text:
# Radio Afterglows of Gamma-Ray Bursts: Unique Clues to the Energetics and Environments

## 1. Introduction

The afterglows of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are a broad-band phenomenon. As such, their study requires exquisite data from radio to X-rays. Still, in addition to complementary information, the radio band provides some unique diagnostics of the afterglow physics and burst environment. We illustrate this in Figure 1 which shows a heuristic radio lightcurve ranging in time from a few hours to hundreds of days after the burst. Here we concentrate on three unique aspects of radio observations: the non-relativistic expansion, the ability to probe the density and profile of the circumburst medium, and as a tracer of obscured star formation in GRB host galaxies. However, before delving into this discussion we quickly summarize the information in Figure 1 by way of introduction.

At present, even with response times to GRB alerts of minutes the radio bands provide the best way to study the synchrotron emission from the reverse shock (e.g. Soderberg & Ramirez-Ruiz 2002). Optical observations require response on the timescale of the burst duration and have been successfully made only three times (Akerlof et al. 1999; Kobayashi & Zhang 2002; Fox et al. 2002; Li et al. 2003). Only in the case of GRB 990123, the peak of the reverse shock emission was actually observed. In the radio bands on the other hand, emission from the reverse shock has been observed several times since the peak is more easily observable is $`tt_{\mathrm{dur}}\times (\nu _{\mathrm{rad}}/\nu _{\mathrm{opt}})^{48/73}1`$ day (Sari & Piran 1999). In addition, the mere detection of the reverse shock in the radio on the timescale of 1 day rules out a circumburst medium with a Wind (i.e. $`\rho r^2`$) density profile (Berger et al. 2003a).

By the same token, the typical response time prevents optical observers from catching the peak of the synchrotron emission from the forward shock. Thus, optical observations cannot constrain the peak flux which is required for inferring the physical parameters of the burst and environment (e.g. Berger et al. 2000). The radio bands directly trace these two parameters since the peak of the spectrum reaches the radio on the timescale of $`10`$ days. Moreover, only the radio bands trace synchrotron self-absorption, which is particularly sensitive to the density of the circumburst medium.

Perhaps the most unique aspect of the radio emission is the existence of propagation effects in the form of interstellar scintillation. A detailed discussion of scintillation is beyond the scope of this review, but it serves as a unique way to “resolve” the afterglow and infer the size of the fireball over time (e.g. Frail, Waxman & Kulkarni 2000).

Radio observations are also well-suited for inferring the opening angles of wide jets. The signature of a collimated outflow is a break in the lightcurves occurring when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\theta _j^1`$ (Rhoads 1997); for wide jets the break occurs at late time. Unfortunately, on such timescales the host galaxy masks the optical afterglow and the break cannot be inferred from this band. In the radio, on the other hand, the emission usually peaks on the timescale of about 10 days so wide jets are easily studied (Berger et al. 2001).

The dominance of the optical host galaxy at late time in addition to the faint X-ray afterglow indicate that only the radio bands allow us to study the long-term behavior of the afterglow. In several cases we have observed radio afterglows over a year after the burst. One effect, which is readily detectable if the afterglow is bright enough, is the transition from relativistic to sub-relativistic expansion (Frail et al. 2000). Depending on the initial kinetic energy of the ejecta and the density of the ambient medium, this occurs on the timescale of $`100`$ days (Figure 1 and §2.).

Finally, as the radio emission fades significantly we may detect emission from the host galaxy. In all cases in which a radio host has been detected (e.g. Berger et al. 2003b) the inferred star formation rates are several hundred of M yr-1, indicating significant dust obscuration (§4.).

To summarize, radio observations probe the evolution of the fireball over a factor of $`10^3`$ in time. Below we focus on the information that can be gleaned from these unique observations for the study of GRB energetics and environments.

## 2. The Non-Relativistic Evolution: Fireball Calorimetry

Recent work has shown that the beaming-corrected $`\gamma `$-ray and kinetic energies of GRBs are approximately constant (Frail et al. 2001; Berger, Kulkarni & Frail. 2003). The latter, however, is inferred without knowledge of what this constant energy actually is. Instead, the kinetic energy in the afterglow phase can be inferred from broad-band observations (e.g. Panaitescu & Kumar 2002). In reality this requires exquisite data and assumptions about the hydrodynamics of the fireball which are yet to be verified.

Fortunately, radio observations at late time provide an alternative method. The principle is simple. As the fireball decelerates it eventually becomes trans- and then non-relativistic. This typically happens on the timescale of $`100`$ days when the peak of the synchrotron spectrum is in the radio bands. A simple signature of the transition from relativistic to sub-relativistic expansion is a flattening of the radio lightcurves compared to the jet evolution (Figure 2). Analyzing the subset of radio data following this transition in the Sedov-Taylor self-similar framework we can infer the energy, density, magnetic field strength, and size of the fireball. This method has the principle attraction that the dynamics of the spherical, non-relativistic fireball are better understood than those of relativistic expanding jets.

To date this method has been applied to two bursts, GRB 970508 (Frail et al. 2000) and GRB 980703 (Berger et al. in prep). In both cases energies of about $`10^{50}`$ erg have been inferred, in agreement with other methods. One possibility which is currently being investigated is whether there is evidence for evolution of the fireball parameters between the early observations and the late non-relativistic stage.

## 3. The Circumburst Environment: ISM vs. Wind

One of the indirect clues to the identity of GRB progenitors is the structure and density of the circumburst medium. If the progenitors are massive stars then we expect them to explode in the dense media of their birth sites. Moreover, the pre-burst stellar mass loss is expected to influence the environment, resulting (in the most simple case) in a density profile $`\rho r^2`$. On the other hand, if GRBs arise from delayed mergers of compact source binaries then the environment is expected to be the tenuous ISM of the host galaxy. This is because velocity kicks imparted to the system in the supernova explosion of the binary members will eject it away from the birth-site.

Extensive efforts have been made to infer the density and profile of the circumburst medium primarily by studying the broad-band afterglow emission (e.g. Chevalier & Li 2000). Unfortunately, these studies have been inconclusive in distinguishing between Wind and ISM density profiless due primarily to the lack of early radio and submillimeter observations, or in some cases their preclusion from the analysis.

There are two clear exceptions to this disappointing trend, which in conjunction present an interesting conundrum. In the case of GRB 011121 Price et al. (2002) inferred a Wind medium thanks to dual-band radio observations. At the same time, Bloom et al. (2002) interpreted the late-time red bump in the optical afterglow as a supernova that exploded at the same time as the burst. These observations naturally point to a massive star as the progenitor of this burst. On the other hand, for GRB 020405, Berger et al. (2003a) showed that the reverse shock emission detected at $`t1`$ day in the radio bands rules out a Wind medium. However, this burst also had an associated red bump indicative of a supernova (Price et al. 2003) and hence a massive stellar progenitor.

These results imply that contrary to the optimistic expectations of afterglow modelers, a Wind profile does not necessarily accompany a massive progenitor and may not be a strong clue to the nature of the progenitor. Still, the inference of Wind vs. ISM profile relies heavily on radio observations.

## 4. The Large-Scale Environment: Host Galaxies and Obscured Star Formation

The host galaxies of GRBs can be used as a complementary and perhaps quite promising sample for the study of cosmic star formation:
Redshifts: Thanks to the bright afterglows, the redshift of the host galaxy can be determined regardless of its brightness, via absorption spectroscopy.
Faint (Dwarf) Hosts: Some GRB host galaxies are several orders of magnitude fainter than $`L_{}`$ and provide us with a glimpse of faint dwarfs at high redshift.
Immunity to Dust: The dust-penetrating power of GRBs results in a sample that is independent of the dust properties of the individual galaxies.
Very High Redshifts: GRBs are detectable to $`z>10`$ (should they exist).

To date, GRB host galaxies have mainly been studied in the optical and NIR bands. With the exception of one source (GRB 020124; Berger et al. 2002), every GRB localized to a sub-arcsecond position has been associated with a star-forming galaxy, with star formation rates of $`110`$ M yr-1.

On the other hand, recent radio and submillimeter observations (Berger, Kulkarni & Frail 2001; Frail et al. 2002; Berger et al. 2003b) have revealed that about 20% of GRB hosts are ultra-luminous with star formation rates of several hundred of M yr-1, indicating significant dust obscuration (Figure 3). While these properties are similar to those of submillimeter-selected galaxies (Chapman et al. 2002) the $`RK`$ colors of GRB hosts are significantly bluer (Figure 3). Exactly what this means is still not clear (one possibility is younger starbursts), but it is evident that GRBs probe a portion of the galaxy population that is completely missed in current submillimeter surveys.

While the present GRB sample is significantly smaller than the Lyman-break or submillimeter samples, SWIFT should supply us with several hundred GRB host galaxies. This sample may provide a new window to the evolution of cosmic star formation.

### Acknowledgments.

We wish to thank numerous collaborators, in particular Dale Frail and Shri Kulkarni, and support from NSF and NASA grants.

## References

Akerlof, C. W., et al. 1999, Nature, 398, 400

Berger, E., et al. 2000, ApJ, 545, 56

Berger, E., et al. 2001, ApJ, 556, 556

Berger, E., Kulkarni, S. R. & Frail, D. A. 2001, ApJ, 560, 652

Berger, E., et al. 2002, ApJ, 581, 981

Berger, E., et al. 2003a, ApJ, 587, L5

Berger, E., et al. 2003b, ApJ in press; astro-ph/0210645

Berger, E., Kulkarni, S. R. & Frail, D. A. 2003, ApJ in press; astro-ph/0301268

Bloom, J. S., et al. 2002, ApJ, 572, L45

Chevalier, R. A. & Li, Z. 2000, ApJ, 536, 195

Fox, D. W., et al. 2002, Nature, 422, 284

Frail, D. A., Waxman, E. & Kulkarni, S. R. 2000, ApJ, 537, 191

Frail, D. A., et al. 2001, ApJ, 562, L55

Frail, D. A., et al. 2002, ApJ, 565, 829

Kobayashi,S. & Zhang, B. 2002, ApJ, 582, L75

Li, W., et al. 2003, ApJ, 586, L9

Panaitescu, A. & Kumar, P. 2002, ApJ, 571, 779

Price, P. A., et al. 2002, ApJ, 572, L51

Price, P. A., et al. 2003, ApJ in press; astro-ph/0208008

Rhoads, J. E. 1997, ApJ, 487, L1

Sari, R. & Piran, T. 1999, ApJ, 517, L109

Soderberg, A. M. & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2002; astro-ph/0210524


format: text

text:
# Hamiltonian operators and ℓ^∗-coverings

## Introduction

We describe a method of constructing Hamiltonian structures for nonlinear evolution equations (or systems of such equations). The method is based on two concepts: the *variational Schouten bracket* and the *$`\mathrm{}^{}`$-covering* over a nonlinear PDE.

In Section 1, we expose some general facts concerning the geometry of super PDE. In Section 2, we construct the variational Schouten bracket on a super version of Kupershmidt’s cotangent bundle to a bundle and, following , obtain an explicit formula for this bracket. In Section 3, simple computational formulas are deduced to check the Hamiltonianity of a bivector and compatibility of two Hamiltonian structures. Using the Schouten bracket, we define Hamiltonian evolution equations (including the cases when the Hamiltonian operator $`A`$ may depend explicitly on time while the equation itself may not possess a Hamiltonian functional). This definition is equivalent to the operator equality

$$\mathrm{}_{}A+A\mathrm{}_{}^{}=0,$$

where $`\mathrm{}_{}`$ is the linearization of the equation and $`\mathrm{}_{}^{}`$ is the adjoint operator. To solve this equation, we introduce the notion of $`\mathrm{}_{}^{}`$-covering (which is a particular case of a more general construction introduced in Section 4) and show that to any operator $`A`$ satisfying the above equation there corresponds a function $`s`$ on the $`\mathrm{}_{}^{}`$-covering such that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{}(s)=0`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{}`$ is the lifting of the linearization operator for $``$ to the $`\mathrm{}_{}^{}`$-covering. In other words, the operators we are interested in are identified with shadows of nonlocal symmetries (of a special type) in the $`\mathrm{}_{}^{}`$-covering.

The reason to introduce the concept of $`\mathrm{}^{}`$-covering is two-fold. First, as it was just indicated, it allows to reduce construction of Hamiltonian structures to computation of symmetries (with a subsequent check of additional conditions) for which a number of efficient software packages exists. Second, to our opinion, this point of view gives a new and fruitful insight into the theory of Hamiltonian structures for partial differential equations.

In Sections 5 and 6, these methods are applied to the known examples of the KdV equation and the Boussinesq system. In Section 7, we construct a Hamiltonian structure for the coupled KdV-mKdV system . We also prove that this structure is unique in the class of $`(x,t)`$-independent polynomial structures. Nevertheless, extending the initial setting with certain nonlocal variables, we find another Hamiltonian operator that serves a Hamiltonian structure for ‘higher’ coupled KdV-mKdV equations. This structure is compatible with the local one. It is to be noted that the theory of nonlocal Hamiltonian structures is not sufficiently developed yet and needs additional research.

In the Appendix, we briefly recall the construction of the recursion operator for the coupled KdV-mKdV system (obtained earlier in ) by which the above mentioned Hamiltonian structures are related to each other.

## 1. Generalities: Jet bundles and differential equations

Let us formulate the main definitions and results we will use. For more details we refer to .

### 1.1. Jet bundles

Let $`\pi :EM`$ be a vector bundle over an $`n`$-dimensional base manifold $`M`$ and $`\pi _{\mathrm{}}:J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi )M`$ be the infinite jet bundle of local sections of the bundle $`\pi `$.

In coordinate language, if $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$$`u^1,\mathrm{},u^m`$ are coordinates on $`E`$ such that $`x_i`$ are base coordinates and $`u^j`$ are fiber ones, then $`\pi _{\mathrm{}}:J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi )M`$ is an infinite-dimensional vector bundle with fiber coordinates $`u_\tau ^j`$, where $`\tau =i_1\mathrm{}i_{\left|\tau \right|}`$ is a symmetric multi-index.

Now, we generalize the definition of the jet bundle to the case of *superbundles*.

###### Definition 1.

Let $`E`$ be a supermanifold of superdimension $`(n+m_0)|m_1`$, and $`\pi :EM`$ be a vector bundle over an $`n`$-dimensional even manifold $`M`$. If $`\pi `$ is split into the direct sum of two vector subbundles $`\pi =\pi ^0\pi ^1`$ such that the fibers of $`\pi ^0`$ are even and the fibers of $`\pi ^1`$ are odd, then we say that $`\pi `$ (along with the splitting) is a *superbundle*.

For a superbundle $`\pi `$, we define the *infinite jet superbundle $`\pi _{\mathrm{}}:J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi )M`$* by setting:

$`(\pi _{\mathrm{}})^0`$ $`=(\pi ^0)_{\mathrm{}},`$
$`(\pi _{\mathrm{}})^1`$ $`=(((\pi ^1)^\mathrm{\Pi })_{\mathrm{}})^\mathrm{\Pi },`$
where the superscript Π denotes the reversion of parity.

Denote by $`(\pi )`$ the superalgebra of smooth functions on $`J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi )`$.

###### Remark 1.

By definition, we have

$$(\pi )=(\pi ^0)_{C^{\mathrm{}}(M)}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(_{\text{lin}}((\pi ^1)^\mathrm{\Pi })),$$

where $`_{\text{lin}}()()`$ is the subspace of functions linear along fibers.

In what follows we shall use the term ‘bundle’ to mean ‘superbundle’.

### 1.2. The Cartan distribution

Consider a bundle $`\pi :EM`$ and define the *$`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$-supermodule $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi )`$* of its ‘sections’ as follows. If $`\pi `$ is even, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi )`$ is the module of sections of $`\pi `$. If $`\pi `$ is a general superbundle, then we put $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi )=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi )^0\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi )^1`$, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi )^0=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ^0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi )^1=(\mathrm{\Gamma }((\pi ^1)^\mathrm{\Pi }))^\mathrm{\Pi }`$.

###### Remark 2.

Thus, in line with our definition of jets of superbundles, we define elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi )`$ to be pairs of sections of $`\pi ^0`$ and $`\pi ^1`$.

Next, we note that every fiberwise linear function $`f`$ on infinite jets $`J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi )`$ can be naturally identified with a linear differential operator $`_f:\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi )C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ and vice versa. Indeed, for even bundle $`\pi `$ the correspondence is given by the relation

$$_f(s)(a)=f(j_{\mathrm{}}(s)(a)),$$

where $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi )`$, $`j_{\mathrm{}}(s)`$ is the infinite jet of $`s`$, $`aM`$. The general case reduces to the even one, since $`_{\text{lin}}(\pi )=_{\text{lin}}(\pi ^0(\pi ^1)^\mathrm{\Pi })`$.

###### Remark 3.

The maps

$`j_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`:\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ^0)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi _{\mathrm{}}^0),`$
$`j_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`:\mathrm{\Gamma }((\pi ^1)^\mathrm{\Pi })\mathrm{\Gamma }((\pi _{\mathrm{}}^1)^\mathrm{\Pi })`$
give rise to a map of supermodules $`j_{\mathrm{}}:\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi _{\mathrm{}})`$.

The infinite jet bundle $`\pi _{\mathrm{}}:J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi )M`$ admits a natural flat connection such that the lift $`\widehat{X}`$ of a vector field $`X`$ on $`M`$ is uniquely defined by the condition

$$_{\widehat{X}(f)}=X_f,f_{\text{lin}}(\pi ).$$

In coordinates, the lift of $`/x_i`$ is the $`i`$th *total derivative*

$$\frac{\widehat{}}{x_i}=D_i=\frac{}{x_i}+\underset{j,\tau }{}u_{\tau i}^j\frac{}{u_\tau ^j}.$$

Vector fields of the form $`\widehat{X}`$ generate an $`n`$-dimensional distribution on $`J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi )`$ called the *Cartan distribution* and denoted by $`𝒞(\pi )`$. Obviously, the Cartan distribution is Frobenious in the sense that $`[𝒞(\pi ),𝒞(\pi )]𝒞(\pi )`$. In coordinate language, the Cartan distribution is spanned by the total derivatives.

### 1.3. Horizontal calculus and evolutionary fields

Let $`\xi :BM`$ be a vector bundle and $`\pi _{\mathrm{}}^{}(\xi ):B\times _MJ^{\mathrm{}}(\pi )J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi )`$ its pullback along $`\pi _{\mathrm{}}`$. The $`C^{\mathrm{}}(J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi ))`$-supermodule $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi _{\mathrm{}}^{}(\xi ))`$ is defined as above: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi _{\mathrm{}}^{}(\xi ))=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\xi )_{C^{\mathrm{}}(M)}C^{\mathrm{}}(J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi ))`$, if $`\xi `$ is even, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi _{\mathrm{}}^{}(\xi ))=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi _{\mathrm{}}^{}(\xi ))^0\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi _{\mathrm{}}^{}(\xi ))^1`$, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi _{\mathrm{}}^{}(\xi ))^0=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi _{\mathrm{}}^{}(\xi )^0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi _{\mathrm{}}^{}(\xi ))^1=(\mathrm{\Gamma }((\pi _{\mathrm{}}^{}(\xi )^1)^\mathrm{\Pi }))^\mathrm{\Pi }`$ if $`\xi `$ is a general superbundle.

###### Definition 2.

A $`C^{\mathrm{}}(J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi ))`$-(super)module $`P`$ of the form $`P=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi _{\mathrm{}}^{}(\xi ))`$ is said to be a *horizontal module*.

###### Example 1 (horizontal forms).

Let $`\xi `$ be the $`q`$th exterior degree of the cotangent bundle to $`M`$. The corresponding horizontal module $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi _{\mathrm{}}^{}(\xi ))`$ is called the module of *horizontal forms* and is denoted by $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^q(\pi )`$. In coordinates, horizontal forms are generated by the forms $`fdx_{i_1}\mathrm{}dx_{i_q}`$, $`f(\pi )`$.

###### Definition 3.

Let $`P`$ and $`Q`$ be $`C^{\mathrm{}}(J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi ))`$-(super)modules. A map $`\mathrm{\Delta }:PQ`$ is called *$`𝒞`$-differential operator* (or *horizontal operator*) if it can be written as a sum of compositions of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi ))`$-linear maps and vector fields of the form $`\widehat{X}`$.

In coordinates, $`𝒞`$-differential operators are total derivatives operators.

###### Example 2 (the horizontal de Rham complex).

We define the first horizontal de Rham differential $`\overline{d}:(\pi )\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1(\pi )=\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(M)_{C^{\mathrm{}}(M)}(\pi )`$ by the formula $`\overline{d}(f)(X)=\widehat{X}(f)`$. In coordinates, we have $`\overline{d}(f)=_iD_i(f)dx_i`$.

The general horizontal differential $`\overline{d}:\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^q(\pi )\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{q+1}(\pi )`$ is defined by the usual rules:

$`\overline{d}\overline{d}`$ $`=0,`$
$`\overline{d}(\omega _1\omega _2)`$ $`=\overline{d}\omega _1\omega _2+(1)^q\omega _1\overline{d}\omega _2,\omega _1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^q(\pi ).`$
The differential $`\overline{d}`$ is a $`𝒞`$-differential operator.

The cohomology of the horizontal de Rham complex

$$0\stackrel{}{}(\pi )\stackrel{\overline{d}}{}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1(\pi )\stackrel{\overline{d}}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{\overline{d}}{}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^n(\pi )\stackrel{}{}0$$

are called *horizontal cohomology* and denoted by $`\overline{H}^q(\pi )`$. From Vinogradov’s ‘one line theorem’  it follows that $`\overline{H}^q(\pi )=H^q(M)`$ for $`qn1`$.

All $`𝒞`$-differential operators from $`P`$ to $`Q`$ form a $`C^{\mathrm{}}(J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi ))`$-(super)module denoted by $`𝒞\mathrm{Diff}(P,Q)`$.

Clearly, if $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are horizontal, then so is $`𝒞\mathrm{Diff}(P,Q)`$.

Given a horizontal module $`P`$, let us define the *horizontal infinite jet bundle* $`\pi _P:\overline{J}^{\mathrm{}}(P)J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi )`$ as follows. If $`P`$ is even, then the fiber of $`\overline{J}^{\mathrm{}}(P)`$ over $`\theta J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi )`$ consists of equivalence classes, denoted by $`\overline{ȷ}(p)(\theta )`$, of elements $`pP`$. Two elements $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are equivalent if their total derivatives of all orders coincide at $`\theta `$. For a general horizontal supermodule $`P`$, we as always define $`\pi _P^0=\pi _{P^0}`$ and $`\pi _P^1=\pi _{(P^1)^\mathrm{\Pi }}^\mathrm{\Pi }`$. Correspondingly, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi _P)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi _{P^0})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi _{(P^1)^\mathrm{\Pi }})^\mathrm{\Pi }`$.

Clearly, the horizontal jet bundle $`\pi _P:\overline{J}^{\mathrm{}}(P)J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi )`$, $`P=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi _{\mathrm{}}^{}(\xi ))`$, is isomorphic to the pullback $`\pi _{\mathrm{}}^{}(\xi _{\mathrm{}}):J^{\mathrm{}}(\xi )\times _MJ^{\mathrm{}}(\pi )J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi )`$ and, thus, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi _P)`$ is a horizontal module.

Similarly to Remark 3, we have the natural operator $`\overline{ȷ}_{\mathrm{}}:P\overline{J}^{\mathrm{}}(P)`$.

For every $`𝒞`$-differential operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }:PQ`$ there exists a unique homomorphism of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi ))`$-supermodules $`h_\mathrm{\Delta }:\overline{J}^{\mathrm{}}(P)\overline{J}^{\mathrm{}}(Q)`$ such that the diagram

is commutative.

Let us recall the definition of adjoint operator. Consider $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒞\mathrm{Diff}(P_1,P_2)`$. The *adjoint operator* $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}𝒞\mathrm{Diff}(\widehat{P}_2,\widehat{P}_1)`$, $`\widehat{P}=\mathrm{Hom}_{(\pi )}(P,\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^n(\pi ))`$, is uniquely defined by the equality111Here and below, symbols used at the exponents of $`(1)`$ stand for the corresponding parity.

$$\widehat{p},\mathrm{\Delta }(p)=(1)^{\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{p}}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\widehat{p}),p,\widehat{p}\widehat{P}_2,pP_1,$$
(1)
where $`,`$ is the natural pairing $`\widehat{P}\times P\overline{H}^n(\pi )`$.

In coordinates, we have

$$\underset{\tau }{}a_{ij}^\tau D_\tau ^{}=\underset{\tau }{}(1)^{\left|\tau \right|}D_\tau a_{ij}^\tau ^{\text{st}},$$

where $`a_{ij}^\tau (\pi )`$, the superscript ‘st’ denotes the supertransposition, and $`D_\tau =D_{i_1}\mathrm{}D_{i_{\left|\tau \right|}}`$ for $`\tau =i_1\mathrm{}i_{\left|\tau \right|}`$.

Equivalently, adjoint operator can be defined using the following fact. Consider a horizontal module $`P`$ and the natural complex

$$\begin{array}{c}0\stackrel{}{}𝒞\mathrm{Diff}(P,(\pi ))\stackrel{}{}𝒞\mathrm{Diff}(P,\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1(\pi ))\stackrel{}{}𝒞\mathrm{Diff}(P,\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2(\pi ))\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{}\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{}{}𝒞\mathrm{Diff}(P,\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{n1}(\pi ))\stackrel{}{}𝒞\mathrm{Diff}(P,\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^n(\pi ))\stackrel{}{}0\end{array}$$

with the differential $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Denote its cohomology by $`H^q(P)`$. We have

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}H^q(P)=0\hfill & \text{ for }0<q<n\hfill \\ H^n(P)=\widehat{P}.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(2)
Each $`𝒞`$-differential operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }:PQ`$ gives rise to a cochain map between two such complexes. The corresponding map of the $`n`$th cohomology $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}:\widehat{Q}\widehat{P}`$ is the adjoint operator. Note that the natural projection $`\mu :𝒞\mathrm{Diff}(P,\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^n(\pi ))\widehat{P}`$ has the form $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(1)`$.

Recall the most important properties of adjoint operators:

1. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ are of equal parity;
2. $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2)^{}=(1)^{\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2}\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}`$;
3. $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (here we identify $`\widehat{\widehat{P}}`$ and $`P`$).

A vector field $`Z`$ on $`J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi )`$ is called *vertical* if $`Z|_{C^{\mathrm{}}(M)}=0`$. For a horizontal module $`P`$ a vertical field $`Z`$ generates a natural action $`Z:PP`$, which in coordinates is the component-wise action.

A vertical vector field $`Z`$ is said to be *evolutionary* if $`[Z,\widehat{X}]=0`$ for all vector fields $`X`$ on $`M`$.

It is easy to see that evolutionary fields are uniquely determined by their restrictions to $`_{\text{lin}}(E)`$, where $`E`$ is the space of the bundle $`\pi :EM`$. Moreover, the map $`ZZ|_{_{\text{lin}}(E)}`$ is a bijection between the set of all evolutionary fields and $`\mathrm{Hom}_{C^{\mathrm{}}(M)}(_{\text{lin}}(E),(\pi ))`$. We identify $`\mathrm{Hom}_{C^{\mathrm{}}(M)}(_{\text{lin}}(E),(\pi ))`$ with the horizontal module $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi _{\mathrm{}}^{}(\pi ))`$ and denote it by $`\varkappa (\pi )`$.

In coordinate language, the evolutionary field that corresponds to a vector function $`\phi =(\phi ^1,\mathrm{},\phi ^m)`$ has the form

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi =\underset{j,\tau }{}D_\tau (\phi ^j)\frac{}{u_\tau ^j}.$$

Let $`P`$ be a horizontal module. The *linearization* of an element $`FP`$ is a $`𝒞`$-differential operator $`\mathrm{}_F:\varkappa (\pi )P`$ defined by the formula

$$\mathrm{}_F(\phi )=(1)^{F\phi }\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi (F).$$

Denote by the square brackets the horizontal cohomology class of a horizontal form. Since evolutionary fields commute with the horizontal differential, the cohomology class $`[\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi (\omega )]`$ for $`\omega \overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^n(\pi )`$ is well defined by $`[\omega ]`$; denote it by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi ([\omega ])`$. By (1) we have

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi ([\omega ])=[\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi (\omega )]=(1)^{\phi \omega }[\mathrm{}_\omega (\phi )]=\phi ,\mathrm{}_\omega ^{}(1)=\phi ,(\omega ),$$

where $`:\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^n(\pi )\widehat{\varkappa }(\pi )`$, $`(\omega )=\mathrm{}_\omega ^{}(1)`$, is the *Euler operator*, which takes Lagrangians to the corresponding Euler-Lagrange equations. Of course, the value $`(\omega )`$ is completely determined by the cohomology class $`[\omega ]`$.

In coordinates, $`(Ldx^1\mathrm{}dx^n)=(\delta L/\delta u^1,\mathrm{},\delta L/\delta u^m)`$, where $`\delta L/\delta u^j=_\tau (1)^{\left|\tau \right|}D_\tau (L/u_\tau ^j)`$.

###### Remark 4.

From Vinogradov’s ‘one-line theorem’  it follows that

1. $`\mathrm{ker}/\overline{d}(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{n1}(\pi ))=H^n(M)`$;
2. $`\psi \mathrm{im}`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{}_\psi ^{}=\mathrm{}_\psi `$.

### 1.4. Differential equations

Again, consider an element $`F`$ of a horizontal module $`P`$. The locus

$$^{\mathrm{}}=\{\overline{ȷ}_{\mathrm{}}(F)=0\}J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi )$$

is called *differential equation* defined by $`F`$. We assume that the natural map $`^{\mathrm{}}M`$ is a subbundle of the bundle $`\pi :J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi )M`$. The restriction of the Cartan distribution to $`^{\mathrm{}}`$ is denoted by $`𝒞()`$. Clearly, $`dim𝒞()=dim𝒞=n`$.

###### Example 3 (evolution equations).

Consider the bundle $`\overline{\pi }:E\times M\times `$. Denote the coordinate along $``$ by $`t`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Phi }=D_t/t`$ is a canonical evolutionary field on $`J^{\mathrm{}}(\overline{\pi })`$. In coordinates, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(u_t^1,\mathrm{},u_t^m)`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\phi (t)}`$ be a family of evolutionary fields on $`J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi )`$. The equation $`^{\mathrm{}}J^{\mathrm{}}(\overline{\pi })`$ given by the element $`F=\mathrm{\Phi }\phi (t)\varkappa (\overline{\pi })`$ is called *evolution equation*. In coordinates, it has the form $`u_t=\phi (t)`$. Note that $`^{\mathrm{}}=J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi )\times `$, with the Cartan distribution generated by that on $`J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi )`$ and the field $`D_t=/t+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\phi (t)}`$.

The restriction of the linearization $`\mathrm{}_F`$ to the equation $`^{\mathrm{}}`$ is called the *linearization of $`^{\mathrm{}}`$* and is denoted by $`\mathrm{}_{}:\varkappa P`$, where $`\varkappa =\varkappa (\pi )|_{^{\mathrm{}}}`$.

An evolutionary field tangent to $`^{\mathrm{}}`$ is said to be a *symmetry* of the equation. Obviously, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi `$ is a symmetry if and only if $`\mathrm{}_{}(\phi )=0`$, $`\phi \varkappa `$.

The horizontal de Rham complex on $`J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi )`$ can be restricted to $`^{\mathrm{}}`$. Its cohomology are called *horizontal cohomology of equation $`^{\mathrm{}}`$* and denoted by $`\overline{H}^q()`$. Elements of $`\overline{H}^{n1}()/H^{n1}(M)`$ are *conservation laws* of $`^{\mathrm{}}`$. If the equation at hand satisfies the conditions of Vinogradov’s ‘two-line theorem’  then there is an inclusion $`i:\overline{H}^{n1}()/H^{n1}(M)\mathrm{ker}\mathrm{}_{}^{}`$. The element $`i(\eta )\mathrm{ker}\mathrm{}_{}^{}\widehat{P}`$ that corresponds to conservation law $`\eta `$ is called its *generating function*.

In particular, evolution equations satisfy the conditions of the two-line theorem. In this case, $`i(\eta )=(\eta _0)`$, where $`\eta =\eta _0+\eta _1dt`$, $`\eta _0\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{n1}()`$, $`\eta _1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{n2}()`$. Thus, to find conservation laws of an evolution equation one has to solve the equation $`\mathrm{}_{}^{}(\psi )=0`$ and choose those solutions $`\psi `$ that fulfill the condition $`\mathrm{}_\psi =\mathrm{}_\psi ^{}`$.

Let $`^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be two differential equations. A surjective map $`\tau :\stackrel{~}{}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is called *covering* if it preserves the Cartan distribution.

###### Example 4.

A horizontal jet bundle $`\pi _P:\overline{J}^{\mathrm{}}(P)J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi )`$ is a covering. A generalization of this example will be discussed in Section 4.

###### Example 5.

Let $`^{\mathrm{}}`$ be given by an element $`F`$. Consider equation $`\stackrel{~}{}^{\mathrm{}}`$

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}F=0,\hfill & \\ r/x_1=g_1,\hfill & \\ & \\ r/x_n=g_n,\hfill & \end{array}$$
(3)
where $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_n`$ are functions of $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ and $`u_\sigma ^j`$. If the compatibility condition

$$D_i(g_j)=D_j(g_i)\text{ on }^{\mathrm{}}\overline{d}\eta |_{^{\mathrm{}}}=0\text{ }\eta =_ig_idx_i\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1()$$
(4)
holds true, then the natural projection $`\tau :\stackrel{~}{}^{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is epimorphic. Obviously, $`\tau `$ preserves the Cartan distribution, so that it is a covering. Thus, each closed horizontal $`1`$-form gives rise to a covering of the form (3). In particular, when $`n=2`$, condition (4) means that $`\eta `$ represents a conservation law of $`^{\mathrm{}}`$. The new dependent variable $`r`$ is called *nonlocal variable*.

In a similar way, we can define a covering over $`\stackrel{~}{}^{\mathrm{}}`$ corresponding to a closed one-form on this equation, etc. In this manner we construct particular coverings in Sections 57.

Clearly, each $`𝒞`$-differential operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on $`^{\mathrm{}}`$ can be lifted to a $`𝒞`$-differential operator $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{}^{\mathrm{}}`$. In particular, we have the operator $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{}`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{}^{\mathrm{}}`$. A symmetry of $`\stackrel{~}{}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is called a *nonlocal symmetry* of $`^{\mathrm{}}`$ in the covering under consideration. Solutions of the equation $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{}(\phi )=0`$ are called *shadows of nonlocal symmetries* of $`^{\mathrm{}}`$ in this covering. In a similar way, since the horizontal de Rham differential is a $`𝒞`$-differential operator, we can lift the horizontal de Rham complex to $`\stackrel{~}{}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and construct the theory of *nonlocal conservation laws* in our covering. Solutions of the equation $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}_{}^{}}(\psi )=0`$ are called *nonlocal generating functions*.

## 2. Variational Schouten bracket

We start with a super version of Kupershmidt’s *cotangent bundle to a vector bundle* .

For a vector bundle $`\pi :EM`$, $`dimM=n`$, we consider the bundle $`\widehat{\pi }:\widehat{E}=E^{}_M\mathrm{\Lambda }^n(T^{}M)M`$, where $`E^{}M`$ is the dual bundle to $`EM`$, and the superbundle $`𝒦`$: $`𝒦^0=\pi `$ (even subbundle), $`𝒦^1=\widehat{\pi }`$ (odd subbundle).

The superbundle $`𝒦_{\mathrm{}}:J^{\mathrm{}}(𝒦)M`$

is called the *cotangent bundle* of the bundle $`\pi `$. It is clear that

$$J^{\mathrm{}}(𝒦)=\overline{J}^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi _{\mathrm{}}^{}(\widehat{\pi }_{\mathrm{}}))).$$

Denote by $`p^j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},m`$, the fiber coordinates in $`\widehat{E}`$ dual to $`u^j`$ with respect to a volume form on $`M`$ (they are sometimes called ‘antifields’). Then $`x_i`$, $`u_\tau ^j`$, $`p_\tau ^j`$ will be the coordinates in $`J^{\mathrm{}}(𝒦)`$, with $`x_i`$, $`u_\tau ^j`$ being even and $`p_\tau ^j`$ being odd.

It is clear that $`\varkappa (𝒦)^0=\varkappa _𝒦`$ and $`\varkappa (𝒦)^1=\widehat{\varkappa }_𝒦^\mathrm{\Pi }`$, where $`\varkappa _𝒦=\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒦^{}(\pi ))`$.

Define the *variational Schouten bracket (antibracket)* on the space $`\overline{H}^n(𝒦)`$ by putting

$$[[F,H]]=(H),\alpha ((F)),F,H\overline{H}^n(𝒦),$$
(5)
where $``$ is the Euler operator and the operator $`\alpha :\widehat{\varkappa }(𝒦)\varkappa (𝒦)`$ acts according to the formula $`\alpha (\psi ,\phi )=(\phi ,\psi )`$ for $`\phi \varkappa _𝒦`$ and $`\psi \widehat{\varkappa }_𝒦`$. In coordinates, we get

$$[[F,H]]=\underset{j}{}\left[\frac{\delta H}{\delta u^j}\frac{\delta F}{\delta p^j}(1)^{(F+1)(H+1)}\frac{\delta F}{\delta u^j}\frac{\delta H}{\delta p^j}\right].$$

It is readily seen that the variational Schouten bracket defines a Lie superalgebra structure on $`\overline{H}^n(𝒦)`$:

$$[[H,F]]=(1)^{(F+1)(H+1)}[[F,H]],$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (1)^{(F+1)(H+1)}[[[[F,G]],H]]& +(1)^{(F+1)(G+1)}[[[[G,H]],F]]\hfill \\ & +(1)^{(G+1)(H+1)}[[[[H,F]],G]]=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Remark 5.

A different concept of the Schouten bracket (acting on a different space) the reader can find in \[15, p. 226\].

Denote by $`𝒞\mathrm{Diff}_{(k)}^{\text{skew}}(P,Q)`$ the module of $`k`$-linear skew-symmetric $`𝒞`$-differential operators $`P\times \mathrm{}\times PQ`$. The subset $`𝒞\mathrm{Diff}_{(k)}^{\text{sk-ad}}(P,\widehat{P})𝒞\mathrm{Diff}_{(k)}^{\text{skew}}(P,\widehat{P})`$ consists of skew-adjoint in each argument operators.

Let us define multiplication

$$𝒞\mathrm{Diff}_{(k)}^{\text{skew}}(P,(\pi ))\times 𝒞\mathrm{Diff}_{(l)}^{\text{skew}}(P,(\pi ))\stackrel{}{}𝒞\mathrm{Diff}_{(k+l)}^{\text{skew}}(P,(\pi ))$$

by setting

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2)(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{k+l})=\underset{\sigma S_{k+l}^k}{}(1)^\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }_1(p_{\sigma (1,k)})\mathrm{\Delta }_2(p_{\sigma (k+1,k+l)}),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1𝒞\mathrm{Diff}_{(k)}^{\text{skew}}(P,(\pi ))`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2𝒞\mathrm{Diff}_{(l)}^{\text{skew}}(P,(\pi ))`$, $`S_n^iS_n`$ is the set of all $`(i,ni)`$-unshuffles (), i.e., all permutations $`\sigma S_n`$ such that $`\sigma (1)<\sigma (2)<\mathrm{}<\sigma (i)`$ and $`\sigma (i+1)<\sigma (i+2)<\mathrm{}<\sigma (n)`$, $`(1)^\sigma `$ is the sign of permutation $`\sigma `$, and $`p_{\sigma (k_1,k_2)}`$ stands for $`p_{\sigma (k_1)},\mathrm{},p_{\sigma (k_2)}`$.

Next, since by definition elements of $`(\widehat{\pi })`$ are identified with differential operators from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\widehat{\pi })`$ to $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$, we have the natural inclusion $`𝒞\mathrm{Diff}(\widehat{\varkappa }(\pi ),(\pi ))(𝒦)`$, which uniquely prolongs to the isomorphism of algebras

$$𝒞\mathrm{Diff}_{()}^{\text{skew}}(\widehat{\varkappa }(\pi ),(\pi ))(𝒦).$$

Using (2) we can show in a standard way that

$$\overline{H}^n(𝒦)=𝒞\mathrm{Diff}_{()}^{\text{sk-ad}}(\widehat{\varkappa }(\pi ),\varkappa (\pi ))\overline{H}^n(\pi ).$$
(6)
Below, we use the shorthand notation $`\varkappa =\varkappa (\pi )`$.

Now, following , we want to compute the variational Schouten bracket in terms of skew-adjoint $`𝒞`$-differential operators.

To this end, note that from the definition of the Euler operator it follows that its restriction

$$|_{𝒞\mathrm{Diff}_{(k)}^{\text{skew}}(\widehat{\varkappa },\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^n(\pi ))}:𝒞\mathrm{Diff}_{(k)}^{\text{skew}}(\widehat{\varkappa },\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^n(\pi ))𝒞\mathrm{Diff}_{(k)}^{\text{skew}}(\widehat{\varkappa },\widehat{\varkappa })𝒞\mathrm{Diff}_{(k1)}^{\text{skew}}(\widehat{\varkappa },\varkappa ),$$

has the form $`|_{𝒞\mathrm{Diff}_{(k)}^{\text{skew}}(\widehat{\varkappa },\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^n(\pi ))}(\mathrm{\Delta })=(\eta (\mathrm{\Delta }),(1)^{k1}\mu (\mathrm{\Delta }))`$, where

$`\eta (\mathrm{\Delta })(\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _k)`$ $`=\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{\Delta },\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _k}^{}(1),`$
$`\mu (\mathrm{\Delta })(\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _{k1})`$ $`=(\mathrm{\Delta }(\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _{k1}))^{}(1),`$
$`\psi _i\widehat{\varkappa }`$, $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{\Delta },\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _k}(\phi )=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi (\mathrm{\Delta })(\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _k)`$.

In coordinates, $`\eta =(\delta /\delta u^1,\mathrm{},\delta /\delta u^m)`$ and $`\mu =(1)^{k1}(\delta /\delta p^1,\mathrm{},\delta /\delta p^m)`$.

We can rewrite $`\eta `$ in the following form:

$$\eta (\mathrm{\Delta })=\stackrel{~}{\eta }(\mu (\mathrm{\Delta })),\mathrm{\Delta }𝒞\mathrm{Diff}_{(k)}^{\text{skew}}(\widehat{\varkappa },\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^n(\pi )),$$

where

$$\stackrel{~}{\eta }(\mathrm{})(\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _k)=\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{},\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _{k1}}^{}(\psi _k),\mathrm{}𝒞\mathrm{Diff}_{(k1)}^{\text{sk-ad}}(\widehat{\varkappa },\varkappa ).$$

Indeed, take the equality

$$[\mathrm{\Delta }(\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _k)]=\mathrm{}(\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _{k1}),\psi _k,\mathrm{}=\mu (\mathrm{\Delta }),$$

and apply $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi `$ to both sides. This yields

$$[\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi (\mathrm{\Delta })(\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _k)]=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi (\mathrm{})(\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _{k1}),\psi _k,$$

and so

$$\phi ,\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{\Delta },\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _k}^{}(1)=\phi ,\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{},\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _{k1}}^{}(\psi _k).$$

Thus, for the variational Schouten bracket of two operators $`A𝒞\mathrm{Diff}_{(k1)}^{\text{sk-ad}}(\widehat{\varkappa },\varkappa )`$ and $`B𝒞\mathrm{Diff}_{(l1)}^{\text{sk-ad}}(\widehat{\varkappa },\varkappa )`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{c}[[A,B]](\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _{k+l2}),\psi _{k+l1}\hfill \\ \hfill =[((1)^{k1}\stackrel{~}{\eta }(B)A(1)^{k(l1)}\stackrel{~}{\eta }(A)B)(\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _{k+l1})]\\ \hfill =(1)^{k1}\underset{\sigma S_{k+l1}^l}{}(1)^\sigma \mathrm{}_{B,\psi _{\sigma (1,l1)}}^{}(\psi _{\sigma (l)}),A(\psi _{\sigma (l+1,k+l1)})\\ \hfill (1)^{k(l1)}\underset{\sigma S_{k+l1}^k}{}(1)^\sigma \mathrm{}_{A,\psi _{\sigma (1,k1)}}^{}(\psi _{\sigma (k)}),B(\psi _{\sigma (k+1,k+l1)}).\end{array}$$

Here and below we assume that $`S_n^i=\mathrm{}`$ if $`i<0`$ or $`i>n`$.

Let us split the sums obtained into two parts depending on whether $`\sigma (k+l1)=k+l1`$ or not:

$$\begin{array}{c}[[A,B]](\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _{k+l2}),\psi _{k+l1}\hfill \\ \hfill =(1)^{k1}\underset{\sigma S_{k+l2}^l}{}(1)^\sigma \mathrm{}_{B,\psi _{\sigma (1,l1)}}^{}(\psi _{\sigma (l)}),A(\psi _{\sigma (l+1,k+l2)},\psi _{k+l1})\\ \hfill +\underset{\sigma S_{k+l2}^{l1}}{}(1)^\sigma \mathrm{}_{B,\psi _{\sigma (1,l1)}}^{}(\psi _{k+l1}),A(\psi _{\sigma (l,k+l2)})\\ \hfill (1)^{k(l1)}\underset{\sigma S_{k+l2}^k}{}(1)^\sigma \mathrm{}_{A,\psi _{\sigma (1,k1)}}^{}(\psi _{\sigma (k)}),B(\psi _{\sigma (k+1,k+l2)},\psi _{k+l1})\\ \hfill (1)^{(k1)(l1)}\underset{\sigma S_{k+l2}^{k1}}{}(1)^\sigma \mathrm{}_{A,\psi _{\sigma (1,k1)}}^{}(\psi _{k+l1}),B(\psi _{\sigma (k,k+l2)}).\end{array}$$

Thus, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}[[A,B]](\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _{k+l2})=\underset{\sigma S_{k+l2}^{l1}}{}(1)^\sigma \mathrm{}_{B,\psi _{\sigma (1,l1)}}(A(\psi _{\sigma (l,k+l2)}))\hfill \\ \hfill (1)^{(k1)(l1)}\underset{\sigma S_{k+l2}^k}{}(1)^\sigma B(\mathrm{}_{A,\psi _{\sigma (1,k1)}}^{}(\psi _{\sigma (k)}),\psi _{\sigma (k+1,k+l2)})\\ \hfill (1)^{(k1)(l1)}\underset{\sigma S_{k+l2}^{k1}}{}(1)^\sigma \mathrm{}_{A,\psi _{\sigma (1,k1)}}(B(\psi _{\sigma (k,k+l2)}))\\ \hfill +\underset{\sigma S_{k+l2}^l}{}(1)^\sigma A(\mathrm{}_{B,\psi _{\sigma (1,l1)}}^{}(\psi _{\sigma (l)}),\psi _{\sigma (l+1,k+l2)}).\end{array}$$
(7)
From the definition it immediately follows that

$$[[A,\omega ]](\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _{k2})=A((\omega ),\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _{k2})$$

for $`\omega \overline{H}^n(\pi )`$; in particular, $`[[\phi ,\omega ]]=\phi ,(\omega )=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi (\omega )`$.

## 3. Hamiltonian evolution equations

An operator $`A𝒞\mathrm{Diff}(\widehat{\varkappa },\varkappa )`$ is called *Hamiltonian* if $`[[A,A]]=0`$. As in the classical Hamiltonian formalism, a Hamiltonian operator defines a Lie algebra structure on $`\overline{H}^n(\pi )`$ via the *Poisson bracket*

$$\{\omega _1,\omega _2\}_A=A((\omega _1)),(\omega _2).$$

###### Remark 6.

Hamiltonian operators are uniquely determined by the corresponding Poisson brackets.

###### Remark 7.

A Hamiltonian operator $`A`$ gives rise to a complex

$$0\stackrel{}{}\overline{H}^n(\pi )\stackrel{_A}{}\varkappa \stackrel{_A}{}𝒞\mathrm{Diff}(\widehat{\varkappa },\varkappa )\stackrel{_A}{}𝒞\mathrm{Diff}_{(2)}^{\text{sk-ad}}(\widehat{\varkappa },\varkappa )\stackrel{_A}{}\mathrm{},$$
(8)
where $`_A(\mathrm{\Delta })=[[A,\mathrm{\Delta }]]`$, called the *Hamiltonian complex*.

Formula (7) yields a well-known criterion for checking a skew-adjoint operator to be Hamiltonian (see, e.g., ):

$$[[A,A]](\psi _1,\psi _2)=\mathrm{}_{A,\psi _1}(A(\psi _2))+\mathrm{}_{A,\psi _2}(A(\psi _1))A(\mathrm{}_{A,\psi _1}^{}(\psi _2))=0.$$

Another practical way to check the Hamiltonian property of an operator is to use formula (5). In coordinates, it gives:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W_A}{\delta u^j}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W_A}{\delta p^j}}=0\text{modulo total derivatives}`$ (9)
$`\text{or}(`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W_A}{\delta u^j}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W_A}{\delta p^j}})=0,`$
where $`W_A\overline{H}^n(𝒦)`$ is the element that corresponds to the operator $`2A`$ under the isomorphism (6). In coordinates, the element $`W_A`$ for an operator $`_\tau a_\tau ^{ij}D_\tau `$ has the form $`W_A=_{i,j,\tau }a_\tau ^{ij}p_\tau ^jp^i`$.

The condition for two Hamiltonian operators $`A`$ and $`B`$ to be a Hamiltonian pair, i.e., $`[[A,B]]=0`$, is

$$\underset{j}{}\left(\frac{\delta W_A}{\delta u^j}\frac{\delta W_B}{\delta p^j}+\frac{\delta W_B}{\delta u^j}\frac{\delta W_A}{\delta p^j}\right)=0.$$

Note that the skew-adjointness in terms of $`W_A`$ amounts to the equality

$$\underset{j}{}\frac{\delta W_A}{\delta p^j}p^j=2W_A.$$
(10)
Let $`A`$ be a Hamiltonian operator. Evolution equation $`u_t=f`$ is said to be *Hamiltonian* with respect to $`A`$ if

$$A_t[[A,f]]=0,$$
(11)
where $`A_t=A/t`$ (both $`A`$ and $`f`$ can depend on the parameter $`t`$).

If $`A`$ does not depend on $`t`$, then for each $`H\overline{H}^n(\pi )`$ the evolution equation $`u_t=A((H))`$ is a Hamiltonian evolution equation. The element $`H\overline{H}^n(\pi )`$ is called the *Hamiltonian*. Notice that in this case condition (11) means that $`f`$ is a $`1`$-cocycle in the Hamiltonian complex (8). A Hamiltonian $`H`$ exists if and only if $`f`$ is a coboundary.

If a Hamiltonian $`H`$ exists and does not depend on $`t`$, then we have

$$D_t(H)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_f(H)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{A((H))}(H)=\{H,H\}_A=0.$$

Thus, there exists a conservation law given by $`\eta _0+\eta _1dt`$, $`\eta _0\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^n(\pi )`$, $`\eta _1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{n1}(\pi )`$, such that $`[\eta _0]=H\overline{H}^n(\pi )`$, where $`[\eta _0]`$ is the cohomology class of $`\eta _0`$ in $`\overline{H}^n(\pi )`$. In other words, the generating function of this conservation law equals $`(H)`$. This conservation law is called the *conservation law of energy*.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`^{\mathrm{}}`$ be an evolution equation $`u_t=f`$ which is Hamiltonian with respect to a Hamiltonian operator $`A`$. Then we have

$$\mathrm{}_{}A+A\mathrm{}_{}^{}=0.$$
(12)
###### Proof.

By (7),

$$(A_t[[A,f]])(\psi )=A_t(\psi )+\mathrm{}_{A,\psi }(f)A(\mathrm{}_f^{}(\psi ))\mathrm{}_f(A(\psi )),$$

thus

$$A_t[[A,f]]=A_t+\mathrm{\Lambda }_f(A)A\mathrm{}_f^{}\mathrm{}_fA.$$

Hence, $`(/t+\mathrm{\Lambda }_f\mathrm{}_f)AA(/t+\mathrm{\Lambda }_f+\mathrm{}_f^{})=0`$. It remains to note that $`\mathrm{}_{}=D_t\mathrm{}_f=/t+\mathrm{\Lambda }_f\mathrm{}_f`$. ∎

###### Remark 8.

For equations possessing a Hamiltonian, relation (12) can be found elsewhere (see, e.g. ).

We call solutions of (12) *variational bivectors on the equation* under consideration; Hamiltonian operators that make a given equation Hamiltonian are, thus, special variational bivectors on the equation. Obviously, variational bivectors (and, in particular, Hamiltonian operators) take generating functions of conservation laws of the equation at hand to symmetries of this equation.

###### Proposition 1.

Let $`^{\mathrm{}}`$ be an evolution equation $`u_t=f`$. If two operators $`A`$, $`A^{}𝒞\mathrm{Diff}(\widehat{\varkappa },\varkappa )`$ satisfy the equation

$$\mathrm{}_{}A+A^{}\mathrm{}_{}^{}=0,$$
(13)
then $`A^{}=A`$.

###### Proof.

Rewrite (13) in the form

$$(D_t\mathrm{}_f)AA^{}(D_t+\mathrm{}_f^{})=0.$$

Commute the right-hand side of this equality with the operator of multiplication by $`t`$. This gives $`A^{}=A`$. ∎

## 4. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-coverings

In this section, we describe a construction, that reduces solution of equation (12) to finding shadows of nonlocal symmetries in a special covering over $``$ (the $`\mathrm{}_{}^{}`$-covering).

Let $`^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a differential equation, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }:PQ`$ be a $`𝒞`$-differential operator between two horizontal modules $`P`$ and $`Q`$ over $`^{\mathrm{}}`$. Consider the homomorphism $`h_\mathrm{\Delta }:\overline{J}^{\mathrm{}}(P)\overline{J}^{\mathrm{}}(Q)`$ that corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. If $`K_\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{ker}h_\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{J}^{\mathrm{}}(P)`$ is a subbundle of $`\overline{J}^{\mathrm{}}(P)`$, then $`k_\mathrm{\Delta }=\pi _P|_{K_\mathrm{\Delta }}:K_\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a covering. We call it *$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-covering*.

In terms of local coordinates, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }=_\tau a_\tau ^{ij}D_\tau `$ and $`w^j`$ are fiber coordinates of $`\alpha `$, where $`\alpha `$ is such that $`P=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )`$, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-covering is defined by the equations

$$\underset{\tau j}{}a_\tau ^{ij}w_\tau ^j=0.$$
(14)
We can think of fibers of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-covering as even or odd. Here we prefer the latter viewpoint, so that $`k_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a superbundle.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-coverings are useful mainly due to the following obvious fact.

###### Proposition 2.

Let $`R=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma )`$ be a horizontal module over $`^{\mathrm{}}`$. Then there is an isomorphism

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{lin}}(k_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\gamma ))=𝒞\mathrm{Diff}(P,R)/\{V𝒞\mathrm{Diff}(P,R)V=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{}𝒞\mathrm{Diff}(Q,R)\},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{lin}}`$ denotes space of fiberwise linear sections.

###### Proof.

The isomorphism takes $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{lin}}(k_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\gamma ))`$ to the equivalence class of the operator $`V_s:PR`$ given by the formula

$$V_s(p)=\stackrel{~}{s}\overline{ȷ}_{\mathrm{}}(p),$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ is an extension of $`s`$ to $`\overline{J}^{\mathrm{}}(P)`$, $`pP`$. ∎

In coordinate language, $`D_\tau `$ at the $`j`$th component of the operator goes to $`w_\tau ^j`$.

Now suppose that we are given a $`𝒞`$-differential operator $`:RR^{}`$ over $`^{\mathrm{}}`$. Let us lift it on $`K_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and consider $`\mathrm{ker}`$. In view of Proposition 2, we can identify fiberwise linear elements of $`\mathrm{ker}`$ with solutions $`V𝒞\mathrm{Diff}(P,R)/\{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$ of the equation

$$V=V^{}\mathrm{\Delta }$$
(15)
*Thus, (15) amounts to the equation $`(s)=0`$ on the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-covering*.

In particular, equation (13) is equivalent to the equation $`\mathrm{}_{}(\phi )=0`$ on the $`\mathrm{}_{}^{}`$-covering, where $`\phi `$ is fiberwise linear vector function. Note that in this case the $`\mathrm{}_{}^{}`$-covering can be identified with the cotangent bundle $`J^{\mathrm{}}(𝒦)\times `$. Under this identification, the Cartan planes on $`K_{\mathrm{}_{}^{}}`$ are spans of the Cartan planes on $`J^{\mathrm{}}(𝒦)`$ and $`D_t=/t+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{f}=(f,\mathrm{}_f^{}(w))`$, if the equation at hand is $`u_t=f`$. Moreover, the equivalence classes of operators from Proposition 2 are in one-to-one correspondence with $`𝒞`$-differential operators on $`J^{\mathrm{}}(\pi )`$.

###### Remark 9.

From the above said, we see that Hamiltonian operators are shadows of nonlocal symmetries in the $`\mathrm{}_{}^{}`$-covering.

###### Remark 10.

Solutions $`V𝒞\mathrm{Diff}(P,R)/\{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$ of equation (15) can be found straightforwardly and the computations will be essentially the same as when one solves the equation $`(s)=0`$ on the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-covering. Nevertheless, in our computations we prefer the second approach, because in the case $`=\mathrm{}_{}`$ it reduces the problem to finding shadows of nonlocal symmetries (see above) for which efficient software exists.

## 5. The Korteweg-de Vries equation

Here we show how the above introduced techniques work with a simple and well-known example of the KdV equation

$$u_t=u_{xxx}+uu_x.$$
(16)
Local coordinates in $`^{\mathrm{}}`$ are

$$x,t,u=u_0,\mathrm{},u_k,\mathrm{},$$

where $`u_k=^ku/x^k`$ (similar notation is used in the subsequent sections as well). In these coordinates, the total derivatives are

$`D_x`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}+{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}u_{k+1}{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_k}},`$
$`D_t`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}D_x^k(u_3+uu_1){\displaystyle \frac{}{u_k}}.`$
#### The $`\mathrm{}_{}^{}`$-covering

The linearization operator for (16) is

$$\mathrm{}_{}=D_tD_x^3uD_xu_1,$$

while the adjoint is expressed by the formula

$$\mathrm{}_{}^{}=D_t+D_x^3+uD_x.$$

Following the general scheme, we construct the $`\mathrm{}_{}^{}`$-covering by introducing the odd variables $`p=p_0`$, $`p_k=D_x^k(p)`$ that satisfy the equation

$$p_t=p_3+up_1.$$

#### Solving the defining equation

Let us now extend the total derivatives up to the total derivatives on the $`\mathrm{}_{}^{}`$-covering

$`\stackrel{~}{D}_x`$ $`=D_x+{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}p_{k+1}{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_k}},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{D}_t`$ $`=D_t+{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}\stackrel{~}{D}_x^k(p_3+up_1){\displaystyle \frac{}{p_k}}.`$
Then, solving the equation $`\mathrm{}_{}(F)=0`$, that is,

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_t(F)=\stackrel{~}{D}_x^3(F)+u\stackrel{~}{D}_x(F)+u_1F,$$
(17)
with respect to the function $`F=_iF_ip_i`$, where $`F_i=F_i(x,t,u,\mathrm{},u_k)`$, we obtain two independent solutions

$$F^0=p_1,F^1=p_3+\frac{2}{3}up_1+\frac{1}{3}u_1p_0$$

to which there correspond two $`𝒞`$-differential operators

$$A^0=D_x,A^1=D_x^3+\frac{2}{3}uD_x+\frac{1}{3}u_1,$$

the classical Hamiltonian structures for the KdV equation.

#### The Hamiltonianity test

To demonstrate how the method works, we shall check the Hamiltonianity of the operators $`A^0`$ and $`A^1`$ in a straightforward way. Obviously, both operators are skew-adjoint.

For $`A^0`$, the corresponding bivector $`W_0=W_{A^0}`$ is

$$W_0=F^0p_0=p_1p_0.$$

Since $`\delta W_0/\delta u=0`$, we get

$$\left(\frac{\delta W_0}{\delta u}\frac{\delta W_0}{\delta p}\right)=0.$$

For $`A^1`$, one has

$$W_1=F^1p_0=\left(p_3+\frac{2}{3}up_1+\frac{1}{3}u_1p_0\right)p_0=p_3p_0+\frac{2}{3}up_1p_0.$$

Consequently,

$$\frac{\delta W_1}{\delta u}=\frac{2}{3}p_1p_0$$

and

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\delta W_1}{\delta p}=\frac{W_1}{p_0}D_x\frac{W_1}{p_1}D_x^3\frac{W_1}{p_3}=\left(p_3+\frac{2}{3}up_1\right)D_x\left(\frac{2}{3}up_0\right)D_x^3(p_0)\hfill \\ \hfill =2p_3\frac{4}{3}up_1\frac{2}{3}u_1p_0.\end{array}$$

Hence,

$$\frac{\delta W_1}{\delta u}\frac{\delta W_1}{\delta p}=\frac{4}{3}p_0p_1p_3=D_x\left(\frac{4}{3}p_0p_1p_2\right)$$

that implies $`(\delta W_1/\delta u\delta W_1/\delta p)=0`$.

###### Remark 11.

In  we describe a class of equations which have the property that (12) automatically implies the Hamiltonianity. In particular, KdV belongs to that class, thus the above verification might be skipped.

#### Nonlocal Hamiltonian structure

Let us introduce a new (odd) nonlocal variable determined by the equations

$`r_x`$ $`=u_1p_0,`$
$`r_t`$ $`=u_1p_2u_2p_1+(uu_1+u_3)p_0`$
(see Example 5). Then an additional solution of equation (17) arises:

$$F^2=p_5+\frac{4}{3}up_3+2u_1p_2+\left(\frac{4}{9}u^2+\frac{4}{3}u_2\right)p_1+\left(\frac{4}{9}uu_1+\frac{1}{3}u_3\right)p_0\frac{1}{9}u_1r,$$

to which there corresponds the operator

$$A^2=D_x^5+\frac{4}{3}uD_x^3+2u_1D_x^2+\left(\frac{4}{9}u^2+\frac{4}{3}u_2\right)D_x+\left(\frac{4}{9}uu_1+\frac{1}{3}u_3\right)\frac{1}{9}u_1D_x^1u_1.$$

###### Remark 12.

Here and below we use the following correspondence between nonlocal variables and operators (in the case of evolution equations with one-dimensional $`x`$). Let $`p_k^j`$ be the variables in the fibers of the $`\mathrm{}_{}^{}`$-covering and nonlocal variable $`r`$ be determined by the relations

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}r_x=_{k,j}a_k^jp_k^j,\hfill & \\ r_t=_{k,j}b_k^jp_k^j\hfill & \end{array}$$

(cf. Example 5). Then the corresponding operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_r`$ acts on $`\phi =(\phi ^1,\mathrm{},\phi ^m)`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_r(\phi )=D_x^1\left(\underset{k,j}{}a_k^jD_x^k(\phi ^j)\right).$$

Simulating the techniques developed for the local case, it is a straightforward check that $`A^2`$ is a Hamiltonian structure and all three structures are pair-wise compatible. Moreover, they are related to each other by the classical recursion operator

$$R=D_x^2+\frac{2}{3}u+\frac{1}{3}u_1D_x^1,$$

i.e., $`A^1=RA^0`$ and $`A^2=RA^1`$. In a similar way, one can find a whole infinite series of nonlocal Hamiltonian structures for the Korteweg-de Vries equation.

###### Remark 13.

We stress here the word *simulating* above: at this moment, we do not have a consistent theory of Hamiltonian structures in the nonlocal setting. We hope to develop it elsewhere.

## 6. The Boussinesq equation

In this section, we shall present, as another illustration of the above developed methods, computation of local and nonlocal Hamiltonian structures for the classical Boussinesq equation. We consider this equation as the system of the form

$`u_t`$ $`=u_xv+uv_x+\sigma v_{xxx},`$
$`v_t`$ $`=u_x+vv_x,`$ (18)
where $`\sigma `$ is a constant.

All computations presented below were done by the software system described in \[7, Ch. VIII\] and we expose here final results only.

#### The $`\mathrm{}_{}^{}`$-covering

The linearization operator restricted to $`^{\mathrm{}}`$ is

$$\mathrm{}_{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}vD_xD_t& \sigma D_x^3+u_1\\ D_x& vD_x+v_1D_t\end{array}\right)$$

while the adjoint one is expressed by

$$\mathrm{}_{}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}vD_xv_1+D_t& D_x\\ \sigma D_x^3+u_1& vD_x+D_t\end{array}\right).$$

Hence, the $`\mathrm{}_{}^{}`$-covering with the odd nonlocal variables $`p_i`$, $`q_i`$ is defined by

$`p_t`$ $`=vp_1+v_1p+q_1,`$
$`q_t`$ $`=\sigma p_3u_1p+vq_1.`$
#### Local Hamiltonian operators

In a completely similar way as described for the KdV equation in the previous section, we solved the symmetry equation in the $`\mathrm{}_{}^{}`$-covering of the classical Boussinesq equation. We found three local solutions of the form

$`F^1`$ $`=q_1,`$
$`G^1`$ $`=p_1;`$
$`F^2`$ $`=2\sigma p_3+2up_1+u_1p_0+vq_1,`$
$`G^2`$ $`=vp_1+v_1p_0+2q_1;`$
$`F^3`$ $`=4\sigma vp_3+6\sigma v_1p_2+2(3\sigma v_2+2uv)p_1+2(\sigma v_3+uv_1+u_1v)p_0`$
$`+4\sigma q_3+(4u+v^2)q_1+2u_1q_0,`$
$`G^3`$ $`=4\sigma p_3+(4u+v^2)p_1+2(u_1+vv_1)p_0+4vq_1+2v_1q_0.`$
In classical operator notation, they are represented as

$$A^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& D_x\\ D_x& 0\end{array}\right),A^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2\sigma D_x^3+2uD_x+u_1& vD_x\\ vD_x+v_1& 2D_x\end{array}\right),$$

while the third operator has the entries

$`A_{11}^3`$ $`=4\sigma vD_x^3+6\sigma v_1D_x^2+2(3\sigma v_2+2uv)D_x+2(\sigma v_3+uv_1+u_1v),`$
$`A_{12}^3`$ $`=4\sigma D_x^3+(4u+v^2)D_x+2u_1,`$
$`A_{21}^3`$ $`=4\sigma D_x^3+(4u+v^2)D_x+2(u_1+vv_1),`$
$`A_{22}^3`$ $`=4vD_x+2v_1.`$
#### Hamiltonianity and compatibility

To test Hamiltonianity and compatibility conditions for the operators $`A^1`$, $`A^2`$, $`A^3`$, we construct the bivectors

$`W_{A^1}`$ $`=q_1p_0+p_1q_0,`$
$`W_{A^2}`$ $`=(2\sigma p_3+2up_1+u_1p_0+vq_1)p_0+(vp_1+v_1p_0+2q_1)q_0,`$
$`W_{A^3}`$ $`=(4\sigma vp_3+6\sigma v_1p_2+2(3\sigma v_2+2uv)p_1+2(\sigma v_3+uv_1+u_1v)p_0`$
$`+4\sigma q_3+(4u+v^2)q_1+2u_1q_0)p_0`$
$`+(4\sigma p_3+(4u+v^2)p_1+2(u_1+vv_1)p_0+4vq_1+2v_1q_0)q_0`$
and straightforwardly check that

$$[[W_{A^i},W_{A^j}]]=0,1ij3,$$

i.e., the operators $`A^1`$, $`A^2`$, $`A^3`$ meet both Hamiltonianity and compatibility conditions.

#### Nonlocal Hamiltonian operators

In order to describe nonlocal results we introduce three new nonlocal variables $`r_1`$, $`r_2`$, $`r_3`$ over the $`\mathrm{}_{}^{}`$-covering by the following definitions

$`r_{1,x}`$ $`=p_0u_1+q_0v_1,`$
$`r_{1,t}`$ $`=p_2\sigma v_1p_1\sigma v_2+p_0(\sigma v_3+uv_1+u_1v)+q_0(u_1+vv_1);`$
$`r_{2,x}`$ $`=p_0(\sigma v_3+uv_1+u_1v)+q_0(u_1+vv_1),`$
$`r_{2,t}`$ $`=p_2\sigma (u_1+vv_1)p_1\sigma (u_2+vv_2+v_1^2)`$
$`+p_0(\sigma u_3+2\sigma vv_3+3\sigma v_1v_2+uu_1+2uvv_1+u_1v^2)`$
$`+q_0(\sigma v_3+uv_1+2u_1v+v^2v_1);`$
$`r_{3,x}`$ $`=p_0(4\sigma u_3+6\sigma vv_3+12\sigma v_1v_2+6uu_1+6uvv_1+3u_1v^2)`$
$`+q_0(4\sigma v_3+6uv_1+6u_1v+3v^2v_1),`$
$`r_{3,t}`$ $`=p_2\sigma (4\sigma v_3+6uv_1+6u_1v+3v^2v_1)`$
$`+p_1\sigma (4\sigma v_46uv_212u_1v_16u_2v3v^2v_26vv_1^2)`$
$`+p_0(4\sigma ^2v_5+10\sigma uv_3+18\sigma u_1v_2+18\sigma u_2v_1+10\sigma u_3v+9\sigma v^2v_3`$
$`+30\sigma vv_1v_2+6\sigma v_1^3+6u^2v_1+12uu_1v+9uv^2v_1+3u_1v^3)`$
$`+q_0(4\sigma u_3+10\sigma vv_3+12\sigma v_1v_2+6uu_1+12uvv_1+9u_1v^2+3v^3v_1).`$
Using these nonlocal variables, we derived the following three nonlocal Hamiltonian structures given by

$`F^4`$ $`=8\sigma ^2p_5+2\sigma (8u+3v^2)p_3+6\sigma (4u_1+3vv_1)p_2`$
$`+2(8\sigma u_2+9\sigma vv_2+6\sigma v_1^2+4u^2+3uv^2)p_1`$
$`+(4\sigma u_3+6\sigma vv_3+12\sigma v_1v_2+8uu_1+6uvv_1+3u_1v^2)p_0+12\sigma vq_3`$
$`+20\sigma v_1q_2+(16\sigma v_2+12uv+v^3)q_1+2(2\sigma v_3+2uv_1+3u_1v)q_0`$
$`2u_1r_1,`$
$`G^4`$ $`=12\sigma vp_3+16\sigma v_1p_2+(12\sigma v_2+12uv+v^3)p_1`$
$`+(4\sigma v_3+8uv_1+6u_1v+3v^2v_1)p_0+8\sigma q_3`$
$`+2(4u+3v^2)q_1+2(2u_1+3vv_1)q_02v_1r_1;`$
$`F^5`$ $`=32\sigma ^2vp_5+80\sigma ^2v_1p_4+8\sigma (14\sigma v_2+8uv+v^3)p_3`$
$`+4\sigma (22\sigma v_3+24uv_1+24u_1v+9v^2v_1)p_2+4(10\sigma ^2v_4+20\sigma uv_2`$
$`+26\sigma u_1v_1+16\sigma u_2v+9\sigma v^2v_2+12\sigma vv_1^2+8u^2v+2uv^3)p_1`$
$`+4(2\sigma ^2v_5+6\sigma uv_3+11\sigma u_1v_2+9\sigma u_2v_1+4\sigma u_3v+3\sigma v^2v_3`$
$`+12\sigma vv_1v_2+3\sigma v_1^3+4u^2v_1+8uu_1v+3uv^2v_1+u_1v^3)p_0+16\sigma ^2q_5`$
$`+8\sigma (4u+3v^2)q_3+16\sigma (3u_1+5vv_1)q_2+(32\sigma u_2+64\sigma vv_2+44\sigma v_1^2`$
$`+16u^2+24uv^2+v^4)q_1+4(2\sigma u_3+4\sigma vv_3+6\sigma v_1v_2+4uu_1`$
$`+4uvv_1+3u_1v^2)q_04u_1r_24(\sigma v_3+uv_1+u_1v)r_1,`$
$`G^5`$ $`=16\sigma ^2p_5+8\sigma (4u+3v^2)p_3+16\sigma (3u_1+4vv_1)p_2`$
$`+(32\sigma u_2+48\sigma vv_2+28\sigma v_1^2+16u^2+24uv^2+v^4)p_1`$
$`+4(2\sigma u_3+4\sigma vv_3+8\sigma v_1v_2+4uu_1+8uvv_1+3u_1v^2+v^3v_1)p_0`$
$`+32\sigma vq_3+48\sigma v_1q_2+8(4\sigma v_2+4uv+v^3)q_1`$
$`+4(2\sigma v_3+4uv_1+4u_1v+3v^2v_1)q_04v_1r_24(u_1+vv_1)r_1;`$
$`F^6`$ $`=32\sigma ^3p_716\sigma ^2(6u+5v^2)p_580\sigma ^2(3u_1+5vv_1)p_4`$
$`2\sigma (160\sigma u_2+280\sigma vv_2+204\sigma v_1^2+48u^2+80uv^2+5v^4)p_3`$
$`4\sigma (60\sigma u_3+110\sigma vv_3+216\sigma v_1v_2+72uu_1+120uvv_1+60u_1v^2`$
$`+15v^3v_1)p_22(48\sigma ^2u_4+100\sigma ^2vv_4+244\sigma ^2v_1v_3+168\sigma ^2v_2^2`$
$`+96\sigma uu_2+200\sigma uvv_2+136\sigma uv_1^2+68\sigma u_1^2+260\sigma u_1vv_1+80\sigma u_2v^2`$
$`+30\sigma v^3v_2+60\sigma v^2v_1^2+16u^3+40u^2v^2+5uv^4)p_1`$
$`(16\sigma ^2u_5+40\sigma ^2vv_5+120\sigma ^2v_1v_4+208\sigma ^2v_2v_3+48\sigma uu_3`$
$`+120\sigma uvv_3+232\sigma uv_1v_2+88\sigma u_1u_2+220\sigma u_1vv_2+156\sigma u_1v_1^2`$
$`+180\sigma u_2vv_1+40\sigma u_3v^2+20\sigma v^3v_3+120\sigma v^2v_1v_2+60\sigma vv_1^3`$
$`+48u^2u_1+80u^2vv_1+80uu_1v^2+20uv^3v_1+5u_1v^4)p_080\sigma ^2vq_5`$
$`224\sigma ^2v_1q_440\sigma (8\sigma v_2+4uv+v^3)q_38\sigma (30\sigma v_3+32uv_1`$
$`+30u_1v+25v^2v_1)q_2(96\sigma ^2v_4+192\sigma uv_2+256\sigma u_1v_1`$
$`+160\sigma u_2v+160\sigma v^2v_2+220\sigma vv_1^2+80u^2v+40uv^3+v^5)q_1`$
$`4(4\sigma ^2v_5+12\sigma uv_3+22\sigma u_1v_2+18\sigma u_2v_1+10\sigma u_3v+10\sigma v^2v_3`$
$`+30\sigma vv_1v_2+6\sigma v_1^3+8u^2v_1+20uu_1v+10uv^2v_1+5u_1v^3)q_0`$
$`+2u_1r_3+8(\sigma v_3+uv_1+u_1v)r_2`$
$`+2(4\sigma u_3+6\sigma vv_3+12\sigma v_1v_2+6uu_1+6uvv_1+3u_1v^2)r_1,`$
$`G^6`$ $`=80\sigma ^2vp_5176\sigma ^2v_1p_48\sigma (28\sigma v_2+20uv5v^3)p_3`$
$`16\sigma (11\sigma v_3+14uv_1+15u_1v+10v^2v_1)p_2`$
$`(80\sigma ^2v_4+160\sigma uv_2+224\sigma u_1v_1+160\sigma u_2v+120\sigma v^2v_2`$
$`+140\sigma vv_1^2+80u^2v+40uv^3+v^5)p_1(16\sigma ^2v_5+48\sigma uv_3`$
$`+88\sigma u_1v_2+88\sigma u_2v_1+40\sigma u_3v+40\sigma v^2v_3+160\sigma vv_1v_2+36\sigma v_1^3`$
$`+48u^2v_1+80uu_1v+80uv^2v_1+20u_1v^3+5v^4v_1)p_032\sigma ^2q_5`$
$`16\sigma (4u+5v^2)q_348\sigma (2u_1+5vv_1)q_2`$
$`2(32\sigma u_2+80\sigma vv_2+52\sigma v_1^2+16u^2+40uv^2+5v^4)q_1`$
$`4(4\sigma u_3+10\sigma vv_3+16\sigma v_1v_2+8uu_1+20uvv_1+10u_1v^2`$
$`+5v^3v_1)q_0+2v_1r_3+8(u_1+vv_1)r_2`$
$`+2(4\sigma v_3+6uv_1+6u_1v+3v^2v_1)r_1.`$
In the conventional notation the operators $`A^4`$, $`A^5`$, and $`A^6`$ have the following entries:

$`A_{11}^4`$ $`=8\sigma ^2D_x^5+2\sigma (8u+3v^2)D_x^3+6\sigma (4u_1+3vv_1)D_x^2`$
$`+2(8\sigma u_2+9\sigma vv_2+6\sigma v_1^2+4u^2+3uv^2)D_x^1`$
$`+(4\sigma u_3+6\sigma vv_3+12\sigma v_1v_2+8uu_1+6uvv_1+3u_1v^2)`$
$`2u_1D_x^1u_1,`$
$`A_{12}^4`$ $`=12\sigma vD_x^3+20\sigma v_1D_x^2+(16\sigma v_2+12uv+v^3)D_x`$
$`+2(2\sigma v_3+2uv_1+3u_1v)2u_1D_x^1v_1,`$
$`A_{21}^4`$ $`=12\sigma vD_x^3+16\sigma v_1D_x^2+(12\sigma v_2+12uv+v^3)D_x`$
$`+(4\sigma v_3+8uv_1+6u_1v+3v^2v_1)2v_1D_x^1u_1,`$
$`A_{22}^4`$ $`=8\sigma D_x^3+2(4u+3v^2)D_x+2(2u_1+3vv_1)2v_1D_x^1v_1.`$
The matrix elements of $`A^5`$ are given as

$`A_{11}^5`$ $`=32\sigma ^2vD_x^5+80\sigma ^2v_1D_x^4+8\sigma (14\sigma v_2+8uv+v^3)D_x^3`$
$`+4\sigma (22\sigma v_3+24uv_1+24u_1v+9v^2v_1)D_x^2`$
$`+4(10\sigma ^2v_4+20\sigma uv_2+26\sigma u_1v_1+16\sigma u_2v+9\sigma v^2v_2+12\sigma vv_1^2`$
$`+8u^2v+2uv^3)D_x+4(2\sigma ^2v_5+6\sigma uv_3+11\sigma u_1v_2+9\sigma u_2v_1`$
$`+4\sigma u_3v+3\sigma v^2v_3+12\sigma vv_1v_2+3\sigma v_1^3+4u^2v_1+8uu_1v`$
$`+3uv^2v_1+u_1v^3)`$
$`4(\sigma v_3+uv_1+u_1v)D_x^1u_14u_1D_x^1(\sigma v_3+uv_1+u_1v),`$
$`A_{12}^5`$ $`=16\sigma ^2D_x^5+8\sigma (4u+3v^2)D_x^3+16\sigma (3u_1+5vv_1)D_x^2`$
$`+(32\sigma u_2+64\sigma vv_2+44\sigma v_1^2+16u^2+24uv^2+v^4)D_x`$
$`+4(2\sigma u_3+4\sigma vv_3+6\sigma v_1v_2+4uu_1+4uvv_1+3u_1v^2)`$
$`4(\sigma v_3+uv_1+u_1v)D_x^1v_14u_1D_x^1(u_1+vv_1),`$
$`A_{21}^5`$ $`=+16\sigma ^2D_x^5+8\sigma (4u+3v^2)D_x^3+16\sigma (3u_1+4vv_1)D_x^2`$
$`+(32\sigma u_2+48\sigma vv_2+28\sigma v_1^2+16u^2+24uv^2+v^4)D_x`$
$`+4(2\sigma u_3+4\sigma vv_3+8\sigma v_1v_2+4uu_1+8uvv_1+3u_1v^2+v^3v_1)`$
$`4(u_1+vv_1)D_x^1u_14v_1D_x^1(\sigma v_3+uv_1+u_1v),`$
$`A_{22}^5`$ $`=32\sigma vD_x^3+48\sigma v_1D_x^2+8(4\sigma v_2+4uv+v^3)D_x`$
$`+4(2\sigma v_3+4uv_1+4u_1v+3v^2v_1)`$
$`4(u_1+vv_1)D_x^1v_14v_1D_x^1(u_1+vv_1).`$
The matrix elements of $`A^6`$ are given as

$`A_{11}^6`$ $`=32\sigma ^3D_x^7+16\sigma ^2(6u5v^2)D_x^5+80\sigma ^2(3u_15vv_1)D_x^4`$
$`+2\sigma (160\sigma u_2280\sigma vv_2204\sigma v_1^248u^280uv^25v^4)D_x^3`$
$`+4\sigma (60\sigma u_3110\sigma vv_3216\sigma v_1v_272uu_1120uvv_1`$
$`60u_1v^215v^3v_1)D_x^2+2(48\sigma ^2u_4100\sigma ^2vv_4244\sigma ^2v_1v_3`$
$`168\sigma ^2v_2^296\sigma uu_2200\sigma uvv_2136\sigma uv_1^268\sigma u_1^2`$
$`260\sigma u_1vv_180\sigma u_2v^230\sigma v^3v_260\sigma v^2v_1^216u^3`$
$`40u^2v^25uv^4)D_x`$
$`+(16\sigma ^2u_540\sigma ^2vv_5120\sigma ^2v_1v_4208\sigma ^2v_2v_348\sigma uu_3`$
$`120\sigma uvv_3232\sigma uv_1v_288\sigma u_1u_2220\sigma u_1vv_2156\sigma u_1v_1^2`$
$`180\sigma u_2vv_140\sigma u_3v^220\sigma v^3v_3120\sigma v^2v_1v_260\sigma vv_1^3`$
$`48u^2u_180u^2vv_180uu_1v^220uv^3v_15u_1v^4)`$
$`+2(4\sigma u_3+6\sigma vv_3+12\sigma v_1v_2+6uu_1+6uvv_1+3u_1v^2)D_x^1u_1`$
$`+8(\sigma v_3+uv_1+u_1v)D_x^1(\sigma v_3+uv_1+u_1v)`$
$`+2u_1D_x^1(4\sigma u_3+6\sigma vv_3+12\sigma v_1v_2+6uu_1+6uvv_1+3u_1v^2),`$
$`A_{12}^6`$ $`=80\sigma ^2vD_x^5224\sigma ^2v_1D_x^4+40\sigma (8\sigma v_24uvv^3)D_x^3`$
$`+8\sigma (30\sigma v_332uv_130u_1v25v^2v_1)D_x^2`$
$`+(96\sigma ^2v_4192\sigma uv_2256\sigma u_1v_1160\sigma u_2v160\sigma v^2v_2`$
$`220\sigma vv_1^280u^2v40uv^3v^5)D_x+4(4\sigma ^2v_512\sigma uv_3`$
$`22\sigma u_1v_218\sigma u_2v_110\sigma u_3v10\sigma v^2v_330\sigma vv_1v_26\sigma v_1^3`$
$`8u^2v_120uu_1v10uv^2v_15u_1v^3)`$
$`+2(4\sigma u_3+6\sigma vv_3+12\sigma v_1v_2+6uu_1+6uvv_1+3u_1v^2)D_x^1v_1`$
$`+8(\sigma v_3+uv_1+u_1v)D_x^1(u_1+vv_1)`$
$`+2u_1D_x^1(4\sigma v_3+6uv_1+6u_1v+3v^2v_1),`$
$`A_{21}^6`$ $`=80\sigma ^2vD_x^5176\sigma ^2v_1D_x^4+8\sigma (28\sigma v_220uv5v^3)D_x^3`$
$`+16\sigma (11\sigma v_314uv_115u_1v10v^2v_1)D_x^2`$
$`+(80\sigma ^2v_4160\sigma uv_2224\sigma u_1v_1160\sigma u_2v120\sigma v^2v_2`$
$`140\sigma vv_1^280u^2v40uv^3v^5)D_x+(16\sigma ^2v_548\sigma uv_3`$
$`88\sigma u_1v_288\sigma u_2v_140\sigma u_3v40\sigma v^2v_3160\sigma vv_1v_236\sigma v_1^3`$
$`48u^2v_180uu_1v80uv^2v_120u_1v^35v^4v_1)`$
$`+2(4\sigma v_3+6uv_1+6u_1v+3v^2v_1)D_x^1u_1`$
$`+8(u_1+vv_1)D_x^1(\sigma v_3+uv_1+u_1v)`$
$`+2v_1D_x^1(4\sigma u_3+6\sigma vv_3+12\sigma v_1v_2+6uu_1+6uvv_1+3u_1v^2),`$
$`A_{22}^6`$ $`=32\sigma ^2D_x^5+16\sigma (4u5v^2)D_x^3+48\sigma (2u_15vv_1)D_x^2`$
$`+2(32\sigma u_280\sigma vv_252\sigma v_1^216u^240uv^25v^4)D_x`$
$`+4(4\sigma u_310\sigma vv_316\sigma v_1v_28uu_120uvv_1`$
$`10u_1v^25v^3v_1)`$
$`+2(4\sigma v_3+6uv_1+6u_1v+3v^2v_1)D_x^1v_1`$
$`+8(u_1+vv_1)D_x^1(u_1+vv_1)`$
$`+2v_1D_x^1(4\sigma v_3+6uv_1+6u_1v+3v^2v_1).`$
Similar to the previous cases, we checked the conditions for Hamiltonianity and compatibility of all six Hamiltonian structures. It is also easy to check that all six structures are related by the recursion operator constructed for symmetries of the Boussinesq equation, see, e.g., .

## 7. The coupled KdV-mKdV system

We shall now describe a Hamiltonian structure for the coupled KdV-mKdV system of the form

$`u_t`$ $`=u_{xxx}+6uu_x3vv_{xxx}3v_xv_{xx}+3u_xv^2+6uvv_x,`$
$`v_t`$ $`=v_{xxx}+3v^2v_x+3uv_x+3u_xv.`$ (19)
This system arises as the so-called *bosonic limit* of the $`N=2`$, $`a=1`$ supersymmetric extension of the KdV equation ; integrability properties of this system (existence of a recursion operator) were studied in . In , by means of the prolongations structure techniques, a Lax pair for (7) was constructed.

Denote the evolution equation corresponding to (7) by $`^{\mathrm{}}`$ and choose for coordinates in $`^{\mathrm{}}`$ the functions

$$x,t,u=u_0,v=v_0,\mathrm{},u_k,v_k,\mathrm{}$$

Then the total derivative operators restricted to $`^{\mathrm{}}`$ are written in the form

$`D_x`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}+{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}\left(u_{k+1}{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_k}}+v_{k+1}{\displaystyle \frac{}{v_k}}\right),`$
$`D_t`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}\left(D_x^k(f){\displaystyle \frac{}{u_k}}+D_x^k(g){\displaystyle \frac{}{v_k}}\right),`$ (20)
where

$`f`$ $`=u_3+6uu_13vv_33v_1v_2+3u_1v^2+6uvv_1,`$
$`g`$ $`=v_3+3v^2v_1+3uv_1+3u_1v`$
are the functions at the right-hand side of (7).

#### The $`\mathrm{}_{}^{}`$-covering

The linearization operator restricted to $`^{\mathrm{}}`$ is

$$\mathrm{}_{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}_{11}& \mathrm{}_{12}\\ \mathrm{}_{21}& \mathrm{}_{22}\end{array}\right),$$
(21)
where

$`\mathrm{}_{11}`$ $`=D_t+D_x^3(6u+3v^2)D_x6(u_1+vv_1),`$
$`\mathrm{}_{12}`$ $`=3vD_x^3+3v_1D_x^2(6uv3v_2)D_x6u_1v6uv_1+3v_3,`$
$`\mathrm{}_{21}`$ $`=3vD_x3v_1,`$
$`\mathrm{}_{22}`$ $`=D_t+D_x^33(u+v^2)D_x(6vv_1+3u).`$
Consequently, the adjoint operator is

$$\mathrm{}_{}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}_{11}^{}& \mathrm{}_{21}^{}\\ \mathrm{}_{12}^{}& \mathrm{}_{22}^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(22)
where

$`\mathrm{}_{11}^{}`$ $`=D_tD_x^3+(6u+3v^2)D_x,`$
$`\mathrm{}_{21}^{}`$ $`=3vD_x,`$
$`\mathrm{}_{12}^{}`$ $`=3vD_x^36v_1D_x^2+6(uvv_2)D_x,`$
$`\mathrm{}_{22}^{}`$ $`=D_tD_x^3+3(u+v^2)D_x.`$
Following the general theory of Section 3, we now construct the $`\mathrm{}_{}^{}`$-covering for the equation $`^{\mathrm{}}`$ by introducing new odd variables $`p=p_0`$, $`q=q_0,\mathrm{},p_k`$, $`q_k,\mathrm{}`$, $`p_k=D_x^k(p)`$, $`q_k=D_x^k(q)`$, that obey the equations

$`p_t`$ $`=p_3+(6u+3v^2)p_1+3vq_1,`$ (23)
$`q_t`$ $`=3vp_36v_1p_2+6(uvv_2)p_1q_3+3(u+v^2)q_1.`$ (24)
#### Solving the defining equations

We now introduce a vector-function of the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}F\\ G\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}_i(F_i^up_i+F_i^vq_i)\\ _i(G_i^up_i+G_i^vq_i)\end{array}\right),$$

where $`F_i^u`$, $`F_i^v`$, $`G_i^u`$, $`G_i^v`$ are functions on $`^{\mathrm{}}`$, and solve the equation

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}_{11}& \mathrm{}_{12}\\ \mathrm{}_{21}& \mathrm{}_{22}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}F\\ G\end{array}\right)=0.$$
(25)
The operators $`\mathrm{}_{ij}`$ here are lifted to the $`\mathrm{}_{}^{}`$-covering, which means that the total derivatives are now of the form

$`\stackrel{~}{D}_x`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}+{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}\left(u_{k+1}{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_k}}+v_{k+1}{\displaystyle \frac{}{v_k}}+p_{k+1}{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_k}}+q_{k+1}{\displaystyle \frac{}{q_k}}\right),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{D}_t`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}\left(D_x^k(f){\displaystyle \frac{}{u_k}}+D_x^k(g){\displaystyle \frac{}{v_k}}+D_x^k(f^{}){\displaystyle \frac{}{p_k}}+D_x^k(g^{}){\displaystyle \frac{}{q_k}}\right),`$ (26)
where $`f^{}`$ and $`g^{}`$ are the right-hand sides of (23) and (24), respectively.

The following solution was obtained

$`F`$ $`=p_3+4up_1+2u_1p_0+2vq_1,`$
$`G`$ $`=2vp_1+2v_1p_0+q_1,`$
to which there corresponds the operator

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}D_x^3+4uD_x+2u_1& 2vD_x\\ 2vD_x+2v_1& D_x\end{array}\right).$$
(27)
#### The Hamiltonianity test

We shall check now that the operator $`A`$ presented by (27) is Hamiltonian. The first property is obvious: evidently, $`A^{}=A`$, i.e., $`A`$ is a skew-adjoint operator.

To check the second property, we construct the bivector

$$\begin{array}{c}W_A=Fp_0+Gq_0=(p_3+4up_1+2u_1p_0+2vq_1)p_0+(2vp_1+2v_1p_0+q_1)q_0\hfill \\ \hfill =p_0p_34up_0p_12vp_0q_1+2vp_1q_0+2v_1p_0q_0q_0q_1\end{array}$$

and verify condition (9), i.e.,

$$\left(\frac{\delta W_A}{\delta u}\frac{\delta W_A}{\delta p}+\frac{\delta W_A}{\delta v}\frac{\delta W_A}{\delta q}\right)=0.$$
(28)
But

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W_A}{\delta u}}`$ $`=4p_0p_1,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W_A}{\delta v}}`$ $`=4p_0q_1,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W_A}{\delta p}}`$ $`=2(p_34up_12u_1p_02vq_1),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W_A}{\delta q}}`$ $`=2(2vp_12v_1p_0q_1)`$
and consequently

$$\frac{\delta W_A}{\delta u}\frac{\delta W_A}{\delta p}+\frac{\delta W_A}{\delta v}\frac{\delta W_A}{\delta q}=8p_0p_1p_3=D_x(8p_0p_1p_2),$$

i.e., (28) holds.

#### Existence of a Hamiltonian

Let us show that the KdV-mKdV system (7) possesses a Hamiltonian, i.e., its right-hand side may be represented in the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}f\\ g\end{array}\right)=A(X),$$
(29)
where $`A`$ is the Hamiltonian operator described above and $`X`$ is the $`dx`$-component of a conservation law $`\eta =Xdx+Tdt`$ (the energy).

We computed directly several conservation laws of lower order and obtained the following results (for the sake of briefness, we omit the corresponding $`dt`$-components):

$`\eta _1:X`$ $`=v,`$
$`\eta _2:X`$ $`=u,`$
$`\eta _4:X`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(u^2+uv^2vv_2),`$
$`\eta _6:X`$ $`=12u^3+24u^2v^26uu_2+6uv^430uvv_23u_2v^28v^3v_2+6vv_4.`$
Generating functions corresponding to these conservation laws, that is, vector-functions of the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi \\ \psi \end{array}\right)=(X)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta X/\delta u\\ \delta X/\delta v\end{array}\right),$$

are

$`\phi _1`$ $`=0,`$ $`\psi _1`$ $`=1;`$
$`\phi _2`$ $`=1,`$ $`\psi _2`$ $`=0;`$
$`\phi _4`$ $`=u+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v^2,`$ $`\psi _4`$ $`=uvv_2;`$
$`\phi _6`$ $`=6(6u^2+8uv^22u_2+v^4`$ $`\psi _6`$ $`=12(4u^2v+2uv^35uv_25u_1v_1`$
$`6vv_2v_1^2);`$ $`3u_2v4v^2v_24vv_1^2+v_4).`$
Applying $`A`$ to $`(X)`$, where $`X`$ corresponds to $`\eta _4`$, we see that (29) holds.

###### Theorem 2.

The coupled KdV-mKdV system (7) is Hamiltonian with respect to the the Hamiltonian operator (27) and possesses the Hamiltonian $`X=\frac{1}{2}(u^2+uv^2vv_2)`$. The corresponding energy is given by the form

$$\begin{array}{c}\eta =\frac{1}{2}(u^2+uv^2vv_2)dx+\frac{1}{2}(4u^3+9u^2v^22uu_2+3uv^411uvv_2+uv_1^2\hfill \\ \hfill +u_1^2u_1vv_14u_2v^26v^3v_23v^2v_1^2+vv_4v_1v_3+v_2^2)dt.\end{array}$$

This structure is unique in the class of Hamiltonian structures independent of $`x`$ and $`t`$ and polynomial in $`u_k`$, $`v_k`$.

###### Proof of uniqueness.

Let us first note that equation (7) admits a scaling symmetry that allows to assign *gradings* to all variables $`x`$, $`t`$, $`u_k`$, and $`v_k`$:

$$\left|x\right|=1,\left|t\right|=3,\left|u_k\right|=k+2,\left|v_k\right|=k+1;$$

the grading of a monomial is the sum of gradings of the factors entering this monomial. In particular, $`\left|f\right|=5`$, $`\left|g\right|=4`$. All constructions are in agreement with these gradings and we may restrict computations to homogeneous components. Since the grading of the expression $`B(X)`$ is $`\left|B\right|+\left|(X)\right|`$, we conclude that the grading of the generating function $`(X)`$ is less than that of the right-hand side of (7). This fact restricts the choice of possible Hamiltonians just to several ones and by a direct computation we find that the only possible solution is given by Theorem 2. ∎

#### Discussion: nonlocalities

In spite of the previous result, we have constructed another Hamiltonian operator for the system under consideration. This operator exists in an appropriate nonlocal setting. First, we introduce a new nonlocal variable $`w`$ defined by

$`w_x`$ $`=v,`$
$`w_t`$ $`=3uv+v^3v_2`$
and corresponding to the conservation law $`\eta _1`$ (see Example 5).

In this nonlocal setting, it is possible to extend the $`\mathrm{}_{}^{}`$-covering by adding odd nonlocal variables $`r_1`$, $`r_2`$, $`r_3`$ defined by the relations

$`r_{1,x}`$ $`=q_0v_1+p_0u_1,`$
$`r_{1,t}`$ $`=q_2v_1+p_2(u_13vv_1)+q_1v_2+p_1(u_2+3vv_23v_1^2)`$
$`+q_0(3uv_1+3u_1v+3v^2v_1v_3)`$
$`+p_0(6uu_1+6uvv_1+3u_1v^2u_33vv_33v_1v_2);`$
$`r_{2,x}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}q_0\mathrm{cos}(2w)v_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}q_0\mathrm{sin}(2w)u`$
$`p_0\mathrm{cos}(w)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_1+vv_1)+p_0\mathrm{sin}(2w)(uv{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v_2),`$
$`r_{2,t}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}q_2\mathrm{cos}(2w)v_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}q_2\mathrm{sin}(2w)u+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p_2\mathrm{cos}(2w)(u_1vv_1)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p_2\mathrm{sin}(2w)(uv+v_2)q_1\mathrm{cos}(2w)(uv+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v_2)`$
$`q_1\mathrm{sin}(2w)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_1+vv_1)`$
$`p_1\mathrm{cos}(2w)(uv^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}vv_2+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}v_1^2)`$
$`+p_1\mathrm{sin}(2w)({\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}uv_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_1vv^2v_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v_3)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}q_0\mathrm{cos}(2w)(5uv_1+u_1v+v^2v_1v_3)`$
$`+q_0\mathrm{sin}(2w)({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}u^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}uv^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}vv_2+v_1^2)`$
$`+p_0\mathrm{cos}(2w)(3uu_16uvv_1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}u_1v^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_3v^3v_1`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}vv_3+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}v_1v_2)`$
$`+p_0\mathrm{sin}(2w)(3u^2v+uv^3{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}uv_23u_1v_1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}u_2v{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}v^2v_2`$
$`3vv_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v_4);`$
$`r_{3,x}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}q_0\mathrm{cos}(2w)u{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}q_0\mathrm{sin}(2w)v_1`$
$`+p_0\mathrm{cos}(2w)(uv{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v_2)+p_0\mathrm{sin}(2w)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_1+vv_1),`$
$`r_{3,t}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}q_2\mathrm{cos}(2w)u+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}q_2\mathrm{sin}(2w)v_1`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p_2\mathrm{cos}(2w)(uv+v_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p_2\mathrm{sin}(2w)(u_1+vv_1)`$
$`q_1\mathrm{cos}(2w)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_1+vv_1)+q_1\mathrm{sin}(2w)(uv{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v_2)`$
$`+p_1\mathrm{cos}(2w)({\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}uv_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_1vv^2v_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v_3)`$
$`+p_1\mathrm{sin}(2w)(uv^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}vv_2+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}v_1^2)`$
$`+q_0\mathrm{cos}(2w)({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}u^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}uv^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}vv_2+v_1^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}q_0\mathrm{sin}(2w)(5uv_1u_1vv^2v_1+v_3)`$
$`+p_0\mathrm{cos}(2w)(3u^2v+uv^3{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}uv_23u_1v_1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}u_2v{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}v^2v_2`$
$`3vv_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v_4)`$
$`+p_0\mathrm{sin}(2w)(3uu_1+6uvv_1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}u_1v^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_3+v^3v_1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}vv_3{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}v_1v_2).`$
In this extended setting, equation (25) acquires a new solution of the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}F\\ G\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}_i(F_i^up_i+F_i^vq_i+F_i^wr_i)\\ _i(G_i^up_i+G_i^vq_i+G_i^wr_i)\end{array}\right),$$

where

$`F`$ $`=(16uu_1+12uvv_1+6u_1v^22u_36vv_35v_1v_2)p_0`$
$`+(16u^2+12uv^28u_217vv_24v_1^2)p_1`$
$`3(4u_1+5vv_1)p_2(8u+5v^2)p_3+p_5`$
$`+(2uv_1+5u_1vv_3)q_0+(11uv+2v^34v_2)q_15v_1q_24vq_3`$
$`+2r_3(2\mathrm{cos}(2w)uv+\mathrm{cos}(2w)v_2\mathrm{sin}(2w)u_12\mathrm{sin}(2w)vv_1)`$
$`+2r_2(\mathrm{cos}(2w)u_1+2\mathrm{cos}(2w)vv_12\mathrm{sin}(2w)uv+\mathrm{sin}(2w)v_2)`$
$`3r_1u_1,`$
$`G`$ $`=(9uv_1+6u_1v+6v^2v_12v_3)p_0+(11uv+2v^36v_2)p_1`$
$`7v_1p_24vp_3+(u_1+5vv_1)q_0+(2u+5v^2)q_1q_3`$
$`3v_1r_1+2(\mathrm{cos}(2w)v_1+\mathrm{sin}(2w)u)r_2`$
$`+2(\mathrm{cos}(2w)u+\mathrm{sin}(2w)v_1)r_3.`$
In the conventional matrix-operator form this solution looks as follows

$$A^{}=L+N,$$

where

$$L=\left(\begin{array}{cc}L_{11}& L_{12}\\ L_{21}& L_{22}\end{array}\right),N=\left(\begin{array}{cc}N_{11}& N_{12}\\ N_{21}& N_{22}\end{array}\right)$$

are $`2\times 2`$-matrix operators corresponding to the local and nonlocal parts of $`A^{}`$, respectively, and having the following entries:

$`L_{11}`$ $`=D_x^5(8u+5v^2)D_x^33(4u_1+5vv_1)D_x^2`$
$`+(16u^2+12uv^28u_217vv_24v_1^2)D_x`$
$`+16uu_1+12uvv_1+6u_1v^22u_36vv_35v_1v_2,`$
$`L_{12}`$ $`=4vD_x^35v_1D_x^2+(11uv+2v^34v_2)D_x+2uv_1+5u_1vv_3,`$
$`L_{21}`$ $`=4vD_x^37v_1D_x^2+(11uv+2v^36v_2)D_x`$
$`+9uv_1+6u_1v+6v^2v_12v_3,`$
$`L_{22}`$ $`=D_x^3+(2u+5v^2)D_x+(u_1+5vv_1)`$
and
$`N_{11}`$ $`=3Y_{1,0}^uD_x^1Y_{1,0}^u4Y_{1,1}^uD_x^1Y_{1,1}^u4Y_{1,2}^uD_x^1Y_{1,2}^u,`$
$`N_{12}`$ $`=3Y_{1,0}^uD_x^1Y_{1,0}^v4Y_{1,1}^uD_x^1Y_{1,1}^v4Y_{1,2}^uD_x^1Y_{1,2}^v,`$
$`N_{21}`$ $`=3Y_{1,0}^vD_x^1Y_{1,0}^u4Y_{1,1}^vD_x^1Y_{1,1}^u4Y_{1,2}^vD_x^1Y_{1,2}^u,`$
$`N_{22}`$ $`=3Y_{1,0}^vD_x^1Y_{1,0}^v4Y_{1,1}^vD_x^1Y_{1,1}^v4Y_{1,2}^vD_x^1Y_{1,2}^v,`$
whereas

$$Y_{1,0}=\left(\begin{array}{c}Y_{1,0}^u\\ Y_{1,0}^v\end{array}\right),Y_{1,1}=\left(\begin{array}{c}Y_{1,1}^u\\ Y_{1,1}^v\end{array}\right),Y_{1,2}=\left(\begin{array}{c}Y_{1,2}^u\\ Y_{1,2}^v\end{array}\right),$$

are *symmetries* of the coupled KdV-mKdV system (see ) presented in the form

$`Y_{1,0}^u`$ $`=u_1,`$
$`Y_{1,0}^v`$ $`=v_1;`$
$`Y_{1,1}^u`$ $`=\mathrm{cos}(2w)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_1+vv_1)+\mathrm{sin}(2w)(uv{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v_2),`$
$`Y_{1,1}^v`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}(2w)v_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}(2w)u;`$
$`Y_{1,2}^u`$ $`=\mathrm{cos}(2w)(uv{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v_2)+\mathrm{sin}(2w)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_1+vv_1),`$
$`Y_{1,2}^v`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}(2w)u{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}(2w)v_1.`$
###### Remark 14.

Expressions for the entries of the operator $`N`$ were obtained as it was indicated in Remark 12.

As above, simulating the techniques developed for the local theory, we have checked that

$$[[A^{},A^{}]]=0\text{ and }[[A^{},A]]=0,$$

i.e., $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$ are compatible.

###### Remark 15.

Though system (7) is Hamiltonian with respect to $`A^{}`$, there does not exist the corresponding Hamiltonian. This can be proved using the same techniques we used in the proof of Theorem 2. Nevertheless, the following facts are valid. Recall that (7) possesses a *recursion operator* . Denote this operator by $`R`$ and note that our Hamiltonian operators are related to each other by means of this recursion operator, i.e.,

$$A^{}=RA.$$

Moreover, in the same way one can construct a whole hierarchy of pairwise compatible Hamiltonian structures. On the other hand, $`R`$ generates a hierarchy of equations in which (7) is the first term. Then $`A^{}`$ is a Hamiltonian structure for all other equations of this hierarchy and these equations possess Hamiltonians with respect to $`A^{}`$.

To make our exposition self-contained, we describe the recursion operator $`R`$ in the Appendix.

## Appendix: Recursion operator for the coupled KdV-mKdV system

To construct the recursion operator, it needs to extend the nonlocal setting introduced above. Namely, we add three new nonlocal variables $`w_1`$, $`w_{11}`$, and $`w_{12}`$ defined by

$`w_{1,x}`$ $`=u,`$
$`w_{1,t}`$ $`=3u^2+3uvu_23vv_2;`$
$`w_{11,x}`$ $`=\mathrm{cos}(2w)w_1v+\mathrm{sin}(2w)v^2,`$
$`w_{11,t}`$ $`=\mathrm{cos}(2w)(3wuv+wv^3wv_2+uv_1u_1vv^2v_1)`$
$`+\mathrm{sin}(2w)(4uv^2+v^4vv_2v_1^2);`$
$`w_{12,x}`$ $`=\mathrm{cos}(2w)v^2\mathrm{sin}(2w)wv,`$
$`w_{12,t}`$ $`=\mathrm{cos}(2w)(4uv^2v^42vv_2+v_1^2)`$
$`+\mathrm{sin}(2w)(3wuvwv^3+wv_2uv_1+v^2v_1)`$
(see Example 5). Then $`R`$ is a $`2\times 2`$-matrix operator,

$$R=\left(\begin{array}{cc}R_{11}& R_{12}\\ R_{21}& R_{22}\end{array}\right)$$

with the entries

$`R_{11}`$ $`=D_x^24uv^2`$
$`Y_{1,1}^uD_x^1\psi _{1,2}^u+Y_{1,2}^uD_x^1\psi _{1,1}^u{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}Y_{1,0}^uD_x^1,`$
$`R_{12}`$ $`=2vD_x^2+v_1D_x3uv+2v_2`$
$`Y_{1,1}^uD_x^1\psi _{1,2}^v+Y_{1,2}^uD_x^1\psi _{1,1}^v+Y_{2,1}^uD_x^1,`$
$`R_{21}`$ $`=2v`$
$`Y_{1,1}^vD_x^1\psi _{1,2}^u+Y_{1,2}^vD_x^1\psi _{1,1}^u{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}Y_{1,0}^vD_x^1,`$
$`R_{22}`$ $`=D_x^22uv^2`$
$`Y_{1,1}^vD_x^1\psi _{1,2}^v+Y_{1,2}^vD_x^1\psi _{1,1}^v+Y_{2,1}^vD_x^1,`$
where $`Y_{1,0}`$, $`Y_{1,1}`$, $`Y_{1,2}`$ are the same symmetries that enter the expression for the nonlocal Hamiltonian structure $`A^{}`$, $`Y_{2,1}`$ is another symmetry with the components

$`Y_{2,1}^u`$ $`=\mathrm{cos}(2w)(w_{11}u_12w_{11}vv_1+2w_{12}uvw_{12}v_2)`$
$`+\mathrm{sin}(2w)(2w_{11}uvw_{11}v_2+w_{12}u_1+2w_{12}vv_1)`$
$`2uv_13u_1v2v^2v_1+v_3,`$
$`Y_{2,1}^v`$ $`=\mathrm{cos}(2w)(w_{11}v_1w_{12}u)\mathrm{sin}(2w)(w_{11}u+w_{12}v_1)`$
$`(u_1+vv_1),`$
while

$`\psi _{1,1}^u`$ $`=\mathrm{sin}(2w),`$
$`\psi _{1,1}^v`$ $`=2(2\mathrm{sin}(2w)vw_{12}),`$
$`\psi _{1,2}^u`$ $`=\mathrm{cos}(2w),`$
$`\psi _{1,2}^v`$ $`=2(2\mathrm{cos}(2w)v+w_{11}).`$
Note that $`\psi _{1,1}=(\psi _{1,1}^u,\psi _{1,1}^v)`$ and $`\psi _{1,2}=(\psi _{1,2}^u,\psi _{1,2}^v)`$ are the generating functions for (nonlocal) conservation laws.

## Acknowledgments

I. K. and A. V. are grateful to the University of Twente, where this research was done, for hospitality. The work of A. V. was supported in part by the NWO and FOM (The Netherlands). We are also grateful to our first reader, S. Igonin, and to the referee for their useful remarks.