text:
# KMS states of quasi-free dynamics on Pimsner algebras

## Introduction

Soon after the introduction of the Cuntz algebras in \[C\] it was noticed that the gauge action on $`𝒪_n`$ had the unique equilibrium inverse temperature $`\beta =\mathrm{log}n`$, \[OP, Ev, BEK\]. Along the same lines, the gauge action on the Cuntz-Krieger algebra $`𝒪_A`$ was also shown to have a unique KMS state, at inverse temperature equal to the logarithm of the spectral radius of the irreducible matrix $`A`$, \[EFW\]. Here we are interested in the KMS states of the C\*-algebras $`𝒯_X`$ and $`𝒪_X`$ associated by Pimsner to a right Hilbert bimodule $`X`$, \[Pim\]. Having a rich, yet tractable structure, they provide a convenient framework in which to study the interesting phenomena that characterize the examples mentioned above and many others; see e.g. \[PWY\] and \[EL2\]. Specifically, we start with a C-algebra $`A`$ and a right Hilbert $`A`$ bimodule $`X`$ in which the left action is non-degenerate. Given a continuous one-parameter group of isometries on $`X`$, we induce quasi-free dynamics on $`𝒯_X`$ and on $`𝒪_X`$ via their universal properties, cf \[Z\]. We then proceed to study the equilibrium states of these quasi-free dynamics associated to groups of isometries in terms of their restrictions to the coefficient algebra $`A`$. Our approach underlines the role of the Toeplitz algebra $`𝒯_X`$ in its own right and not as a mere preliminary step from which to obtain $`𝒪_X`$ as a quotient. The key point, inspired in Evans construction \[Ev\], is that $`𝒯_X`$ acts naturally on the full Fock module over $`X`$, and the quasi-free action is implemented there by the Fock quantization of the given group of isometries on $`X`$. We use this as a guidance in writing KMS states as quasi–free states, but do not rely on it directly in our arguments. Since $`𝒪_X`$ does not act in general on the Fock module, this type of spatial (modular) implementation is lost when one looks at quasi-free dynamics on $`𝒪_X`$ alone. However, it is easy to characterize the KMS states on $`𝒪_X`$ as those on $`𝒯_X`$ that factor through the quotient.

A brief summary of the contents follows. In Section 1 we collect some necessary results about inducing traces from the coefficient algebra $`A`$ to the algebra of adjointable operators on $`X`$. In Section 2, after introducing the Pimsner algebra of a bimodule and the quasi-free dynamics associated to a one-parameter group of isometries of the bimodule, we study the special case of dynamics that fix the elements of $`A`$. Under a positivity assumption on the infinitesimal generator $`D`$ of the given group of isometries, we show that the KMSβ states of the quasi-free dynamics are induced from the traces on $`A`$ that satisfy a certain inequality. This inequality is formulated in terms of a transfer operator between traces (or KMS weights) on $`A`$ and, essentially, ensures that the Fock quantization of the contraction $`e^{\beta D}`$ is an appropriate density operator. In the special case of the gauge action on the Toeplitz Cuntz algebras, the coefficient algebra is $``$, and its unique trace satisfies the inequality if and only if $`\beta \mathrm{log}n`$; the resulting KMSβ state of $`𝒯_n`$ factors through $`𝒪_n`$ only for $`\beta =\mathrm{log}n`$. At the end of the section we show how to derive, in a unified way, several other examples of KMS states of C\*-dynamical systems previously studied under different guises. In Section 3 we extend our results to the more general situation in which the dynamics on the coefficient algebra $`A`$ is allowed to be nontrivial. Most of the section is devoted to inducing KMS states on $`A`$. There is no great simplification at this point in restricting ourselves to states, so in fact we consider KMS weights on $`A`$. For von Neumann algebras this problem was studied by Combes and Zettl in \[CZ, Section 3\], who deduced the existence of induced weights from the well-known cocycle theorem of Connes. Besides giving a slightly different contruction which works equally well for C-algebras, we provide also a direct proof and indicate how Connes’ result can be derived from our results on induced weights. Once the induction procedure for weights has been settled, the characterization of KMS states in terms of their restrictions to $`A`$ is entirely analogous to that of KMS states in Section 2.

This work was initiated during a short visit of M.L. to Cardiff University and continued through visits, of M.L. to the Center for Advanced Studies in Oslo, and of S.N. to the University of Victoria. The authors would like to acknowledge the support and the hospitality provided by those institutions.

## 1. Preliminary results on induced traces.

If $`A`$ is an algebra and $`X`$ is a right projective $`A`$-module of finite type, then the algebra $`\mathrm{End}_A(X)`$ is isomorphic to $`X_A\mathrm{Hom}_A(X,A)`$. Hence there exists a unique linear map $`\mathrm{Tr}:\mathrm{End}_A(X)A/[A,A]`$ such that $`\mathrm{Tr}(xf)=f(x)\mathrm{mod}[A,A]`$. The composition of any tracial linear functional $`\tau `$ on $`A`$ (one for which $`\tau (ab)=\tau (ba)`$) with $`\mathrm{Tr}`$ yields an (induced) tracial linear functional $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau `$ on $`\mathrm{End}_A(X)`$. Clearly, this construction can be applied to any unital C-algebra $`A`$ and finite Hilbert $`A`$-module $`X`$. Our first aim in this section is to define $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau `$ for arbitrary C-algebras and Hilbert modules, and to derive some of its basic properties.

Suppose $`X`$ is a right Hilbert module over a C-algebra $`A`$ and let $`K(X)`$ be the C-algebra of generalized compact operators on $`X`$, generated by the operators $`\theta _{\xi ,\zeta }`$, given by $`\theta _{\xi ,\zeta }\eta =\xi \zeta ,\eta `$, with $`\xi ,\zeta ,\eta X`$. Let $`B(X)`$ be its multiplier algebra, that, is, the C\*-algebra of adjointable operators on $`X`$. Recall that a bounded net $`\{S_k\}_k`$ in $`B(X)`$ converges to $`SB(X)`$ strictly if and only if $`S_k\xi S\xi `$ and $`S_k^{}\xi S^{}\xi `$ for every $`\xi X`$. We shall need the following result about inducing traces from $`A`$ through $`X`$. The existence and some of the properties of the induced trace $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau `$ can be found in \[CZ, Section 2\], and \[CP1, Lemma 4.6\], where they are derived from previous results of Pedersen \[P\] about extending traces from hereditary subalgebras. We state the relevant properties in a way that is convenient for our purposes, and we include a self-contained, direct proof for completeness.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`\tau `$ be a finite trace on $`A`$. For $`TB(X)`$, $`T0`$, set

$$\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (T)=\underset{I}{sup}\underset{\xi I}{}\tau (\xi ,T\xi ),$$

where the supremum is taken over all finite subsets $`I`$ of $`X`$ such that $`_{\xi I}\theta _{\xi ,\xi }1`$. Define

$$_\tau ^+=\{T0|\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (T)<\mathrm{}\},𝒩_\tau =\{T|T^{}T_\tau ^+\},_\tau =\mathrm{span}_\tau ^+=𝒩_\tau ^{}𝒩_\tau .$$

Then

1. $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau `$ is strictly lower semicontinuous, moreover, if $`lim\; inf_k\tau (\xi ,T_k\xi )\tau (\xi ,T\xi )`$ for every $`\xi X`$, then $`lim\; inf_k\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (T_k)\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (T)`$;
2. if $`\{e_k=_{\xi I_k}\theta _{\xi ,\xi }\}_k`$ is a net such that $`e_k1`$ and $`\tau (\eta ,e_k\eta )\tau (\eta ,\eta )`$ for every $`\eta X`$ (e.g. if $`\{e_k\}_k`$ is an approximate unit in $`K(X)`$), then $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (T)=lim_k_{\xi I_k}\tau (\xi ,T\xi )`$ for $`TB(X)_+`$; in particular, $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau `$ can be extended to a positive linear functional on $`_\tau `$;
3. for every pair $`\xi ,\eta X`$, we have that $`\theta _{\xi ,\eta }_\tau `$ and $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (\theta _{\xi ,\eta })=\tau (\eta ,\xi )`$;
4. $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau `$ is a semifinite trace; thus $`𝒩_\tau `$ and $`_\tau `$ are two-sided ideals in $`B(X)`$, $`_\tau `$ is essential, and if $`S,T𝒩_\tau `$, or if $`SB(X)`$ and $`T_\tau `$, then $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (ST)=\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (TS)`$.

###### Proof.

The proof of (i) is trivial. To prove (ii) we shall first prove that $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (\theta _{\xi ,\xi })=\tau (\xi ,\xi )`$. Suppose $`S=_{\eta I}\theta _{\eta ,\eta }1`$. Then

$$\underset{\eta I}{}\tau (\eta ,\theta _{\xi ,\xi }\eta )=\underset{\eta I}{}\tau (\eta ,\xi \xi ,\eta )=\underset{\eta I}{}\tau (\xi ,\eta \eta ,\xi )=\tau (\xi ,S\xi ),$$

and the equality $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (\theta _{\xi ,\xi })=\tau (\xi ,\xi )`$ follows. The same proof shows that $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (_{\xi I}\theta _{\xi ,\xi })=_{\xi I}\tau (\xi ,\xi )`$ for any finite set $`I`$. Hence if $`\{e_k\}_k`$ is as in the formulation of (ii) and $`TB(X)_+`$, then

$$\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (T^{\frac{1}{2}}e_kT^{\frac{1}{2}})=\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (\underset{\xi I_k}{}\theta _{T^{\frac{1}{2}}\xi ,T^{\frac{1}{2}}\xi })=\underset{\xi I_k}{}\tau (\xi ,T\xi ).$$

Since $`lim_k\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (T^{\frac{1}{2}}e_kT^{\frac{1}{2}})=\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (T)`$ by property (i), (ii) follows. Part (iii) has already been proved for $`\xi =\eta `$, the general case follows by polarization, and implies that $`_\tau `$ is essential. Since $`\theta _{u\xi ,u\xi }=u\theta _{\xi ,\xi }u^{}`$, it is obvious that $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (uTu^{})=\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (T)`$ for any unitary $`uB(X)`$. Thus $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau `$ is a trace. ∎

Suppose now $`Y`$ is a right Hilbert $`A`$-bimodule, that is, $`Y`$ is a right Hilbert $`A`$-module together with a left action of $`A`$ given by a $``$-homomorphism of $`A`$ into $`B(Y)`$. Denote by $`B_A(Y)`$ the subalgebra of $`B(Y)`$ consisting of $`A`$-bimodule maps. Let $`X`$ be another right Hilbert $`A`$-module. Then the tensor product $`X_AY`$ is a right Hilbert $`A`$-module and for any $`SB(X)`$ and $`TB_A(Y)`$ there is an operator $`STB(X_AY)`$. We shall need the following property about the induction in stages of a trace $`\tau `$ on $`A`$ through a tensor product of modules. We indicate explicitly in the proposition the module used to induce the trace in each case, but we drop this notation later for simplicity, and rely on the context to indicate the relevant module.

###### Proposition 1.2.

Let $`SB(X)_+`$, and $`TB_A(Y)_+`$. Suppose $`\tau `$ is a finite trace on $`A`$ such that $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau ^Y(T)<\mathrm{}`$, and define a new finite trace $`\tau _T`$ on $`A`$ by letting $`\tau _T(a)=\mathrm{Tr}_\tau ^Y(aT)`$. Then $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau ^{XY}(ST)=\mathrm{Tr}_{\tau _T}^X(S)`$.

###### Proof.

We begin by constructing an approximate unit for $`K(X_AY)`$ from approximate units for $`K(X)`$ and $`K(Y)`$. For finite subsets $`IX`$ and $`JY`$, define the operators $`e_I=_{\xi I}\theta _{\xi ,\xi }`$, $`e_J=_{\zeta J}\theta _{\zeta ,\zeta }`$ and $`e_{I,J}=_{\xi I,\zeta J}\theta _{\xi \zeta ,\xi \zeta }`$. We claim that if $`e_I1`$ and $`e_J1`$, then $`e_{I,J}1`$. To verify this we consider a vector $`\eta =_k\mu _k\nu _k`$ in $`X_AY`$; and observe that

$$e_{I,J}\eta ,\eta =\underset{\xi I}{}e_J\delta _\xi ,\delta _\xi ,$$

where $`\delta _\xi =_k\xi ,\mu _k\nu _k`$. If $`e_I1`$, then $`(e_I\mu _k,\mu _l)_{k,l}(\mu _k,\mu _l)_{k,l}`$ in the algebra $`\mathrm{Mat}_{|I|}(A)`$ of $`|I|`$ by $`|I|`$ matrices over $`A`$, so if, in addition, $`e_J1`$ we get

$$\underset{\xi I}{}e_J\delta _\xi ,\delta _\xi \underset{\xi I}{}\delta _\xi ,\delta _\xi =\underset{k,l}{}\nu _k,e_I\mu _k,\mu _l\nu _l\underset{k,l}{}\nu _k,\mu _k,\mu _l\nu _l=\eta ,\eta ,$$

which proves the claim. Note also that

$$e_{I,J}(\mu \nu )=e_I\mu \nu +\underset{\xi I}{}\xi (e_J1)\xi ,\mu \nu .$$

It follows that there exists an approximate unit in $`K(X_AY)`$ consisting of elements of the form $`e_{I,J}`$, with $`e_I1`$ and $`e_J1`$, so, by Theorem 1.1(ii),

$$\mathrm{Tr}_\tau ^{XY}(ST)=\underset{I,J}{sup}\underset{\xi I,\zeta J}{}\tau (\zeta ,\xi ,S\xi T\zeta ).$$

Since for fixed $`I`$,

$$\underset{J}{sup}\underset{\xi I,\zeta J}{}\tau (\zeta ,\xi ,S\xi T\zeta )=\underset{\xi I}{}\mathrm{Tr}_\tau ^Y(\xi ,S\xi T)=\underset{\xi I}{}\tau _T(\xi ,S\xi ),$$

recalling that $`\underset{I}{sup}{\displaystyle \underset{\xi I}{}}\tau _T(\xi ,S\xi )=\mathrm{Tr}_{\tau _T}^X(S)`$, we get $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau ^{XY}(ST)=\mathrm{Tr}_{\tau _T}^X(S)`$. ∎

We have shown that any finite trace on $`A`$ can be induced to a unique, strictly densely defined, strictly lower semicontinuous trace $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau `$ on $`B(X)`$ such that $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (\theta _{\xi ,\eta })=\tau (\eta ,\xi )`$. Clearly one should not expect all strictly densely defined, strictly lower semicontinuous traces on $`B(X)`$ to be induced from finite traces on $`A`$. In Section 3 below we generalize this extension procedure so that it applies to KMS weights of quasi-free dynamics. By setting the dynamics to be trivial, we then obtain, as a corollary, a bijective correspondence between densely defined lower semicontinuous traces on $`\overline{X,X}`$ and strictly densely defined, strictly lower semicontinuous traces on $`B(X)`$.

## 2. KMS states on Pimsner algebras.

Next we consider a Hilbert $`A`$-bimodule $`X`$, with the purpose of studying KMS-states on the Toeplitz-Pimsner and Cuntz-Krieger-Pimsner algebras associated in \[Pim\] to such a bimodule. The only extra assumption that we make on the bimodule is the non-degeneracy of the left action, i.e. $`AX=X`$. In particular, we do not assume that $`X`$ is full or that $`A`$ is unital. We denote by $`i_X:AB(X)`$ the homomorphism defining the left action of $`A`$ on $`X`$.

Let $`(X)=AX(X_AX)\mathrm{}`$ be the Fock Hilbert bimodule of $`X`$. The Toeplitz-Pimsner algebra $`𝒯_X`$ of $`X`$ is, by definition, the C\*-algebra of operators on $`(X)`$ generated by the left multiplication operators $`i_{(X)}(a)`$ for $`aA`$ and the left creation operators $`T_\xi `$ for $`\xi X`$, which are given by $`T_\xi (\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _n)=\xi \xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _n`$. It is shown in \[Pim, FR\] that $`𝒯_X`$ is the universal C-algebra generated by elements $`\pi (a)`$ with $`aA`$ and $`T_\xi `$ with $`\xi X`$, such that $`\pi :A𝒯_X`$ is a $``$-homomorphism, $`X\xi T_\xi `$ is an $`A`$-bilinear map, (that is, $`T_{\xi a}=T_\xi \pi (a)`$ and $`T_{a\xi }=\pi (a)T_\xi `$), and $`T_\xi ^{}T_\zeta =\pi (\xi ,\zeta )`$. More precisely, the Fock realization of these relations, given by the left action of $`A`$ and the left creation operators on $`(X)`$, determines an isomorphism of the universal C-algebra of the relations onto $`𝒯_X`$.

Let $`j_X:K(X)𝒯_X`$ be the injective homomorphism given by $`j_X(\theta _{\xi ,\eta })=T_\xi T_\eta ^{}`$. Let also $`I_X`$ be the ideal in $`A`$ consisting of elements $`aA`$ such that $`i_X(a)K(X)`$. The Cuntz-Krieger-Pimsner algebra $`𝒪_X`$ is, by definition, the quotient of $`𝒯_X`$ by the ideal generated by elements of the form $`\pi (a)(j_Xi_X)(a)`$, for $`aI_X`$. We shall usually omit $`\pi `$ and $`i_X`$ in the computations below.

Let $`t\sigma _t`$ be a one-parameter automorphism group of $`A`$ and let $`tU_t`$ be a one-parameter group of isometries on $`X`$ such that $`U_ta\xi =\sigma _t(a)U_t\xi `$ and $`U_t\xi ,U_t\zeta =\sigma _t(\xi ,\zeta )`$; as usual, both $`\sigma `$ and $`U`$ are assumed to be strongly continuous. By the universal property of the Toeplitz-Pimsner algebra there exists, for each $`t`$, a unique automorphism $`\gamma _t`$ of $`𝒯_X`$ such that $`\gamma _t(a)=\sigma _t(a)`$ and $`\gamma _t(T_\xi )=T_{U_t\xi }`$. The resulting one-parameter group $`t\gamma _t`$ is strongly continuous and is called the quasi-free dynamics associated to the module dynamics $`U`$. Since $`A`$ and $`j_X(K(X))`$ are invariant under $`\gamma _t`$, so is $`I_X`$, and thus there is a quasi-free dynamics at the level of $`𝒪_X`$, too. When we view $`𝒯_X`$ as acting on the Fock bimodule, the automorphisms $`\gamma _t`$ are implemented by the ’Fock quantization’ of the isometries $`U_t`$; specifically $`\gamma _t=\mathrm{Ad}\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_t)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_t)=1U_t(U_tU_t)\mathrm{}`$. The group of gauge transformations is a particular case of this, corresponding to the trivial dynamics on $`A`$ and the one-parameter scalar unitary group $`\{\xi e^{it}\xi \}_t`$ on $`X`$.

Given a quasi-free dynamics on $`𝒯_X`$, we are interested in the relation between the $`(\sigma ,\beta )`$-KMS states on $`A`$ and the $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS states on $`𝒯_X`$. For simplicity we shall first consider this question under the assumption that the dynamics $`\sigma `$ on $`A`$ is trivial. This covers most examples in the literature, and has the advantage of being tractable using the elementary properties of induced traces from the preceding section. The case of nontrivial $`\sigma `$ requires a generalization of these properties to induced KMS-weights, a task that we take up in the next section. Accordingly, we now restrict our attention to one-parameter groups of isometries $`U_t`$ of $`X`$ such that $`U_ta\xi =aU_t\xi `$ and $`U_t\xi ,U_t\zeta =\xi ,\zeta `$, in other words, we assume that $`U`$ is a one-parameter unitary group in $`B_A(X)`$.

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let $`tU_t`$ be a one-parameter unitary group in $`B_A(X)`$ satisfying the following ’positive energy’ condition: the vectors $`\xi X`$ such that $`\mathrm{Sp}_U(\xi )(0,+\mathrm{})`$ form a dense subspace of $`X`$, where $`\mathrm{Sp}_U(\xi )`$ is the Arveson spectrum of $`\xi `$ with respect to $`U`$. Let $`\gamma `$ be the corresponding dynamics on $`𝒯_X`$, given by $`\gamma _t(T_\xi )=T_{U_t\xi }`$ and $`\gamma _t(a)=a`$, and suppose $`\beta (0,\mathrm{})`$. If $`\varphi `$ is a $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS state on $`𝒯_X`$, then $`\tau =\varphi |_A`$ is a tracial state on $`A`$ and

(2.1)
$$\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (ae^{\beta D})\tau (a)\text{for }aA_+,$$

where $`D`$ is the generator of $`U`$ (so that $`U_t=e^{itD}`$). Conversely, if $`\tau `$ is a tracial state on $`A`$ such that (2.1) is satisfied, then there exists a unique $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS state $`\varphi `$ on $`𝒯_X`$ with $`\varphi |_A=\tau `$. The state $`\varphi `$ is determined by $`\tau `$ through

(2.2)
$$\varphi (T_{\xi _1}\mathrm{}T_{\xi _m}T_{\eta _n}^{}\mathrm{}T_{\eta _1}^{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\tau (\eta _1\mathrm{}\eta _n,e^{\beta D}\xi _1\mathrm{}e^{\beta D}\xi _n)\hfill & \text{ if }m=n\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

Note that our positive energy condition is equivalent to the existence of an increasing sequence of $`U`$-invariant submodules $`Y_n`$ of $`X`$ having dense union and such that $`D|_{Y_n}c_n1`$ with $`c_n>0`$. It follows from this that $`e^{\beta D}`$ is a selfadjoint contraction in $`B_A(X)`$ for each $`\beta >0`$.

Assume first that $`\varphi `$ is a $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS state. Since the left action of $`A`$ on $`X`$ is non-degenerate, the homomorphism $`\pi :A𝒯_X`$ is non-degenerate. Hence $`\tau =\varphi |_A`$ is a state. Since $`\gamma `$ is trivial on $`A`$, $`\tau `$ is a trace.

For any $`\xi X`$ we have $`\gamma _{\frac{i\beta }{2}}(T_\xi )=T_{e^{\frac{\beta D}{2}}\xi }`$, so by the KMS condition we get

$$\varphi (T_\xi T_\eta ^{})=\varphi (\gamma _{\frac{i\beta }{2}}(T_\eta )^{}\gamma _{\frac{i\beta }{2}}(T_\xi ))=\tau (e^{\frac{\beta D}{2}}\eta ,e^{\frac{\beta D}{2}}\xi )=\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (\theta _{\xi ,\eta }e^{\beta D}).$$

Thus, for $`aA_+`$ we have

$$\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (a^{\frac{1}{2}}\theta _{\xi ,\xi }a^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{\beta D})=\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (\theta _{a^{\frac{1}{2}}\xi ,a^{\frac{1}{2}}\xi }e^{\beta D})=\varphi (T_{a^{\frac{1}{2}}\xi }T_{a^{\frac{1}{2}}\xi }^{})=\varphi (a^{\frac{1}{2}}j_X(\theta _{\xi ,\xi })a^{\frac{1}{2}}).$$

Since $`\varphi (a^{\frac{1}{2}}j_X()a^{\frac{1}{2}})`$ is a positive linear functional on $`K(X)`$ of norm $`\tau (a)`$, by the strict lower semicontinuity of $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau `$ we conclude that $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (ae^{\beta D})\tau (a)`$.

Let us now prove that $`\varphi `$ is completely determined by $`\tau `$. First note that there is an $`A`$-bilinear isometry of $`X^n`$ to $`𝒯_X`$ mapping $`\xi =\xi _1_A\mathrm{}_A\xi _n`$ to $`T_\xi =T_{\xi _1}\mathrm{}T_{\xi _n}`$, so that $`A`$ and the elements of the form $`T_\xi T_\zeta ^{}`$, with $`\xi X^n`$ and $`\zeta X^m`$, span a dense subspace of $`𝒯_X`$. The same computation as above shows that for $`\xi ,\zeta X^n`$ we have $`\varphi (T_\xi T_\zeta ^{})=\tau ((e^{\frac{\beta D}{2}})^n\zeta ,(e^{\frac{\beta D}{2}})^n\xi )`$. So, in order to prove that $`\varphi `$ is uniquely determined by $`\tau `$ and that (2.2) holds, it suffices to show that $`\varphi (T_\xi T_\zeta ^{})=0`$ when $`\xi X^n`$, $`\zeta X^m`$ and $`nm`$. We may assume that $`n>m`$ and $`\xi =\xi _1\xi _2`$ with $`\xi _1X^m`$ and $`\xi _2X^{(nm)}`$. Using the KMS condition we get

$$\varphi (T_\xi T_\zeta ^{})=\varphi (T_{\xi _1}T_{\xi _2}T_\zeta ^{})=\varphi (T_{\xi _2}T_\zeta ^{}T_{(e^{\beta D})^m\xi _1})=\varphi (T_{\xi _2\zeta ,(e^{\beta D})^m\xi _1}).$$

Thus, it is enough to show that $`\varphi (T_\xi )=0`$ for every $`\xi X^n`$ with $`n1`$. We claim that the elements of the form $`\eta (U_t)^n\eta `$ span a dense subspace of $`X^n`$; this will finish the proof because $`\varphi (T_{\eta (U_t)^n\eta })=0`$ by virtue of the $`\gamma _t`$-invariance of $`\varphi `$. To prove the claim, suppose that $`\xi X`$ is such that $`\mathrm{Sp}_U(\xi )`$ is compact and $`0\mathrm{Sp}_U(\xi )`$, and notice that such elements are dense because of our assumption on the spectrum of $`U`$. Choose $`t_0`$ such that the function $`t1e^{itt_0}`$ is non-zero on $`\mathrm{Sp}_U(\xi )`$; then $`\xi =(1U_{t_0})U_f\xi `$ for every function $`fL^1()`$ such that $`\widehat{f}(t)=(1e^{itt_0})^1`$ for $`t`$ in a neighbourhood of $`\mathrm{Sp}_U(\xi )`$. Hence $`\xi `$ is of the form $`\eta U_t\eta `$, proving the claim for $`n=1`$. Since $`\mathrm{Sp}_{U^n}(\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _n)\overline{\mathrm{Sp}_U(\xi _1)+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{Sp}_U(\xi _n)}`$ by \[A\], $`U^n`$ satisfies the same spectral assumption as $`U`$, and the above argument also proves the claim for $`n>1`$. This finishes the proof that $`\varphi `$ is determined by $`\tau `$.

Denote by $`F`$ the operator, mapping finite traces on $`A`$ into possibly infinite traces on $`A`$, defined by $`(F\tau )(a)=\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (ae^{\beta D})`$. The second part of the theorem says that if $`F\tau \tau `$ for a tracial state $`\tau `$ on $`A`$, then there exists a $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS state $`\varphi `$ on $`𝒯_X`$ such that $`\varphi |_A=\tau `$. Suppose for a moment that the tracial state $`\tau `$ is of the form $`\tau =_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}F^n\tau _0`$ for some finite trace $`\tau _0`$ (such a state clearly satisfies $`F\tau \tau `$, in fact $`F^n\tau 0`$). We claim that in this case the extension is given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{Tr}_{\tau _0}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(e^{\beta D}))`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(e^{\beta D})=_n(e^{\beta D})^n`$ is the operator on $`(X)`$ obtained by ’Fock quantization’ of the contraction $`e^{\beta D}`$. Indeed, it is easy to see that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a positive linear functional with the KMS property, but one must still verify that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a state extending $`\tau `$. Using Proposition 1.2 we see by induction that $`\mathrm{Tr}_{\tau _0}((e^{\beta D})^n)|_A=F^n\tau _0`$, whence $`\mathrm{\Phi }|_A=\tau `$. Since the left action of $`A`$ on $`(X)`$ is non-degenerate, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is strictly lower semicontinuous by Theorem 1.1, this implies that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a state. Thus $`\varphi =\mathrm{\Phi }|_{𝒯_X}`$ is the required $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS state extending $`\tau =_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}F^n\tau _0`$.

Suppose now that $`\tau `$ is an arbitrary tracial state such that $`F\tau \tau `$. For each $`\epsilon >0`$ consider a one-parameter unitary group $`U^\epsilon `$ defined by $`U_t^\epsilon \xi =e^{i\epsilon t}U_t\xi `$. Let $`\gamma ^\epsilon `$ be the associated quasi-free dynamics on $`𝒯_X`$. For the corresponding operator $`F_\epsilon `$ on traces of $`A`$ we have $`F_\epsilon =e^{\beta \epsilon }F`$. In particular, $`F_\epsilon \tau e^{\beta \epsilon }\tau `$. Then we may write $`\tau =_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}F_\epsilon ^n\tau _\epsilon `$, with $`\tau _\epsilon =\tau F_\epsilon \tau `$; indeed, since $`F_\epsilon ^m\tau e^{\beta \epsilon m}\tau 0`$ as $`m\mathrm{}`$, we have $`_{n=0}^mF_\epsilon ^n\tau _\epsilon =\tau F_\epsilon ^{m+1}\tau \tau `$. Hence there exists a $`(\gamma ^\epsilon ,\beta )`$-KMS state $`\varphi _\epsilon `$ on $`𝒯_X`$ such that $`\varphi _\epsilon |_A=\tau `$. As in \[BR, Proposition 5.3.25\], any weak\* limit point of the states $`\varphi _\epsilon `$ as $`\epsilon 0^+`$ is a $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS state $`\varphi `$ extending $`\tau `$. ∎

The situation for ground states is slightly different, since for $`\beta =\mathrm{}`$ there is no tracial condition on $`A`$. For each state $`\omega `$ of $`A`$ we define a generalized Fock state $`\varphi _\omega `$ of $`𝒯_X`$ by $`\varphi _\omega (T)=lim_\lambda \omega (e_\lambda ,Te_\lambda )`$ for $`T𝒯_X`$; where $`(e_\lambda )_{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is an approximate unit in $`A`$. Clearly $`\omega =\varphi _\omega |_A`$ and $`\varphi _\omega `$ is characterized by $`\varphi _\omega (a)=\omega (a)`$ for $`aA`$, and $`\varphi _\omega (T_\xi T_\eta ^{})=0`$ for $`\xi X^m`$, and $`\eta X^n`$ with $`m`$ or $`n`$ nonzero.

###### Theorem 2.2.

Under the assumptions of Theorem 2.1, a state of $`𝒯_X`$ is a ground state for $`\gamma `$, if and only if it is a generalized Fock state.

###### Proof.

Suppose first that $`\varphi `$ is a generalized Fock state of $`𝒯_X`$. To see that whenever $`b𝒯_X`$, $`\xi X^m`$ and $`\eta X^n`$, the analytic function $`z\varphi (b\gamma _z(T_\xi T_\eta ^{}))`$ is bounded on the upper half plane, we write

$$|\varphi (b\gamma _z(T_\xi T_\eta ^{}))|=|\varphi (bT_{U_z\xi }T_{U_{\overline{z}}\eta }^{})|\varphi (bb^{})\varphi (T_{U_{\overline{z}}\eta }T_{U_z\xi }^{}T_{U_z\xi }T_{U_{\overline{z}}\eta }^{});$$

the right hand side vanishes for $`n>0`$ because $`\varphi (T_{U_{\overline{z}}\eta }T_{U_{\overline{z}}\eta }^{})=0`$, and it is bounded for $`n=0`$ because $`U_z\xi \xi `$ for $`z`$ in the upper half plane. Hence $`\varphi `$ is a ground state.

Suppose next that $`\varphi `$ is a ground state. By \[BR, Proposition 5.3.19(4)\],

$$\varphi (\gamma _f(T)^{}\gamma _f(T))=0,(T𝒯_X)$$

for every function $`fL^1()`$ such that $`\mathrm{supp}\widehat{f}(\mathrm{},0)`$. By the positivity condition, the set of all $`\xi X`$ such that $`\mathrm{Sp}_U(\xi )`$ is a compact subset of $`(0,\mathrm{})`$ is dense in $`X`$. For each such $`\xi `$ one has that $`\mathrm{Sp}_\gamma (T_\xi ^{})`$ is a compact subset of $`(\mathrm{},0)`$, and there exists a function $`f`$ as above such that $`\gamma _f(T_\xi ^{})=T_\xi ^{}`$. Putting $`T=T_\xi ^{}`$ one sees that $`\varphi (T_\xi T_\xi ^{})=0`$ for every $`\xi `$ in a dense set and hence for all $`\xi X`$. Since the one-parameter group $`U^n`$ on $`X^n`$ satisfies the same positivity condition, this implies that $`\varphi `$ is a generalized Fock state. ∎

Suppose $`\gamma =\mathrm{Ad}\mathrm{\Gamma }(U)`$ is a quasi-free dynamics satisfying the hypothesis of Theorem 2.1, let $`\varphi `$ be a $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS state on $`𝒯_X`$, and let $`\tau =\varphi |_A`$. In the course of the proof of Theorem 2.1 we let $`(F\tau )(a)=\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (ae^{\beta D})`$ and showed that if $`\tau =_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}F^n\tau _0`$ for some finite trace $`\tau _0`$ on $`A`$, then $`\varphi `$ has a canonical extension to a strictly continuous state on $`B((X))`$. We shall see later in Theorem 3.2 that, in general, the existence of $`\tau _0`$ is also necessary for $`\varphi `$ to have a strictly continuous state extension to $`B((X))`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ is the strongly continuous extension of $`\varphi `$ to $`B((X))`$, then $`\tau _0(a)=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(P_0aP_0)`$, where $`P_0`$ is the projection onto the ’vacuum’, i.e. the zeroth component $`X^0=A(X)`$.

###### Definition 2.3.

Let $`\varphi `$ be a $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS state and set $`\tau =\varphi |_A`$. Following \[EL2\] we say that $`\varphi `$ is of finite type if $`\tau =_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}F^n\tau _0`$ for some finite trace $`\tau _0`$ and we say that $`\varphi `$ is of infinite type if $`F(\tau )=\tau `$. Since $`F\tau \tau `$ and $`F^n\tau (1)=\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (1(e^{\beta D})^n)`$, we see that $`\varphi `$ is of finite type iff $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau ((e^{\beta D})^n)0`$, and of infinite type iff $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (e^{\beta D})=1`$.

Note that in the last part of the proof of Theorem 2.1 we showed that every $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS state is a weak\* limit of $`(\gamma ^\epsilon ,\beta )`$-KMS states of finite type as the perturbation $`\epsilon `$ tends to zero.

With the appropriate convention, the above definition makes sense also for $`\beta =\mathrm{}`$, and it is clear that KMS-states are necessarily of finite type. As in several other similar contexts, there is a ’Wold decomposition’ for $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS states of $`𝒯_X`$.

###### Proposition 2.4.

Under the assumptions of Theorem 2.1 let $`\varphi `$ be a $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS state on $`𝒯_X`$. Then there exists a unique convex decomposition $`\varphi =\lambda \varphi _1+(1\lambda )\varphi _2`$ such that $`\varphi _1`$ is a $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS state of finite type and $`\varphi _2`$ is a $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS state of infinite type.

###### Proof.

By Theorem 2.1 we may carry out the decomposition at the level of traces on $`A`$; that is, we prove that for any finite trace $`\tau `$ on $`A`$ such that $`F\tau \tau `$ there exists a unique decomposition $`\tau =\tau _1+\tau _2`$ with $`\tau _1=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}F^n\tau _0`$ and $`F\tau _2=\tau _2`$. The uniqueness is obvious, since $`\tau _0`$ must equal $`\tau F\tau `$. To prove existence, set $`\tau _0=\tau F\tau `$ and $`\tau _2=lim_nF^n\tau `$ (the limit exists because $`F^{n+1}\tau F^n\tau `$). Then $`_{n=0}^mF^n\tau _0=\tau F^{m+1}\tau \tau \tau _2`$ weakly.

The only thing left to check is that $`F\tau _2=\tau _2`$. Since $`\tau _2F^n\tau `$, we have $`F\tau _2F^{n+1}\tau `$, and so $`F\tau _2\tau _2`$. For $`aA_+`$ and $`\epsilon >0`$ we can find a finite subset $`I`$ of $`X`$ such that $`S_I:=_{\xi I}\theta _{\xi ,\xi }1`$ and $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau ((1S_I)ae^{\beta D})<\epsilon `$. Since $`F^n\tau \tau `$, we have $`\mathrm{Tr}_{F^n\tau }((1S)ae^{\beta D})<\epsilon `$ for every $`n`$. Since $`F^n\tau `$ converges to $`\tau _2`$ weakly, there exists $`n`$ such that

$$\mathrm{Tr}_{F^n\tau }(Sae^{\beta D})<\mathrm{Tr}_{\tau _2}(Sae^{\beta D})+\epsilon ,$$

so

$`(F\tau _2)(a)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{Tr}_{\tau _2}(Sae^{\beta D})>\mathrm{Tr}_{F^n\tau }(Sae^{\beta D})\epsilon >\mathrm{Tr}_{F^n\tau }(ae^{\beta D})2\epsilon `$
$`=`$ $`(F^{n+1}\tau )(a)2\epsilon \tau _2(a)2\epsilon ,`$
since $`\epsilon `$ was arbitrary, this yields $`F\tau _2\tau _2`$, and hence $`F\tau _2=\tau _2`$. ∎

We now turn our attention to the KMS states of $`𝒪_X`$. Notice that if $`\varphi `$ is a $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS state on $`𝒪_X`$ and we compose it with the quotient map $`𝒯_X𝒪_X`$, we obtain a $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS state on $`𝒯_X`$. Thus in order to describe the KMS-states on $`𝒪_X`$ we only need to describe the KMS-states on $`𝒯_X`$ that vanish on the kernel of the quotient map.

###### Theorem 2.5.

Under the assumptions of Theorem 2.1 suppose $`\varphi `$ is a $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS state on $`𝒯_X`$ and let $`\tau =\varphi |_A`$. Then $`\varphi `$ defines a state on $`𝒪_X`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (ae^{\beta D})=\tau (a)`$ for every $`aI_X`$ (where $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (ae^\mathrm{}D)=0`$, by convention).

###### Proof.

Suppose first $`\beta <\mathrm{}`$. From the proof of Theorem 2.1 we know that $`\varphi j_X=\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (e^{\beta D})`$ on $`K(X)`$. Thus, $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (ae^{\beta D})=\tau (a)`$ is equivalent to $`\varphi (j_X(a))=\varphi (a)`$ for $`aI_X`$. This is clearly a necessary condition for $`\varphi `$ to define a state of $`𝒪_X`$. To see that it is also sufficient, let $`P`$ be the projection onto the zeroth component of the Fock module $`(X)`$; then $`bj_X(b)=PbP=bP`$ for $`bI_X`$ so that $`(aj_X(a))^{}(aj_X(a))=a^{}aj_X(a^{}a)`$ and hence $`\varphi ((aj_X(a))^{}(aj_X(a)))=0`$ for every $`aI_X`$. Since $`\varphi `$ is a KMS state, the set $`N=\{x𝒯_X|\varphi (x^{}x)=0\}`$ is a two-sided ideal in $`𝒯_X`$. Hence it contains the ideal generated by the elements $`aj_X(a)`$ with $`aI_X`$, which is, by definition, the kernel of the map $`𝒯_X𝒪_X`$.

For $`\beta =\mathrm{}`$, $`\varphi `$ is a generalized Fock state of $`𝒯_X`$, so $`\varphi j_X=0`$. If $`\varphi `$ defines a state on $`𝒪_X`$, then $`\varphi (a)=\varphi (aj_X(a))=0`$ for $`aI_X`$. Conversely, suppose $`\varphi `$ vanishes on $`I_X`$. The generalized Fock state $`\varphi `$ extends to a state on $`B((X))`$ with the property $`\varphi (x)=\varphi (PxP)`$. Then for any $`x,yB((X))`$ and $`aI_X`$ we get $`\varphi (x(aj_X(a))y)=\varphi (PxPaPyP)=0`$, since $`PxPIPyPPIP`$ for any ideal $`I`$ in $`A`$ and since $`\varphi `$ vanishes on $`I_X`$. ∎

###### Remark 2.6.

If $`X`$ is finite over $`A`$, then $`I_X=A`$, so a $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS state on $`𝒯_X`$ gives one on $`𝒪_X`$ if and only if it is of infinite type. In this case, the Wold decomposition of a KMS state corresponds to the usual essential-singular decomposition of a state relative to the kernel of the quotient map $`𝒯_X𝒪_X`$. However, we point out that in the case of $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$ and many other interesting situations, cf \[FR, EL2\], the ideal $`I_X`$ is trivial so $`𝒪_X`$ is actually equal to $`𝒯_X`$.

Considering the way in which the quasi-free states of the CAR algebra are determined by their two-point functions, it is natural to refer to states given by (2.2) as quasi–free states of $`𝒯_X`$. Following Evans \[Ev\], we wish to consider next a slightly more general notion of quasi-free states; specifically, we wish to allow for a different positive trace-class operator on each tensor factor. Not surprisingly, the appropriate formula is easy to guess, and the crux of the matter is to determine sufficient compatibility conditions on the various ingredients for it to actually define a state.

###### Proposition 2.7.

Let $`\{\tau _n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a sequence of traces on $`A`$ such that $`\tau _0`$ is a tracial state and let $`\{S_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a sequence of positive operators in $`B_A(X)`$ such that $`\mathrm{Tr}_{\tau _n}(aS_n)\tau _{n1}(a)`$ for every $`aA_+`$ and $`n1`$. Then there exists a unique gauge-invariant state $`\varphi `$ on $`𝒯_X`$ such that $`\varphi |_A=\tau _0`$ and

$$\varphi (T_{\xi _1}\mathrm{}T_{\xi _n}T_{\zeta _n}^{}\mathrm{}T_{\zeta _1}^{})=\tau _n(\zeta _1\mathrm{}\zeta _n,S_1\xi _1\mathrm{}S_n\xi _n)$$

for every $`\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n,\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _nX`$. If, in addition, $`\mathrm{Tr}_{\tau _n}(aS_n)=\tau _{n1}(a)`$ for every $`aI_X`$ and $`n1`$, then $`\varphi `$ defines a state on $`𝒪_X`$.

###### Proof.

We shall use an argument borrowed from the proof of \[EL2, Proposition 12.6\]. Let $`𝒯_0`$ be the subalgebra of gauge-invariant elements of $`𝒯_X`$; since we are looking for a gauge-invariant state, that is, one that factors through the conditional expectation $`E=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }\gamma _t()𝑑t`$ of $`𝒯_X`$ onto $`𝒯_0`$, it is enough to define $`\varphi `$ on $`𝒯_0`$. Let $`I_n`$ be the C-algebra generated by elements $`T_\xi T_\eta ^{}`$ with $`\xi ,\eta X^n`$, and let $`A_n=A+I_1+\mathrm{}+I_n`$ (where $`A_0=I_0=A`$). Then $`I_n`$ is an ideal in $`A_n`$ and $`𝒯_0=\overline{_nA_n}`$. The submodules $`X^n`$ are $`𝒯_0`$-invariant, and we denote by $`\pi _n`$ the natural representation of $`𝒯_0`$ on $`X^n`$. Then $`\pi _{n1}`$ is faithful on $`A_{n1}`$ and zero on $`I_n`$, so $`A_{n1}I_n=0`$. Consider a positive linear functional $`\psi _n`$ on $`A_n`$ defined by

$$\psi _n(x)=\mathrm{Tr}_{\tau _n}(\pi _n(x)(S_1\mathrm{}S_n))$$

for $`n1`$, with $`\psi _0=\tau _0`$. Since $`\pi _n(x)=\pi _{n1}(x)1`$ for every $`xA_{n1}`$, we have $`\psi _n|_{A_{n1}}\psi _{n1}`$ for $`n1`$ by Proposition 1.2, and we may define selfadjoint linear functionals $`\varphi _n`$ on $`A_n=A_{n1}I_n`$ by induction: $`\varphi _n=\varphi _{n1}\psi _n`$, with $`\varphi _0=\tau _0`$. Since $`\varphi _n|_A=\tau _0`$ is a state and the left action of $`A`$ is non-degenerate, to prove that $`\varphi _n`$ is a state it is enough to check that it is positive. We shall prove by induction that $`\varphi _n\psi _n`$. This is true for $`n=0`$, since $`\psi _0=\varphi _0`$. If this is true for $`n1`$, then $`\psi _n|_{A_{n1}}\psi _{n1}\varphi _{n1}`$. For $`xA_{n1}`$ and $`yI_n`$ we have

$$\varphi _n((x+y)^{}(x+y))=\varphi _{n1}(x^{}x)+\psi _n(x^{}y+y^{}x+y^{}y)\psi _n(x^{}x+x^{}y+y^{}x+y^{}y),$$

so $`\varphi _n\psi _n`$. Thus each $`\varphi _n`$ is a state, and since the sequence is coherent in the sense that $`\varphi _n|_{A_{n1}}=\varphi _{n1}`$, there exists a unique state $`\varphi `$ on $`𝒯_0`$ such that $`\varphi |_{I_n}=\varphi _n|_{I_n}=\psi _n|_{I_n}`$.

Suppose now that $`\mathrm{Tr}_{\tau _n}(aS_n)=\tau _{n1}(a)`$ for every $`aI_X`$; we shall prove that $`\varphi `$ is zero on the two-sided ideal generated by the elements $`aj_X(a)`$, for $`aI_X`$. Let $`𝒯_{n,m}`$ be the linear span of elements of the form $`T_\xi T_\zeta ^{}`$, with $`\xi X^n`$ and $`\zeta X^m`$ (where $`𝒯_{0,0}=A`$). We must prove that $`\varphi (xay)=\varphi (xj_X(a)y)`$ for $`x𝒯_{n,m}`$, $`y𝒯_{n^{},m^{}}`$. Since $`aT_\xi =j_X(a)T_\xi `$ for every $`\xi X`$, we have $`xay=xj_X(a)y`$ if either $`n^{}>0`$, or $`m>0`$. Thus we may restrict our attention to the case $`n^{}=m=0`$. Because of gauge-invariance we also have $`\varphi (xay)=\varphi (xj_X(a)y)=0`$ if $`nm^{}`$. So it remains to consider only the case when $`n=m^{}`$, $`m=n^{}=0`$. Let $`x=T_{\xi _0}`$ and $`y=T_{\zeta _0}^{}`$, with $`\xi _0,\zeta _0X^n`$. Denoting $`S_1\mathrm{}S_n`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{S}_n`$, for any $`\xi ,\zeta X`$ we have

$$\varphi (T_{\xi _0}j_X(\theta _{\xi ,\zeta })T_{\zeta _0}^{})=\varphi (T_{\xi _0}T_\xi T_\zeta ^{}T_{\zeta _0}^{})=\tau _{n+1}(\zeta _0\zeta ,\stackrel{~}{S}_n\xi _0S_{n+1}\xi )=\mathrm{Tr}_{\tau _{n+1}}(\zeta _0,\stackrel{~}{S}_n\xi _0S_{n+1}\theta _{\xi ,\zeta }),$$

so for any $`aI_X`$ we get

$`\varphi (T_{\xi _0}j_X(a)T_{\zeta _0}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}_{\tau _{n+1}}(\zeta _0,\stackrel{~}{S}_n\xi _0S_{n+1}a)=\tau _n(a\zeta _0,\stackrel{~}{S}_n\xi _0)=\tau _n(\zeta _0a^{},\stackrel{~}{S}_n\xi _0)`$
$`=`$ $`\varphi (T_{\xi _0}T_{\zeta _0a^{}}^{})=\varphi (T_{\xi _0}aT_{\zeta _0}^{}).`$
In order to illustrate the range of application of the general theory we discuss several situations that have appeared in the literature and which are unified by the present approach. Other systems such as those studied in \[E1, E2, MWY\] can be analyzed in a similar way.

###### Example 2.8.

\[OP, BEH, Ev\] Let $`X=H`$ be a Hilbert space considered as a Hilbert bimodule over $`A=`$. Then $`𝒯_X`$ is the Toeplitz-Cuntz algebra $`𝒯_n`$ and $`𝒪_X`$ is the Cuntz algebra $`𝒪_n`$ corresponding to $`n=\mathrm{dim}H`$. If $`\tau `$ is the unique tracial state on $`A`$, then $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau `$ is the usual trace on $`B(H)`$. Let $`\{U_t=e^{itD}\}_t`$ be a one-parameter unitary group on $`H`$, and let $`\gamma `$ be the corresponding quasi-free dynamics. Then our results say that a $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS state on $`𝒯_H`$ exists if and only if $`\mathrm{Tr}(e^{\beta D})1`$, and such a state extends to a normal state on $`B((H))`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{Tr}(e^{\beta D})<1`$. If $`\mathrm{dim}H2`$ and $`\beta 0`$ (or $`\beta 0`$), then the condition $`\mathrm{Tr}(e^{\beta D})1`$ implies that $`D`$ is positive (resp. negative) and non-singular, so the $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS state is unique. If $`H`$ is infinite-dimensional, then $`I_H=0`$ and $`𝒪_H=𝒯_H`$. If $`\mathrm{dim}H<\mathrm{}`$, then $`I_H=`$, so a $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS state on $`𝒪_H`$ exists if and only if $`\mathrm{Tr}(e^{\beta D})=1`$.

###### Example 2.9.

\[EL2\] Let $`T=(T(j,k))_{j,kI}`$ be a (possibly infinite) $`01`$ matrix with no identically zero columns and rows. Consider the rows $`q_j=(T(j,k))_{kI}`$ as elements of $`l^{\mathrm{}}(I)`$, and let $`A`$ be the C-algebra they generate. Let $`X`$ be the Hilbert $`A`$-bimodule generated as a right Hilbert $`A`$-module by vectors $`\xi _j`$, $`jI`$, such that $`\xi _j,\xi _k=\delta _{jk}q_j`$, $`q_j\xi _k=T(j,k)\xi _k`$. By \[Sz\] the algebra $`𝒪_X`$ is the Cuntz-Krieger algebra corresponding to the matrix $`T`$ as in \[EL1\]. If $`F`$ is a finite subset of $`I`$, then $`_{jF}\theta _{\xi _j,\xi _j}`$ is the projection onto the right submodule generated by $`\xi _j`$, $`jF`$. It follows that if $`\tau `$ is a trace on $`A`$, then $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (S)=_j\tau (\xi _j,S\xi _j)`$ for any $`SB(X)_+`$.

Let the dynamics on $`X`$ be given by $`U_t\xi _j=N_j^{it}\xi _j`$ for some choice $`N_j>1`$ for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, which ensures that $`U`$ satisfies the positivity condition. Then $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS states on $`𝒯_X`$ are in one-to-one correspondence with states on $`A`$ such that $`_jN_j^\beta \tau (\xi _j,a\xi _j)\tau (a)`$ for any $`aA_+`$. Any positive element in $`A`$ can be approximated by a linear combination with positive coefficients of projections $`q(Y,Z)=_{lY}q_l_{kZ}(1q_k)`$, where $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ are finite subsets of $`I`$. Note that $`q(Y,Z)\xi _j=T(Y,Z,j)\xi _j`$, where

$$T(Y,Z,j)=\underset{lY}{}T(l,j)\underset{kZ}{}(1T(k,j)).$$

Thus $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS states on $`𝒯_X`$ correspond to states $`\tau `$ on $`A`$ such that

(2.3)
$$\underset{j}{}N_j^\beta T(Y,Z,j)\tau (q_j)\tau (q(Y,Z))\text{for all finite}Y,ZI,$$

namely, to $`\beta `$-subinvariant states of $`A`$ as defined in \[EL2, 12.3\]. Notice that our result bypasses the intermediate step of having to consider measures on path space that are rescaled by the partial action and goes straight to the coefficient algebra. The linear span of projections $`q(Y,Z)`$ such that the function $`IjT(Y,Z,j)`$ has finite support is dense in $`I_X`$. So to obtain a state on $`𝒪_X`$ the inequality (2.3) must be equality for all $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ such that the function $`T(Y,Z,)`$ has finite support. We point out that the dynamics arising from such infinite matrices do not satisfy in general the fullness assumption of \[PWY\].

###### Example 2.10.

\[BEH, BEK\] Let $`A`$ be a unital C-algebra, $`p`$ a full projection in $`A`$, $`\alpha `$ an injective $``$-endomorphism on $`A`$ such that $`\alpha (A)=pAp`$. Consider the semigroup crossed product C\*-algebra $`A_\alpha `$. Let $`\gamma `$ be the periodic dynamics on $`A_\alpha `$ defined by the dual action of $`𝕋`$. It is known that $`A_\alpha `$ can be considered as a Cuntz-Krieger-Pimsner algebra: the module $`X`$ is the space $`Ap`$ with left and right actions of $`A`$ given by $`a\xi b=a\xi \alpha (b)`$, and with inner product $`\xi ,\zeta =\alpha ^1(\xi ^{}\zeta )`$. Then $`\gamma `$ is the gauge action. Since $`p`$ is full, the module is finite, so $`I_X=A`$. Thus $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS states on $`𝒯_X`$ (resp. $`𝒪_X`$) correspond to traces $`\tau `$ such that $`e^\beta \mathrm{Tr}_\tau (a)\tau (a)`$ (resp. $`e^\beta \mathrm{Tr}_\tau (a)=\tau (a)`$) for $`aA_+`$. Since $`p`$ is full, to prove an equality/inequality for traces on $`A`$ it is enough to check it on $`pAp=\alpha (A)`$. Noting that $`p=\theta _{p,p}`$ in $`B(X)`$, for any $`aA`$ we get $`\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (\alpha (a))=\mathrm{Tr}_\tau (\alpha (a)\theta _{p,p})=\tau (p,\alpha (a)p)=\tau (a)`$. Thus $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS states on $`𝒯_X`$ (resp. $`𝒪_X`$) correspond to traces $`\tau `$ on $`A`$ such that $`e^\beta \tau \tau \alpha `$ (resp. $`e^\beta \tau =\tau \alpha `$). It is proved in \[BEH\] that any closed subset of $`(0,+\mathrm{})`$ can be realized as the set of possible temperatures of the system $`(𝒪_X,\gamma )`$ for a convenient choice of AF-algebra $`A`$ and endomorphism $`\alpha `$ with $`𝒪_X`$ is simple. In \[BEK\] a similar construction yields quite arbitrary choices of the simplex of $`\beta `$-KMS states for each $`\beta `$.

###### Remark 2.11.

A question raised in the introduction of \[EL2\] is whether the Toeplitz Cuntz-Krieger algebra of an infinite matrix can have KMS states of finite and of infinite type coexisting at a given finite inverse temperature. We would like to shed some light on the analogous question for the quasi–free dynamics on the Toeplitz–Pimsner algebras. Under the same assumptions of Theorem 2.1, let $`\beta _0<\mathrm{}`$ and suppose that $`\varphi `$ is a $`(\gamma ,\beta _0)`$-KMS state with restriction $`\tau `$ to $`A`$. For each $`\beta >\beta _0`$, we then have that $`F_\beta \tau F_{\beta _0}\tau \tau `$ so $`\tau `$ determines a $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS state $`\varphi _\beta `$ of $`𝒯_X`$, which cannot be of infinite type because of our positivity assumption. The parameters of Example 2.10 can be adjusted to get also a $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS state of $`𝒪_X`$, and the resulting infinite type $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS state of $`𝒯_X`$ will thus coexist, at inverse temperature $`\beta `$, with the finite part of the decomposition of $`\varphi _\beta `$. A further strengthening of the positivity assumption, namely, the assumption that $`Dc1`$ for some $`c>0`$, yields $`F_\beta ^n\tau e^{n(\beta \beta _0)c}F_{\beta _0}^n\tau `$, from which one readily sees that the state $`\varphi _\beta `$ above is of finite type for $`\beta >\beta _0`$. This gives a Pimsner algebra version of the ’cooling lemma’ \[EL2, Lemma 15.1\], which implies that KMS states of finite type are weak\* dense in all KMS states.

## 3. KMS weights on module algebras

The theory of KMS weights on C-algebras is similar to (and is based on) the theory of normal weights on von Neumann algebras. We refer the reader to \[St\] and \[K\] for the basic definitions. Suppose $`t\sigma _t`$ is a one-parameter automorphism group of a C-algebra $`A`$. We assume that $`\sigma `$ is continuous in the sense that the function $`t\sigma _t(a)`$ is norm-continuous for all $`aA`$. The same assumption is made for more general one-parameter group of isometries on Banach spaces. In several places where we consider von Neumann algebras the continuity assumption is weaker: the function $`t\sigma _t(a)`$ is weakly (operator) continuous.

Let $`\varphi `$ be a weight on $`A`$. As usual, we set

$$_\varphi ^+=\{aA_+|\varphi (a)<\mathrm{}\},𝒩_\varphi =\{aA|a^{}a_\varphi ^+\},\text{ and}_\varphi =\mathrm{span}_\varphi ^+=𝒩_\varphi ^{}𝒩_\varphi ,$$

and extend $`\varphi `$ to a linear functional on $`_\varphi `$. We say that $`\varphi `$ is a $`(\sigma ,\beta )`$-KMS weight if $`\varphi `$ is lower semicontinuous on $`A_+`$, densely defined (i.e. $`_\varphi ^+`$ is dense in $`A_+`$), $`\sigma `$-invariant, and satisfies the KMS-condition in the form

$$\varphi (x^{}x)=\varphi (\sigma _{\frac{i\beta }{2}}(x)\sigma _{\frac{i\beta }{2}}(x)^{})\text{ for every }xD(\sigma _{\frac{i\beta }{2}}),$$

where $`D(\sigma _{\frac{i\beta }{2}})`$ is the domain of definition of $`\sigma _{\frac{i\beta }{2}}`$.

Given such a weight $`\varphi `$, the well known GNS construction produces a Hilbert space $`H_\varphi `$ and a linear map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi :𝒩_\varphi H_\varphi `$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi (𝒩_\varphi )`$ is dense in $`H_\varphi `$ and $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi (x),\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi (y))=\varphi (y^{}x)`$. There is a representation $`\pi _\varphi `$ of $`A`$ on $`H_\varphi `$, defined by letting $`\pi _\varphi (x)\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi (y)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi (xy)`$, and the set $`𝒰_\varphi =\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi (𝒩_\varphi 𝒩_\varphi ^{})`$ is a left Hilbert algebra with operations

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi (x)\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi (y)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi (xy),\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi (x)^\mathrm{\#}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi (x^{}).$$

The associated von Neumann algebra $`(𝒰)=\pi _\varphi (A)^{\prime \prime }`$ is equipped with a canonical normal semifinite faithful (n.s.f.) weight $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Then $`\varphi =\mathrm{\Phi }\pi _\varphi `$ and $`\sigma _t^\mathrm{\Phi }\pi _\varphi =\pi _\varphi \sigma _{\beta t}`$, where $`\sigma _t^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the modular group of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

Any lower semicontinuous densely defined weight on $`A`$ extends uniquely to a strictly lower semicontinuous weight $`\overline{\varphi }`$ on the multiplier algebra $`M(A)`$. If $`\varphi `$ is a KMS-weight, then $`\overline{\varphi }=\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\pi }_\varphi `$, where $`\overline{\pi }_\varphi `$ is the canonical extension of $`\pi _\varphi `$ to a representation of $`M(A)`$. The weight $`\overline{\varphi }`$ is only strictly densely defined, and the one-parameter automorphism group $`\sigma `$ is only strictly continuous on $`M(A)`$, so $`\overline{\varphi }`$ is not a KMS-weight in the sense of the definition above. However, since $`\overline{\varphi }=\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\pi }_\varphi `$, $`\overline{\varphi }`$ satisfies a form of the KMS-condition, so that its restriction to a $`\sigma `$-invariant subalgebra $`B`$ of $`M(A)`$ is a KMS-weight if $`\sigma |_B`$ is continuous and $`\overline{\varphi }|_B`$ is densely defined.

We now consider a right Hilbert $`A`$-module $`X`$ and a continuous one-parameter group of isometries $`tU_t`$ of $`X`$ such that $`U_t\xi ,U_t\zeta =\sigma _t(\xi ,\zeta )`$. Then $`U_t(\xi a)=(U_t\xi )\sigma _t(a)`$, and we define a dynamics $`\gamma =\mathrm{Ad}U`$ on $`K(X)`$ by $`\gamma _t(T)=U_tTU_t`$. We shall extend Theorem 1.1 to the present situation, for which we need to associate an induced weight $`\kappa _\varphi `$ on $`B(X)`$ to each $`(\sigma ,\beta )`$-KMS weight $`\varphi `$ on $`A`$. We give two equivalent constructions of this induced weight.

In the first construction, we replace $`A`$ by $`\overline{X,X}`$ so we may assume that $`X`$ is full. Let $`\pi :AB(H)`$ be an arbitrary representation of $`A`$ such that there exists a n.s.f. weight $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on $`L=\pi (A)^{\prime \prime }`$ with $`\varphi =\mathrm{\Phi }\pi `$ and $`\sigma _t^\mathrm{\Phi }\pi =\pi \sigma _{\beta t}`$. Set $`M=\pi (A)^{}`$. Consider the Hilbert space $`H_X=X_AH`$ and the induced representation $`\rho `$ of $`B(X)`$ on $`H_X`$. Set $`N=\rho (B(X))^{\prime \prime }`$. Note that $`M`$ acts faithfully on $`H_X`$, and $`N^{}=M`$ in $`B(H_X)`$. Let now $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ be an arbitrary n.s.f. weight on $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ the unique n.s.f. weight on $`N`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Psi }/\mathrm{\Phi }^{})^{it}=U_{\beta t}\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }^{})^{it}\text{in}B(H_X),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(/)`$ denotes the spatial derivative, cf \[Co2, St\]. We then set $`\kappa _\varphi =\mathrm{\Psi }\rho `$.

Let us compute $`\kappa _\varphi `$ explicitly on a dense subalgebra of $`K(X)`$. Let $`\zeta H`$ be a $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$-bounded vector, that is, the map $`R_\zeta :H_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}H`$, given by $`R_\zeta (\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(x))=x\zeta `$ for $`x𝒩_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$, is bounded. For any $`\xi X`$ the vector $`\xi \zeta H_X`$ is $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$-bounded as well and $`R_{\xi \zeta }\eta =\xi R_\zeta \eta `$ for $`\eta H_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$. Then if $`\xi D(U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}})`$ and $`\zeta D(\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }^{})^{\frac{1}{2}})`$ is $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$-bounded, we get by definition

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(R_{\xi \zeta }R_{\xi \zeta }^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Psi }/\mathrm{\Phi }^{})^{\frac{1}{2}}(\xi \zeta )^2=U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi \mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }^{})^{\frac{1}{2}}\zeta ^2`$
$`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }^{})^{\frac{1}{2}}\zeta ,\pi (U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ,U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi )\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }^{})^{\frac{1}{2}}\zeta ).`$
At this point it is convenient to introduce the form $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}^\mathrm{\Phi }(y))`$, whose relevant properties are stated in the following essentially known lemma.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a n.s.f. weight on a von Neumann algebra $`M`$, with modular group $`\sigma `$. Then the bilinear form $`(,)_\mathrm{\Phi }:_\mathrm{\Phi }\times D(\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}})`$, defined by $`(x,y)_\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(x\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}(y))`$, extends to a bilinear form on $`_\mathrm{\Phi }\times M`$ with the following properties:

1. for $`x_\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`(x,)_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a normal linear functional on $`M`$; if $`x_\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$, then $`(x,)_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is positive and $`(x,)_\mathrm{\Phi }x\mathrm{\Phi }`$;
2. for $`x,y_\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`(x,y)_\mathrm{\Phi }=(y,x)_\mathrm{\Phi }`$;
3. for $`x_1,x_2𝒩_\mathrm{\Phi }D(\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}})`$, $`(x_2^{}x_1,)_\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}(x_1)\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}(x_2)^{})`$;
4. if $`\{x_k\}_k`$ is a net in $`_\mathrm{\Phi }^+D(\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}})`$ such that $`x_k1`$, the set $`\{\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}(x_k)\}_k`$ is bounded in norm, and $`\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}(x_k)1`$ strongly, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=lim_k(x_k,x)_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for any $`xM_+`$.

###### Proof.

Consider the GNS-representation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:𝒩_\mathrm{\Phi }H`$ as described above. Recall that, in terms of the modular group $`\sigma `$, the modular involution $`J`$ is given by $`J\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}(x)^{})`$ for $`x𝒩_\mathrm{\Phi }D(\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}})`$. It has the properties

$`Jy^{}J\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}(y))x𝒩_\mathrm{\Phi }yD(\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}),\text{ and}`$
$`JyJ\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`xJ\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)x,y𝒩_\mathrm{\Phi }.`$
Now if $`x=x_2^{}x_1`$, $`x_1,x_2𝒩_\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`yD(\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}})`$, then

$$(x,y)_\mathrm{\Phi }=(x_2^{}x_1,y)_\mathrm{\Phi }=(\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_1\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}(y)),\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_2))=(Jy^{}J\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_1),\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_2)).$$

This shows that $`(x,)_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ extends to a normal linear functional on $`M`$. Moreover, if $`x0`$, then we can take $`x_1=x_2=x^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and conclude that $`(x,y)_\mathrm{\Phi }0`$ for $`y0`$. If $`x,y_\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$,

$`(x,y)_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`(JyJ\mathrm{\Lambda }(x^{\frac{1}{2}}),\mathrm{\Lambda }(x^{\frac{1}{2}}))=(Jy^{\frac{1}{2}}J\mathrm{\Lambda }(x^{\frac{1}{2}}),Jy^{\frac{1}{2}}J\mathrm{\Lambda }(x^{\frac{1}{2}}))=(x^{\frac{1}{2}}J\mathrm{\Lambda }(y^{\frac{1}{2}}),x^{\frac{1}{2}}J\mathrm{\Lambda }(y^{\frac{1}{2}}))`$
$`=`$ $`(JxJ\mathrm{\Lambda }(y^{\frac{1}{2}}),\mathrm{\Lambda }(y^{\frac{1}{2}}))x(\mathrm{\Lambda }(y^{\frac{1}{2}}),\mathrm{\Lambda }(y^{\frac{1}{2}}))=x\mathrm{\Phi }(y).`$
Thus part (i) is proved. Part (ii) is already proved for positive $`x`$ and $`y`$, the general case follows by linearity. If $`x_2,x_1𝒩_\varphi D(\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}})`$, we have

$`(x_2^{}x_1,y)_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`(Jy^{}J\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_1),\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_2))=(yJ\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_2),J\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_1))`$
$`=`$ $`(y\mathrm{\Lambda }(\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}(x_2)^{}),\mathrm{\Lambda }(\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}(x_1)^{}))=\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}(x_1)y\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}(x_2)^{}),`$
which proves (iii). It remains to prove (iv). Let $`xM_+`$. Since $`\{\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}(x_k)^{}x\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}(x_k)\}_k`$ converges weakly to $`x`$, and $`x_k^2x_k`$, we have

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\underset{k}{lim\; inf}\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}(x_k)^{}x\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}(x_k))=\underset{k}{lim\; inf}(x_k^2,x)_\mathrm{\Phi }\underset{k}{lim\; inf}(x_k,x)_\mathrm{\Phi }.$$

On the other hand, $`(x_k,x)_\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ by (i), hence $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=lim_k(x_k,x)_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. This finishes the proof of Lemma 3.1. ∎

Returning to the computation of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, for any $`aL`$ we get

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }^{})^{\frac{1}{2}}\zeta ,a\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }^{})^{\frac{1}{2}}\zeta )=(\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }^{})^{\frac{1}{2}}\zeta ,\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }^{})^{\frac{1}{2}}\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}^\mathrm{\Phi }(a)\zeta )=\mathrm{\Phi }(R_\zeta R_{\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}^\mathrm{\Phi }(a)\zeta }^{})=(R_\zeta R_\zeta ^{},a^{})_\mathrm{\Phi }.$$

Thus

(3.1)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }(R_{\xi \zeta }R_{\xi \zeta }^{})=(R_\zeta R_\zeta ^{},\pi (U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ,U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ))_\mathrm{\Phi }.$$

Note that $`R_{\xi \zeta }^{}(\xi _0\zeta _0)=R_\zeta ^{}\pi (\xi ,\xi _0)\zeta _0`$. So if we introduce an operator $`T_{\xi ,a}`$ on $`H_X`$ defined by $`T_{\xi ,a}(\xi _0\zeta _0)=\xi a\pi (\xi ,\xi _0)\zeta _0`$, then $`R_{\xi \zeta }R_{\xi \zeta }^{}=T_{\xi ,R_\zeta R_\zeta ^{}}`$. Then (3.1) implies that

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(T_{\xi ,a})=(a,\pi (U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ,U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ))_\mathrm{\Phi }$$

for any $`a`$ in the algebra $`\mathrm{span}\{R_{\zeta _1}R_{\zeta _2}^{}|\zeta _iD(\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }^{})^{\frac{1}{2}})\text{is}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\text{-bounded},i=1,2\}`$. If we now apply this to an approximate unit $`a_i1`$ and use Lemma 3.1(i-ii) together with the property $`T_{\xi ,a_i}\rho (\theta _{\xi ,\xi })`$, we conclude that

(3.2)
$$\kappa _\varphi (\theta _{\xi ,\xi })=\varphi (U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ,U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi )$$

for every $`\xi D(U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}})`$ such that $`U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ,U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi _\varphi `$.

In our second construction of $`\kappa _\varphi `$, we shall show directly that there is a linear functional satisfying property (3.2) on a dense subalgebra of $`K(X)`$, and then extend it to a weight on the whole algebra using the GNS-representation. For this we introduce the following sets:

$`C_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\{aA|a\text{is}\sigma \text{-analytic and }\sigma _z(a)𝒩_\varphi 𝒩_\varphi ^{}z\},`$
$`X_0`$ $`=`$ $`\{\xi X|\xi \text{is}U\text{-analytic}\},`$
$`X_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`X_0C_\varphi ,`$
$`𝒰`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{span}\{\theta _{\xi ,\zeta }|\xi ,\zeta X_\varphi \}.`$
Note that if $`\xi D(U_z)`$ and $`\zeta D(U_{\overline{z}})`$, then $`\theta _{\xi ,\zeta }D(\gamma _z)`$ and $`\gamma _z(\theta _{\xi ,\zeta })=\theta _{U_z\xi ,U_{\overline{z}}\zeta }`$; moreover, at the level of the coefficient algebra, $`\zeta ,\xi D(\sigma _z)`$ and $`\sigma _z(\zeta ,\xi )=U_{\overline{z}}\zeta ,U_z\xi `$. Thus $`C_\varphi `$ is a dense $``$-subalgebra of $`A`$, $`X_\varphi `$ is a dense subspace of $`X`$, and $`𝒰`$ a dense $``$-subalgebra of $`K(X)`$ consisting of $`\gamma `$-analytic elements. Choose an approximate unit $`\{e_k=_{\eta I_k}\theta _{\eta ,\eta }\}_k`$ in $`𝒰`$ and define

(3.3)
$$\kappa (x)=\underset{k}{lim}\underset{\eta I_k}{}\varphi (U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\eta ,xU_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\eta ).$$

for $`x𝒰`$. If $`\eta ,\xi D(U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}})`$ then

(3.4)
$$\varphi (U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\eta ,\theta _{\xi ,\xi }U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\eta )=\varphi (U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\eta ,\xi \xi ,U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\eta )=\varphi (U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ,\eta \eta ,U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi )=\varphi (U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ,\theta _{\eta ,\eta }U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ),$$

since $`\xi ,U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\eta D(\sigma _{\frac{i\beta }{2}})`$ and $`\sigma _{\frac{i\beta }{2}}(\xi ,U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\eta )=U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ,\eta `$. Hence for $`\xi X_\varphi `$

$$\kappa (\theta _{\xi ,\xi })=\underset{k}{lim}\underset{\eta I_k}{}\varphi (U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\eta ,\theta _{\xi ,\xi }U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\eta )=\underset{k}{lim}\varphi (U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ,e_kU_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi )=\varphi (U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ,U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ),$$

so $`\kappa `$ satisfies (3.2). It is easy to check that $`\kappa `$ has the following properties:

* (i) $`\kappa `$ is $`\gamma _z`$-invariant for any $`z`$;
* (ii) $`\kappa (xy)=\kappa (\gamma _{\frac{i\beta }{2}}(y)\gamma _{\frac{i\beta }{2}}(x))`$ for any $`x,y𝒰`$;
* (iii) $`\kappa (\theta _{\xi a,\xi })=(U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ,U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ,a)_\varphi `$ for any $`\xi X_\varphi `$ and $`aC_\varphi `$.
* (iv) the function $`z\kappa (\gamma _z(x)y)`$ is analytic for any $`x,y𝒰`$.

Since $`\kappa (x^{}x)0`$ by (3.3), there exist a Hilbert space $`H`$ and a linear map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:𝒰H`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒰)`$ is dense in $`H`$, and $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }(x),\mathrm{\Lambda }(y))=\kappa (y^{}x)`$. The kernel of this map is the set

$$\mathrm{Ker}\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{x𝒰|\kappa (x^{}x)=0\}=\{x𝒰|\kappa (yx)=0y𝒰\},$$

which is obviously a $`\gamma _z`$-invariant left ideal in $`𝒰`$. Property (ii) of $`\kappa `$ implies that if $`x`$ is in this ideal, then also $`\gamma _{\frac{i\beta }{2}}(x^{})`$, and hence also $`x^{}`$, is in this ideal. Thus the ideal is self-adjoint and two-sided, and it follows that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒰)`$ has the canonical structure of an algebra with involution, in particular, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(xy)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)^\mathrm{\#}=\mathrm{\Lambda }(x^{})`$.

Let us check that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒰)`$ is a left Hilbert algebra. It is obvious that $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)\mathrm{\Lambda }(y),\mathrm{\Lambda }(z))=(\mathrm{\Lambda }(y),\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)^\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Lambda }(z))`$. The map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)`$ is a bounded map for each $`x𝒰`$ by (3.3). In fact, we see that the norm of the mapping is not bigger than $`x`$. Since $`\kappa `$ is $`\gamma _z`$-invariant, property (ii) of $`\kappa `$ can be rewritten as

(3.5)
$$(\mathrm{\Lambda }(x^{}),\mathrm{\Lambda }(y))=(\mathrm{\Lambda }(\gamma _{i\beta }(y^{})),\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)).$$

It follows $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)\mathrm{\Lambda }(x^{})`$ is a closable operator. It remains to prove that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒰)^2`$ is dense in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒰)`$. Let $`\{e_k\}_k`$ be an approximate unit in $`𝒰`$. We claim that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_k)\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$ for any $`x𝒰`$. Let $`x=\theta _{\xi ,\zeta }`$. Then by property (iii) of $`\kappa `$

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_k)\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\theta _{\xi e_k\xi ,\zeta })^2=\kappa (\theta _{\zeta \xi e_k\xi ,\xi e_k\xi ,\zeta })=(U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\zeta ,U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\zeta ,\xi e_k\xi ,\xi e_k\xi )_\varphi .$$

By Lemma 3.1, $`(U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\zeta ,U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\zeta ,)_\varphi `$ is a bounded linear functional on $`A`$, so $`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_kx)\}_k`$ converges to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$. This proves the claim and completes the proof that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒰)`$ is a left Hilbert algebra.

Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ be the canonical n.s.f. weight on the associated von Neumann algebra $`(𝒰)`$. For each $`x𝒰`$ let $`\rho (x)`$ be the operator of left multiplication by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$. We have already shown that $`\rho (x)x`$. Hence $`\rho `$ extends by continuity, first to a representation of $`K(X)`$, and then to a representation of $`B(X)`$. Finally, we define $`\kappa _\varphi =\mathrm{\Psi }\rho `$.

Let us compute the modular group of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. By property (iv) of $`\kappa `$ the vector-valued function $`z\mathrm{\Lambda }(\gamma _z(x))`$ is analytic. Hence there exists a non-singular positive operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on $`H`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^z\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\gamma _{i\beta z}(x))`$. Let $`J`$ be the anti-linear involution defined by $`J\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\gamma _{\frac{i\beta }{2}}(x))^\mathrm{\#}`$. Then $`J\mathrm{\Delta }^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)^\mathrm{\#}`$, from which we conclude that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Thus $`\sigma _t^\mathrm{\Psi }\rho =\rho \gamma _{\beta t}`$. Since $`\kappa _\varphi (y^{}x)=(\mathrm{\Lambda }(x),\mathrm{\Lambda }(y))=\kappa (y^{}x)`$ by definition of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, we see that $`\kappa _\varphi |_{K(X)}`$ is a $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS weight such that property (3.2) is satisfied for all $`\xi X_\varphi X_\varphi ,X_\varphi `$.

We can now state and prove the following generalization of Theorem 1.1 for KMS weights. In particular, we will show that both constructions give the same weight.

###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $`\varphi `$ be a $`(\sigma ,\beta )`$-KMS weight on $`A`$. For $`TB(X)`$, $`T0`$, set

(3.6)
$$\kappa _\varphi (T)=sup\underset{\xi I}{}\varphi (U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ,TU_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ),$$

where the supremum is taken over all finite subsets $`I`$ of $`D(U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}})`$ such that $`U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ,U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi _\varphi ^+`$ for every $`\xi I`$ and $`_{\xi I}\theta _{\xi ,\xi }1`$. Then

1. $`\kappa _\varphi |_{K(X)}`$ is a $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS weight on $`K(X)`$, and $`\kappa _\varphi `$ is its strictly lower semicontinuous extension to $`B(X)`$;
2. there exists an approximate unit $`\{e_k=_{\xi I_k}\theta _{\xi ,\xi }\}_k`$ in $`K(X)`$ such that $`\xi D(U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}})D(U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}})`$ and $`U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ,U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi _\varphi ^+`$ for every $`\xi I_k`$, the net $`\{\gamma _{\frac{i\beta }{2}}(e_k)\}_k`$ is bounded in norm and converges strictly to $`1`$; for any such approximate unit we have

$$\kappa _\varphi (T)=\underset{k}{lim}\underset{\xi I_k}{}\varphi (U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ,TU_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi )\text{for each}T0;$$
3. if $`\xi D(U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}})`$, then $`\kappa _\varphi (\theta _{\xi ,\xi })=\varphi (U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ,U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi )`$, and if this number is finite, then

$$(\theta _{\xi ,\xi },)_{\kappa _\varphi }=\varphi (U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ,U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi );$$

moreover, if $`\stackrel{~}{X}_\varphi X_\varphi `$ is a dense $`U_z`$-invariant $`C_\varphi `$-submodule, then $`\kappa _\varphi |_{K(X)}`$ is the unique $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS weight such that $`\kappa _\varphi (\theta _{\xi ,\xi })=\varphi (U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ,U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi )`$ for $`\xi \stackrel{~}{X}_\varphi ;`$
4. if the module is full, then the mapping $`\varphi \kappa _\varphi |_{K(X)}`$ defines a one-to-one correspondence between $`(\sigma ,\beta )`$-KMS weights on $`A`$ and $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS weights on $`K(X)`$.

###### Proof.

First note that an approximate unit with the properties stated in part (ii) always exists. Moreover, if $`\stackrel{~}{X}_\varphi X_\varphi `$ is a dense $`U_z`$-invariant $`C_\varphi `$-submodule, then such an approximate unit can be found in the algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}=\mathrm{span}\{\theta _{\xi ,\zeta }|\xi ,\zeta \stackrel{~}{X}_\varphi \}`$. Indeed, let $`\{f_k=_{\eta I_k}\theta _{\eta ,\eta }\}_k`$ be an approximate unit in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$. It is well-known that if we set $`\stackrel{~}{e}_k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}_{}e^{t^2}\gamma _t(f_k)𝑑t`$, then $`\{\stackrel{~}{e}_k\}_k`$ is an approximate unit, the net $`\{\gamma _z(e_k)\}_k`$ is bounded and converges strictly to $`1`$ for any $`z`$. But since each $`f_k`$ is already $`\gamma `$-analytic, we can replace the integral by a finite sum such that the element $`e_k`$, which we thus obtain, is arbitrarily close (in norm) to $`\stackrel{~}{e}_k`$, while $`\gamma _{\frac{i\beta }{2}}(e_k)`$ is close to $`\gamma _{\frac{i\beta }{2}}(\stackrel{~}{e}_k)`$.

We have already shown that there exists a strictly lower semicontinuous weight $`\kappa `$ on $`B(X)`$ such that $`\kappa |_{K(X)}`$ is $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS and $`\kappa (\theta _{\xi ,\xi })=\varphi (U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ,U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi )`$ for $`\xi \stackrel{~}{X}_\varphi `$. To prove the theorem it is enough to show that $`\kappa `$ satisfies (iii). Indeed, by Lemma 3.1(i),(iv), $`\kappa `$ can then be defined as in part (ii) and (3.6). In particular, $`\kappa _\varphi =\kappa `$, so $`\kappa _\varphi `$ has properties (i)-(iii). Part (iv) follows then from the uniqueness result in (iii), since by symmetry for any $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS weight $`\psi `$ on $`K(X)`$ we can define a strictly lower semicontinuous weight $`\kappa _\psi `$ on $`M(A)`$ such that $`\kappa _\psi |_A`$ is a $`(\sigma ,\beta )`$-KMS weight and

$$\kappa _\psi (\xi ,\xi )=\psi (\theta _{U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ,U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi })\text{for any}\xi D(U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}).$$

To show (iii), note that for any $`\xi ,\zeta \stackrel{~}{X}_\varphi `$

$$(\theta _{\zeta ,\zeta },\theta _{\xi ,\xi })_\kappa =\varphi (U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\zeta ,\theta _{\xi ,\xi }U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\zeta ).$$

Since both sides above are continuous functions of $`\xi `$, the equality holds for any $`\zeta \stackrel{~}{X}_\varphi `$ and $`\xi X`$, and, using (3.4), we obtain that

(3.7)
$$(x,\theta _{\xi ,\xi })_\kappa =\varphi (U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ,xU_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi )$$

for every $`x\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ and $`\xi D(U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}})`$. Choosing an approximate unit in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ satisfying the conditions of Lemma 3.1(iv) we conclude that

$$\kappa (\theta _{\xi ,\xi })=\varphi (U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ,U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ))$$

for any $`\xi D(U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}})`$. If this number is finite, by Lemma 3.1(ii) we can rewrite (3.7) as

$$(\theta _{\xi ,\xi },x)_\kappa =\varphi (U_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi ,xU_{\frac{i\beta }{2}}\xi )$$

for any $`x\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$. Since both sides above are strictly continuous linear functionals on $`B(X)`$, the equality holds for all $`xB(X)`$. By Lemma 3.1(iv) the weight $`\kappa `$ is completely determined by linear functionals $`(\theta _{\xi ,\xi },)_\kappa `$ for $`\xi \stackrel{~}{X}_\varphi `$, from which the uniqueness result follows. ∎

###### Remark 3.3.

(i) In the particular case when $`A`$ is a full corner $`pBp`$, $`X=Bp`$, $`\gamma `$ a one-parameter automorphism group of $`B`$ leaving the projection $`pM(B)`$ invariant, $`\sigma _t=\gamma _t|_A`$, $`U_tx=\gamma _t(x)`$, the weight $`\kappa _\varphi |_{K(X)}`$ is an extension of the $`(\sigma ,\beta )`$-KMS weight $`\varphi `$ to a $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS weight on $`B`$, and the map $`\psi \kappa _\psi |_A`$ going from KMS-weights on $`B`$ to KMS-weights on $`A`$ is just the restriction map. Thus Theorem 3.2 says that any $`(\sigma ,\beta )`$-KMS weight on $`A`$ can be uniquely extended to a $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS weight on $`B`$. Using the linking algebra the general case could be reduced to this situation. Namely, $`\kappa _\varphi |_{K(X)}`$ is a unique weight $`\psi `$ on $`K(X)`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\psi & 0\\ 0& \varphi \end{array}\right)`$ is an $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$-KMS weight on the linking algebra $`C=\left(\begin{array}{cc}K(X)& X\\ \overline{X}& A\end{array}\right)`$, where $`\alpha _t(\left(\begin{array}{cc}x& \xi \\ \overline{\zeta }& a\end{array}\right))=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\gamma _t(x)& U_t\xi \\ \overline{U_t\zeta }& \sigma _t(a)\end{array}\right)`$.

(ii) The induction (or extension) results have natural counterparts for von Neumann algebras, which can be proved by the same methods or deduced from our results for C-algebras (see also \[CZ\]).

(iii) The fact that the weight given by our first construction of the induced weight $`\kappa _\varphi `$ is independent of the choice of representation $`\pi `$ is essentially equivalent to the main result of \[Sa\].

(iv) The main point in our first construction of the induced weight $`\kappa _\varphi `$ is an implicit application of Connes’ theorem on existence and uniqueness of a weight with given Radon-Nikodym cocycle \[Co1, Theorem 1.2.4\]. On the other hand, our second construction uses nothing beyond the basic definitions of the modular theory, and the induction results we have obtained can be used in turn to give an alternative proof of Connes’ result. Indeed, let $`M`$ be a von Neumann algebra, $`\varphi `$ a n.s.f. weight on $`M`$ with modular group $`\sigma `$, $`tu_t`$ a strongly continuous unitary $`1`$-cocycle for $`\sigma `$. Then by our results (and remark (ii) above) there exists a unique n.s.f. weight $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on $`\mathrm{Mat}_2(M)`$ with modular group

$$\sigma _t^\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}u_t\sigma _t(a)u_t^{}& u_t\sigma _t(b)\\ \sigma _t(c)u_t^{}& \sigma _t(d)\end{array}\right)$$

such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& d\end{array}\right))=\varphi (d)`$ for any $`dM_+`$. Since $`p=e_{22}`$ is in the centralizer of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=\mathrm{\Phi }(pxp)+\mathrm{\Phi }((1p)x(1p))`$ for any $`x\mathrm{Mat}_2(M)_+`$. So if we set $`\psi (a)=\mathrm{\Phi }(\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right))`$, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\psi & 0\\ 0& \varphi \end{array}\right)`$. Thus $`\psi `$ is a n.s.f. weight with Radon-Nikodym cocycle $`(D\psi :D\varphi )_t=u_t`$.

The following result is an analogue of Proposition 1.2 on induction in stages for KMS-weights. We use the notation $`\kappa _\varphi ^U`$ instead of $`\kappa _\varphi `$ to indicate explicitly the dynamics used to induce the weight.

###### Proposition 3.4.

Let $`\sigma `$ (resp. $`\gamma `$) be a one-parameter automorphism group of a C-algebra $`A`$ (resp. $`B`$), $`X`$ a right Hilbert $`A`$-module, $`Y`$ a Hilbert $`A`$-$`B`$-module, $`U`$ (resp. $`V`$) a one-parameter group of isometries of $`X`$ (resp. $`Y`$) such that $`U_t\xi ,U_t\zeta =\sigma _t(\xi ,\zeta )`$, $`V_t\xi ,V_t\zeta =\gamma _t(\xi ,\zeta )`$, $`V_ta\xi =\sigma _t(a)V_t\xi `$. Let $`\varphi `$ be a $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS weight on $`B`$. Set $`\psi =\kappa _\varphi ^V|_A`$. Suppose $`\psi `$ is densely defined, so it is a $`(\sigma ,\beta )`$-KMS weight on $`A`$. Then

$$\kappa _\varphi ^{UV}(S1)=\kappa _\psi ^U(S)$$

for any $`SB(X)`$, $`S0`$.

###### Proof.

We will give a proof based on the properties of spatial derivatives, but we point out that a proof along the lines of that of Proposition 1.2 is also possible.

Replacing $`A`$ by $`\overline{X,X}`$ and $`B`$ by $`\overline{Y,Y}`$ we may assume that the modules are full. Let $`\pi :BB(H)`$ be an arbitrary representation of $`B`$ such that there exists a n.s.f. weight $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on $`L=\pi (B)^{\prime \prime }`$ such that $`\varphi =\mathrm{\Phi }\pi `$ and $`\sigma _t^\mathrm{\Phi }\pi =\pi \gamma _{\beta t}`$. We then consider the induced representations of $`B(Y)`$ on $`H_Y=Y_BH`$ and of $`B(X_AY)`$ on $`H_{XY}=X_AY_BH`$, and we consider the following von Neumann algebras

1. $`M=L^{}`$ in $`B(H)`$;
2. $`N_Y=B(Y)^{\prime \prime }`$, $`N_0=A^{\prime \prime }`$, and $`M_0=A^{}`$ in $`B(H_Y)`$;
3. $`N_{XY}=B(XY)^{\prime \prime }`$, $`N_X=B(X)^{\prime \prime }`$ in $`B(H_{XY})`$.

The algebra $`M`$ acts faithfully on $`H_Y`$ and $`H_{XY}`$, $`M_0`$ acts faithfully on $`H_{XY}=(H_Y)_X`$, and

$`N_Y^{}`$ $`=`$ $`M\text{in}B(H_Y);`$
$`N_{XY}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`M,N_X^{}=M_0\text{in}B(H_{XY}).`$
Choose a n.s.f. weight $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ on $`M`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }_Y`$ be the n.s.f. weight on $`N_Y`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Psi }_Y/\mathrm{\Phi }^{})^{it}=V_{\beta t}\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }^{})^{it}\text{on}H_Y.$$

Set $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\mathrm{\Psi }_Y|_{N_0}`$, so that $`\psi =\mathrm{\Psi }_0|_A`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{XY}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_X`$ be the n.s.f. weights on $`M_0`$, $`N_{XY}`$ and $`N_X`$, respectively, such that

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Psi }_0/\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Psi }_Y/\mathrm{\Phi }^{})\text{on}H_Y;`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Psi }_{XY}/\mathrm{\Phi }^{})^{it}`$ $`=`$ $`U_{\beta t}V_{\beta t}\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }^{})^{it}\text{on}H_{XY};`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Psi }_X/\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{})^{it}`$ $`=`$ $`U_{\beta t}\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Psi }_0/\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{})^{it}=\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Psi }_{XY}/\mathrm{\Phi }^{})^{it}\text{on}H_{XY},`$
so that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{XY}|_{B(XY)}=\kappa _\varphi ^{UV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_X|_{B(X)}=\kappa _\psi ^U`$. We have to prove that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{XY}|_{N_X}=\mathrm{\Psi }_X`$. Let $`E:N_YN_0`$ be the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_Y`$-preserving conditional expectation. By considering $`N_Y`$ and $`N_0`$ as subalgebras of $`B(H_Y)`$ we get an inverse operator-valued weight $`E^1:M_0M`$, cf \[H\] and \[St, Corollary 12.11\]. Then by considering $`M_0`$ and $`M`$ as subalgebras of $`B(H_{XY})`$ we get an operator-valued weight $`F=(E^1)^1:N_{XY}N_X`$. By definition

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Psi }_0/\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Psi }_Y/\mathrm{\Phi }^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Psi }_0E/\mathrm{\Phi }^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Psi }_0/\mathrm{\Phi }^{}E^1)\text{on}H_Y,$$

whence $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}E^1=\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{}`$. Then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Psi }_XF/\mathrm{\Phi }^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Psi }_X/\mathrm{\Phi }^{}E^1)=\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Psi }_X/\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Psi }_{XY}/\mathrm{\Phi }^{})\text{on}H_{XY},$$

so $`\mathrm{\Psi }_XF=\mathrm{\Psi }_{XY}`$. But the property of an operator-valued weight to have a conditional expectation as the inverse does not depend on the spatial realization, cf \[Ko, Theorem 2.2\]. Since $`E`$ is a conditional expectation, we conclude that $`F`$ is also a conditional expectation. Hence $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{XY}|_{N_X}=\mathrm{\Psi }_X`$. ∎

The characterization of KMS states of general quasi-free dynamics is similar to the case of trivial dynamics on the coefficient algebra, but requires the correspondence just established between the KMS weights on $`A`$ and those on $`K(X)`$.

###### Theorem 3.5.

Let $`\sigma `$ be a one-parameter automorphism group of a C-algebra $`A`$, $`U`$ a one-parameter group of isometries of a Hilbert $`A`$-bimodule $`X`$ such that $`U_t\xi ,U_t\zeta =\sigma _t(\xi ,\zeta )`$ and $`U_ta\xi =\sigma _t(a)U_t\xi `$, and denote by $`\gamma `$ the corresponding quasi-free dynamics on the Toeplitz algebra $`𝒯_X`$. For $`\beta `$, let $`F`$ be the operator mapping $`(\sigma ,\beta )`$-KMS states of $`A`$ into weights on $`A`$, defined by

$$F\varphi =\kappa _\varphi ^U|_A,$$

so that $`F\varphi `$ is a $`(\sigma ,\beta )`$-KMS weight on $`A`$ when it is densely defined. Then

1. if $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS state on $`𝒯_X`$, then $`\varphi =\mathrm{\Phi }|_A`$ is a $`(\sigma ,\beta )`$-KMS state on $`A`$ such that $`F\varphi \varphi `$;
2. if $`\varphi `$ is a $`(\sigma ,\beta )`$-KMS state on $`A`$ such that $`F\varphi \varphi `$, then there exists a unique gauge-invariant $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS state $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on $`𝒯_X`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }|_A=\varphi `$; if $`\varphi =_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}F^n\varphi _0`$, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\kappa _{\varphi _0}^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(U)}|_{𝒯_X}`$;
3. if $`U`$ satisfies the ’positive energy’ condition (i.e. the vectors $`\xi `$ such that $`\mathrm{Sp}_U(\xi )(0,+\mathrm{})`$ span a dense subspace of $`X`$), then any $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS state of $`𝒯_X`$ is gauge-invariant, so the mapping $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }|_A`$ defines a one-to-one correspondence between $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS states on $`𝒯_X`$ and $`(\sigma ,\beta )`$-KMS states $`\varphi `$ on $`A`$ such that $`F\varphi \varphi `$;
4. a $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-KMS state $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on $`𝒯_X`$ defines a state on $`𝒪_X`$ if and only if $`F\varphi =\varphi `$ on $`I_X`$, where $`\varphi =\mathrm{\Phi }|_A`$.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The SShG model can be considered as a perturbed super Liouville field theory, which lagrangian density is given by

$$=\frac{1}{8\pi }(_a\varphi )^2\frac{1}{2\pi }(\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi }+\psi \overline{}\psi )+i\mu b^2\psi \overline{\psi }e^{b\varphi }+\frac{\pi \mu ^2b^2}{2}e^{2b\varphi }.$$

with the background charge $`Q=b+1/b`$. This model is a CFT with central charge

$$c_{SL}=\frac{3}{2}(1+2Q^2).$$

The super Sinh-Gordon model is 1+1 dimensional integrable quantum field theory with $`N=1`$ supersymmetry. We consider the Lagrangian

$$=\frac{1}{8\pi }(_a\varphi )^2\frac{1}{2\pi }(\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi }+\psi \overline{}\psi )+2i\mu b^2\psi \overline{\psi }\mathrm{sinh}b\varphi +2\pi \mu ^2b^2\mathrm{cosh}^2b\varphi .$$

In this model the supersymmetry is spontaneously broken : the bosonic field becomes massive, but the Majorana fermion stays massless and plays the role of Goldstino. In the IR limit, the effective theory for the Goldstino is to the lowest order the Volkov-Akulov lagrangian

$`_{IR}=(\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi }+\psi \overline{}\psi ){\displaystyle \frac{4}{M^2}}(\psi \psi )(\overline{\psi }\overline{}\overline{\psi })+\mathrm{}`$ (1)
where supersymmetry is realized non linearly. The irrelevant operator along which the Super Liouville theory flows into Ising is the product of stress-energy tensor $`T\overline{T}=(\psi \psi )(\overline{\psi }\overline{}\overline{\psi })`$, which is the lowest dimension non derivative operator allowed by the symmetries. The dots include higher dimensional irrelevant operators.
The scattering in the left-left and right-right subchannels is trivial, but not in the right-left channel. The following scattering matrices were proposed in

$$S_{RR}(\theta )=S_{LL}(\theta ^{})=1,S_{RL}(\theta \theta ^{})=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\theta \theta ^{})i\mathrm{sin}\pi \nu }{\mathrm{sinh}(\theta \theta ^{})+i\mathrm{sin}\pi \nu },\nu b/Q.$$

For the right and left movers, the energy momentum is parametrized in terms of the rapidity variables $`\theta `$ and $`\theta ^{}`$ by $`p^0=p^1=\frac{M}{2}e^\theta `$ (and $`p^0=p^1=\frac{M}{2}e^\theta ^{}`$). The mass scale of the theory $`M^2`$ is equal to $`2\mathrm{sin}\pi \nu `$. The form factors222We refer the reader to  for a discussion on form factors in massless QFT. $`F_{r,l}(\theta _1,\theta _2,\mathrm{},\theta _r;\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{},\mathrm{},\theta _l^{})`$ are defined to be matrix elements of an operator between the vacuum and a set of asymptotics states. The form factor bootstrap approach  (developed originally for massive theories, but that turned out to be also an effective tool for massless theories ) leads to a system of linear functional relations for the matrix elements $`F_{r,l}`$; let us introduce the minimal form factors which have neither poles nor zeros in the strip $`0<\mathrm{}m\theta <\pi `$ and which are solutions of the equations $`f_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}(\theta )=f_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}(\theta +2i\pi )S_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}(\theta ),\alpha _i=R,L`$.
Then the general form factor is parametrized as follows:

$`F_{r,l}^\alpha (\theta _1,\theta _2,\mathrm{},\theta _r;\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{},\mathrm{},\theta _l^{})=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{1i<jr}{}}f_{RR}(\theta _i\theta _j){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}}f_{RL}(\theta _i\theta _j^{}){\displaystyle \underset{1i<jl}{}}f_{LL}(\theta _i^{}\theta _j^{})Q_{r,l}(\theta _1,\theta _2,\mathrm{}\theta _r;\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{},\mathrm{},\theta _l^{}),`$
and the function $`Q_{r,l}`$ depends on the operator considered. The $`RR`$ and $`LL`$ scattering formally behave as in the massive case, so annihilation poles occur in the $`RR`$ and $`LL`$ subchannel. This leads to the residue formula

$`\mathrm{Res}_{\theta _{12}=i\pi }F_{r,l}(\theta _1,\theta _2,\mathrm{},\theta _r;\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{},\mathrm{},\theta _l^{})=`$ (2)
$`2F_{r2,l}(\theta _3,\mathrm{},\theta _r;\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{},\mathrm{},\theta _l^{})\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{j=3}{\overset{r}{}}}S_{RR}(\theta _{2i}){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{l}{}}}S_{RL}(\theta _2\theta _k^{})\right),`$
and a similar expression in the $`LL`$ subchannel. It is important to note that these equations do not refer to any specific operator.

## 2 Expression for form factors

The minimal form factors read explicitly:

$$f_{RR}(\theta )=\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\theta }{2},f_{LL}(\theta ^{})=\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\theta ^{}}{2},$$

and

$$f_{RL}(\theta )=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\theta }{2}}\mathrm{exp}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{1}{2}\nu )t\mathrm{cosh}\frac{1}{2}t}{\mathrm{sinh}t\mathrm{cosh}t/2}\mathrm{cosh}t\left(1\frac{\theta }{i\pi }\right).$$

The latter form factor has asymptotic behaviour when $`\theta \mathrm{}`$

$`f(\theta )e^{\theta /2}\left(1+\left(A+A^{}\theta \right)e^\theta +\left({\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{2}}+B+AA^{}\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{(A^{})^2\theta ^2}{2}}\right)e^{2\theta }\right).`$ (3)
where $`A=(12\nu )\mathrm{cos}\pi \nu 1+2i\mathrm{sin}\pi \nu ,A^{}=\frac{2}{\pi }\mathrm{sin}\pi \nu ,B=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{cos}2\pi \nu 1)`$. The logarithmic contributions come from resonances.
The residue condition (2) written in terms of the function $`Q_{r,l}`$ reads

$`\mathrm{Res}_{\theta _{12}=i\pi }Q_{r,l}(\theta _1,\theta _2,\mathrm{}\theta _r;\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{},\mathrm{},\theta _l^{})=Q_{r2,l}(\theta _3,\mathrm{}\theta _r;\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{},\mathrm{},\theta _l^{})\times ()^{r1}(2i)^{l+r1}\times `$ (4)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{j=3}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}\theta _{2j}}}({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{l}{}}}(\mathrm{sinh}(\theta _2\theta _k^{})+i\mathrm{sin}\pi \nu )(1)^{r+l}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{l}{}}}(\mathrm{sinh}(\theta _2\theta _k^{})i\mathrm{sin}\pi \nu )).`$
Let us introduce now the functions

$`\varphi (\theta _{ij}){\displaystyle \frac{S_{RR}}{f_{RR}(\theta _{ij})f_{RR}(\theta _{ij}+i\pi )}}={\displaystyle \frac{2i}{\mathrm{sinh}\theta _{ij}}},\varphi (\theta _{ij}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{S_{LL}}{f_{LL}(\theta _{ij}^{})f_{LL}(\theta _{ij}^{}+i\pi )}}={\displaystyle \frac{2i}{\mathrm{sinh}\theta _{ij}^{}}}.`$
as well as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta _i\theta _j^{})`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{S_{RL}(\theta _i\theta _j^{})}{f_{RL}(\theta _i\theta _j^{})f_{RL}(\theta _i\theta _j^{}+i\pi )}}=2i\left(\mathrm{sinh}(\theta _i\theta _j^{})i\mathrm{sin}\pi \nu \right),`$
and

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\theta _i\theta _j^{})\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta _i\theta _j^{}+i\pi )=2i\left(\mathrm{sinh}(\theta _i\theta _j^{})+i\mathrm{sin}\pi \nu \right).`$
We assign odd $`Z_2`$-parity to both right and left-movers ($`\psi _R\psi _R,\psi _L\psi _L,\varphi \varphi )`$ and even (odd) parity to right (left) movers under duality transformations ($`\psi _R\psi _R,\psi _L\psi _L,\varphi \varphi ).`$

### 2.1 Neveu-Schwarz sector: trace of the stress-energy tensor

The operator $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ has non zero matrix elements on (even,even) number of particles. The first form factor is determined by using the Lagrangian: $`Q_{2,2}=4\pi M^2`$. We introduce the sets $`S=(1,\mathrm{},2r)`$ and $`S^{}=(1,\mathrm{},2l)`$, and propose

$`Q_{2r,2l}(\theta _1,\theta _2,\mathrm{}\theta _{2r};\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{},\mathrm{},\theta _{2l}^{})=`$
$`4\pi M^2{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{TS,}{\mathrm{\#}T=r1}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{T^{}S^{},}{\mathrm{\#}T^{}=l1}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{iT,}{k\overline{T}}}{}}\varphi (\theta _{ik}){\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{iT^{},}{k\overline{T}^{}}}{}}\varphi (\theta _{ik}^{}){\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{iT,}{k\overline{T}^{}}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta _i\theta _k^{}){\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{iT^{},}{k\overline{T}}}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\theta _k\theta _i^{})`$
where $`T,\overline{T}`$ are respectively subsets of $`S`$ and $`\overline{S}`$, the notation ’$`\mathrm{\#}`$’ stands for ’number of elements’, and by definition $`\overline{T}=S\backslash T`$, $`\overline{T^{}}=S^{}\backslash T^{}`$.
Let us show that this representation does indeed satisfy the residue condition (4): only two cases will contribute to this computation, namely when $`1T,2\overline{T}`$ and $`2T,1\overline{T}`$. It amounts to evaluate the residue at $`\theta _{12}=i\pi `$ of the quantity:

$`[\varphi (\theta _{12}){\displaystyle \underset{k\overline{T}\{2\}}{}}\varphi (\theta _{1k}){\displaystyle \underset{iT\{1\}}{}}\varphi (\theta _{i2}){\displaystyle \underset{k\overline{T}^{}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta _1\theta _k^{}){\displaystyle \underset{iT^{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\theta _2\theta _i^{})`$
$`+\varphi (\theta _{21}){\displaystyle \underset{k\overline{T}\{1\}}{}}\varphi (\theta _{2k}){\displaystyle \underset{iT\{2\}}{}}\varphi (\theta _{i1}){\displaystyle \underset{k\overline{T}^{}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta _2\theta _k^{}){\displaystyle \underset{iT^{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\theta _1\theta _i^{})]\times `$
$`\times 4\pi M^2{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{US\{1,2\},}{\mathrm{\#}U=r2}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{T^{}S^{},}{\mathrm{\#}T^{}=l1}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{iU,}{k\overline{U}}}{}}\varphi (\theta _{ik}){\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{iT^{},}{k\overline{T}^{}}}{}}\varphi (\theta _{ik}^{}){\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{iU,}{k\overline{T}^{}}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta _i\theta _k^{}){\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{iT^{},}{k\overline{U}}}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\theta _k\theta _i^{}).`$
The last line is nothing but $`Q_{2r2,2l}(\theta _3,\theta _4,\mathrm{}\theta _{2r};\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{},\mathrm{},\theta _{2l}^{})`$; the evaluation of the residue at $`\theta _{12}=i\pi `$ of the term into brackets gives explicitly

$`(2i)^{2r+2l1}{\displaystyle \underset{j=3}{\overset{2r}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}\theta _{2j}}}\left[(1)^{2r2}\times {\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{2l}{}}}(\mathrm{sinh}(\theta _2\theta _k^{})i\mathrm{sin}\pi \nu )(1)^{2l}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{2l}{}}}(\mathrm{sinh}(\theta _2\theta _k^{})+i\mathrm{sin}\pi \nu )\right],`$
and equation (4) is satisfied.
As a remark, we would like to note that the leading infrared behaviour of $`F_{2,2}`$ is given by $`T\overline{T}`$, which defines the direction of the flow in the IR region. To determine the subleading IR terms that appear in the expansion (1), one uses the asymptotic development for $`f_{RL}`$ given by equation (3). For example (up to the logarithmic terms):

$`f_{RL}(\theta _1\theta _1^{})f_{RL}(\theta _1\theta _2^{})f_{RL}(\theta _2\theta _1^{})f_{RL}(\theta _2\theta _2^{})e^{\theta _1+\theta _2\theta _1^{}\theta _2^{}}\times `$
$`[1+Ae^{\theta _1\theta _1^{}}+({\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{2}}+B)e^{2\theta _12\theta _1^{}}]\times [1+Ae^{\theta _1\theta _2^{}}+({\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{2}}+B)e^{2\theta _12\theta _2^{}}]\times `$
$`\left[1+Ae^{\theta _2\theta _1^{}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{2}}+B\right)e^{2\theta _22\theta _1^{}}\right]\times \left[1+Ae^{\theta _2\theta _2^{}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{2}}+B\right)e^{2\theta _22\theta _2^{}}\right].`$
The terms into brackets give

$`1+A(e^{\theta _1}+e^{\theta _2})(e^{\theta _1^{}}+e^{\theta _2^{}})+\left({\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{2}}+B\right)(e^{2\theta _12\theta _1^{}}+e^{2\theta _12\theta _2^{}}+e^{2\theta _22\theta _1^{}}+e^{2\theta _22\theta _2^{}})`$
$`+A^2(e^{2\theta _1\theta _1^{}\theta _2^{}}+e^{\theta _1+\theta _22\theta _1^{}}+e^{\theta _1+\theta _22\theta _2^{}}+e^{2\theta _2\theta _1^{}\theta _2^{}}+2e^{\theta _1+\theta _2\theta _1^{}\theta _2^{}})+\mathrm{}`$
$`=1+{\displaystyle \frac{A}{M^2}}L_1\overline{L}_1+{\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{2M^4}}L_1^2\overline{L}_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{B}{M^4}}L_2\overline{L}_2+\mathrm{}`$
where $`L_1=e^{\theta _1}+e^{\theta _2}`$ and $`L_2=e^{2\theta _1}+e^{2\theta _2}`$. So the next irrelevant operator appearing in (1) is $`T^2\overline{T}^2`$ (up to derivatives).

#### 2.1.1 Form factors of the energy operator $`ϵ`$.

The number of left movers and right movers is odd. Let $`S=(1,\mathrm{},2r+1),S^{}=(1,\mathrm{},2l+1)`$. The lowest form factor is $`Q_{1,1}=1`$. We propose

$`Q_{2r+1,2l+1}(\theta _1,\theta _2,\mathrm{}\theta _{2r+1};\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{},\mathrm{},\theta _{2l+1}^{})=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{TS,}{\mathrm{\#}T=r}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{T^{}S^{},}{\mathrm{\#}T^{}=l}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{iT,}{k\overline{T}}}{}}\varphi (\theta _{ik}){\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{iT^{},}{k\overline{T}^{}}}{}}\varphi (\theta _{ik}^{}){\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{iT,}{k\overline{T}^{}}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta _i\theta _k^{}){\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{iT^{},}{k\overline{T}}}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\theta _k\theta _i^{}).`$
The proof that this expression satisfies equation (4) is the same as above.

### 2.2 Ramond sector

#### 2.2.1 Order operator $`\sigma `$.

It has non vanishing matrix elements when the sum of left movers and right movers is odd. Let $`S=(1,\mathrm{},2r+1),S^{}=(1,\mathrm{},2l)`$. The lowest form factors are $`Q_{1,0}=Q_{0,1}=1`$. We propose:

$`Q_{2r+1,2l}(\theta _1,\theta _2,\mathrm{}\theta _{2r+1};\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{},\mathrm{},\theta _{2l}^{})=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{TS,}{\mathrm{\#}T=r}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{T^{}S^{},}{\mathrm{\#}T^{}=l}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{iT,}{k\overline{T}}}{}}\varphi (\theta _{ik}){\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{iT^{},}{k\overline{T}^{}}}{}}\varphi (\theta _{ik}^{}){\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{iT,}{k\overline{T}^{}}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta _i\theta _k^{}){\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{iT^{},}{k\overline{T}}}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\theta _k\theta _i^{})`$
#### 2.2.2 Disorder operator $`\mu `$.

It has non vanishing matrix elements when the sum of left and right movers is even. As it is explained in , there is an additional minus sign in front of the product of $`S`$ matrices in the residue condition (2).

* the number of left and right movers are both even
Let $`S=(1,\mathrm{},2r),S^{}=(1,\mathrm{},2l)`$ and the lowest form factor $`Q_{0,0}=1`$. We propose :

$`Q_{2r,2l}(\theta _1,\theta _2,\mathrm{}\theta _{2r};\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{},\mathrm{},\theta _{2l}^{})=`$
$`(i)^{r+l}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{TS,}{\mathrm{\#}T=r}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{T^{}S^{},}{\mathrm{\#}T^{}=l}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{iT,}{k\overline{T}}}{}}\varphi (\theta _{ik})e^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle \theta _{ki}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{iT^{},}{k\overline{T}^{}}}{}}\varphi (\theta _{ik}^{})e^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle \theta _{ik}^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{iT,}{k\overline{T}^{}}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta _i\theta _k^{}){\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{iT^{},}{k\overline{T}}}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\theta _k\theta _i^{})`$
* the number of left and right movers are both odd
Let $`S=(1,\mathrm{},2r+1),S^{}=(1,\mathrm{},2l+1)`$. The lowest form factor is $`Q_{1,1}=e^{\frac{\theta _1^{}\theta _1}{2}}`$. We propose:

$`Q_{2r+1,2l+1}(\theta _1,\theta _2,\mathrm{}\theta _{2r+1};\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{},\mathrm{},\theta _{2l+1}^{})=`$
$`(i)^{r+l}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{TS,}{\mathrm{\#}T=r}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{T^{}S^{},}{\mathrm{\#}T^{}=l}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{iT,}{k\overline{T}}}{}}\varphi (\theta _{ik})e^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle \theta _{ik}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{iT^{},}{k\overline{T}^{}}}{}}\varphi (\theta _{ik}^{})e^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle \theta _{ki}^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{iT,}{k\overline{T}^{}}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta _i\theta _k^{}){\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{iT^{},}{k\overline{T}}}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\theta _k\theta _i^{})`$

Let us note that the exponentials will be responsible for the additional minus sign in the residue condition (4).

#### 2.2.3 Remarks

* One can check that in the IR, the form factors of the operator $`𝒪=\sigma +\mu `$ satisfy the cluster property like an exponential of a bose field , for example:

$$𝒪_{r,l}(\theta _1,\theta _2,\mathrm{},\theta _r;\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{},\mathrm{},\theta _l^{})𝒪_{1,0}(\theta _1)𝒪_{r1,l}(\theta _2,\mathrm{},\theta _r;\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{},\mathrm{},\theta _l^{})\text{for}\theta _1\mathrm{}.$$
* The expressions for the form factors of $`\sigma `$ and $`\mu `$ give the expected leading IR behaviour : $`F_{r,l}^{IR}(\theta _1,\theta _2,\mathrm{},\theta _r;\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{},\mathrm{},\theta _l^{})_{i<j}\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\theta _{ij}}{2}\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\theta _{ij}^{}}{2}`$, where $`r+l`$ is odd for $`\sigma `$ and even for $`\mu `$.

## 3 Concluding remarks

We understand it is important to check the UV properties of the form factors proposed in this letter; we hope to present numerical checks in a future publication. As far as the operators $`\mathrm{\Theta },\sigma ,\mu `$ are concerned, we expect our representation to be the correct answer to the problem: indeed, the form factors of the operators $`\sigma `$ and $`\mu `$ have the expected leading IR behaviour; moreover we recover immediately the form factors of the operators $`\mathrm{\Theta },\sigma ,\mu `$ in the Tricritical Ising model perturbed by the subenergy that defines a massless flow to the Ising model , simply by replacing in our formulae $`S_{RL}`$ and $`f_{RL}`$ by their corresponding values that can be found in . We checked for a low number of particles that they correctly reproduce the results of  where the first form factors of the operators $`\mathrm{\Theta },\sigma ,\mu `$ are computed in terms of symmetric polynomials333The authors of  checked numerically the UV properties of their form factors, including the c-theorem.. We also obtained agreement (again for a low number of particles) with , where an expression quite similar to ours for the form factors of the operator $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is proposed (with an arbitrary number of intermediate particles). The case of the energy operator $`ϵ`$ could be slightly more tricky: although it is evoked in , only its lowest form factor with one left mover and one right mover is explicitly given there.
Finally, the representations we provide for the functions $`Q_{r,l}`$ are in principle general enough444Their architecture is very similar to the one found for the form factors of the operator $`e^{\alpha \varphi }`$ in the bosonic Sinh-Gordon model in , equ. (61) -let us recall that another representation in terms of determinant formula was first proposed in the prior work . to provide results for other massless models flowing to the Ising model, but where the $`S`$-matrix has a more complicated structure of resonance poles .

## Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Al.B. Zamolodchikov for suggesting the problem. Discussions with D. Bernard, V.A. Fateev, G. Mussardo, H. Saleur, F.A. Smirnov and especially G. Delfino are acknowledged. Work supported by the CEA and the Euclid Network HPRN-CT-2002-00325.