form

$$u_t=u_{xxx}+n(u)u_xu_{xx}+m(u)u_x^3+r(u)u_{xx}+p(u)u_x^2+q(u)u_x+s(u),$$
(1.1)
as well as the quasilinear evolution equation of the form

$$u_t=u^3u_{xxx}+n(u)u_xu_{xx}+m(u)u_x^3+r(u)u_{xx}+p(u)u_x^2+q(u)u_x+s(u),$$
(1.2)
where the $`C^3`$-functions $`m,n,p,q,r,s`$ are constrained by the existence of a local recursion operator of the form

$$R[u]=GD_x^2+QD_x+H+\underset{j}{}I_jD_x^1J_j.$$
(1.3)
Here the functions $`G,Q,H,I_j,J_j`$ depend on $`u`$ and $`x`$-derivatives of $`u`$ and are determined for (1.1) and (1.2) by the commutator relation

$$[L[u],R[u]]\phi =\left(D_tR[u]\right)\phi ,$$
(1.4)
where $`L[u]`$ is the linear operator

$$L[u]=\frac{F}{u}+\frac{F}{u_x}D_x+\frac{F}{u_{xx}}D_x^2+\mathrm{}+\frac{F}{u_{x^n}}D_x^n,$$
(1.5)
$`F`$ is the right-hand-side of (1.1) or (1.2) and $`D_tR[u]`$ calculates the explicit derivative with respect to $`t`$. For more details on recursion operators we refer to .

In two recent papers  we classified $`(1+1)`$-dimensional autonomous evolution equations which can be transformed to linear evolution equations under the $`x`$-generalised hodograph transformation

$$_n\text{H}:\{\begin{array}{c}dX(x,t)=f_1(x,u)dx+f_2(x,u,u_x,u_{xx},\mathrm{},u_{x^{n1}})dt\hfill \\ dT(x,t)=dt\hfill \\ U(X,T)=g(x)\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.9)
with $`n=2,3,\mathrm{}`$, where

$$u_t\frac{f_1}{u}=\frac{f_2}{x}+u_x\frac{f_2}{u}+u_{xx}\frac{f_2}{u_x}+\mathrm{}+u_{x^n}\frac{f_2}{u_{x^{n1}}}.$$
(1.10)
We call these equations linearisable. For second-order equations the $`x`$-generalised hodograph transformation $`{}_{2}{}^{}\text{H}`$ leads to eight linearisable equations . We list here those linearisable equations which admit $`x`$\- and $`t`$-independent local recursion operators :

$$u_t=u_{xx}+\left(\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}+\alpha k^{}\right)u_x^2+\beta u_x+\frac{\gamma }{k^{}}$$
(1.11)
$$R[u]=D_x+\left(\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}+\alpha k^{}\right)u_x$$
(1.12)
$$u_t=u_{xx}+\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_x^2+\alpha ku_x+\beta u_x$$
(1.13)
$$R[u]=D_x+\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_x+\frac{\alpha }{2}k+\frac{\alpha }{2}u_xD_x^1k^{}$$
(1.14)
$$u_t=k^2u_{xx}+k^2\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_x^2+\alpha k^2u_x+\beta u_x$$
(1.15)
$$R[u]=kD_x+k\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_x+\alpha k+\left(k^2u_{xx}+k^2\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_x^2+\alpha k^2u_x\right)D_x^1\frac{k^{}}{k^2}.$$
(1.16)
Here $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ are arbitrary constants and $`k`$ is a nonconstant $`𝒞^3`$ function of $`u`$. In the present paper we exclude these linearisable cases already listed in .

The article is organized as follows: In Section 2 and Section 3 we classify the integrable equations of the form (1.1) and (1.2) with respect to their local recursion operators. The results are presented in Proposition 2.1 and Proposition 3.1. In all cases we give the next equations in the integrable hierarchies, which are all fifth-order equations. Several examples are given and all equations are presented in a more general form under the substitution $`uk(u)`$. In Section 4 we consider sequences of coordinate transformations for the integrable equations provided by Propositions 2.1 and 3.1, namely combinations of potential forms, hodograph transformations and $`x`$-generalised hodograph transformations. As mentioned above, we are interested in local recursion oparators. However, we make one exception in Subsection 4.4, where we derive a nonlocal recursion operator for eq. (4.58), which is a linearisable third-order equation. This provides an interesting example of nonlocal recursion operators and its corresponding nonlocal symmetries and sets the stage for future investigations. In Section 5 we make some conclusions and list all equations for which we established recursion operators.

## 2 Recursion operators for the semilinear equation (1.1)

The recursion operator Ansatz (1.3) for (1.1) leads to

Proposition 2.1: Evolution equations of the form (1.1), viz.

$$u_t=u_{xxx}+n(u)u_xu_{xx}+m(u)u_x^3+r(u)u_{xx}+p(u)u_x^2+q(u)u_x+s(u)$$

which admit recursion operators of the form (1.3), viz.

$$R[u]=GD_x^2+QD_x+H+\underset{j}{}I_jD_x^1J_j$$

and which are not linearisable by a $`x`$-generalised hodograph transformation, are exhausted by the following two cases:

1. The equation

$$\overline{)u_t=u_{xxx}+\lambda _1u_x^3+\lambda _2u_x^2+\lambda _3u_x+\lambda _4}$$
(2.1)
with $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3,\lambda _4`$ arbitrary constants, admits the recursion operator

$$R[u]=D_x^2+2\lambda _1u_x^2+\frac{4\lambda _2}{3}u_x2\lambda _1u_xD_x^1u_{xx}\frac{2\lambda _2}{3}D_x^1u_{xx}.$$
(2.2)
2. The equation

$$\overline{)u_t=u_{xxx}+n(u)u_xu_{xx}+m(u)u_x^3+q(u)u_x}$$
(2.3)
admits the recursion operator (1.3), where

$$Q=\frac{2}{3}nu_x,G=1$$

$$H=\frac{1}{3}nu_{xx}\frac{1}{9}\left(3n^{}+n^218m\right)u_x^2+\frac{2}{3}q$$

$$I=u_x,$$

$$J=\frac{2}{9}\left(3n^{}+n^29m\right)u_{xx}+\frac{1}{9}\left(3n^{\prime \prime }+2nn^{}9m^{}\right)u_x^2+\frac{1}{3}q^{}$$

and $`m,n,p,q,s`$ satisfy the following conditions:

$$q^{\prime \prime \prime }nq^{\prime \prime }3n^{}q^{}\frac{2}{3}n^2q^{}+8mq^{}=0$$
(2.4)
$$9m^{}3n^{\prime \prime }6nm+\frac{2}{3}n^3=0.$$
(2.5)

To prove Proposition 2.1 one needs to verify commutator realtion (1.4) for eq. (1.1) and the recursion operator Ansatz (1.3). This is done by direct calculations, so we do not show the details here.

In order to obtain the next equations in the integrable hierarchies of the equations in Proposition 2.1 we apply the recursion operators on the $`t`$-translation symmetries, i.e. $`R[u]u_t`$. For eq. (2.1) the next equation in the hierarchy is the fifth-order equation

$$u_t=u_{xxxxx}+\lambda _2\left(\frac{10}{3}u_xu_{xxx}+\frac{5}{3}u_{xx}^2+\frac{10\lambda _2}{9}u_x^3\right)+\lambda _3\left(u_{xxx}+\lambda _1u_x^3+\lambda _2u_x^2\right)$$

$$+\frac{2\lambda _4}{3}u_x+\lambda _1\left(5u_x^2u_{xxx}+5u_xu_{xx}^2+\frac{3\lambda _1}{2}u_x^5+\frac{5\lambda _2}{2}u_x^4\right).$$
(2.6)
We note that eq. (2.1) of Proposition 2.1 contains the well known potential KdV equation (with $`\lambda _1=\lambda _4=0`$) as well as the potential modified KdV equation (with $`\lambda _2=\lambda _4=0`$). Equation (2.1) and its recursion operator has also been reported in .

By the substitution

$$uk(u),k𝒞^3$$

eq. (2.1) takes the form

$$u_t=u_{xxx}+3\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_xu_{xx}+\left(\frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}+\lambda _1(k^{})^2\right)u_x^3+\lambda _2k^{}u_x^2+\lambda _3u_x+\frac{\lambda _4}{k^{}}$$
(2.7)
and admits the recursion operator

$$R[u]=D_x^2+2\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_xD_x+\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_{xx}+\left(\frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}+2\lambda _1(k^{})^2\right)u_x^2+\frac{4\lambda _2}{3}k^{}u_x$$

$$2\lambda _1u_xD_x^1\left[(k^{})^2u_{xx}+k^{}k^{\prime \prime }u_x^2\right]\frac{2}{3}\frac{\lambda _2}{k^{}}D_x^1\left[(k^{})^2u_{xx}+k^{}k^{\prime \prime }u_x^2\right].$$
(2.8)
We now give some examples of equation (2.3) and its recursion operators of Case II in Proposition 2.1

Example 2.1: Let

$$m(u)=\frac{1}{54}u$$

and make use of the substitution $`u(x,t)=3\stackrel{~}{u}(x,t)`$. Then system (2.4) – (2.5) reduces to

$$n^{\prime \prime }=2n^3+n\stackrel{~}{u}\frac{1}{2}$$
(2.9)
$$q^{\prime \prime \prime }3nq^{\prime \prime }9\left(n^{}+\frac{2}{3}n^2+\frac{4}{9}\stackrel{~}{u}\right)q^{}=0.$$
(2.10)
Here $`{}_{}{}^{}=d/d\stackrel{~}{u}`$, etc. We note that (2.9) is the well known second Painlevé transcendent. Hence, system (2.9) – (2.10) is solvable in general. By Proposition 2.1 the equation

$$\overline{)\stackrel{~}{u}_t=\stackrel{~}{u}_{xxx}+3n(\stackrel{~}{u})\stackrel{~}{u}_x\stackrel{~}{u}_{xx}\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{u}\stackrel{~}{u}_x^3+q(\stackrel{~}{u})\stackrel{~}{u}_x}$$
(2.11)
where $`n`$ and $`q`$ satisfy (2.9) – (2.10), admits the recursion operator

$$R[\stackrel{~}{u}]=D_x^2+2n\stackrel{~}{u}_xD_x+n\stackrel{~}{u}_{xx}(n^{}+n^2+\stackrel{~}{u})\stackrel{~}{u}_x^2+\frac{2}{3}q$$

$$+\stackrel{~}{u}_xD_x^1\left[2\left(n^{}+n^2+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{u}\right)\stackrel{~}{u}_{xx}+\left(n^{\prime \prime }+2n^{}n+\frac{1}{2}\right)\stackrel{~}{u}_x^2+\frac{1}{3}q^{}\right].$$
(2.12)
The next equation in the hierarchy is

$$\stackrel{~}{u}_t=\stackrel{~}{u}_{xxxxx}+5n\stackrel{~}{u}_x\stackrel{~}{u}_{xxxx}+10n\stackrel{~}{u}_{xx}\stackrel{~}{u}_{xxx}+5\left(n^{}+n^2\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{u}\right)\stackrel{~}{u}_x^2\stackrel{~}{u}_{xxx}$$

$$+10\left(n^{}+n^2\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{~}{u}\right)\stackrel{~}{u}_x\stackrel{~}{u}_{xx}^2+5\left(nn^{}+n^3\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{u}n1\right)\stackrel{~}{u}_x^3\stackrel{~}{u}_{xx}$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}\left((n^{})^2+n^4+\stackrel{~}{u}n^22n+\frac{3}{4}\stackrel{~}{u}^2\right)\stackrel{~}{u}_x^5+\frac{5}{3}q\stackrel{~}{u}_{xxx}$$

$$+5\left(\frac{2}{3}q^{}+nq\right)\stackrel{~}{u}_x\stackrel{~}{u}_{xx}+\left(\frac{5}{6}q^{\prime \prime }+\frac{5}{2}nq^{}\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{u}q\right)\stackrel{~}{u}_x^3+\frac{5}{6}q^2\stackrel{~}{u}_x,$$
(2.13)
where the conditions on $`n`$ and $`q`$ satisfy (2.9) – (2.10).

Example 2.2: Let

$$m(u)=0,n(u)=3u^1$$

$$q(u)=\lambda _1u^4+\lambda _2u^2+\lambda _3,\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3\mathrm{},$$

which satisfies system (2.4) – (2.5). Then (2.3) takes the form

$$\overline{)u_t=u_{xxx}+3u^1u_xu_{xx}+\lambda _1u^4u_x+\lambda _2u^2u_x+\lambda _3u_x}$$
(2.14)
and by Proposition 2.1, eq. (2.14) admits the recursion operator

$$R[u]=D_x^2+2u^1u_xD_x+u^1u_{xx}+\frac{2\lambda _1}{3}u^4+\frac{2\lambda _2}{3}u^2$$

$$+\frac{2}{3}u_xD_x^1\left[2\lambda _1u^3+\lambda _2u\right].$$
(2.15)
The next equation in the hierarchy is

$$u_t=u_{xxxxx}+5u^1u_xu_{xxxx}+10u^1u_{xx}u_{xxx}+\frac{5\lambda _1}{3}\left(u^4u_{xxx}+11u^3u_xu_{xx}+12u^2u_x^3\right)$$

$$+\frac{5\lambda _2}{3}\left(u^2u_{xxx}+7uu_xu_{xx}+4u_x^3\right)+\lambda _3\left(u_{xxx}+3u^1u_xu_{xx}+\lambda _1u^4u_x+\lambda _2u^2u_x\right)$$

$$+\frac{5\lambda _1^2}{6}u^8u_x+\frac{5\lambda _1\lambda _2}{3}u^6u_x+\frac{5\lambda _2^2}{6}u^4u_x.$$
(2.16)
By the substitution

$$uk(u),k𝒞^3,$$

eq. (2.14) takes the form

$$\overline{)u_t=u_{xxx}+3\left(\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}+\frac{k^{}}{k}\right)u_xu_{xx}+\left(\frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}+3\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k}\right)u_x^3+\lambda _1k^4u_x+\lambda _2k^2u_x+\lambda _3u_x}$$
(2.17)
so that system (2.4) – (2.5) admits the solution

$$n(u)=3\left(\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}+\frac{k^{}}{k}\right),m(u)=\frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}+3\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k}$$

$$q(u)=\lambda _1k^4+\lambda _2k^2+\lambda _3.$$

By Proposition 2.1, eq. (2.17) admits the recursion operator

$$R[u]=D_x^2+2\left(\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}+\frac{k^{}}{k}\right)u_xD_x+\left(\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}+\frac{k^{}}{k}\right)u_{xx}+\left(\frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}+3\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k}\right)u_x^2$$

$$+\frac{2}{3}\left(\lambda _1k^4+\lambda _2k^2\right)+\frac{2}{3}u_xD_x^1\left[2\lambda _1k^3k^{}+\lambda _2kk^{}\right].$$
(2.18)
Example 2.3: Let

$$m(u)=\frac{3}{2}u^2,n(u)=3u^1$$

$$q(u)=\lambda _1u^2+\lambda _2u^2+\lambda _3,\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3\mathrm{},$$

which satisfies system (2.4) – (2.5). Then (2.3) takes the form

$$\overline{)u_t=u_{xxx}3u^1u_xu_{xx}+\frac{3}{2}u^2u_x^3+\lambda _1u^2u_x+\lambda _2u^2u_x+\lambda _3u_x}$$
(2.19)
and by Proposition 2.1, eq. (2.19) admits the recursion operator

$$R[u]=D_x^22u^1u_xD_xu^1u_{xx}+u^2u_x^2+\frac{2\lambda _1}{3}u^2+\frac{2\lambda _2}{3}u^2$$

$$+u_xD_x^1\left[u^2u_{xx}u^3u_x^2+\frac{2\lambda _1}{3}u\frac{2\lambda _2}{3}u^3\right].$$
(2.20)
The next equation in the hierarchy is

$$u_t=u_{xxxxx}5u^1u_xu_{xxxx}10u^1u_{xx}u_{xxx}+\frac{35}{2}u^2u_x^2u_{xxx}+\frac{55}{2}u^2u_xu_{xx}^2$$

$$\frac{95}{2}u^3u_x^3u_{xx}+\frac{135}{8}u^4u_x^5+\frac{5\lambda _1}{3}\left(u^2u_{xxx}+uu_xu_{xx}\frac{1}{2}u_x^3\right)+\frac{5\lambda _2^2}{6}u^4u_x$$

$$+\frac{5\lambda _2}{3}\left(u^2u_{xxx}7u^3u_xu_{xx}+\frac{15}{2}u^4u_x^3\right)+\frac{5\lambda _1^2}{6}u^4u_x+\frac{4\lambda _1\lambda _2}{3}u_x$$

$$+\lambda _3\left(u_{xxx}3u^1u_xu_{xx}+\frac{3}{2}u^2u_x^3+\lambda _1u^2u_x+\lambda _2u^2u_x\right).$$
(2.21)
By the substitution

$$uk(u),k𝒞^3,$$

eq. (2.19) takes the form

$`\overline{)\begin{array}{c}u_t=u_{xxx}+3\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^{}}{k}}\right)u_xu_{xx}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}}3{\displaystyle \frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(k^{})^2}{k^2}}\right)u_x^3\hfill \\ +\lambda _1k^2u_x+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{k^2}}u_x+\lambda _3u_x\hfill \end{array}}`$ (2.24)
so that system (2.4) – (2.5) admits the solution

$$n(u)=3\left(\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}\frac{k^{}}{k}\right),m(u)=\frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}3\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k}+\frac{3}{2}\frac{(k^{})^2}{k^2}$$

$$q(u)=\lambda _1k^2+\frac{\lambda _2}{k^2}+\lambda _3.$$

By Proposition 2.1, eq. (2.24) admits the recursion operator

$$R[u]=D_x^2+2\left(\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}\frac{k^{}}{k}\right)u_xD_x+\left(\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}\frac{k^{}}{k}\right)u_{xx}$$

$$+\left(\frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}3\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k}+\frac{(k^{})^2}{k^2}\right)u_x^2+\frac{2}{3}\left(\lambda _1k^2+\frac{\lambda _2}{k^2}\right)$$
(2.25)
$$+u_xD_x^1\left[\frac{(k^{})^2}{k^2}u_{xx}+\left(\frac{k^{}k^{\prime \prime }}{k^2}\frac{(k^{})^3}{k^3}\right)u_x^2+\frac{2\lambda _1}{3}kk^{}\frac{2\lambda _2}{3}\frac{k^{}}{k^3}\right].$$

Example 2.4: i) Let

$$n(u)=0,m(u)=\frac{\beta ^2}{8}$$

$$q(u)=\lambda _1e^{\beta u}+\lambda _2e^{\beta u}+\lambda _3,\beta ,\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3\mathrm{},$$

which satisfies system (2.4) – (2.5). Then (2.3) takes the form

$$\overline{)u_t=u_{xxx}\frac{\beta ^2}{8}u_x^3+\lambda _1e^{\beta u}u_x+\lambda _2e^{\beta u}u_x+\lambda _3u_x}$$
(2.26)
and by Proposition 2.1, eq. (2.26) admits the recursion operator

$$R[u]=D_x^2\frac{\beta ^2}{4}u_x^2+\frac{2\lambda _1}{3}e^{\beta u}+\frac{2\lambda _2}{3}e^{\beta u}$$

$$+u_xD_x^1\left[\frac{\beta ^2}{4}u_{xx}+\frac{\lambda _1\beta }{3}e^{\beta u}\frac{\lambda _2\beta }{3}e^{\beta u}\right].$$
(2.27)
This result is also given in . The next equation in the hierarchy is

$$u_t=u_{xxxxx}\frac{5\beta ^2}{8}u_x^2u_{xxx}\frac{5\beta ^2}{8}u_xu_{xx}^2+\frac{3\beta ^4}{128}u_x^5+\frac{5\lambda _1^2}{6}e^{2\beta u}u_x+\frac{4\lambda _1\lambda _2}{3}u_x$$

$$+\frac{5\lambda _1}{3}e^{\beta u}\left(u_{xxx}+2\beta u_xu_{xx}+\frac{3\beta ^2}{8}u_x^3\right)+\frac{5\lambda _2}{3}e^{\beta u}\left(u_{xxx}2\beta u_xu_{xx}+\frac{3\beta ^2}{8}u_x^3\right)$$

$$+\frac{5\lambda _2^2}{6}e^{2\beta u}u_x+\lambda _3\left(u_{xxx}\frac{\beta ^2}{8}u_x^3+\lambda _1e^{\beta u}u_x+\lambda _2e^{\beta u}u_x\right).$$
(2.28)
By the substitution

$$uk(u),k𝒞^3,$$

eq. (2.26) takes the form

$$\overline{)u_t=u_{xxx}+3\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_xu_{xx}+\left(\frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}\frac{\beta ^2}{8}(k^{})^2\right)u_x^3+\lambda _1e^{\beta k}u_x+\lambda _2e^{\beta k}u_x+\lambda _3u_x}$$
(2.29)
so that system (2.4) – (2.5) admits the solution

$$n(u)=3\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}},m(u)=\frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}\frac{\beta ^2}{8}(k^{})^2$$

$$q(u)=\lambda _1e^{\beta k}+\lambda _2e^{\beta k}+\lambda _3.$$

By Proposition 2.1, eq. (2.29) admits the recursion operator

$$R[u]=D_x^2+2\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_xD_x+\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_{xx}+\left(\frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}\frac{\beta ^2}{4}(k^{})^2\right)u_x^2+\frac{2\lambda _1}{3}e^{\beta k}+\frac{2\lambda _2}{3}e^{\beta k}$$

$$+u_xD_x^1\left[\frac{\beta ^2}{4}\left((k^{})^2u_{xx}+k^{}k^{\prime \prime }u_x^2\right)+\frac{\beta \lambda _1}{3}k^{}e^{\beta k}\frac{\beta \lambda _2}{3}k^{}e^{\beta k}\right].$$
(2.30)
Example 2.4: ii) Closely related to Example 2.4 i) is the solution

$$n(u)=0,m(u)=\frac{\beta ^2}{8}$$

$$q(u)=\lambda _1\mathrm{cos}(\beta u)+\lambda _2\mathrm{sin}(\beta u)+\lambda _3,\beta ,\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3\mathrm{},$$

which satisfies the system (2.4) – (2.5). Then (2.3) takes the form

$$\overline{)u_t=u_{xxx}+\frac{\beta ^2}{8}u_x^3+\lambda _1\mathrm{cos}(\beta u)u_x+\lambda _2\mathrm{sin}(\beta u)u_x+\lambda _3u_x}$$
(2.31)
and by Proposition 2.1, eq. (2.31) admits the recursion operator

$$R[u]=D_x^2+\frac{\beta ^2}{4}u_x^2+\frac{2}{3}\lambda _1\mathrm{cos}(\beta u)+\frac{2}{3}\lambda _2\mathrm{sin}(\beta u)$$

$$u_xD_x^1\left[\frac{\beta ^2}{4}u_{xx}+\frac{\lambda _1\beta }{3}\mathrm{sin}(\beta u)\frac{\lambda _2\beta }{3}\mathrm{cos}(\beta u)\right].$$
(2.32)
The next equation in this hierarchy is

$$u_t=u_{xxxxx}+\frac{5\beta ^2}{8}u_x^2u_{xxx}+\frac{5\beta ^2}{8}u_xu_{xx}^2+\frac{3\beta ^4}{128}u_x^5+\frac{5\lambda _2^2}{6}\mathrm{sin}^2(\beta u)u_x$$

$$+\frac{5\lambda _1\lambda _2}{3}\mathrm{cos}(\beta u)\mathrm{sin}(\beta u)u_x+\frac{5\lambda _1^2}{6}\mathrm{cos}^2(\beta u)u_x\frac{\lambda _1^2}{6}u_x\frac{\lambda _2^2}{6}u_x$$

$$+\frac{5\lambda _1}{3}\left(\mathrm{cos}(\beta u)u_{xxx}2\beta \mathrm{sin}(\beta u)u_xu_{xx}\frac{3\beta ^2}{8}\mathrm{cos}(\beta u)u_x^3\right)$$

$$+\frac{5\lambda _2}{3}\left(\mathrm{sin}(\beta u)u_{xxx}+2\beta \mathrm{cos}(\beta u)u_xu_{xx}\frac{3\beta ^2}{8}\mathrm{sin}(\beta u)u_x^3\right)$$

$$+\lambda _3\left(u_{xxx}+\frac{\beta ^2}{8}u_x^3+\lambda _1\mathrm{cos}(\beta u)u_x+\lambda _2\mathrm{sin}(\beta u)u_x\right).$$
(2.33)
By the substitution

$$uk(u),k𝒞^3,$$

eq. (2.31) takes the form

$`\overline{)\begin{array}{c}u_t=u_{xxx}+3{\displaystyle \frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}}u_xu_{xx}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{8}}(k^{})^2\right)u_x^3\hfill \\ +\lambda _1\mathrm{cos}(\beta k)u_x+\lambda _2\mathrm{sin}(\beta k)u_x+\lambda _3u_x\hfill \end{array}}`$ (2.36)
so that system (2.4) – (2.5) admits the solution

$$n(u)=3\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}},m(u)=\frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}+\frac{\beta ^2}{8}(k^{})^2$$

$$q(u)=\lambda _1\mathrm{cos}(\beta k)+\lambda _2\mathrm{sin}(\beta k)+\lambda _3.$$

By Proposition 2.1, eq. (2.36) admits the recursion operator

$$R[u]=D_x^2+2\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_xD_x+\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_{xx}+\left(\frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}+\frac{\beta ^2}{4}(k^{})^2\right)u_x^2$$

$$+\frac{2\lambda _1}{3}\mathrm{cos}(\beta k)+\frac{2\lambda _2}{3}\mathrm{sin}(\beta k)$$

$$u_xD_x^1\left[\frac{\beta ^2}{4}\left((k^{})^2u_{xx}+k^{}k^{\prime \prime }u_x^2\right)+\frac{\beta \lambda _1}{3}k^{}\mathrm{sin}(\beta k)\frac{\beta \lambda _2}{3}k^{}\mathrm{cos}(\beta k)\right].$$
(2.37)
Our last example is on the well known KdV and modified KdV equation, which should obviously be contained in Proposition 2.1. The recursion operators for these equations are well known (see for example )

Example 2.5: Let

$$m(u)=0,n(u)=0$$

$$q(u)=\lambda _1u^2+\lambda _2u+\lambda _3,\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3\mathrm{},$$

which satisfies system (2.4) – (2.5). Then (2.3) takes the form

$$\overline{)u_t=u_{xxx}+\lambda _1u^2u_x+\lambda _2uu_x+\lambda _3u_x}$$
(2.38)
and admits the recursion operator

$$R[u]=D_x^2+\frac{2\lambda _1}{3}u^2+\frac{2\lambda _2}{3}u+\frac{1}{3}u_xD_x^1\left[2\lambda _1u+\lambda _2\right].$$
(2.39)
With $`\lambda _1=0`$, eq. (2.38) is the KdV equation and for $`\lambda _2=0`$ eq. (2.38) is known as the modified KdV equation. This result is also given in . The next equation in this hierarchy is

$$u_t=u_{xxxxx}+\frac{5\lambda _1}{3}\left(u^2u_{xxx}+4uu_xu_{xx}+u_x^3\right)+\frac{5\lambda _2}{3}\left(uu_{xxx}+2u_xu_{xx}\right)$$

$$+\frac{5\lambda _1^2}{6}u^4u_x+\frac{5\lambda _1\lambda _2}{3}u^3u_x+\frac{5\lambda _2^2}{6}u^2u_x+\lambda _3\left(u_{xxx}+\lambda _1u^2u_x+\lambda _2uu_x\right).$$
(2.40)
By the substitution

$$uk(u),k𝒞^3$$

eq. (2.38) takes the form

$$\overline{)u_t=u_{xxx}+3\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_xu_{xx}+\frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_x^3+\lambda _1k^2u_x+\lambda _2ku_x+\lambda _3u_x}$$
(2.41)
so that system (2.4) – (2.5) admits the solution

$$m(u)=\frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}},n(u)=3\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}$$

$$q(u)=\lambda _1k^2+\lambda _2k+\lambda _3,\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3\mathrm{}.$$

By Proposition 2.1, eq. (2.41) admits the recursion operator

$$R[u]=D_x^2+2\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_xD_x+\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_{xx}+\frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_x^2+\frac{2}{3}\left(\lambda _1k^2+\lambda _2k\right)$$

$$+\frac{1}{3}u_xD_x^1\left[2\lambda _1kk^{}+\lambda _2k^{}\right].$$
(2.42)
## 3 Recursion operators for the quasilinear equation (1.2)

The recursion operator Ansatz (1.3) for (1.2) leads to

Proposition 3.1 Evolution equations of the form

$$u_t=u^3u_{xxx}+n(u)u_xu_{xx}+m(u)u_x^3+r(u)u_{xx}+p(u)u_x^2+q(u)u_x+s(u),$$

which admit recursion operators of the form (1.3), viz.

$$R[u]=GD_x^2+QD_x+H+\underset{j}{}I_jD_x^1J_j$$

and which are not linearisable by a $`x`$-generalised hodograph transformation, are exhausted by the following two cases:

1. The equation

$$\overline{)u_t=u^3u_{xxx}+3u^2u_xu_{xx}+\lambda _1u^3u_x+\lambda _2u^2u_x+\lambda _3u_x}\lambda _j\mathrm{}$$
(3.1)
admits the recursion operator

$$R[u]=u^2D_x^2+uu_xD_x+2uu_{xx}+\lambda _1u^2+\frac{4\lambda _2}{3}u$$

$$+\left(u^3u_{xxx}+3u^2u_xu_{xx}+\lambda _1u^3u_x+\lambda _2u^2u_x\right)D_x^1u^2\frac{\lambda _2}{3}u_xD_x^1.$$
(3.2)
2. The equation

$$\overline{)u_t=u^3u_{xxx}+\lambda _1u^3u_x+\lambda _2u^1u_x+\lambda _3u_x}\lambda _j\mathrm{}$$
(3.3)
admits the recursion operator

$$R[u]=u^2D_x^2uu_xD_x+uu_{xx}+\lambda _1u^2+\frac{\lambda _2}{3}u^2$$

$$+\left(u^3u_{xxx}+\lambda _1u^3u_x+\lambda _2u^1u_x\right)D_x^1u^2\frac{4\lambda _2}{3}u_xD_x^1u^3.$$
(3.4)

To prove Proposition 3.1 one needs to verify commutator realtion (1.4) for eq. (1.2) and the recursion operator Ansatz (1.3). This is done by direct calculations, so we do not show the details here.

We apply the recursion operators of Proposition 3.1 on the $`t`$-translation symmetry, i.e. $`R[u]u_t`$, to obtain the next equation in the hierarchies. For eq. (3.1) the next equation in the hierarchy is

$$u_t=u^5u_{xxxxx}+10u^4u_xu_{xxxx}+15u^4u_{xx}u_{xxx}+25u^3u_x^2u_{xxx}+30u^3u_xu_{xx}^2$$

$$+15u^2u_x^3u_{xx}+\frac{5\lambda _1}{2}\left(u^5u_{xxx}+7u^4u_xu_{xx}+4u^3u_x^3\right)$$

$$+\frac{10\lambda _2}{3}\left(u^4u_{xxx}+5u^3u_xu_{xx}+\frac{3}{2}u^2u_x^3\right)$$

$$+\frac{3\lambda _1^2}{2}u^5u_x+\frac{15\lambda _1\lambda _2}{4}u^4u_x+\frac{20\lambda _2^2}{9}u^3u_x$$
(3.5)
and for eq. (3.3) the next equation in the hierarchy is

$$u_t=u^5u_{xxxxx}+5u^4u_xu_{xxxx}+5u^4u_{xx}u_{xxx}+\frac{5}{2}u^3u_x^2u_{xxx}$$

$$+\frac{5\lambda _1}{2}\left(u^5u_{xxx}+4u^4u_xu_{xx}+u^3u_x^3\right)+\frac{5\lambda _2}{6}\left(uu_{xxx}4u_xu_{xx}+3u^1u_x^3\right)$$

$$+\frac{3\lambda _1^2}{2}u^5u_x+\frac{5\lambda _2^2}{18}u^3u_x.$$
(3.6)
We now use the substitution

$`uk(u)`$
for the two equations of Proposition 3.1. For eq. (3.1) we obtain

$`\overline{)\begin{array}{c}u_t=k^3u_{xxx}+3\left(k^3{\displaystyle \frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}}+k^2k^{}\right)u_xu_{xx}+\left(k^3{\displaystyle \frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}}+3k^2k^{\prime \prime }\right)u_x^3\hfill \\ +\lambda _1k^3u_x+\lambda _2k^2u_x+\lambda _3u_x\hfill \end{array}}`$ (3.9)
with the recursion operator

$$R[u]=k^2D_x^2+\left(2k^2\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}+kk^{}\right)u_xD_x+\left(k^2\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}+2kk^{}\right)u_{xx}+\lambda _1k^2+\frac{4\lambda _2}{3}k$$

$$+(k^2\frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}+3kk^{\prime \prime })u_x^2+\{k^3u_{xxx}+3(k^3\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}+k^2k^{})u_xu_{xx}$$

$$+(k^3\frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}+3k^2k^{\prime \prime })u_x^3+\lambda _1k^3u_x+\lambda _2k^2u_x\}D_x^1\frac{k^{}}{k^2}\frac{\lambda _2}{3}u_xD_x^1k^{}.$$
(3.10)
For eq. (3.3) we obtain

$$\overline{)u_t=k^3u_{xxx}+3k^3\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_xu_{xx}+k^3\frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_x^3+\lambda _1k^3u_x+\frac{\lambda _2}{k}u_x+\lambda _3u_x}$$
(3.11)
and its recursion operator is

$$R[u]=k^2D_x^2+\left(2k^2\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}kk^{}\right)u_xD_x+\left(k^2\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}+kk^{}\right)u_{xx}+\lambda _1k^2$$

$$+k^2\frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_x^2+\frac{\lambda _2}{3}\frac{1}{k^2}\frac{4\lambda _2}{3}u_xD_x^1\frac{k^{}}{k^3}$$

$$+\left(k^3u_{xxx}+3k^3\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_xu_{xx}+k^3\frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_x^3+\lambda _1k^3u_x+\frac{\lambda _2}{k}u_x\right)D_x^1\frac{k^{}}{k^2}.$$
(3.12)
## 4 Transformations between equations

### 4.1 From semilinear to quasilinear equations

We make use of the $`x`$-generalised hodograph transformation (1.9) to transform those semilinear integrable equations, given by Proposition 2.1, to quasilinear equations within the class of autonomous evolution equations

$$u_t=F(u,u_x,u_{xx},u_{xxx}).$$

Equation (2.7) given by Proposition 2.1 Case I, namely

$$u_t=u_{xxx}+3\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_xu_{xx}+\left(\frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}+\lambda _1(k^{})^2\right)u_x^3+\lambda _2k^{}u_x^2+\lambda _3u_x+\frac{\lambda _4}{k^{}},$$

is transformed by the $`x`$-generalised hodograph transformation

$$_3\text{H}:\{\begin{array}{c}dx(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{t})=\stackrel{~}{k}^1d\stackrel{~}{x}\hfill \\ +\left\{\stackrel{~}{k}\stackrel{~}{k}^{}\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{x}}[(\stackrel{~}{k}^{})^2+\stackrel{~}{k}\stackrel{~}{k}^{\prime \prime }]\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{x}}^2\lambda _1\stackrel{~}{k}^2\lambda _2\stackrel{~}{k}\lambda _4\stackrel{~}{k}^1\lambda _3\right\}d\stackrel{~}{t}\hfill \\ dt(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{t})=d\stackrel{~}{t}\hfill \\ k(u)=\stackrel{~}{x},\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.5)
to the quasilinear equation (3.9), namely

$$\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{t}}=\stackrel{~}{k}^3\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{x}}+3\left(\stackrel{~}{k}^3\frac{\stackrel{~}{k}^{\prime \prime }}{\stackrel{~}{k}^{}}+\stackrel{~}{k}^2\stackrel{~}{k}^{}\right)\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{x}}\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{x}}+\left(\stackrel{~}{k}^3\frac{\stackrel{~}{k}^{\prime \prime \prime }}{\stackrel{~}{k}^{}}+3\stackrel{~}{k}^2\stackrel{~}{k}^{\prime \prime }\right)\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{x}}^3$$

$$+2\lambda _1\stackrel{~}{k}^3\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{x}}+\lambda _2\stackrel{~}{k}^2\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{x}}\lambda _4\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{x}}.$$

We recall that eq. (3.9) admits the recursion operator (3.10).

The only integrable equation of Proposition 2.1, Case II, that can be transformed by a $`x`$-generalised hodograph transformation within the class of autonomous equations, is the KdV equation (2.41) with $`\lambda _1=0`$, i.e.

$$u_t=u_{xxx}+3\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_xu_{xx}+\frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_x^3+\lambda _2ku_x+\lambda _3u_x.$$
(4.6)
By the the $`x`$-generalised hodograph transformation

$$_3\text{H}:\{\begin{array}{c}dx(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{t})=\stackrel{~}{k}^1d\stackrel{~}{x}\hfill \\ +\left\{\stackrel{~}{k}\stackrel{~}{k}^{}\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{x}}\left((\stackrel{~}{k}^{})^2+\stackrel{~}{k}\stackrel{~}{k}^{\prime \prime }\right)\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{x}}^2\lambda _2\stackrel{~}{x}\lambda _3\right\}d\stackrel{~}{t}\hfill \\ dt(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{t})=d\stackrel{~}{t}\hfill \\ k(u)=\stackrel{~}{x},\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.11)
we obtain for (4.6) the following quasilinear equation

$$\overline{)\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{t}}=\stackrel{~}{k}^3\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{x}}+3\left(\stackrel{~}{k}^3\frac{\stackrel{~}{k}^{\prime \prime }}{\stackrel{~}{k}^{}}+\stackrel{~}{k}^2\stackrel{~}{k}^{}\right)\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{x}}\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{x}}+\left(\stackrel{~}{k}^3\frac{\stackrel{~}{k}^{\prime \prime \prime }}{\stackrel{~}{k}^{}}+3\stackrel{~}{k}^2\stackrel{~}{k}^{\prime \prime }\right)u_x^3+\lambda _2\frac{\stackrel{~}{k}^2}{\stackrel{~}{k}^{}}}$$
(4.12)
Equation (4.12) does not admit a recursion operator of the form (1.3).

It is interesting to note that both (3.3) with $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2=\lambda _3=0`$, i.e. the well known Harry-Dym equation

$$u_t=u^3u_{xxx},$$
(4.13)
and (2.1) with $`\lambda _2=\lambda _4=0`$, i.e the potential modified KdV equation

$$\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{t}}=\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{x}}+\lambda _1\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{x}}^3+\lambda _3\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{x}},$$
(4.14)
can be transformed to eq. (4.12) by a $`x`$-generalised hodograph transformation. The composition of those two $`x`$-generalised hodograph transformations results in the following transformation between eq. (4.13) and eq. (4.14):

$${}_{3}{}^{}\text{H}:\{\begin{array}{c}dx(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{t})=\frac{1}{\alpha }e^{\alpha \stackrel{~}{u}}d\stackrel{~}{x}+\frac{1}{\alpha }e^{\alpha \stackrel{~}{u}}\left\{\alpha \stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{x}}+\lambda _1\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{x}}^2+\lambda _3\right\}d\stackrel{~}{t}\hfill \\ dt(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{t})=d\stackrel{~}{t}\hfill \\ u(x,t)=\frac{1}{\alpha }e^{\alpha \stackrel{~}{u}},\alpha ^2=2\lambda _1,\alpha =\text{nonzero constant.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.18)
We remark that this relation between the Harry-Dym and the modified KdV was also given in .

### 4.2 Potential forms for semilinear equations of Proposition 2.1

We now consider eq.(2.14) of Example 2.2 and eq. (2.26) of Example 2.4 i). Our aim is to perform the following change of coordinates successively:

$$(x,t,u(x,t))(x,t,v(x,t))\text{Potential Form (PF) with }v_x=h(u)$$
(4.19)
$$(x,t,v(x,t))(X,t,V(X,t))\text{Hodograph Transformation (HT)}$$
(4.20)
$$(X,t,V(X,t))(X,t,W(X,t))\text{with}W=V_X$$
(4.21)
$$(X,t,W(X,t))(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{t},\stackrel{~}{u}(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{t}))x\text{-Generalised Hodograph Transformation}$$
(4.22)
The hodograph transformation (4.20) has the following explicit form:

$$X=v(x,t),T=t,V(X,t)=x.$$
(4.23)
4.2.1 We consider eq. (2.14), i.e.

$$u_t=u_{xxx}+3u^1u_xu_{xx}+\lambda _1u^4u_x+\lambda _2u^2u_x+\lambda _3u_x,$$

which admits two potential forms. Those are discussed separately under 4.2.1 i) and 4.2.1 ii) below:

4.2.1 i) For eq. (2.14) we consider the change of coordinates (4.19) and set

$$v_x=u^4$$

The potential equation is

$$\overline{)v_t=v_{xxx}\frac{3}{4}v_x^1v_{xx}^2+\frac{1}{2}\lambda _1v_x^2+\frac{2}{3}\lambda _2v_x^{3/2}+\lambda _3v_x+C}C\mathrm{}.$$
(4.24)
Under the hodograph transformation (4.23), eq. (4.24) takes the form

$$V_t=V_X^3V_{XXX}\frac{9}{4}V_X^4V_{XX}^2\frac{1}{2}\lambda _1V_X^1\frac{2}{3}\lambda _2V_X^{1/2}CV_X\lambda _3.$$
(4.25)
We remark that if we now apply the $`x`$-generalised hodograph transformation (1.9) on (4.25) then we obtain (2.14), since

$$(x\text{-Generalised Hodograph Transformation})^1=\text{HT }\text{ PF}.$$
(4.26)
We now apply (4.21), which transforms eq. (4.25) to

$`\begin{array}{c}W_t=W^3W_{XXX}{\displaystyle \frac{15}{2}}W^4W_XW_{XX}+9W^5W_X^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _1W^2W_X\hfill \\ +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\lambda _2W^{3/2}W_XCW_X.\hfill \end{array}`$ (4.29)
It is worth to note that, with $`\lambda _1=0`$, eq. (4.29) transforms to (4.12) by the $`x`$-generalised hodograph transformation

$$_3\text{H}:\{\begin{array}{c}dX(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{t})=\stackrel{~}{x}^2\stackrel{~}{k}^1d\stackrel{~}{x}\hfill \\ +\left\{\stackrel{~}{k}^2+2\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{k}\stackrel{~}{k}^{}\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{x}}\stackrel{~}{x}^2[(\stackrel{~}{k}^{})^2+\stackrel{~}{k}\stackrel{~}{k}^{\prime \prime }]\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{x}}^2\stackrel{~}{x}^2\stackrel{~}{k}\stackrel{~}{k}^{}\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{x}}+\frac{\lambda _2}{3}\stackrel{~}{x}^3+C\right\}d\stackrel{~}{t}\hfill \\ dt(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{t})=d\stackrel{~}{t}\hfill \\ W(X,t)=\stackrel{~}{x}^2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.34)
We recall that (4.12) can be transformed to the KdV equation (see (4.6) and (4.12)).

4.2.1 ii) For the second potential form of (2.14) we set

$$v_x=u^2,$$

which leads to

$$v_t=v_{xxx}+\frac{1}{3}\lambda _1v_x^3+\frac{1}{2}\lambda _2v_x^2+\lambda _3v_x+C.$$
(4.35)
Note that by a simple change of constants eq.(4.35) is equivalent to eq. (2.1) of Proposition 2.1. Under the hodograph transformation (4.23), eq. (4.35) takes the form

$$V_t=V_X^3V_{XXX}3V_X^4V_{XX}^2\frac{1}{3}\lambda _1V_X^2\frac{1}{2}\lambda _2V_X^1CV_X\lambda _3.$$
(4.36)
We now apply (4.21), so eq. (4.36) becomes

$`\begin{array}{c}W_t=W^3W_{XXX}9W^4W_XW_{XX}+12W^5W_X^3+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\lambda _1W^3W_X\hfill \\ +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _2W^2W_XCW_X\hfill \end{array}`$ (4.39)
Equation (4.39) is equivalent to (3.1) with $`C=\lambda _3`$ and

$$u(x,t)=W^1(X,t),X=x.$$

4.2.2 We now consider eq. (2.26) of Example 2.4 i, i.e.

$$u_t=u_{xxx}\frac{\beta ^2}{8}u_x^3+\lambda _1e^{\beta u}u_x+\lambda _2e^{\beta u}u_x+\lambda _3u_x.$$

For the change of coordinates (4.19) we set

$$v_x=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta u}{2}\right\}$$

and obtain the potential equation

$$\overline{)v_t=v_{xxx}\frac{3}{2}v_x^1v_{xx}^2+\frac{1}{3}\lambda _1v_x^3\lambda _2v_x^1+\lambda _3v_x+C}C\mathrm{}.$$
(4.40)
We remark that, with

$$\lambda _1=\lambda _2=\lambda _3=C=0,$$

eq. (4.40) is known as the Kirchever-Novikov equation  and admits the recursion operator

$$R[v]=D_x^22v_x^1v_{xx}D_x+\left(v_x^1v_{xxx}v_x^2v_{xx}^2\right)$$

$$v_xD_x^1\left[3v_x^4v_{xx}^34v_x^3v_{xx}v_{xxx}+v_x^2v_{xxxx}\right].$$
(4.41)
Under the hodograph transformation (4.23), eq. (4.40) takes the form

$$V_t=V_X^3V_{XXX}\frac{3}{2}V_X^4V_{XX}^2\frac{1}{3}\lambda _1V_X^2+\lambda _2V_X^2CV_X\lambda _3.$$
(4.42)
We now apply (4.21), which transforms eq. (4.42) to

$$W_t=W^3W_{XXX}6W^4W_XW_{XX}+6W^5W_X^3+\frac{2}{3}\lambda _1W^3W_X$$

$$+\lambda _2WW_XCW_X.$$
(4.43)
Equation (4.43) is equivalent to (3.3) with $`C=\lambda _3`$ and

$$u(x,t)=W^1(X,t),X=x.$$

### 4.3 Potential forms for quasilinear equations of Proposition 3.1

We now consider the quasilinear equations of Proposition 2, i.e. equations (3.1) and (3.3). As in the previous subsection we apply the sequence of coordinate transformations (4.19)–(4.22).

4.3.1 Consider eq. (3.1), i.e.

$$u_t=u^3u_{xxx}+3u^2u_xu_{xx}+\lambda _1u^3u_x+\lambda _2u^2u_x+\lambda _3u_x\lambda _j\mathrm{}$$

which admits two potential forms. Those are discussed separately under 4.3.1 i) and 4.3.1 ii) below:

4.3.1 i) For eq. (3.1) we consider the change of coordinates (4.19) and set

$$v_x=u^1$$

The potential equation is

$$\overline{)v_t=v_x^3v_{xxx}3v_x^4v_{xx}^2\frac{\lambda _1}{2}v_x^2\lambda _2v_x^1+\lambda _3v_x+C}C\mathrm{}.$$
(4.44)
Under the hodograph transformation (4.23), eq. (4.44) takes the form

$$V_t=V_{XXX}+\frac{\lambda _1}{2}V_X^3+\lambda _2V_X^2CV_X\lambda _3$$
(4.45)
which is just eq. (2.1).

4.3.1 ii) To obatin the second potential form for (3.1) we set

$$v_x=u.$$

The potential equation is

$$\overline{)v_t=v_x^3v_{xxx}+\frac{\lambda _1}{4}v_x^4+\frac{\lambda _2}{3}v_x^3+\lambda _3v_x+C}C\mathrm{}.$$
(4.46)
Under the hodograph transformation (4.23), eq. (4.46) takes the form

$$V_t=V_X^6V_{XXX}3V_X^7V_{XX}^2\frac{\lambda _1}{4}V_X^3\frac{\lambda _2}{3}V_X^2CV_X\lambda _3.$$
(4.47)
We now apply (4.21), which transforms eq. (4.47) to

$`\begin{array}{c}W_t=W^6W_{XXX}12W^7W_XW_{XX}+21W^8W_X^3\hfill \\ +{\displaystyle \frac{3\lambda _1}{4}}W^4W_X+{\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda _2}{3}}W^3W_XCW_X.\hfill \end{array}`$ (4.50)
Note that, with $`\lambda _1=0`$, eq. (4.50) can be transformed to (4.12) by the $`x`$-generalised hodograph transformation

$$_3\text{H}:\{\begin{array}{c}dX(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{t})=\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{~}{x}^2\stackrel{~}{k}^1d\stackrel{~}{x}\hfill \\ +\left\{\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{~}{k}^2+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{k}\stackrel{~}{k}^{}\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{x}}\frac{\stackrel{~}{x}^2}{4}[(\stackrel{~}{k}^{})^2+\stackrel{~}{k}\stackrel{~}{k}^{\prime \prime }]\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{x}}^2\frac{\stackrel{~}{x}^2}{4}\stackrel{~}{k}\stackrel{~}{k}^{}\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{x}}\frac{\lambda _2}{12}\stackrel{~}{x}^3+C\right\}d\stackrel{~}{t}\hfill \\ dt(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{t})=d\stackrel{~}{t}\hfill \\ W(X,t)=2\stackrel{~}{x}^1.\hfill \end{array}$$

We recall that (4.12) can be transformed to the KdV equation (4.6).

4.3.2 We now consider (3.3), i.e.

$$u_t=u^3u_{xxx}+\lambda _1u^3u_x+\lambda _2u^1u_x+\lambda _3u_x,\lambda _j\mathrm{}$$

which admits two potential forms. Those are discussed separately under 4.3.2 i) and 4.3.2 ii) below:

4.3.2 i) For eq. (3.3) we consider the change of coordinates (4.19) and set

$$v_x=u^1.$$

The potential equation is

$$\overline{)v_t=v_x^3v_{xxx}\frac{3}{2}v_x^4v_{xx}^2\frac{\lambda _1}{2}v_x^2+\frac{\lambda _2}{2}v_x^2+\lambda _3v_x+C}C\mathrm{}.$$
(4.51)
Under the hodograph transformation (4.23), eq. (4.51) takes the form

$$V_t=V_{XXX}\frac{3}{2}V_X^1V_{XX}^2+\frac{\lambda _1}{2}V_X^3\frac{\lambda _2}{2}V_X^1CV_X\lambda _3.$$
(4.52)
We now apply (4.21), by which eq. (4.52) becomes

$$W_t=W_{XXX}3W^1W_XW_{XX}+\frac{3}{2}W^2W_X^3+\frac{3}{2}\lambda _1W^2W_X$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}\lambda _2W^2W_XCW_X.$$
(4.53)
Equation (4.53) is just eq.(2.19) of Example 2.3.

4.3.2 ii) For the second potential form of eq. (3.3) we set

$$v_x=u^2.$$

The potential equation is

$$\overline{)v_t=v_x^{3/2}v_{xxx}\frac{3}{2}v_x^{5/2}v_{xx}^22\lambda _1v_x^{1/2}+\frac{2\lambda _2}{3}v_x^{3/2}+\lambda _3v_x+C}C\mathrm{}.$$
(4.54)
Equation (4.54) is a slight generalisation of the Cavalcante-Tenenblat equation  and admits the recursion operator

$$R[v]=v_x^1D_x^2\frac{3}{2}v_x^2v_{xx}D_x\frac{1}{2}v_x^2v_{xxx}+\frac{3}{4}v_x^3v_{xx}^2+\lambda _1v_x^1+\frac{\lambda _2}{3}v_x$$

$$\frac{1}{4}\left(v_x^{3/2}v_{xxx}\frac{3}{2}v_x^{5/2}v_{xx}^22\lambda _1v_x^{1/2}+\frac{2\lambda _2}{3}\right)D_x^1v_x^{3/2}v_{xx}.$$
(4.55)
Under the hodograph transformation (4.23), eq. (4.54) takes the form

$$V_t=V_X^{3/2}V_{XXX}\frac{3}{2}V_X^{5/2}V_{XX}^2\frac{2\lambda _2}{3}V_X^{1/2}+2\lambda _1V_X^{3/2}CV_X\lambda _3.$$
(4.56)
We note that with

$$\lambda _2=3\lambda _1,C=\lambda _3$$

eq. (4.54) is invariant under the hodograph tansformation (4.23). We now apply (4.21) to (4.56), so that eq. (4.56) becomes

$$W_t=W^{3/2}W_{XXX}\frac{9}{2}W^{5/2}W_XW_{XX}+\frac{15}{4}W^{7/2}W_X^3+\lambda _1W^{3/2}W_X$$

$$+\lambda _2W^{1/2}W_X+\lambda _3W_X.$$
(4.57)
Equation (4.57) is equivalent to eq. (3.3) of Proposition 3.1 with

$$u(x,t)=W^{1/2}(X,t),X=x.$$

### 4.4 A nonlocal recursion operator

The following equation was introduced in :

$$\overline{)u_t=u_{xxx}+3u^2u_{xx}+9uu_x^2+3u^4u_x}$$
(4.58)
which is a special case of our semilinear equation (1.1). As pointed out in , the linearisation of eq. (4.58) can be achieved by a nonlocal transformation. We establish this linearisation using a combination of potential forms and $`x`$-generalised hodograph transformations. We then use these transformations to calculate the recursion operator for (4.58). The recursion operator for (4.58) turns out to be nonlocal, which explains why this result is not part of Proposition 2.1.

First we write (4.58) in potential form and set

$$v_x=u^2.$$

This leads to

$$\overline{)v_t=v_{xxx}\frac{3}{4}v_x^1v_{xx}^2+3v_xv_{xx}+v_x^3}$$
(4.59)
Now apply for (4.59) the $`x`$-generalised hodograph transformation

$$_3\text{H}:\{\begin{array}{c}dx(X,T)=k^1dX\hfill \\ +\left\{3kk^{}V_X\left(\frac{1}{4}(k^{})^2+kk^{\prime \prime }\right)V_X^2kk^{}V_{XX}k^2\right\}dT\hfill \\ dt(X,T)=dT\hfill \\ v(x,t)=X,\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.64)
which transforms (4.59) to

$`\begin{array}{c}V_T=k^3V_{XXX}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}k^2k^{}+3k^3{\displaystyle \frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}}\right)V_XV_{XX}+3k^3V_{XX}\hfill \\ +\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}k^2k^{\prime \prime }+k^3{\displaystyle \frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}}\right)V_X^3+3\left(k^2k^{}+k^3{\displaystyle \frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}}\right)V_X^2+2k^3V_X.\hfill \end{array}`$ (4.67)
where $`k=k(V)`$. It is remarkable that eq. (4.24) with $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2=\lambda _3=C=0`$, i.e.

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_{\stackrel{~}{T}}=\stackrel{~}{V}_{\stackrel{~}{X}\stackrel{~}{X}\stackrel{~}{X}}\frac{3}{4}\stackrel{~}{V}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}^1\stackrel{~}{V}_{\stackrel{~}{X}\stackrel{~}{X}}^2$$
(4.68)
can also be transformed to (4.67) by the $`x`$-generalised hodograph transformation

$$_3\text{H}:\{\begin{array}{c}d\stackrel{~}{X}(X,T)=k^1dX\hfill \\ +\left\{3kk^{}V_X\left(\frac{1}{4}(k^{})^2+kk^{\prime \prime }\right)V_X^2kk^{}V_{XX}k^2\right\}dT\hfill \\ d\stackrel{~}{T}(X,T)=dT\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{V}(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{T})=\frac{1}{2}e^{2X}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.73)
Equation (4.68) is the potential form of the third-order equation

$$W_{\stackrel{~}{T}}=W_{\stackrel{~}{X}\stackrel{~}{X}\stackrel{~}{X}}+3W^1W_{\stackrel{~}{X}}W_{\stackrel{~}{X}\stackrel{~}{X}},$$
(4.74)
which is part of the linearisable hierarchy VIII in . The relation of (4.74) to (4.67) is established by

$$W_{\stackrel{~}{X}}=\stackrel{~}{V}^4,$$
(4.75)
whereas the linearisation of (4.74) in

$$U_{\stackrel{~}{T}}=U_{\stackrel{~}{X}\stackrel{~}{X}\stackrel{~}{X}}$$
(4.76)
is obtained  by

$$W^2=2U_{\stackrel{~}{X}}.$$
(4.77)
The composition of the above transformations for (4.59) and (4.68), that is the change of coordinates

$$(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{T},\stackrel{~}{V}(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{T}))(x,t,v(x,t)),$$

results in the transformation

$$v(x,t)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(2\stackrel{~}{V}),dx(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{T})=d\stackrel{~}{X},dt(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{T})=d\stackrel{~}{T}.$$
(4.78)
Thus the transformation between (4.58) and (4.68), that is the coordinate transformation

$$(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{T},\stackrel{~}{V}(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{T}))(x,t,u(x,t)),$$

takes the form

$$u(x,t)=\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{V}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}}{2\stackrel{~}{V}}\right)^{1/2},x=\stackrel{~}{X},t=\stackrel{~}{T}.$$
(4.79)
Finally, the linearisation of (4.58) in (4.76) is given by the following nonlocal transformation:

$$\frac{U(x,t)}{x}=\sqrt{2}u\mathrm{exp}\left(u^2(x,t)𝑑x\right).$$
(4.80)
The recursion operator for (4.58) is nonlocal and takes the form

$$R[u]=D_x^2+2u^2D_x+10uu_x+u^4$$

$$+2\left(u_{xx}+2u^2u_x+2ue^{2{\scriptscriptstyle u^2𝑑x}}e^{2{\scriptscriptstyle u^2𝑑x}}u_x^2𝑑x\right)D^1u$$

$$2ue^{2{\scriptscriptstyle u^2𝑑x}}D_x^1\left[\left(u_{xx}+2u^2u_x\right)e^{2{\scriptscriptstyle u^2𝑑x}}+2ue^{2{\scriptscriptstyle u^2𝑑x}}u_x^2𝑑x\right].$$
(4.81)
The recursion operator (4.81) is obtained by transforming the recursion operator of eq. (4.68), namely

$$R[\stackrel{~}{V}]=\left(D_{\stackrel{~}{X}}D_{\stackrel{~}{X}}^1\left[\stackrel{~}{V}^1\stackrel{~}{V}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}+\stackrel{~}{V}^2\right]D_{\stackrel{~}{X}}\right)^2,$$
(4.82)
with the transformations (4.79). Note that (4.81) may also be written in the following nonlinear, but equivalent, form:

$$R[u]=D_x^2+2u^2D_x+10uu_x+u^4+2\left(u_{xx}+2u^2u_x\right)D_x^1u$$

$$2ue^{2{\scriptscriptstyle u^2𝑑x}}D_x^1e^{2{\scriptscriptstyle u^2𝑑x}}\left[u_{xx}+2u^2u_x2u_x^2D_x^1u\right].$$
(4.83)
To get the next equation in the hierarchy of eq. (4.58) we apply the recursion operator on the $`t`$-translation symmetry of (4.58), i.e. $`R[u]u_t`$, which leads to the fifth-order equation

$$u_t=u_{xxxxx}+5u^2u_{xxxx}+40uu_xu_{xxx}+25uu_{xx}^2+50u_x^2u_{xx}+10u^4u_{xxx}$$

$$+120u^3u_xu_{xx}+140u^2u_x^3+10u^6u_{xx}+70u^5u_x^2+5u^8u_x.$$
(4.84)
We recall that the coefficients $`I_j`$ of the term $`I_jD_x^1J_j`$ in the linear recursion operator (4.81) are symmetries of the given equation. Therefore, eq. (4.81) admits the following two nonlocal symmetries:

$$Z_1=ue^{2{\scriptscriptstyle u^2𝑑x}}\frac{}{u}$$
(4.85)
$$Z_2=\left(u_{xx}+2u^2u_x+2ue^{2{\scriptscriptstyle u^2𝑑x}}e^{2{\scriptscriptstyle u^2𝑑x}}u_x^2𝑑x\right)\frac{}{u}$$
(4.86)
We can now construct more nonlocal symmetries for (4.58) by applying the recursion operator on the nonlocal symmetries $`Z_1`$ and $`Z_2`$. For $`Z_1`$ we get zero, but for $`Z_2`$ we obtain the fourth order nonlocal symmetry

$$Z_3=(u_{xxxx}+4u^2u_{xxx}+28uu_xu_{xx}+8u_x^3+6u^4u_{xx}+32u^3u_x^2+4u^6u_x$$

$$2ue^{2{\scriptscriptstyle u^2𝑑x}}e^{2{\scriptscriptstyle u^2𝑑x}}[u_{xx}^2+4u^2u_xu_{xx}4uu_x^3+2u^4u_x^2]dx)\frac{}{u}.$$
(4.87)
## 5 Conclusion

We present recursion operators for a number of integrable equations of the semilinear form (1.1) and the quasilinear form (1.2). Those are given in Proposition 2.1 and Proposition 3.1. In addition we report the potential forms of those equations and apply a sequence of coordinate transformations, namely the hodograph transformation and the $`x`$-generalised hodograph transformation. In some cases the transformed equations admit local recursion operators, which are given explicitly. In other cases the transformed equations do not admit a recursion operator of the form (1.3) and we suspect that those equations admit only nonlocal recursion operators and/or recursion operators which depend explicitly on $`x`$ and $`t`$. We do not study such recursion operators here. However, we make one exception namely for eq. (4.58), for which we calculate the nonlocal recursion operator by using coordinate transformations.

Below we give a list of all semilinear and quasilinear equations (up to $`uk(u)`$) for which we obtained recursion operators in this paper:

Semilinear equations:

$$u_t=u_{xxx}+\lambda _1u_x^3+\lambda _2u_x^2+\lambda _3u_x+\lambda _4$$

$$u_t=u_{xxx}+n(u)u_xu_{xx}+m(u)u_x^3+q(u)u_x$$

$$q^{\prime \prime \prime }nq^{\prime \prime }3n^{}q^{}\frac{2}{3}n^2q^{}+8mq^{}=0$$

$$9m^{}3n^{\prime \prime }6nm+\frac{2}{3}n^3=0$$

$$u_t=u_{xxx}+3n(u)u_xu_{xx}\frac{1}{2}uu_x^3+q(u)u_x$$

$$q^{\prime \prime \prime }3nq^{\prime \prime }9\left(n^{}+\frac{2}{3}n^2+\frac{4}{9}u\right)q^{}=0$$

$$n^{\prime \prime }=2n^3+nu\frac{1}{2}$$

$$u_t=u_{xxx}+3u^1u_xu_{xx}+\lambda _1u^4u_x+\lambda _2u^2u_x+\lambda _3u_x$$

$$u_t=u_{xxx}3u^1u_xu_{xx}+\frac{3}{2}u^2u_x^3+\lambda _1u^2u_x+\lambda _2u^2u_x+\lambda _3u_x$$

$$u_t=u_{xxx}\frac{\beta ^2}{8}u_x^3+\lambda _1e^{\beta u}u_x+\lambda _2e^{\beta u}u_x+\lambda _3u_x$$

$$u_t=u_{xxx}+\frac{\beta ^2}{8}u_x^3+\lambda _1\mathrm{cos}(\beta u)u_x+\lambda _2\mathrm{sin}(\beta u)u_x+\lambda _3u_x$$

$$u_t=u_{xxx}+\lambda _1u^2u_x+\lambda _2uu_x+\lambda _3u_x$$

$$u_t=u_{xxx}+3u^2u_{xx}+9uu_x^2+3u^4u_x$$

Quasilinear equations:

$$u_t=u^3u_{xxx}+3u^2u_xu_{xx}+\lambda _1u^3u_x+\lambda _2u^2u_x+\lambda _3u_x$$

$$u_t=u^3u_{xxx}+\lambda _1u^3u_x+\lambda _2u^1u_x+\lambda _3u_x$$

Linearisable third-order equations:

For the reader’s convenience we also list here the linearisable third-order evolution equations which admit $`x`$\- and $`t`$-independent recursion operators given in . Below $`\beta ,\gamma ,\alpha `$ are arbitrary constants and $`k`$ a nonconstant $`𝒞^3`$ function of $`u`$:

$$u_t=u_{xxx}+3\left(\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}+\alpha k^{}\right)u_xu_{xx}+\left(\frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}+3\alpha k^{\prime \prime }+\alpha ^2(k^{})^2\right)u_x^3$$

$$+\alpha \gamma u_x+\beta \left(u_{xx}+\left(\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}+\alpha k^{}\right)u_x^2\right).$$

$$u_t=u_{xxx}+3\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_xu_{xx}+\frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_x^3+\frac{3\alpha }{2}ku_{xx}+\frac{3\alpha }{2}\left(k\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}+k^{}\right)u_x^2$$

$$+\frac{3\alpha ^2}{4}k^2u_x+\beta \left(u_{xx}+\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}u_x^2+\alpha ku_x\right)$$

$$u_t=k^3u_{xxx}+3\left(k^3\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}k^2k^{}\right)u_xu_{xx}+\left(k^3\frac{k^{\prime \prime \prime }}{k^{}}+3k^2k^{\prime \prime }\right)u_x^3+3\alpha k^3u_{xx}$$

$$+3\alpha \left(k^3\frac{k^{\prime \prime }}{k^{}}+k^2k^{}\right)u_x^2+2\alpha ^2k^3u_x.$$

The above three equations are the second equations in the linearisable hierarchies (1.11), (1.13) and (1.15), respectively. Their recursion operators are (1.12), (1.14) and (1.16), respectively.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

We now have strong evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, from the original method of Type Ia supernova distance-redshift measurements  and concordant observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) power spectrum and of large scale structure . The nature of the dark energy responsible for the acceleration will have profound implications for cosmology, particle physics, and fundamental physics. Mapping the expansion history of the universe offers a way to gain insights into the dark energy and the fate of the universe, for example by characterizing the equation of state behavior that is directly related to properties of the scalar field potential.

As discussed in Linder , one would like to carry out this mapping with not only precision measurements of the distance-redshift relation, but ideally with data on differential distances corresponding to the change between neighboring redshift epochs. The former, notably from the Type Ia supernova method, have proved adept at constraining the energy density and equation of state of the dark energy, with great improvements expected in the next decade. But these involve an integration over the expansion rate behavior $`H(z)`$, which itself involves a redshift integral over the equation of state $`w(z)`$. Probes more closely related to the differential distance might give $`H(z)`$ more directly.

However the integral nature of the distance-redshift relation also provides the power to break degeneracies between cosmological parameters, which is an equally important aspect. So  found that the Alcock-Paczyǹski effect of the cosmic shear distortion – due to the source distances radial and transverse to the line of sight being measured at different epochs – did not in fact automatically give more stringent estimations of the dark energy properties, despite involving a bare factor $`H(z)`$. The cosmic shear (not to be confused with the local, weak lensing shear) is related to the ratio of the differential distance over some redshift interval to the integrated distance to the source. So it is interesting to consider whether the situation changes if we can independently measure the two quantities, basically finding the Hubble parameter $`H(z)`$ separately.

In Section 2 we investigate the use of $`H(z)`$ for constraining the cosmological model. But in Section 3 we find that the most promising technique – the baryon oscillation method – actually measures a slightly different quantity. We then examine the use of the radial and transverse distances provided by precision next generation galaxy redshift survey observations of the linear matter power spectrum, separately and together. In Section 4 we show that the full power of the method comes from adding the information to a deep distance survey such as from accurate observations of Type Ia supernovae (e.g. SNAP). We summarize our conclusions and the need for future work in Section 5.

## 2 Using $`H(z)`$ Information

In this section we consider a data set giving the Hubble parameter $`H(z)`$ at some redshifts $`z`$, with a certain fractional precision. This is a purely theoretical investigation as we do not specify how the measurements are made. Indeed, as mentioned in the introduction, the cosmic shear method only gives the product of $`H(z)`$ with the distance corresponding to the redshift $`z`$, and as we will see in §3 the baryon oscillation method also provides a ratio involving $`H(z)`$. So this is meant as a thought experiment.

Similarly, it is obvious that knowledge of $`H(z)`$ over the entire redshift range from the observer at $`z=0`$ out to some depth is overly optimistic and would supersede any distance measurements in that range. So we consider data at only a few redshifts in a narrow range and ask what cosmological information this can provide and what value it adds to a more realistic set of distance measurements. Recall that the comoving distance $`r`$ or conformal time $`\eta `$ is related to $`H(z)`$ in a flat universe by

$$r(z)=\eta (z)=_0^z𝑑z^{}H^1(z^{}),$$
(1)
and the angular diameter distance $`d_a=(1+z)^1r`$ and luminosity distance $`d_l=(1+z)r`$. The differential distance along the line of sight (radially) is simply $`dr_{}=d\eta =dz/H`$ and transversely is $`dr_{}=\eta \theta `$, where $`\theta `$ is the angle subtended.

Through the Friedmann equations, the expansion rate $`H(z)`$ is related to the cosmological components by

$$(H/H_0)^2=\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z)^3+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_m)e^{3_0^zd\mathrm{ln}(1+z^{})[1+w(z^{})]},$$
(2)
where $`H_0`$ is the Hubble constant, the present value $`H(z=0)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ is the dimensionless matter density, and $`w(z)`$ is the equation of state of the dark energy. We can examine the impact of measurements of $`H(z)`$ on determinations of the cosmological parameters through the sensitivities $`H/\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ etc., achieving formal constraints through the Fisher matrix method .

The sensitivities are shown in Figure 1, with the parametrization $`w(z)=w_0+w_az/(1+z)`$ of Linder  that allows robust treatment of the equation of state to redshifts greater than one. However, the sensitivities are not the whole story: degeneracies between the parameters play a major role in determining them. For example, while a 1% measurement of $`H(z)`$ at $`z=3`$, say, would apparently constrain $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ to 0.06, $`w_0`$ to 0.14, and $`w_a`$ to 0.3, this holds only upon fixing all parameters but one. In fact a measurement at a single redshift only gives an infinite ellipsoid in the joint three dimensional parameter space. Even over a redshift range, such as $`H(z)`$ to 1% at $`z=2.8`$, 3, 3.2, the uncertainties are uselessly large: $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Omega }_m)=0.87`$, $`\sigma (w_0)=76`$, $`\sigma (w_a)=207`$. But because the ellipsoid is fairly narrow, and the degeneracy direction is different than for distance measurements, the combination of $`H(z)`$ information with distance information can be valuable.

For example, adding the estimation of $`H(z)`$ at $`z=2.8`$, 3, 3.2 to a simulation of the data expected from the Supernova/Acceleration Probe (SNAP; ) survey out to $`z=1.7`$ allows parameter determination to $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Omega }_m)=0.0082`$, $`\sigma (w_0)=0.078`$, $`\sigma (w_a)=0.45`$. This represents a factor 3.5 improvement in constraining $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, 2% in $`w_0`$, and 23% in the measure of the time variation $`w^{}w_a/2`$, relative to the canonical SNAP results. So as expected there is clearly value in obtaining measurements of $`H(z)`$ (though we have not established how such would be carried out) – though only in complementarity with a distance probe.

Indeed one can show that measurements of $`H(z)`$ at redshifts $`z>1`$ basically act like information about the matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$. If one eschewed any $`H(z)`$ data but added a prior $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}=0.0082`$ to the SNAP data then one would roughly recover the previous parameter estimations. This is not surprising since at $`z>1`$ one is increasingly in the matter dominated, deceleration epoch and the expansion rate therefore best measures the matter density, not the dark energy properties. So an integral measure such as the distance-redshift relation actually has an advantage in probing the dark energy equation of state, despite this quantity entering the distance through a double integral.

We emphasize this important point further by considering two elaborations. If we spread the redshift range of the $`H(z)`$ measurements, to $`z=2.5`$, 3, 3.5 and add simulated information from the future Planck cosmic microwave background survey , then the dark energy constraints are still weak: $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Omega }_m)=0.039`$, $`\sigma (w_0)=1.6`$, $`\sigma (w_a)=5.4`$. Again, the CMB has limited sensitivity to the dark energy equation of state and little complementarity with the $`H(z)`$ measurement. If we now add the SNAP data, the estimations improve to 0.0056, 0.070, and 0.34 respectively, but little of this is due to $`H(z)`$ since the CMB complementarity is much stronger. The part of the improvement due to $`H(z)`$ is mostly restricted to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ (since that is what $`H(z=3)`$ best probes) and somewhat $`w_0`$ (due to its degeneracy with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$); adding $`H(z)`$ tightens estimation of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ by 44%, $`w_0`$ by 11%, but $`w_a`$ by only 4%.

For determination of $`H(z)`$ near $`z=1`$, the situation is only slightly better. It no longer acts as predominantly a matter density prior, but again $`H(z)`$ by itself cannot constrain the dark energy parameters, even with observations over a range $`z=0.51.5`$. Furthermore, it has less complementarity with SNAP data and improves $`w_a`$ constraints by only 6%. But conversely it gains in complementarity with the CMB information, and improves SNAP+CMB parameter determinations of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, $`w_0`$, $`w_a`$ by 12%, 23%, 16% respectively. These various cases are illustrated in Fig. 2.

So the distance data plays a central role in determining dark energy properties and $`H(z)`$ measurements only a subsidiary, complementary one. But in any case we note that we have not identified any cosmological probe that provides these Hubble parameter measurements, let alone at 1% accuracy.

## 3 Baryon Oscillations

One cosmological probe that shows promise in obtaining differential distance measurements is the use of the imprint of the primordial baryon-photon acoustic oscillations in the matter power spectrum. These are analogous to the oscillations appearing in the CMB temperature power spectrum, but are much smaller, appearing as wiggles superposed on the larger dark matter component (see  for a comprehensive discussion). The wiggle wavelength can be used as a standard ruler, since the intrinsic scale is known from well understood physics of the matter-radiation decoupling epoch. Then the angular or redshift space scale can be measured through a wide field redshift survey (though beyond the current state of the art) and the comparison probes the cosmological model.

By observing at redshifts $`z>1`$ some of the wiggles appear in the linear density regime of the power spectrum, and by using only the locations and not the amplitudes of the oscillations one does not require problematic models of structure formation and evolution. This method then has several positive aspects: simple, linear physics free from astrophysical uncertainties, direct relation of observations to cosmological quantities, and sensitivity to a snapshot of the expansion rate, $`H(z)`$. For further discussion of the details and possible implementation of this probe see .

However, the baryon oscillations do not provide a pure measure of $`H(z)`$. Rather, the physics involves the ratio of the “standard rod” size to the observed oscillation scale (generally in Fourier wavenumber, $`k`$-space). So the central quantity is

$$K\frac{k_A}{k_{obs}}=\frac{1}{s}dz\frac{d\eta }{dz}=\frac{dz}{H(z)s},$$
(3)
where $`k_A`$ is the predicted acoustic oscillation scale, proportional to the inverse of the sound horizon $`s`$, and $`k_{obs}`$ is the observed scale, proportional to the inverse of the standard rod length $`d\eta `$. The sound horizon is given by

$`s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{z_{dec}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑z(c_s/H)`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2)^{1/2}{\displaystyle }dac_s[a+a_{eq}+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_m^1)a^4e^{3{\scriptscriptstyle d\mathrm{ln}a[1+w(a)]}}]^{1/2},`$ (5)
where $`a=(1+z)^1`$ is the scale factor of the universe, $`c_s`$ is the sound speed in the baryon fluid, $`z_{dec}`$ is the redshift of decoupling, and $`a_{eq}`$ is the scale factor at matter-radiation equality. Note that while a cosmological constant ($`w=1`$) would cause the last term in the brackets to have a negligible contribution to the integrand, some forms of dynamical dark matter could have non-negligible influence at these redshifts (see  for a discussion of early quintessence). The sound speed for adiabatic perturbations in the baryons is

$$c_s=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(1+\frac{3}{4}\frac{\rho _b}{\rho _\gamma }\right)^{1/2}.$$
(6)
Since the baryon density $`\rho _b\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ is well determined by current CMB measurements, and will be further improved by Planck data, and the photon density $`\rho _\gamma T_\gamma ^4`$ is also accurately known, then we can regard $`c_s`$ as fixed.

From the form of Eqs. (3) and (4), we see that $`H(z)`$ enters in both numerator and denominator, as itself and as an integrand. This is the same form as for the cosmic shear probe . So as pointed out there, the value of the Hubble constant $`H_0`$ or $`h`$ does not enter the problem and therefore does not require marginalization. This is a definite advantage. Furthermore, one can divide numerator and denominator by $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2)^{1/2}`$. At a casual glance, one might think that all dependence on this quantity is then removed. But in fact, the approximation that $`s(\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2)^{1/2}`$ is not a good one, as pointed out in . There, a closer approximation for a flat, cosmological constant universe was found to be $`s(\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2)^{0.3}`$, while a more precise analysis  is equivalent to $`s(\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2)^{0.23}`$. The additional factors come from the presence of $`a_{eq}`$ and to a much lesser extent $`a_{dec}`$. However, since the dependence arises from the sound horizon, it is the same for all the redshifts at which the measurements of $`k_{obs}`$ are carried out by the redshift survey. This, combined with the precision to which Planck will determine $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2`$, means that its uncertainty couples very weakly to the other parameters (this was explicitly tested), and we will neglect it. However, one still must incorporate the uncertainty in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ in order to obtain realistic parameter error estimations.

Therefore, the baryon oscillation method can essentially provide measurements of two cosmological variables according to Eq. (3): $`\stackrel{~}{H}(z)H(z)/(\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2)^{1/2}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }(z)r(z)(\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2)^{1/2}`$. These come respectively from the wavenumbers along ($`d\eta `$) and transverse ($`\eta `$) to the line of sight. This distinction from a plain $`H(z)`$ as treated in §2 is important for the parameter degeneracies and complementarity with other methods.

Figure 3 shows the sensitivities for these two quantities. As expected, for $`w_0`$ and $`w_a`$ the derivatives are the same as for $`H(z)`$ and $`r(z)`$. However, the degeneracy relations between the parameters have now changed, and so the strength of the estimations have as well. Again we find that the probe in isolation cannot effectively constrain the cosmological model – even the matter density since most of its dependence has been removed in the ratio. Even in combination with CMB data it has little leverage.

However the situation changes significantly for a fiducial model that has time variation in the equation of state. For a supergravity inspired model  that is well fit by $`w_0=0.82`$, $`w_a=0.58`$, the oscillation data offers definite sensitivity to the time variation. Now a 2% (1%) measurement of $`K`$ in both its radial and transverse aspects, in combination with Planck data, allows estimation of $`w_a`$ to 0.29 (0.20) for measurements at $`z=\{0.5,1,1.5\}`$ and 0.62 (0.47) for $`z=\{2.5,3,3.5\}`$. However, the estimations of $`w_0`$ remain poor: 0.16 (0.09) and 0.36 (0.27) respectively. Furthermore, since only 1-2 wiggles are in the linear regime at $`z1`$, the observations are unlikely to achieve better than 2% precision there, while we see that even 1% precision at $`z3`$ gives less impressive results. And of course we have no guarantee that the true cosmological model will have a strong time variation in the dark energy equation of state.

## 4 Baryon Oscillations Plus Supernovae

As with the $`H(z)`$ analysis in §2, the baryon oscillation method cannot stand alone as a robust cosmological probe. In this section we consider it in complement with a SNAP supernova distance survey. As expected, we find that it does not behave in the same manner as $`H(z)`$, as effectively a prior on the matter density. In fact, unlike $`H(z)`$, within a cosmological constant model of dark energy the complementarity with precision distance measurements is now substantial, providing good constraints. Adding oscillation information acts even slightly more strongly than adding CMB information, relative to supernovae. When the baryon oscillation information is added to SNAP+CMB, further modest improvements are seen – around 14% in both $`w_0`$ and $`w_a`$ for 2% measurement of the oscillation scale and 30% for 1% measurement. This is fairly insensitive to the exact redshift distribution of the matter power spectrum measurements, i.e. for redshifts near 1 or 3, or a spread $`z=\{0.5,1,1.5\}`$ vs. $`\{0.8,1,1.2\}`$.

For the SUGRA model, the improvement is stronger. Baryon oscillations and CMB have increasing complementarity to each other and to supernovae. Now upon adding the oscillation probe to SNAP+CMB the estimation of $`w_a`$ sharpens by 46-37% (54-60%) for 2% (1%) precision, depending on whether the measurements are near $`z=1`$ or 3. Furthermore, $`\sigma (w_0)`$ reduces by 51-39% (59-57%). So this offers hope that the baryon oscillation method can provide important complementarity useful in uncovering the nature of the dark energy. The error contours for the cosmological constant and SUGRA cases are shown in Figs. 4 and 5.

Because of the insensitivity of the baryon oscillation results to the exact redshift range, so long as $`z\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}1`$, one can choose the survey characteristics based on observational considerations. As mentioned, at redshifts $`z<1.5`$ one is likely to detect only 1 or 2 baryon wiggles, making it more difficult to precisely determine the oscillation scale $`k_{obs}`$. But for $`z>1.5`$ the linear regime quickly extends in $`k`$-space, due to behavior of structure formation in a universe recently dominated by dark energy (see Fig. 1 of ), providing 3-4 detectable oscillations. The redshift ranges most advantageous for observations are often identified as $`z=0.51.3`$ and $`z=2.53.5`$  due to easy selection by 4000Å break and Ly$`\alpha `$ features in the galaxies used in the survey. Estimates of number of galaxies required and sky coverage are given in .

Such a redshift survey could be accomplished by large telescopes on the ground within a decade. One possibility is the KAOS project : the Kilo-Aperture Optical Spectrograph proposed as a front end for the Gemini South 8 meter telescope. This would have multiplexing capability from some 4000 fibers for simultaneous measurement of galaxy redshifts. With a 1.5 square degree field of view and coverage of some 400 square degrees of sky KAOS could measure precise redshifts for $`10^6`$ galaxies. This could provide estimates of the wiggle scale at the 2% precision level .

Another intriguing idea is to use wide field observations from space. This would have the advantage of not being restricted to the $`z1`$ and 3 ranges just mentioned, which were limited by the Earth’s atmosphere. Indeed, from a theoretical point of view, a redshift range $`z=1.52`$ is essentially as powerful as $`z3`$ in terms of number of oscillations mapped, a definite advantage over $`z1`$, and yet requires less spectroscopic exposure time than the deeper survey. Calculations show that the parameter estimation for a given precision is as tight as the lower or higher redshift ranges.

While there is no planned massively multiplexing spectrograph for space, one interesting possibility is populating spare regions of the SNAP focal plane with grisms capable of low resolution spectroscopy. Also, photometric redshifts can be generated with SNAP’s nine filters. There is no problem achieving the number or area statistics as the proposed SNAP wide field survey (mostly focused on weak gravitational lensing) will find $`10^8`$ galaxies over 300 square degrees. However with a 2 meter telescope and spectral resolutions of order 100 or less, this clearly is not capable of carrying out all the science that an 8 meter ground based telescope with high resolution spectrograph could. Still, while this would not provide the same precision mapping of the 3D matter power spectrum, it might give decent quality information on the 2D, projected spectrum, roughly corresponding to the transverse wavenumber modes in Eq. (3). Photometric or low resolution spectroscopic redshifts would additionally give a smeared representation of the radial dimension. Detailed analysis of the baryon oscillation method with SNAP is left for future work; here we simply investigate the parameter constraints from the transverse and radial modes separately.

One expects that the radial mode, $`d\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$, which involves a bare factor $`H(z)`$, should provide better limits, while the transverse mode, $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$, acts basically like a distance-redshift measurement though with the important degeneracy differences previously mentioned. Indeed the sensitivities plotted in Fig. 3 bear this out (though the degeneracy relations are not there apparent; also note that the radial mode has low sensitivity at redshifts that are well into the matter dominated epoch). For example, denoting the full baryon oscillation information as BO, the radial only as BO, and the transverse only as BO, one finds that 2% precision gives $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Omega }_m)=0.0057`$, $`\sigma (w_0)=0.069`$, $`\sigma (w_a)=0.30`$ for SN+CMB+BO, (0.0073, 0.073, 0.31) for SN+CMB+BO, and (0.0065, 0.075, 0.35) for SN+CMB+BO. (Though presumably the precision in a full 3D survey would be better than in a 2D plus low resolution radial survey.) In the last case there is essentially no improvement over the SN+CMB case without any oscillation information. Various cases are illustrated in Fig. 6.

Again, the baryon oscillation method is more useful in the presence of a time varying equation of state dark energy. Moreover, due to the long baseline entering the integrated distance, the BO information is actually more valuable than the radial, if at the same precision. The results for the SUGRA model are illustrated in Fig. 7. We see that 2% precision data on the transverse modes adds complementarity to the supernova and CMB information, improving the estimates of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ by 56%, $`w_0`$ by 46%, and $`w_a`$ by 42%. This represents the vast majority of the impact of the full baryon oscillation data discussed at the beginning of this section.

## 5 Conclusion

Differential distance measurements, providing a snapshot of the expansion rate $`H(z)`$, have long seemed attractive theoretically as ways to probe the nature of dark energy. But they have also appeared difficult to implement observationally. The cosmic shear, or Alcock-Paczyǹski, probe (not to be confused with promising weak lensing shear measurements) involves a ratio of differential to integrated distances, or the product $`H(z)r(z)`$, and  showed that it could act only in a minor, complementary role to precision distance observations. The growth of structure in the linear regime also might be thought sensitive to $`H(z)`$ but at redshifts $`z\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}2`$ this essentially probes $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ not the dark energy; however, through other factors the linear growth still retains some sensitivity to the equation of state and its time variation . Nonlinear structure formation can involve $`H(z)`$ as a separate factor through the differential volume element in cluster or galaxy halo counts, but this is entangled in systematic uncertainties from nonlinear physics and observational selection effects . On large scales this may be ameliorated, but the needed numerical simulations of large scale structure incorporating a time varying equation of state are just now being carried out .

In this paper we have pushed these observational difficulties into the background and considered the use of $`H(z)`$ regardless. Our conclusion is that it is not a panacea and only offers aid through complementarity with a deep, precision distance survey such as SNAP; then it contributes mild improvement to the cosmological parameter constraints. This is basically due to $`H(z)`$ acting at higher redshifts as a determinant of the matter density, not a direct probe of dark energy properties. At redshifts $`z<1`$ it has somewhat more leverage, but requires precision on the 1% level for significant improvement.

The baryon oscillation method of using wiggles in the matter power spectrum as a standard ruler determines a slightly different measure of the expansion rate $`H(z)`$. This probe is sufficiently promising, though again only in complementarity with a supernova distance survey, that it should be pursued further. Depending on the nature of the dark energy, incorporation of oscillation measurements can offer significant improvements on estimation of the time variation of the equation of state. One of the most striking aspects is its cleanness, based on simple, well understood physics and with no apparent major systematic uncertainties. Note that in all the analyses presented here of different cosmological probes, only the SNAP data has included systematic uncertainties – the $`H(z)`$ and baryon oscillation precisions have been taken as purely statistical. For all known and other proposed probes this is certainly overly optimistic. Whether systematics enter at the 1-2% level in the baryon oscillation method, from, say, residual nonlinearities or mass vs. light bias, needs further investigation.

Two interesting concepts for baryon oscillation observations are the KAOS project on the ground, and a spectroscopically less precise but reasonably straightforward space implementation with grisms or photometric redshifts from SNAP. We have seen that the optimal redshift range is not strongly determined by the parameter sensitivity, and so will be driven by trade offs in observation strategy. Both projects deserve further investigation, though it is intriguing to imagine that SNAP could represent a cosmology superprobe – incorporating the supernova distance, weak lensing, some part of the baryon oscillation, and possibly even cluster count methods of cosmological parameter determination. But even if SNAP is rather promising for revealing the nature of dark energy, our understanding and confidence will still be strengthened by multiple, complementary and crosschecking next generation surveys.

## Acknowledgments

I thank Greg Aldering, Matthew Colless, Daniel Eisenstein, Saul Perlmutter, and Martin White for useful discussions. This work has been supported in part by the Director, Office of Science, Department of Energy under grant DE-AC03-76SF00098.


text:
# Leptonic constant of pseudoscalar 𝑩_𝒄 meson

## I Introduction

The investigation of long-lived heavy quarkonium $`B_c`$ composed of quarks with different flavors can produce a significant progress in the study of heavy quark dynamics, since the variation of bound state conditions for the heavy quarks in various systems such as the heavy-light hadrons or doubly heavy mesons and baryons111See the review of physics with the baryons containing two heavy quarks in QQq . provides us with the different conditions in both the binding of quarks by the strong interactions and the electroweak decays. In addition to the rich fields of study such as the spectroscopy, production mechanism and lifetime there is a possibility to get the model-independent information on the CP-violating parameters in the heavy quark sector222The extraction of angle $`\gamma `$ in the unitary triangle derived from the charged current mixing in the heavy quark sector can be obtained from the decays of doubly heavy baryons, too, in the same manner CPQQq . CPBc .

The first experimental observation of the $`B_c`$ meson by the CDF collaboration cdf  confirmed the theoretical predictions on its mass, production rate and lifetime revbc . So, we could expect, that an essential increase of statistics in the nearest future will provide us with a new battle field in the study of long-lived doubly heavy hadrons at Tevatron BRunII  and LHC LHCB .

The special role of heavy quarks in QCD is caused by the small ratio of two physical scales: the heavy quark mass $`m_Q`$ is much greater than the energetic scale of the quark confinement $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{qcd}}`$. This fact opens a way to develop two powerful tools in the description of strong interactions with the heavy quarks. The first tool is the perturbative calculations of Wilson coefficients determined by the hard corrections with the use of renormalization group improvements. The second instrument is the Operator Product Expansion (OPE) related with the small virtuality of heavy quark in the bound state, which reveals itself in many faces such as the general expansion of operators in inverse powers of heavy quark mass and the QCD sum rules. A specific form of OPE is the application for the heavy quark lagrangian itself, which results in the effective theories of heavy quarks. The effective theory is constructed under the choice of its leading term appropriate for the system under study. So, the kinetic energy can be neglected in the heavy-light hadrons to the leading order. The corresponding effective theory is called HQET HQET . In the doubly heavy mesons the kinetic energy is of the same order as the potential one, while the velocity of the heavy quark motion is small, and we deal with the nonrelativistic QCD NRQCD  and its developments by taking into account the static energy in the potential NRQCD in a general form (pNRQCD) pNRQCD  or under the correlation of quarkonium size and the time for the formation of bound system with the improved scheme of expansion in the heavy quark velocity (vNRQCD) vNRQCD . The perturbative QCD remains actual in the effective theories, since it is necessary for the calculation of Wilson coefficients determined by hard corrections. More definitely, the perturbative calculations determine both the matching of Wilson coefficients in the effective theory with the full QCD and the anomalous dimensions resulting in the evolution of the coefficients with the variation of normalization point. In this respect we have to mention that the pNRQCD results on the static potential and the mass-dependent terms in the heavy quark-antiquark energy were confirmed by vNRQCD after appropriate limits and some calculational corrections in vNRQCD. In addition, the pNRQCD is a powerful tool in the studies of both the spectroscopy and the heavy quarkonium decays pNRQCD2 .

In contrast to the Wilson coefficients, the hadronic matrix elements of operators composed by the effective fields of nonrelativistic heavy quarks cannot be evaluated in the perturbative manner. In this paper we use the potential model for such the calculations in the case of leptonic constant for the mixed-flavor heavy quarkonium $`B_c`$. The matching procedure is performed with the two-loop accuracy available to the moment.

## II Leptonic constant of $`𝑩_𝒄`$ in the potential approach

In the NRQCD approximation for the heavy quarks, the calculation of leptonic constant for the heavy quarkonium with the two-loop accuracy requires the matching of NRQCD currents with the currents in full QCD,

$$J_\nu ^{\mathrm{QCD}}=\overline{Q}_1\gamma _5\gamma _\nu Q_2,𝒥_\nu ^{\mathrm{NRQCD}}=\chi ^{}\varphi v_\nu ,$$

where we have introduced the following notations: $`Q_{1,2}`$ are the relativistic quark fields, $`\chi `$ and $`\varphi `$ are the nonrelativistic spinors of anti-quark and quark, $`v`$ is the four-velocity of heavy quarkonium, so that

$$J_\nu ^{\mathrm{QCD}}=𝒦(\mu _{\mathrm{hard}};\mu _{\mathrm{fact}})𝒥_\nu ^{\mathrm{NRQCD}}(\mu _{\mathrm{fact}}),$$
(1)
where the scale $`\mu _{\mathrm{hard}}`$ gives the normalization point for the matching of NRQCD with full QCD, while $`\mu _{\mathrm{fact}}`$ denotes the normalization point for the calculations in the perturbation theory of NRQCD.

For the pseudoscalar heavy quarkonium composed of heavy quarks with the different flavors, the Wilson coefficient $`𝒦`$ is calculated with the two-loop accuracy

$`𝒦(\mu _{\mathrm{hard}};\mu _{\mathrm{fact}})`$ $`=`$ $`1+c_1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(\mu _{\mathrm{hard}})}{\pi }}+`$ (2)
$`c_2(\mu _{\mathrm{hard}};\mu _{\mathrm{fact}})\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(\mu _{\mathrm{hard}})}{\pi }}\right)^2,`$
and $`c_{1,2}`$ are explicitly given in Refs. braflem  and ov , respectively. The anomalous dimension of factor $`𝒦(\mu _{\mathrm{hard}};\mu _{\mathrm{fact}})`$ in NRQCD is defined by

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}𝒦(\mu _{\mathrm{hard}};\mu )}{d\mathrm{ln}\mu }=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\gamma _{[k]}\left(\frac{\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(\mu )}{4\pi }\right)^k,$$
(3)
whereas the two-loop calculations333We use ordinary notations for the invariants of $`SU(N_c)`$ representations: $`C_F=\frac{N_c^21}{2N_c}`$, $`C_A=N_c`$, $`T_F=\frac{1}{2}`$, $`n_f`$ is a number of “active” light quark flavors. give

$`\gamma _{[1]}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (4)
$`\gamma _{[2]}`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi ^2C_F\left[\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{(1r)^2}{(1+r)^2}}\right)C_F+C_A\right],`$ (5)
where $`r`$ denotes the ratio of heavy quark masses. The initial condition for the evolution of factor $`𝒦(\mu _{\mathrm{hard}};\mu _{\mathrm{fact}})`$ is given by the matching of NRQCD current with full QCD at $`\mu _{\mathrm{fact}}=\mu _{\mathrm{hard}}`$.

The leptonic constant is defined in the following way:

$$0|J_\nu ^{\mathrm{QCD}}|\overline{Q}Q=v_\nu f_{\overline{Q}Q}M_{\overline{Q}Q}.$$
(6)
In full QCD the axial vector current of quarks has zero anomalous dimension, while in NRQCD the current $`𝒥_\nu ^{\mathrm{NRQCD}}`$ has the nonzero anomalous dimension, so that in accordance with (1)–(5), we find

$$0|𝒥_\nu ^{\mathrm{NRQCD}}(\mu )|\overline{Q}Q=𝒜(\mu )v_\nu f_{\overline{Q}Q}^{\mathrm{NRQCD}}M_{\overline{Q}Q},$$
(7)
where, in terms of nonrelativistic quarks, the leptonic constant for the heavy quarkonium is given by the well-known relation with the wave function at the origin

$$f_{\overline{Q}Q}^{\mathrm{NRQCD}}=\sqrt{\frac{12}{M_{\overline{Q}Q}}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{Q}Q}(0)|,$$
(8)
and the value of wave function in the leading order is determined by the solution of Schrödinger equation with the static potential, so that we isolate the scale dependence of NRQCD current in the factor $`𝒜(\mu )`$, while the leptonic constant $`f_{\overline{Q}Q}^{\mathrm{NRQCD}}`$ is evaluated at a fixed normalization point $`\mu =\mu _0`$, which will be attributed below. It is evident that

$$f_{\overline{Q}Q}=f_{\overline{Q}Q}^{\mathrm{NRQCD}}𝒜(\mu _{\mathrm{fact}})𝒦(\mu _{\mathrm{hard}};\mu _{\mathrm{fact}}),$$
(9)
and the anomalous dimension of $`𝒜(\mu _{\mathrm{fact}})`$ should compensate the anomalous dimension of factor $`𝒦(\mu _{\mathrm{hard}};\mu _{\mathrm{fact}})`$, so that in two loops we have got

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}𝒜(\mu )}{d\mathrm{ln}\mu }=\gamma _{[2]}\left(\frac{\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(\mu )}{4\pi }\right)^2.$$
(10)
The physical meaning of $`𝒜(\mu )`$ is clearly determined by the relations of (7) and (9): this factor gives the normalization of matrix element for the current of nonrelativistic quarks expressed in terms of wave function for the two-particle quark state (in the leading order of inverse heavy quark mass in NRQCD). Certainly, in this approach the current of nonrelativistic quarks is factorized from the quark-gluon sea, which is a necessary attribute of hadronic state, so that, in general, this physical state can be only approximately represented as the two-quark bound state. In the consideration of leptonic constants in the framework of NRQCD, this approximation requires to introduce the normalization factor $`𝒜(\mu )`$ depending on the scale.

The renormalization group equation of (10) is simply integrated out, so that

$$𝒜(\mu )=𝒜(\mu _0)\left[\frac{\beta _0+\beta _1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(\mu )}{4\pi }}}{\beta _0+\beta _1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(\mu _0)}{4\pi }}}\right]^{{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{[2]}}{2\beta _1}}},$$
(11)
where $`\beta _0=\frac{11}{3}C_A\frac{4}{3}T_Fn_f`$, and $`\beta _1=\frac{34}{3}C_A^24C_FT_Fn_f\frac{20}{3}C_AT_Fn_f`$. A constant of integration could be defined so that at a scale $`\mu _0`$ we would get $`𝒜(\mu _0)=1`$. Thus, in the framework of NRQCD we have got the parametric dependence of leptonic constant estimates on the scale $`\mu _0`$, which has the following simple interpretation: the normalization of matrix element for the current of nonrelativistic quarks at $`\mu _0`$ is completely given by the wave function of two-quark bound state. At other $`\mu \mu _0`$ we have to introduce the factor $`𝒜(\mu )1`$, so that the approximation of hadronic state by the two-quark wavefunction becomes inexact.

Following the method described in KKO ; KLPS , we estimate the wave function of $`\overline{b}c`$ quarkonium in the nonrelativistic model with the static potential given by KKO , so that

$$\sqrt{4\pi }|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)_{\overline{b}c}|=1.26\mathrm{GeV}^{3/2}.$$
(12)
In a wide region of distances between the quarks $`\rho `$, the static potential of KKO  free of infrared singularity can be matched with the two-loop perturbative potential $`V_{\mathrm{pert}}`$ calculated in Peter ; Schroed . In this way the difference between the potentials

$$\delta V(\mu _{\mathrm{soft}})=V_{\mathrm{KKO}}(\rho )V_{\mathrm{pert}}(\rho ;\mu _{\mathrm{soft}})$$
(13)
depends on the normalization point $`\mu _{\mathrm{soft}}`$ in the perturbative QCD of static sources. It can be numerically approximated by the expression

$$\frac{\delta V(\mu _{\mathrm{soft}})}{1\mathrm{GeV}}=\frac{0.99}{\mu _{\mathrm{soft}}/(1\mathrm{GeV})0.5},$$

reflecting the infrared uncertainties in the perturbative calculations.

The masses of heavy quarks used in the potential model of KKO

$$m_c^\mathrm{V}=1.468\mathrm{GeV},m_b^\mathrm{V}=4.873\mathrm{GeV},$$
(14)
are consistent with the values of running masses as was shown in KKO . The cancellation of renormalon in the sum of the perturbative static potential and pole masses of heavy quarks takes place, so that444The accuracy of expression below, i.e. a possible additive shift, is discussed in RGI .

$$m_{\mathrm{pole}}(\mu _{\mathrm{soft}})=m^\mathrm{V}+\frac{1}{2}\delta V(\mu _{\mathrm{soft}}).$$

In what follows we put the normalization point of perturbative potential $`\mu _{\mathrm{soft}}=\mu _{\mathrm{fact}}`$.

The result of calculation for the leptonic constant of $`B_c`$ in the potential approach is shown in Fig. 1. We chose the values of $`\mu _{\mathrm{hard}}`$ in a range, so that the stable value of leptonic constant would be posed at the scale $`\mu _{\mathrm{fact}}<m_c^{\mathrm{pole}}`$, which is the condition of consistency for the NRQCD approach. Then one can observe the position of $`\mu _{\mathrm{fact}}1.51.6`$ GeV, where the estimate of $`f_{B_c}`$ is independent of the choice of $`\mu _{\mathrm{hard}}`$ and $`\mu _0`$, and the maximal values at the different choices of $`\mu _{\mathrm{hard}}`$ are also close to each other.

We have found that in order to reach the minimal dependence of leptonic constant on the hard scale, the normalization point $`\mu _0`$ should correlate with $`\mu _{\mathrm{hard}}`$ at fixed $`\mu _{\mathrm{fact}}`$. For illustration we show the result at $`\mu _{\mathrm{fact}}=1.5`$ GeV and

$$\mu _0=1.6\mathrm{GeV}\delta V(\mu _{\mathrm{hard}})$$

in Fig. 2.

The full dependence on the scales is presented in Fig. 3. We can see that there is a saddle stable point for the leptonic constant depending on two scales: the normalization point of perturbative calculation for the Wilson coefficient in NRQCD and the matching point of NRQCD with the full QCD. This stability implies that in the vicinity of saddle point the contribution of higher corrections in $`\alpha _s`$ is not significant, while at other values of scales these corrections should be taken into account.

The final result of two-loop calculations is

$$f_{B_c}=395\pm 15\mathrm{MeV}.$$
(15)
It should be compared with the estimate of potential model itself without the matching

$$f_{B_c}^{\mathrm{NRQCD}}=493\mathrm{MeV},$$
(16)
which indicates the magnitude of the correction about 20%. Furthermore, the calculations in the same potential model with the one-loop matching KKO  gave

$$f_{B_c}^{1loop}=400\pm 45\mathrm{MeV},$$
(17)
where the uncertainty is significantly greater than in the two-loop procedure, since at the one-loop level we have no stable point in the scale dependence of the result. Therefore, in contrast to the discussion given in ov  we see that the correction is not crucially large, but it is under control in the system of $`B_c`$. The reason for such the claim on the reliability of result is caused by two circumstances. First, the one-loop anomalous dimension of NRQCD current is equal to zero. Therefore, we start the summation of large logs in the framework of renormalization group (RG) with the expressions in (10) and (11). Second, after such the summation of large logs the three-loop corrections could be considered as small beyond the leading RG logs.

The result on $`f_{B_c}`$ is in agreement with the scaling relation derived from the quasi-local QCD sum rules sc , which use the regularity in the heavy quarkonium mass spectra, i.e. the fact that the splitting between the quarkonium levels after the averaging over the spins of heavy quarks weakly depends on the quark flavors. So, the scaling law for the S-wave quarkonia has the form

$$\frac{f_n^2}{M_n}\left(\frac{M_n}{M_1}\right)^2\left(\frac{m_1+m_2}{4\mu _{12}}\right)^2=\frac{c}{n},$$
(18)
where $`n`$ is the radial quantum number, $`m_{1,2}`$ are the masses of heavy quarks composing the quarkonium, $`\mu _{12}`$ is the reduced mass of quarks, and $`c`$ is a dimensional constant independent of both the quark flavors and the level number $`n`$. The value of $`c`$ is determined by the splitting between the $`2S`$ and $`1S`$ levels, or the average kinetic energy of heavy quarks, which is independent of the quark flavors and $`n`$ with the accuracy accepted. The accuracy depends on the heavy quark masses, and it is discussed in sc  in detail. The parameter $`c`$ can be extracted from the known leptonic constants of $`\psi `$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, so that the scaling relation gives

$$f_{B_c^{}}400\mathrm{MeV}$$

for the vector state. The difference between the leptonic constants for the pseudoscalar and vector $`1S`$-states is caused by the spin-dependent corrections, which are small. Numerically, we get $`|f_{B_c^{}}f_{B_c}|/f_{B_c^{}}<3\%`$, hence, the estimates obtained from the potential model and the scaling relation is in a good agreement with each other.

## III Conclusion

In this paper we have calculated the leptonic constant for the ground state of $`\overline{b}c`$ system in the framework of the QCD-motivated potential model used for the estimate of nonperturbative hadronic matrix element for the effective fields of nonrelativistic quarks. The Wilson coefficient calculated with the two-loop accuracy ov  has been implemented to relate the currents of heavy quarks in the full QCD and NRQCD. It depends on two scales: the matching point and the normalization scale in NRQCD. The stable point in the scale parameter space has been observed, which makes the estimate to be reliable. We have found that the two-loop corrections are under control in the $`B_c`$ meson.

The numerical value of $`f_{B_c}`$ is in agreement with the estimates obtained in the framework of QCD sum rules sr , potential models revbc  and from the scaling relation sc . The expected systematic error coming from the usage of potential model is reduced due to the QCD motivation consistent with the measurements of QCD coupling constant at large virtualities, the asymptotic freedom up to three loops and the fitting the mass spectra of charmonia and bottominia, so that the systematic accuracy is of the same order as the uncertainty related with the variation of parametric scales shown in (15).

The author thanks A.Onishchenko for a possibility to get fresh results on the two-loop Wilson coefficient in the language of MATHEMATICA package and for valuable remarks. I am grateful to Antonio Vairo for the discussions on the results of pNRQCD and vNRQCD.

This work is in part supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, grants 01-02-99315, 01-02-16585.