text:
# DAMTP-2000-127 Factorizing twists and 𝑅-matrices for representations of the quantum affine algebra 𝑈_𝑞((𝔰𝔩)̂₂)

## 1 Introduction

The notion of twists and factorizing twists was introduced by Drinfel’d  in the context of quasi-Hopf algebras. They were applied very successfully to the Hopf algebras used in the framework of the Algebraic Bethe Ansatz for quantum integrable spin chains. Maillet and Sanchez de Santos found factorizing twists in this context for the fundamental evaluation representations of the Yangian $`Y(𝔰𝔩_2)`$ and of the quantum affine algebra $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$ .

Such a factorizing twist $`F`$ equips the quantum algebra with a new coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }_F=F\mathrm{\Delta }F^1`$ which is cocommutative. In representations the twist corresponds to a change of basis on the tensor product which is in general not induced by changes of basis of the tensor factors. In the new basis, the coproduct then becomes invariant under permutations of the tensor factors and is cocommutative.

The cocommutativity of the coproduct has provided a dramatic simplification of the Algebraic Bethe Ansatz. The application of factorizing twists to this ansatz has triggered a rapid development encompassing the solution of the inverse problem, the calculation of correlation functions (see e.g. ) and a simplification of the nesting procedure if algebras of higher rank are considered .

Factorizing twists were constructed first for the fundamental evaluation representations of the Yangian $`Y(𝔰𝔩_2)`$ and of the quantum affine algebra $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$ . This was recently extended to arbitrary evaluation representations of the Yangian $`Y(𝔰𝔩_2)`$  and to the fundamental representation of the Yangian $`Y(𝔰𝔩_n)`$ for general $`n`$ .

In the present paper, we derive factorizing twists in finite-dimensional evaluation representations of the quantum affine algebra $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$ in a direct calculation ($`q`$ not a root of unity). It is possible to follow the approach presented in  and to generalize the results from the Yangian $`Y(𝔰𝔩_2)`$ almost literally to the quantum affine algebra $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$, replacing numbers by $`q`$-numbers. Conversely, the limit $`q1`$ exists in representations of $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$ both for the twist and for the $`R`$-matrix, and the corresponding Yangian results are recovered. This limit $`q1`$ demonstrates explicitly the close relation of the two algebras at the representation level. One might have conjectured such a result from the fact that the quantum affine algebra essentially specializes to the Yangian if $`q=1`$; see, for example, the comments in . However, this relation has not been seen explicitly at the representation level before.

Finally, the $`R`$-matrix for generic evaluation representations is determined in its Gauss decomposition. In particular, no fusion is necessary to determine the $`R`$-matrices of higher representations.

The key idea of our calculations is to choose a suitable presentation of the evaluation representations of $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$ which exhibits close similarities with the Yangian $`Y(𝔰𝔩_2)`$, namely compared with the Yangian, numbers are replaced by $`q`$-numbers. Then the machinery developed in  can be applied in a straightforward way. A remarkable result is that all intermediate steps in the calculation of the twists for the Yangian hold for $`q`$-numbers as well and thus generalize almost literally to $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$. This reveals the deep similarity of $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$ and $`Y(𝔰𝔩_2)`$ at the representation level.

At present the form of the factorizing twists on the abstract algebra $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$ is not known. This is partly due to the fact that the twists have been first discovered in representations rather than on the algebra, and it is not possible to just pull back the coproduct along the evaluation homomorphism $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$ because this map does not preserve the co-algebra structure. Furthermore, one does not expect a factorizing twist as a proper element of $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$, but only as a formal expression which makes sense on a class of representations which is determined in Section 3.3.

The present paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we recall the basic properties of factorizing twists and introduce our notation for the study of evaluation representations of the quantum affine algebra $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$. The factorizing twists in a generic evaluation representation are then constructed in Section 3. The calculations follow closely the lines of , and we keep the presentation of the results very brief. The precise conditions for the existence of the twists in finite-dimensional evaluation representations are given in Section 3.3. In Section 4 we construct $`R`$-matrices in evaluation representations of $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$. Examples of factorizing twists are finally tabulated in Section 5.

## 2 Preliminaries

### 2.1 Drinfel’d twists

First we recall the definition and key properties of factorizing twists. They are due to Drinfel’d  where more details can be found. We write $`\mu ,\eta ,\mathrm{\Delta },\epsilon ,S`$ for the product, unit, coproduct, co-unit and antipode of a Hopf algebra.

###### Definition 2.1.

A Hopf algebra $`𝒜`$ is called quasi-triangular if there exists an invertible element $`R𝒜𝒜`$, called the universal $`R`$-matrix, which satisfies

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }id)(R)`$ $`=`$ $`R_{13}R_{23},`$ (2.1a)
$`(id\mathrm{\Delta })(R)`$ $`=`$ $`R_{13}R_{12},`$ (2.1b)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{op}}(a)`$ $`=`$ $`R\mathrm{\Delta }(a)R^1,`$ (2.1c)
for all $`a𝒜`$. The Hopf algebra $`𝒜`$ is called triangular if in addition

$$R_{21}=R_{12}^1.$$
(2.2)
Here $`R_{ij}`$ denote as usual the embeddings of $`R`$ in the different factors of $`𝒜𝒜𝒜`$.

###### Definition 2.2.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a Hopf algebra. An invertible element $`F𝒜𝒜`$ is called a co-unital $`2`$-cocycle or Drinfel’d twist if it satisfies

$`(\epsilon id)(F)`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (2.3a)
$`(id\epsilon )(F)`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (2.3b)
$`F_{12}(\mathrm{\Delta }id)(F)`$ $`=`$ $`F_{23}(id\mathrm{\Delta })(F).`$ (2.3c)
###### Theorem 2.3 (Drinfel’d).

Let $`𝒜`$ be a quasi-triangular Hopf algebra and $`F𝒜𝒜`$ be a co-unital $`2`$-cocycle. Then the algebra of $`𝒜`$ together with the operations

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_F(a)`$ $`:=`$ $`F\mathrm{\Delta }(a)F^1,`$ (2.4a)
$`S_F(a)`$ $`:=`$ $`uS(a)u^1,u:=\mu (idS)(F),`$ (2.4b)
$`R_F`$ $`:=`$ $`F_{21}RF^1`$ (2.4c)
and the old co-unit $`\epsilon `$, forms a quasi-triangular Hopf algebra $`𝒜_F`$.

The cocycle condition (2.3c) is required in order to make the twisted coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }_F`$ co-associative so that one obtains a Hopf algebra $`𝒜_F`$ rather than just a quasi-Hopf algebra.

###### Definition 2.4.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a quasi-triangular Hopf algebra with a co-unital $`2`$-cocycle $`F𝒜𝒜`$. $`F`$ is called a factorizing twist if $`R_F=11`$ in Theorem 2.3, i.e.

$$R_{12}=F_{21}^1F_{12}.$$
(2.5)
###### Remark 2.5.

1. If a quasi-triangular Hopf algebra $`𝒜`$ admits a factorizing twist, the twisted coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }_F`$ is cocommutative.
2. In this case the Hopf algebra is triangular since its universal $`R`$-matrix satisfies

$$R_{21}=F_{12}^1F_{21}=R_{12}^1.$$
(2.6)
3. The converse implication is true at least for finite-dimensional semi-simple Hopf algebras .
4. If $`F`$ is a factorizing twist, then the opposite coproduct can be made cocommutative using the twist $`F_{21}`$ rather than $`F_{12}`$:

$$F_{21}\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{op}}(a)F_{21}^1=\mathrm{\Delta }_F(a)=F_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }(a)F_{12}^1.$$
(2.7)

In the discussion of the quantum affine algebra $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$ we face the difficulty that these algebras do not have a universal $`R`$-matrix as an element of $`𝒜𝒜`$, but rather a pseudo-universal $`R`$-matrix, i.e. a formal expression which gives rise to a corresponding quantity only on a certain class of representations (in this case on the irreducible representations). It is furthermore known  that the quantum affine algebra $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$ is pseudo-triangular.

We thus expect only a pseudo-factorizing twist, i.e. the twist should exist for a large class of representations, but not be an element of $`𝒜𝒜`$. In Section 3.3 we state precise conditions for which evaluation representations our formal expressions give rise to well-defined and invertible linear maps.

### 2.2 Notations and conventions

In this section we explain our notation for finite-dimensional evaluation representations of the quantum affine algebra $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$. The central idea is to employ a notation for $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$ which shows sufficiently close similarities with the Yangian $`Y(𝔰𝔩_2)`$ in order to apply the methods of .

Similarly to the case of the Yangian $`Y(𝔰𝔩_2)`$ whose evaluation representations can be described using representations of the Lie algebra $`𝔰𝔩_2`$, it is possible to write the finite-dimensional evaluation representations of the quantum affine algebra $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$ in terms of certain representations of the algebra $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$ (without hat) . There are two versions of these algebras, one in terms of formal power series in $`q1`$, the other with a special complex number $`q`$. In the latter case, the representations have essentially the same structure only if $`q`$ is not a root of unity.

The algebra $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$ is defined , in terms of the generators $`E`$, $`F`$, $`K`$, $`K^1`$ and the relations,

$$KK^1=1=K^1K,$$
(2.8a)
$$KEK^1=q^2E,$$
(2.8b)
$$KFK^1=q^2F,$$
(2.8c)
$$[E,F]=\frac{KK^1}{qq^1},$$
(2.8d)
for $`q\{1,1\}`$.

If $`q`$ is not a root of unity, its finite-dimensional irreducible complex representations are given up to equivalence by the vector spaces $`V_{\epsilon ,n}^{n+1}`$, $`\epsilon \{1,1\}`$, $`n_0`$. $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$ acts on a basis $`|0,\mathrm{},|n`$ of $`V_{\epsilon ,n}`$ as follows,

$`E|m`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon [m]_q|m1,`$ (2.9a)
$`F|m`$ $`=`$ $`[nm]_q|m+1,`$ (2.9b)
$`K|m`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon q^{n2m}|m.`$ (2.9c)
Here we have used the $`q`$-numbers

$$[k]_q:=\frac{q^kq^k}{qq^1}.$$
(2.10)
In order to describe the evaluation representations of $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$, we need only the ‘type 1’ representations $`V_{1,n}`$ for which $`\epsilon =1`$. There is a Casimir element

$$C^{(2)}=\frac{qK+q^1K^1}{(qq^1)^2}+FE,$$
(2.11)
whose eigenvalue on $`V_{1,n}`$ is given by

$$\frac{q^{n+1}+q^{n1}}{(qq^1)^2}.$$
(2.12)
It is convenient to cast these representations in a form which looks more similar to the Lie algebra $`𝔰𝔩_2`$ in Cartan-Weyl form. Therefore we define for each representation $`V_{1,n}`$ an operator $`H`$ by

$$H|m:=(\frac{n}{2}m)|m,$$
(2.13)
i.e. $`K=q^{2H}`$ so that $`E`$, $`F`$ and $`H`$ satisfy the following identities on representations $`V_{1,n}`$,

$`[H,E]`$ $`=`$ $`E,`$ (2.14a)
$`[H,F]`$ $`=`$ $`F,`$ (2.14b)
$`[E,F]`$ $`=`$ $`[2H]_q.`$ (2.14c)
In this formulation, the limit $`q1`$ makes sense, and the generators $`E`$, $`F`$ tend towards their $`𝔰𝔩_2`$ counterparts while $`H`$ remains unchanged. The vector $`|0`$ then corresponds to the highest weight vector with weight $`\frac{n}{2}`$ of $`𝔰𝔩_2`$. The point is here to illustrate the limit $`q1`$ for given representations rather than analyzing the representations of the algebra (2.13).

The finite-dimensional evaluation representations $`V_\lambda (w)`$ of $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$ are characterized by a representation $`V_{1,2\lambda }`$ of $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$, $`2\lambda _0`$, $`q`$ not a root of unity, and by a parameter $`w`$ . Here we use the physicists’ presentation of $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$ in terms of generators $`T_j^i(z)`$ which satisfy the Quantum Yang-Baxter-Equation in the form of the $`RTT`$ relations

$$R_k\mathrm{}^{ij}(v/z)T_p^k(v)T_q^{\mathrm{}}(z)=T_{\mathrm{}}^j(z)T_k^i(v)R_{pq}^k\mathrm{}(v/z),$$
(2.15)
with the trigonometric $`R`$-matrix

$$R(z)=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ & \frac{zz^1}{zq\left(zq\right)^1}& \frac{qq^1}{zq\left(zq\right)^1}\\ & \frac{qq^1}{zq\left(zq\right)^1}& \frac{zz^1}{zq\left(zq\right)^1}\\ & & & 1\end{array}\right).$$
(2.16)
The functionals $`T_j^i(z)`$ in (2.15) represent the generators of $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$ in the evaluation representation $`V_\lambda (w)`$. They read in terms of the operators (2.13),

$`A(z)=T_1^1(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{z}{w}q^{H+\frac{1}{2}}\frac{w}{z}q^{H\frac{1}{2}}}{qq^1}},`$ (2.17a)
$`B(z)=T_2^1(z)`$ $`=`$ $`F`$ (2.17b)
$`C(z)=T_1^2(z)`$ $`=`$ $`E`$ (2.17c)
$`D(z)=T_2^2(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{z}{w}q^{H+\frac{1}{2}}\frac{w}{z}q^{H\frac{1}{2}}}{qq^1}}.`$ (2.17d)
Note that there are several versions of (2.16) and (2.16) in the literature which are related by changes of the basis that can depend on $`z`$. For a comparison with the Yangian, the above choice is most convenient.

Finally, we write $`z=q^u`$, $`w=q^\delta `$ and $`q=e^h`$ so that the spectral parameter becomes additive, and the trigonometric nature of the $`R`$-matrix is apparent. We find the following expressions:

$`A(u)=T_1^1(z)`$ $`=`$ $`[u\delta +H+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}]_q,`$ (2.18a)
$`B(u)=T_2^1(z)`$ $`=`$ $`F`$ (2.18b)
$`C(u)=T_1^2(z)`$ $`=`$ $`E`$ (2.18c)
$`D(u)=T_2^2(z)`$ $`=`$ $`[u\delta H+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}]_q.`$ (2.18d)
In the following, we use this notation in terms of $`q`$-numbers in order to make the similarities with the Yangian obvious. With this notation, however, we always mean the corresponding expressions in terms of $`z`$, $`w`$ and $`q`$ as given in (2.16).

Observe that in (2.16) we have chosen a particular normalization. With this choice, the quantum determinant is given by

$$qdetT(z)=\frac{\frac{z^2q}{w^2}+\frac{w^2}{z^2q}}{(qq^1)^2}C^{(2)},$$
(2.19)
where $`C^{(2)}`$ denotes the Casimir element of $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$. On evaluation representations $`V_\lambda (w)`$ the above equation reads

$$qdetT(z)=\frac{\frac{z^2q}{w^2}+\frac{w^2}{z^2q}}{(qq^1)^2}\frac{q^{2\lambda +1}+q^{2\lambda 1}}{(qq^1)^2}=[u\delta +\lambda +1]_q[u\delta \lambda ]_q,$$
(2.20)
where $`z=q^u`$ and $`w=q^\delta `$. Therefore, strictly speaking, we treat $`V_\lambda (w)`$ as a representation of $`U_q(\widehat{𝔤𝔩}_2)`$.

For compatibility with , we use the following coproduct (which might be more naturally called the opposite coproduct),

$`\mathrm{\Delta }A(u)`$ $`=`$ $`A(u)A(u)+C(u)B(u),`$ (2.21a)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }C(u)`$ $`=`$ $`A(u)C(u)+C(u)D(u),`$ (2.21b)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }B(u)`$ $`=`$ $`B(u)A(u)+D(u)B(u),`$ (2.21c)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }D(u)`$ $`=`$ $`B(u)C(u)+D(u)D(u).`$ (2.21d)
This coproduct acts on $`V_{\lambda _1}(w_1)V_{\lambda _2}(w_2)`$ as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }A(u)|\mathrm{},k`$ $`=a_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}(u)a_k^{(2)}(u)|\mathrm{},k`$ $`+`$ $`[\mathrm{}]_q[2\lambda _2k]_q|\mathrm{}1,k+1,`$ (2.22a)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }B(u)|\mathrm{},k`$ $`=a_k^{(2)}(u)[2\lambda _1\mathrm{}]_q|\mathrm{}+1,k`$ $`+`$ $`d_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}(u)[2\lambda _2k]_q|\mathrm{},k+1,`$ (2.22b)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }C(u)|\mathrm{},k`$ $`=a_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}(u)[k]_q|\mathrm{},k1`$ $`+`$ $`d_k^{(2)}(u)[\mathrm{}]_q|\mathrm{}1,k,`$ (2.22c)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }D(u)|\mathrm{},k`$ $`=[2\lambda _1\mathrm{}]_q[k]_q|\mathrm{}+1,k1`$ $`+`$ $`d_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}(u)d_k^{(2)}(u)|\mathrm{},k,`$ (2.22d)
where we write $`|\mathrm{},k:=|\mathrm{}|k`$, $`w_j=q^{\delta _j}`$ and

$`a_k^{(j)}(u)`$ $`:=`$ $`[u\delta _j+\lambda _jk+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}]_q,`$ (2.23a)
$`d_k^{(j)}(u)`$ $`:=`$ $`[u\delta _j\lambda _j+k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}]_q.`$ (2.23b)
### 2.3 Irreducibility of evaluation representations of $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$

The following statements concerning evaluation representations of the quantum affine algebra go back to the work of V. Tarasov  and can be found, for example, in .

###### Theorem 2.6.

Each finite-dimensional irreducible type $`(1,1)`$ representation of the quantum affine algebra $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$ over $``$ is isomorphic to a tensor product of evaluation representations. Two such tensor products describe isomorphic representations if and only if they are related by a permutation of the tensor factors.

###### Theorem 2.7.

The tensor product of finite-dimensional evaluation representations $`V_{\lambda _1}(w_1)V_{\lambda _2}(w_2)`$ of $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$ is reducible if and only if

$$\frac{w_1^2}{w_2^2}=q^{\pm 2(\lambda _1+\lambda _2j+1)},$$
(2.24)
for an integer $`j`$ satisfying $`1jmin\{2\lambda _1,2\lambda _2\}`$. In this case the representation is neither completely reducible nor isomorphic to $`V_{\lambda _2}(w_2)V_{\lambda _1}(w_1)`$.

Note that we have adapted the above result to our notation which uses a basis of Cartan-Weyl type.

## 3 Construction of factorizing twists

The strategy how to construct the factorizing twists is the following. In each evaluation representation, the twist $`F_{12}^1`$ is given by a lower triangular matrix. It is calculated in a form decomposed into a diagonal matrix times a lower triangular matrix which has only entries ‘$`1`$’ on its diagonal. The triangular part of the twist is the change of basis operator on the tensor product $`V_{\lambda _1}(w_1)V_{\lambda _2}(w_2)`$ which diagonalizes $`\mathrm{\Delta }D(u)`$. The prefactors of the eigenvectors of $`\mathrm{\Delta }D(u)`$ form the diagonal part of the twist. They are fixed in a second step by the requirement that the twisted coproduct has to be cocommutative.

### 3.1 The triangular part

It is convenient to make use of the following abbreviations, cf. the corresponding definitions for the Yangian in equations (3.10c) and (3.16c) of :

$`g(x)`$ $`:=`$ $`[\delta _1\delta _2+\lambda _1\lambda _2+x]_q,`$ (3.1a)
$`\stackrel{~}{g}(x)`$ $`:=`$ $`[\delta _2\delta _1+\lambda _1\lambda _2+x]_q.`$ (3.1b)
Furthermore we define the $`q`$-factorial $`[n]_q!:=[n]_q[n1]_q\mathrm{}[1]_q`$; $`[0]_q!:=1`$ for $`n`$.

Using the same method as in Section 3 of , we can diagonalize $`\mathrm{\Delta }D(u)`$ on each representation $`V_{\lambda _1}(w_1)V_{\lambda _2}(w_2)`$. The remarkable result is that the structure of the solutions does not change compared with the Yangian $`Y(𝔰𝔩_2)`$. The only difference is the appearance of the $`q`$-version of $`g(x)`$ (3.1a).

###### Lemma 3.1.

The eigenvectors of $`\mathrm{\Delta }D(u)`$ on $`V_{\lambda _1}(w_1)V_{\lambda _2}(w_2)`$ are independent of $`u`$. They are given by

$$v_\mathrm{}k=q_\mathrm{}k\underset{n=0}{\overset{min\{k,2\lambda _1\mathrm{}\}}{}}\frac{(1)^n}{[n]_q!}\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{[2\lambda _1\mathrm{}j+1]_q[kj+1]_q}{g(k\mathrm{}j)}\right)|\mathrm{}+n,kn$$
(3.2)
and correspond to the eigenvalue $`d_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}(u)d_k^{(2)}(u)`$. Here the $`q_\mathrm{}k`$ are arbitrary factors. The inverse transformation is given by

$$|\mathrm{},k=\underset{n=0}{\overset{min\{k,2\lambda _1\mathrm{}\}}{}}\frac{1}{[n]_q!}\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{[2\lambda _1\mathrm{}j+1]_q[kj+1]_q}{g((kn)(\mathrm{}+n)+j)}\right)\frac{v_{\mathrm{}+n,kn}}{q_{\mathrm{}+n,kn}}.$$
(3.3)
This change of basis determines the triangular part of the factorizing twist:

###### Proposition 3.2.

The expression

$$F_{12}^1=\left(\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^n}{[n]_q!}F^nE^n\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}[\delta _1\delta _2+H\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}Hj]_{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\right)Q_{12}^1,$$
(3.4)
specializes to the change of basis (3.2) on all representations $`V_{\lambda _1}(w_1)V_{\lambda _2}(w_2)`$. The expression

$$F_{12}=Q_{12}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{[n]_q!}\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}[\delta _1\delta _2+H\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}H+j]_{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\right)F^nE^n$$
(3.5)
specializes to the inverse change of basis (3.3). Here

$$Q_{12}^1|\mathrm{},k=q_\mathrm{}k|\mathrm{},k$$
(3.6)
denotes the diagonal part of the twist.

In addition to this twist which diagonalizes $`\mathrm{\Delta }D(u)`$ on evaluation representations, it is possible to construct another twist from the requirement that it diagonalizes $`\mathrm{\Delta }A(u)`$.

###### Lemma 3.3.

The eigenvectors of $`\mathrm{\Delta }A(u)`$ on $`V_{\lambda _1}(w_1)V_{\lambda _2}(w_2)`$ are independent of $`u`$. They are given by

$$\stackrel{~}{v}_\mathrm{}k=\stackrel{~}{q}_\mathrm{}k\underset{n=0}{\overset{min\{2\lambda _2k,\mathrm{}\}}{}}\frac{1}{[n]_q!}\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{[2\lambda _2kj+1]_q[\mathrm{}j+1]_q}{\stackrel{~}{g}(k\mathrm{}+j)}\right)|\mathrm{}n,k+n$$
(3.7)
and correspond to the eigenvalues $`a_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}(u)a_k^{(2)}(u)`$. Here the $`\stackrel{~}{q}_\mathrm{}k`$ are arbitrary factors. The inverse transformation is given by

$$|\mathrm{},k=\underset{n=0}{\overset{min\{2\lambda _2k,\mathrm{}\}}{}}\frac{(1)^n}{[n]_q!}\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{[2\lambda _2kj+1]_q[\mathrm{}j+1]_q}{\stackrel{~}{g}((k+n)(\mathrm{}n)j)}\right)\frac{\stackrel{~}{v}_{\mathrm{}n,k+n}}{\stackrel{~}{q}_{\mathrm{}n,k+n}}.$$
(3.8)
This change of basis determines the triangular part of another factorizing twist:

###### Proposition 3.4.

The expressions

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{12}^1`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[n]_q!}}E^nF^n{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}[\delta _2\delta _1+H\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}H+j]_{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\right)\stackrel{~}{Q}_{12}^1,`$ (3.9a)
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{12}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{[n]_q!}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}[\delta _2\delta _1+H\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}Hj]_{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\right)E^nF^n,`$ (3.9b)
specialize to the change of basis (3.7) and its inverse transformation (3.8) on all representations $`V_{\lambda _1}(w_1)V_{\lambda _2}(w_2)`$. Here

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}_{12}^1|\mathrm{},k=\stackrel{~}{q}_\mathrm{}k|\mathrm{},k.$$
(3.10)
denotes the diagonal part of the twist.

### 3.2 The diagonal part

At this point we know two different operators $`F_{12}^1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{12}^1`$ which provide a change of basis on the tensor products of finite-dimensional evaluation representations $`V_{\lambda _1}(w_1)V_{\lambda _2}(w_2)`$. The first one diagonalizes $`\mathrm{\Delta }D(u)`$ and the second $`\mathrm{\Delta }A(u)`$. Their diagonal parts $`Q_{12}^1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{12}^1`$ are yet unspecified.

Employing the same method as in Section 3 of , it can be shown that a suitable choice of the diagonal part $`Q_{12}^1`$ leads to a cocommutative coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }_F=F_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }F_{12}^1`$. The required conditions on the diagonal part are stated in the following propositions.

###### Proposition 3.5.

If the coefficients $`q_\mathrm{}k`$ of $`Q_{12}^1`$ satisfy the recursion relations

$$\frac{q_{\mathrm{}+1,k}}{q_\mathrm{}k}=\frac{g(\mathrm{}1)}{g(k\mathrm{}1)},\frac{q_{\mathrm{},k+1}}{q_\mathrm{}k}=\frac{g(k\mathrm{})}{g(2\lambda _1+k)},$$
(3.11)
for $`0\mathrm{}2\lambda _1`$ and $`0k2\lambda _2`$, then the twisted coproduct on $`V_{\lambda _1}(w_1)V_{\lambda _2}(w_2)`$ is cocommutative. It has the form

$`F_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }D(u)F_{12}^1`$ $`=`$ $`D(u)D(u),`$ (3.12a)
$`F_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }B(u)F_{12}^1`$ $`=`$ $`B(u)D(u){\displaystyle \frac{[\delta _1\delta _2+H\mathrm{𝟙}+\lambda _2]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _2+H\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}H]_q}}`$ (3.12b)
$`+D(u)B(u){\displaystyle \frac{[\delta _1\delta _2\lambda _1\mathrm{𝟙}H]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _2+H\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}H]_q}},`$
$`F_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }C(u)F_{12}^1`$ $`=`$ $`C(u)D(u){\displaystyle \frac{[\delta _1\delta _2+H\mathrm{𝟙}\lambda _2]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _2+H\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}H]_q}}`$ (3.12c)
$`+D(u)C(u){\displaystyle \frac{[\delta _1\delta _2+\lambda _1\mathrm{𝟙}H]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _2+H\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}H]_q}}.`$
###### Proof.

The proof is almost literally the same as for Proposition 4.1 of . The assertions reduce to the following identities for $`q`$-numbers for $`0\mathrm{}2\lambda _1`$, $`0k2\lambda _1`$, $`0ik`$,

$$a_{ki}^{(2)}(u)d_{\mathrm{}+i+1}^{(1)}(u)\frac{[ki]_q[2\lambda _2k+i+1]_q}{[i+1]_qg(k\mathrm{}i1)}$$

$$=d_k^{(2)}(u)\frac{g(2\lambda _2\mathrm{})g(\mathrm{}1)}{g(k\mathrm{})g(k\mathrm{}i1)}d_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}(u)\frac{[k+1]_q[2\lambda _2k]_q}{[i+1]_qg(k\mathrm{})},$$
(3.13a)
and for $`1ik`$,

$$d_{ki}^{(2)}(u)[\mathrm{}+i]_q[2\lambda _1\mathrm{}i+1]_qa_{\mathrm{}+i1}^{(1)}(u)[i]_qg(k\mathrm{}i)$$

$$=d_k^{(2)}(u)[\mathrm{}]_q[2\lambda _1\mathrm{}+1]_q\frac{g(k\mathrm{}i)}{g(k\mathrm{})}d_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}(u)[i]_q\frac{g(k)g(2\lambda _1+k1)}{g(k\mathrm{})}.$$
(3.13b)
It is a remarkable and non-trivial fact that these identities which are known to hold without the $`[]_q`$-brackets, are still valid in this form which involves the $`q`$-numbers. ∎

###### Remark 3.6.

We can use the quantum determinant (2.20) in order to prove that $`F_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }A(u)F_{12}^1`$ is also cocommutative.

###### Lemma 3.7.

The coefficients $`q_\mathrm{}k`$, given by

$$q_\mathrm{}k=\underset{j=0}{\overset{k1}{}}\frac{[\delta _1\delta _2+\lambda _1\lambda _2\mathrm{}+j]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _2\lambda _1\lambda _2+j]_q},$$
(3.14)
satisfy the recursion relations (3.11).

In Section 5.3 of , a second choice of the diagonal part gave rise to a coproduct with a different ordering of operators. This construction has also a correspondence in $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$:

###### Proposition 3.8.

Let $`\widehat{F}_{12}^1`$ denote the expression (3.4) with a diagonal part $`\widehat{Q}_{12}^1`$ rather than $`Q_{12}^1`$. If the coefficients $`\widehat{q}_\mathrm{}k`$ of $`\widehat{Q}_{12}^1`$ satisfy

$$\frac{\widehat{q}_{\mathrm{}+1,k}}{\widehat{q}_\mathrm{}k}=\frac{g(2\lambda _2\mathrm{})}{g(k\mathrm{})},\frac{\widehat{q}_{\mathrm{},k+1}}{\widehat{q}_\mathrm{}k}=\frac{g(k\mathrm{}+1)}{g(k+1)},$$
(3.15)
for $`0\mathrm{}2\lambda _1`$, $`0k2\lambda _2`$, then the twisted coproduct is also cocommutative. It is then given by

$`\widehat{F}_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }D(u)\widehat{F}_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ $`=`$ $`D(u)D(u),`$ (3.16a)
$`\widehat{F}_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }B(u)\widehat{F}_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[\delta _1\delta _2+H\mathrm{𝟙}\lambda _2]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _2+H\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}H]_q}}B(u)D(u)`$ (3.16b)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{[\delta _1\delta _2+\lambda _1\mathrm{𝟙}H]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _2+H\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}H]_q}}D(u)B(u),`$
$`\widehat{F}_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }C(u)\widehat{F}_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[\delta _1\delta _2+H\mathrm{𝟙}+\lambda _2]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _2+H\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}H]_q}}C(u)D(u)`$ (3.16c)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{[\delta _1\delta _2\lambda _1\mathrm{𝟙}H]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _2+H\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}H]_q}}D(u)C(u).`$
The proof of this proposition reduces to the same identities (3.2).

###### Lemma 3.9.

The coefficients $`\widehat{q}_\mathrm{}k`$, given by

$$\widehat{q}_\mathrm{}k=\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{[\delta _1\delta _2+\lambda _1+\lambda _2\mathrm{}+j]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _2+\lambda _1\lambda _2+k\mathrm{}+j]_q},$$
(3.17)
satisfy the recursion relations (3.15).

Finally, analogous constructions are available for the twist $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{12}^1`$ which diagonalizes $`\mathrm{\Delta }A(u)`$ rather than $`\mathrm{\Delta }D(u)`$:

###### Proposition 3.10.

If the coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{q}_\mathrm{}k`$ of the diagonal part $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{12}^1`$ of the transformation $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{12}^1`$ in (3.9a) satisfy

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{q}_{\mathrm{}+1,k}}{\stackrel{~}{q}_\mathrm{}k}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}(k\mathrm{})}{\stackrel{~}{g}(2\lambda _2\mathrm{})},\frac{\stackrel{~}{q}_\mathrm{}k}{\stackrel{~}{q}_{\mathrm{},k1}}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}(k)}{\stackrel{~}{g}(k\mathrm{})},$$
(3.18)
for $`0\mathrm{}2\lambda _1`$ and $`0k2\lambda _2`$, then the twisted coproduct is cocommutative and given by

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }A(u)\stackrel{~}{F}_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ $`=`$ $`A(u)A(u),`$ (3.19a)
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }B(u)\stackrel{~}{F}_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ $`=`$ $`B(u)A(u){\displaystyle \frac{[\delta _2\delta _1+H\mathrm{𝟙}+\lambda _2]_q}{[\delta _2\delta _1+H\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}H]_q}}`$ (3.19b)
$`+A(u)B(u){\displaystyle \frac{[\delta _2\delta _1\lambda _1\mathrm{𝟙}H]_q}{[\delta _2\delta _1+H\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}H]_q}},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }C(u)\stackrel{~}{F}_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ $`=`$ $`C(u)A(u){\displaystyle \frac{[\delta _2\delta _1+H\mathrm{𝟙}\lambda _2]_q}{[\delta _2\delta _1+H\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}H]_q}}`$ (3.19c)
$`+A(u)C(u){\displaystyle \frac{[\delta _2\delta _1+\lambda _1\mathrm{𝟙}H]_q}{[\delta _2\delta _1+H\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}H]_q}}.`$
###### Proof.

The proof of this proposition is similar to that of Proposition 3.5. It reduces to the following true identities for $`q`$-numbers where $`0\mathrm{}2\lambda _1`$, $`0k2\lambda _2`$ and $`0i\mathrm{}`$,

$$a_{k+i}^{(2)}(u)[\mathrm{}i+1]_q[2\lambda _1\mathrm{}+i]_q+d_{\mathrm{}i+1}^{(1)}(u)[i]_q\stackrel{~}{g}(k\mathrm{}+i)$$

$$=a_k^{(2)}(u)[\mathrm{}+1]_q[2\lambda _1\mathrm{}]_q\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}(k\mathrm{}+i)}{\stackrel{~}{g}(k\mathrm{})}+a_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}(u)[i]_q\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}(2\lambda _1+k)\stackrel{~}{g}(k+1)}{\stackrel{~}{g}(k\mathrm{})},$$
(3.20a)
and for $`1i\mathrm{}`$,

$$a_\mathrm{}i^{(1)}(u)[k+i]_q[2\lambda _2ki+1]_q+d_{k+i1}^{(2)}(u)[i]_q\stackrel{~}{g}(k\mathrm{}+i)$$

$$=a_k^{(2)}(u)[i]_q\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}(\mathrm{})\stackrel{~}{g}(2\lambda _2\mathrm{}+1)}{\stackrel{~}{g}(k\mathrm{})}+a_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}(u)[k]_q[2\lambda _2k+1]_q\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}(k\mathrm{}+1)}{\stackrel{~}{g}(k\mathrm{})}.$$
(3.20b)
###### Lemma 3.11.

The coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{q}_\mathrm{}k`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{q}_\mathrm{}k=\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{[\delta _2\delta _1+\lambda _1\lambda _2+k\mathrm{}+j]_q}{[\delta _2\delta _1+\lambda _1+\lambda _2\mathrm{}+j]_q},$$
(3.21)
satisfy the recursion formulas (3.18).

Again, there is an alternative choice for the diagonal part of the twist:

###### Proposition 3.12.

Let $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{12}^1`$ denote same operator as $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{12}^1`$ in (3.9a), but with a diagonal part given by $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{Q}}_{12}^1`$. If the coefficients $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{q}}_\mathrm{}k`$ of $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{Q}}_{12}^1`$ satisfy

$$\frac{\widehat{\stackrel{~}{q}}_{\mathrm{}+1,k}}{\widehat{\stackrel{~}{q}}_\mathrm{}k}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}(k\mathrm{}1)}{\stackrel{~}{g}(\mathrm{}1)},\frac{\widehat{\stackrel{~}{q}}_\mathrm{}k}{\widehat{\stackrel{~}{q}}_{\mathrm{},k1}}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}(2\lambda _1+k1)}{\stackrel{~}{g}(k\mathrm{}1)},$$
(3.22)
for $`0\mathrm{}2\lambda _1`$, $`0k2\lambda _2`$, then the twisted coproduct is cocommutative. It is of the form

$`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }A(u)\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ $`=`$ $`A(u)A(u),`$ (3.23a)
$`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }B(u)\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[\delta _2\delta _1+H\mathrm{𝟙}\lambda _2]_q}{[\delta _2\delta _1+H\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}H]_q}}B(u)A(u)`$ (3.23b)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{[\delta _2\delta _1+\lambda _1\mathrm{𝟙}H]_q}{[\delta _2\delta _1+H\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}H]_q}}A(u)B(u),`$
$`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }C(u)\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[\delta _2\delta _1+H\mathrm{𝟙}+\lambda _2]_q}{[\delta _2\delta _1+H\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}H]_q}}C(u)A(u)`$ (3.23c)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{[\delta _2\delta _1\lambda _1\mathrm{𝟙}H]_q}{[\delta _2\delta _1+H\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}H]_q}}A(u)C(u).`$
The proof is again similar and reduces to the same identities (3.2).

###### Lemma 3.13.

The coefficients $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{q}}_\mathrm{}k`$, given by

$$\widehat{\stackrel{~}{q}}_\mathrm{}k=\underset{j=0}{\overset{k1}{}}\frac{[\delta _2\delta _1\lambda _1\lambda _2+j]_q}{[\delta _2\delta _1+\lambda _1\lambda _2\mathrm{}+j]_q},$$
(3.24)
satisfy the recursion relations (3.22).

For the Yangian it was possible  to express the diagonal parts of the various twists as quotients of Gamma functions. The finite products like (3.14), (3.17), (3.21) and (3.24) then appear in the specialization on evaluation representations when the arguments of the Gamma functions of numerator and denominator differ precisely by an integer number.

Here a similar construction is available which makes use of a $`q`$-deformed Gamma function. There are several versions of such functions defined in the literature. We need here the ‘modified $`q`$-Gamma function’ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(t)`$ (which is called $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_q`$ in ). It is characterized by the property

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(t+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(t)}=[t]_q=\frac{q^tq^t}{qq^1}.$$
(3.25)
###### Proposition 3.14.

On each weight vector $`|\mathrm{},k`$ of the representation $`V_{\lambda _1}(w_1)V_{\lambda _2}(w_2)`$, the expressions

$`Q_{12}^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q\left(\delta _1\delta _2+H\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}H\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q\left(\delta _1\delta _2+H\mathrm{𝟙}\lambda _2\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q\left(\delta _1\delta _2\lambda _1\lambda _2\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q\left(\delta _1\delta _2\lambda _1\mathrm{𝟙}H\right)}},`$ (3.26a)
$`\widehat{Q}_{12}^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q\left(\delta _1\delta _2+H\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}H+1\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q\left(\delta _1\delta _2+H\mathrm{𝟙}+\lambda _2+1\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q\left(\delta _1\delta _2+\lambda _1+\lambda _2+1\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q\left(\delta _1\delta _2+\lambda _1\mathrm{𝟙}H+1\right)}},`$ (3.26b)
have the eigenvalues $`q_\mathrm{}k`$ and $`\widehat{q}_\mathrm{}k`$ given in (3.14) and (3.17). Furthermore we find

$`\widehat{Q}_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_{12}^1,`$ (3.27a)
$`\widehat{Q}_{12}^1`$ $`=`$ $`Q_{21},`$ (3.27b)
$`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{12}^1`$ $`=`$ $`Q_{21}^1|_{\delta _1\delta _2},`$ (3.27c)
$`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{Q}}_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_{12}|_{\delta _1\delta _2}.`$ (3.27d)
###### Remark 3.15.

Observe that whenever the expressions for the factorizing twists $`F_{12}^1`$, $`Q_{12}^1`$ etc. are written in a particular finite-dimensional evaluation representation, the limit $`q1`$ is well-defined. In this limit, the operators $`E`$ and $`F`$ of $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$ tend towards their $`𝔰𝔩_2`$ counterparts. On weight vectors, the quotients of $`q`$-Gamma functions reduce to finite products like (3.14). Each factor of these products has a well defined $`q1`$ limit in which $`q`$-numbers tend towards ordinary numbers.

In all cases, the corresponding results for the Yangian $`Y(𝔰𝔩_2)`$ are recovered as a comparison with  reveals. The Yangian results appear in the form where $`\eta =1`$ in the notation of .

Example matrices $`F_{12}^1`$ in finite-dimensional evaluation representations of low dimension are tabulated in Section 5.

### 3.3 Existence of the twist in representations

Finally, we study for which finite-dimensional evaluation representations $`V_{\lambda _1}(w_1)V_{\lambda _2}(w_2)`$ the twist and its inverse exist. We restrict ourselves to the twist $`F_{12}^1`$ and its inverse $`F_{12}`$, cf. (3.4) and (3.5).

Therefore, we have to write the coefficients of $`Q_{12}^1`$ and $`Q_{12}`$ in a form in which numerator and denominator have no common factor. Furthermore we have to take into account that the numerator of the diagonal part might cancel factors from the denominator of the triangular part. The structure of the expressions is the same as for the Yangian $`Y(𝔰𝔩_2)`$ in Section 5.4 of :

###### Proposition 3.16.

The expression $`F_{12}^1`$, see equation (3.4), is well-defined in the representation $`V_{\lambda _1}(w_1)V_{\lambda _2}(w_2)`$ if and only if

$$\frac{w_1^2}{w_2^2}q^{2(\lambda _1+\lambda _2j+1)}$$
(3.28)
for all integers $`j`$ in the range $`1jmin\{2\lambda _1,2\lambda _2\}`$.

###### Proof.

From an analogous calculation as for the Yangian (Section 5.4 of ) we obtain a well-defined $`F_{12}^1`$ if and only if

$$[\delta _1\delta _2\lambda _1\lambda _2+j1]_q0$$
(3.29)
for all integers $`j`$ in the range $`1jmin\{2\lambda _1,2\lambda _2\}`$. We recall that $`w_j=q^{\delta _j}`$, and the assertion follows. ∎

###### Remark 3.17.

According to Theorem 2.7, $`F_{12}^1`$ thus exists for all finite-dimensional irreducible evaluation representations of $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$.

###### Proposition 3.18.

The expression $`F_{12}`$ in (3.5) is well-defined in the representation $`V_{\lambda _1}(w_1)V_{\lambda _2}(w_2)`$ if and only if

$$\frac{w_1^2}{w_2^2}q^{2(\lambda _1+\lambda _2j+1)}$$
(3.30)
for all integers $`j`$ in the range $`2j2\lambda _1+2\lambda _2`$.

###### Remark 3.19.

There exist irreducible representations $`V_{\lambda _1}(w_1)V_{\lambda _2}(w_2)`$ of $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$ for which $`F_{12}`$ is not well-defined. The situation is essentially the same as for the Yangian $`Y(𝔰𝔩_2)`$.

## 4 $`R`$-matrices

From the factorizing twist which was determined in a representation independent fashion, it is possible to derive a representation independent $`R`$-matrix. This $`R`$-matrix appears automatically in a canonical form, being Gauss decomposed into an upper triangular times a diagonal times a lower triangular part.

We obtain the following expression for the $`R`$-matrix on $`V_{\lambda _1}(w_1)V_{\lambda _2}(w_2)`$,

$$R_{12}=F_{21}^1F_{12}=R_+R_0R_{}.$$
(4.1)
Here the upper triangular part $`R_+`$ is the triangular part of $`F_{21}^1`$ and can be obtained from (3.4). The diagonal part is the product $`R_0=Q_{21}^1Q_{12}`$, cf. (3.14), and the lower triangular part $`R_{}`$ can be read off from (3.5),

$`R_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[n]_q!}}E^nF^n{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}[\delta _1\delta _2+H\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}H+j]_{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{1},`$ (4.2a)
$`R_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q\left(\delta _1\delta _2+H\mathrm{𝟙}+\lambda _2+1\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q\left(\delta _1\delta _2+H\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}H+1\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q\left(\delta _1\delta _2+\lambda _1\mathrm{𝟙}H+1\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q\left(\delta _1\delta _2+\lambda _1+\lambda _2+1\right)}}`$ (4.2b)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q\left(\delta _1\delta _2+H\mathrm{𝟙}\lambda _2\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q\left(\delta _1\delta _2+H\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}H\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q\left(\delta _1\delta _2\lambda _1\mathrm{𝟙}H\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q\left(\delta _1\delta _2\lambda _1\lambda _2\right)}},`$
$`R_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[n]_q!}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}[\delta _1\delta _2+H\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{𝟙}H+j]_{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\right)F^nE^n.`$ (4.2c)
The alternative twist $`\widehat{F}_{12}`$ in Proposition 3.8 factorizes the same $`R`$-matrix,

$$\widehat{F}_{21}^1\widehat{F}_{12}=R_{12},$$
(4.3)
because the two factors of the diagonal part are just exchanged, cf. (3.14). The twist $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{12}^1`$ which diagonalizes $`\mathrm{\Delta }A(u)`$, cf. (3.9a), is related to $`F_{12}^1`$ by

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{12}^1=F_{21}^1|_{\delta _1\delta _2}.$$
(4.4)
It thus factorizes the opposite $`R`$-matrix, but with negative spectral parameter,

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{21}^1\stackrel{~}{F}_{12}=R_{21}|_{\delta _1\delta _2}.$$
(4.5)
From the calculation of the $`R`$-matrix via the factorizing twists, only the property of almost-cocommutativity (2.1c) is guaranteed by construction. However, this requirement has already determined the $`R`$-matrix up to a constant representation dependent factor. Recall that our $`R`$ is normalized such that $`R|0|0=|0|0`$. Therefore it differs from an $`R`$ matrix derived via the (pseudo-)universal $`R`$-matrix by a multiplicative factor which is the character of the $`R`$-matrix. This situation is again completely analogous to the Yangian.

## 5 Examples

In this section, we tabulate factorizing twists for some finite-dimensional evaluation representations of low dimension. We list the matrices of the twists $`F_{12}^1`$ in a weight basis. The other twists and the $`R`$-matrices can then be calculated from $`F_{12}^1`$. The ordering of the basis vectors of $`V_{\lambda _1}(\delta _1)V_{\lambda _2}(\delta _2)`$ is $`|0|0,|0|1,\mathrm{}`$.

Recall that due to the similarity of $`U_q(\widehat{𝔰𝔩}_2)`$ with the Yangian $`Y(𝔰𝔩_2)`$, one obtains twists for the Yangian if all $`q`$-brackets in the following formulas are ignored.

$`V_{\frac{1}{2}}(\delta _1)V_{\frac{1}{2}}(\delta _2)`$:

$$F_{12}^1=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ & \frac{[\delta _1\delta _2]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _21]_q}\\ & \frac{1}{[\delta _1\delta _21]_q}& 1\\ & & & 1\end{array}\right)$$
(5.1)
$`V_{\frac{1}{2}}(\delta _1)V_1(\delta _2)`$:

$$F_{12}^1=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ & \frac{[\delta _1\delta _2\frac{1}{2}]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _2\frac{3}{2}]_q}\\ & 0& \frac{[\delta _1\delta _2+\frac{1}{2}]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _2\frac{3}{2}]_q}\\ & \frac{1}{[\delta _1\delta _2\frac{3}{2}]_q}& 0& 1\\ & & \frac{[2]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _2\frac{3}{2}]_q}& 0& 1\\ & & & & & 1\end{array}\right)$$
(5.2)
$`V_{\frac{1}{2}}(\delta _1)V_{\frac{3}{2}}(\delta _2)`$:

$$F_{12}^1=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ & \frac{[\delta _1\delta _21]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _22]_q}\\ & 0& \frac{[\delta _1\delta _2]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _22]_q}\\ & 0& 0& \frac{[\delta _1\delta _2+1]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _22]_q}\\ & \frac{1}{[\delta _1\delta _22]_q}& 0& 0& 1\\ & & \frac{[2]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _22]_q}& 0& 0& 1\\ & & & \frac{[3]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _22]_q}& 0& 0& 1\\ & & & & & & & 1\end{array}\right)$$
(5.3)
$`V_{\frac{1}{2}}(\delta _1)V_2(\delta _2)`$:

$$F_{12}^1=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ & \frac{[\delta _1\delta _2\frac{3}{2}]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _2\frac{5}{2}]_q}\\ & 0& \frac{[\delta _1\delta _2\frac{1}{2}]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _2\frac{5}{2}]_q}\\ & 0& 0& \frac{[\delta _1\delta _2+\frac{1}{2}]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _2\frac{5}{2}]_q}\\ & 0& 0& 0& \frac{[\delta _1\delta _2+\frac{3}{2}]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _2\frac{5}{2}]_q}\\ & \frac{1}{[\delta _1\delta _2\frac{5}{2}]_q}& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ & & \frac{[2]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _2\frac{5}{2}]_q}& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ & & & \frac{[3]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _2\frac{5}{2}]_q}& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ & & & & \frac{[4]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _2\frac{5}{2}]_q}& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ & & & & & & & & & 1\end{array}\right)$$
(5.4)
$`V_1(\delta _1)V_1(\delta _2)`$:

$$F_{12}^1=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ & \frac{[\delta _1\delta _2]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _22]_q}\\ & 0& \frac{[\delta _1\delta _2]_q[\delta _1\delta _2+1]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _22]_q[\delta _1\delta _21]_q}\\ & \frac{[2]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _22]_q}& 0& 1\\ & & \frac{[2]_q^2[\delta _1\delta _2]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _22]_q[\delta _1\delta _21]_q}& 0& \frac{[\delta _1\delta _21]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _22]_q}\\ & & 0& 0& 0& \frac{[\delta _1\delta _2]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _22]_q}\\ & & \frac{[2]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _22]_q[\delta _1\delta _21]_q}& 0& \frac{1}{[\delta _1\delta _22]_q}& 0& 1\\ & & & & & \frac{[2]_q}{[\delta _1\delta _22]_q}& 0& 1\\ & & & & & & & & 1\end{array}\right)$$
(5.5)
$`V_1(\delta _1)V_{\frac{3}{2}}(\delta _2)`$: The only non-vanishing matrix elements are

$`F_{12}^1|0|0`$ $`=`$ $`|0|0,`$ (5.6a)
$`F_{12}^1|0|1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\delta _1\delta _2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{5}{2}}\right]_q}}|0|1{\displaystyle \frac{\left[2\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{5}{2}}\right]_q}}|1|0,`$ (5.6b)
$`F_{12}^1|0|2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\delta _1\delta _2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _2+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{5}{2}}\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3}{2}}\right]_q}}|0|2{\displaystyle \frac{\left[2\right]_q^2\left[\delta _1\delta _2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{5}{2}}\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3}{2}}\right]_q}}|1|1`$ (5.6c)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left[2\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{5}{2}}\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3}{2}}\right]_q}}|2|0,`$
$`F_{12}^1|0|3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\delta _1\delta _2+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _2+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3}{2}}\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{5}{2}}\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3}{2}}\right]_q}}|0|3{\displaystyle \frac{\left[2\right]_q\left[3\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _2+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{5}{2}}\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3}{2}}\right]_q}}|1|2`$ (5.6d)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left[2\right]_q\left[3\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{5}{2}}\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3}{2}}\right]_q}}|2|1,`$
$`F_{12}^1|1|0`$ $`=`$ $`|1|0,`$ (5.6e)
$`F_{12}^1|1|1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\delta _1\delta _2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3}{2}}\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{5}{2}}\right]_q}}|1|1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[\delta _1\delta _2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{5}{2}}\right]_q}}|2|0,`$ (5.6f)
$`F_{12}^1|1|2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\delta _1\delta _2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{5}{2}}\right]_q}}|1|2{\displaystyle \frac{\left[2\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{5}{2}}\right]_q}}|2|1,`$ (5.6g)
$`F_{12}^1|1|3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\delta _1\delta _2+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{5}{2}}\right]_q}}|1|3{\displaystyle \frac{\left[3\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{5}{2}}\right]_q}}|2|2,`$ (5.6h)
$`F_{12}^1|2|0`$ $`=`$ $`|2|0,`$ (5.6i)
$`F_{12}^1|2|1`$ $`=`$ $`|2|1,`$ (5.6j)
$`F_{12}^1|2|2`$ $`=`$ $`|2|2,`$ (5.6k)
$`F_{12}^1|2|3`$ $`=`$ $`|2|3.`$ (5.6l)
$`V_{\frac{3}{2}}(\delta _1)V_{\frac{3}{2}}(\delta _2)`$: The only non-vanishing matrix elements are

$`F_{12}^1|0|0`$ $`=`$ $`|0|0,`$ (5.7a)
$`F_{12}^1|0|1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\delta _1\delta _2\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _23\right]_q}}|0|1{\displaystyle \frac{\left[3\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _23\right]_q}}|1|0,`$ (5.7b)
$`F_{12}^1|0|2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\delta _1\delta _2\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _2+1\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _23\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _22\right]_q}}|0|2{\displaystyle \frac{\left[2\right]_q\left[3\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _2\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _23\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _22\right]_q}}|1|1`$ (5.7c)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left[2\right]_q\left[3\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _23\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _22\right]_q}}|2|0,`$
$`F_{12}^1|0|3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\delta _1\delta _2\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _2+1\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _2+2\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _23\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _22\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _21\right]_q}}|0|3`$ (5.7d)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[3\right]_q^2\left[\delta _1\delta _2\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _2+1\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _23\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _22\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _21\right]_q}}|1|2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left[3\right]_q^2\left[2\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _2\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _23\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _22\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _21\right]_q}}|2|1`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[2\right]_q\left[3\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _23\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _22\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _22\right]_q}}|3|0,`$
$`F_{12}^1|1|0`$ $`=`$ $`|1|0,`$ (5.7e)
$`F_{12}^1|1|1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\delta _1\delta _21\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _23\right]_q}}|1|1{\displaystyle \frac{\left[2\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _23\right]_q}}|2|0,`$ (5.7f)
$`F_{12}^1|1|2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\delta _1\delta _21\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _2\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _23\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _22\right]_q}}|1|2{\displaystyle \frac{\left[2\right]_q^2\left[\delta _1\delta _21\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _23\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _22\right]_q}}|2|1`$ (5.7g)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left[2\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _23\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _22\right]_q}}|3|0,`$
$`F_{12}^1|1|3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\delta _1\delta _2\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _2+1\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _23\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _22\right]_q}}|1|3{\displaystyle \frac{\left[2\right]_q\left[3\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _2\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _23\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _22\right]_q}}|2|2`$ (5.7h)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left[2\right]_q\left[3\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _23\right]_q\left[\delta _1\delta _22\right]_q}}|3|1,`$
$`F_{12}^1|2|0`$ $`=`$ $`|2|0,`$ (5.7i)
$`F_{12}^1|2|1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\delta _1\delta _22\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _23\right]_q}}|2|1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[\delta _1\delta _23\right]_q}}|3|0,`$ (5.7j)
$`F_{12}^1|2|2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\delta _1\delta _21\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _23\right]_q}}|2|2{\displaystyle \frac{\left[2\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _23\right]_q}}|3|1,`$ (5.7k)
$`F_{12}^1|2|3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\delta _1\delta _2\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _23\right]_q}}|2|3{\displaystyle \frac{\left[3\right]_q}{\left[\delta _1\delta _23\right]_q}}|3|2,`$ (5.7l)
$`F_{12}^1|3|0`$ $`=`$ $`|3|0,F_{12}^1|3|1=|3|1,`$ (5.7m)
$`F_{12}^1|3|2`$ $`=`$ $`|3|2,F_{12}^1|3|3=|3|3.`$ (5.7n)
## Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank DAAD for his scholarship. Thanks are also due to A. J. Macfarlane, R. Oeckl and F. Wagner for valuable discussions and comments.


format: text

text:
# Acoustic radiation in randomly-layered structures

## INTRODUCTION

When placed in spatially structured media, the radiation or transmission of optical or acoustic sources will be modulated, a fact of both fundamental importance and practical significance. The structure-modulated transmission, called waveguide propagation, is the backbone of modern opto-electronics and acousto-optics systems. Designing proper waveguide devices that can convey information without or with little energy loss thus has been and continues to be a prime motivation for theoretical studies of wave radiation and propagation in spatially structured media .

Much effort has been focused on effects of metal and dielectric interfaces, which can be constructed in either planar, cylindrical, or spherical forms, on optical transmission and radiation . The optical transmission or radiation in periodic structures has attracted particular attention in different areas of applied physics, as in the periodic situations the interaction between propagating waves and structurally periodicity can be either constructive or destructive, leading to significant enhancement or inhibition respectively. In these situations, the waveguides act as a filter which selects particular frequencies for propagation. Understanding of optical propagation in periodicity has been vital to the design of optical devices including optical fibers, semiconductor lasers, hetero-junction bipolar transistors, quantum well lasers, filters, and resonators .

Propagation of acoustic waves in spatially structured media has also drawn attention recently . The investigation of acoustic counterparts not only paves the way for the possible design of new acoustic devices, but the acoustic models themselves are advantageous in a number of situations. First, as they are of scalar nature, the acoustic waves are relatively simple to handle yet not to compromise the generality, making them an ideal system for understanding more complicated situations with vector wave propagation. For instance, the recent results on acoustic propagation in water with parallelly placed air-cylinders make it possible to study the ubiquitous phenomenon of wave localization  in an unprecedented detailed and manageable manner ; the localization of optical waves has posed a long standing problem and a subject of much debate . Second, the research is motivated by potential applications in acousto-optic fiber devices. Third, it is relatively easy to manufacture hetero-structures with large contrast in acoustic impedance. This allows not only the study of strong scattering, but the usage of the properties of the strong scattering in such situations as noise reduction.

In the previous paper , the acoustic radiation from a source located inside periodically layered spherical cavities has been considered. It is found that significant enhancement or inhibition on the radiation is possible by varying the acoustic parameters and the periodicity of the structures of the guides. The analysis predicts well-defined peaks and nodes in the cavities. The fact that wave transmission in the periodical situations is only possible for certain ranges of frequency is useful as it is of help for devising apparatuses such as filters. For such applications such as energy transport, however, it is desired that no or little energy be radiated for any frequencies. In other words, devices are designed so that energy are confined inside the devices. In this article, we consider acoustic radiation from acoustic sources located inside randomly layered structures. The structures can be of spherical and cylindrical geometries. We show that the radiation is inhibited for all frequencies for any given randomness, and waves are confined in the structures. The confinement or localization effect becomes increasingly significant as the randomness increases or the acoustic contrast increases for a given randomness. These features hold for both spherical or cylindrical structures. The results may be of help in the design of wave processing devices such as resonators or efficient energy guides.

## I. FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM

We consider a unit acoustic source located insider a layered structure, which can be either spherical or cylindrical geometry. The conceptual layout is sketched in Fig. 1. The most inner and outer radii of the structure is $`R_1`$ and $`R_N`$ respectively. Between $`R_1`$ and $`R_N`$, there are $`N1`$ randomly placed interfaces. The boundary at $`R_1`$ ($`i=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$) is denoted as the $`i`$th interface. These $`N1`$ interfaces are randomly located between $`R_1`$ and $`R_N`$. The further parameters are as follows. The sound speed and the mass density inside $`R_1`$ are $`c_1`$ and $`\rho 1`$, while the sound speed and mass density of the surround medium, i. e. outside $`R_N`$, are denoted by $`c`$ and and $`\rho `$ respectively. The sound speed and mass density between the $`i`$th and the $`(i+1)`$th interfaces are $`c_{i+1},\rho _{i+1}`$. We define $`g_i=\rho _i/\rho `$ and $`h_i=c_i/c`$. The parameters $`g_i`$ and $`c_i`$ are called acoustic contrast parameters.

The Helmholtz wave equation inside the structure is

$$(^2+k_1^2)p(\stackrel{}{r})=4\pi \delta ^{(d)}(\stackrel{}{r}),\text{for}r<R_1,$$
(1)
where $`^2`$ is the usual Laplacian operator, $`k_1`$ is the wave number ($`k_1=\omega /c_1`$), and $`\delta `$ is the Dirac delta function representing the source. The superscript $`d`$ refers to the dimension. For spherical structures, $`d=3`$, while for cylindrical structures $`d=2`$. The wave equation outside the structure is

$$(^2+k^2)p(\stackrel{}{r})=0,\text{for}r>R_N,$$
(2)
with $`k=\omega /c`$. Similarly, the wave equations for the random media between $`R_1`$ and $`R_N`$ are

$$(^2+k_i^2)p(\stackrel{}{r})=0,\text{for}i=1,2,3,\mathrm{},N1,\text{and}R_i<r<R_{i+1},$$
(3)
with $`k_i=\omega /c_i`$.

Before going into details of the problem we make a detour to consider a more general transmission through an arbitrary interface. The general solution to wave equation such as those in Eqs. (1), (2), and (3) can be written as

$$p_i(r)=A_iG^{(d)}(k_ir)+B_iG_{}^{(d)}{}_{}{}^{}(k_ir),(i=1,2,\mathrm{}),$$
(4)
where “$``$” means taking the complex conjugate, $`A_i`$ and $`B_i`$ are coefficients to be determined by boundary conditions, and $`G^{(d)}`$ is the Green’s function in the $`d`$-th dimension and is written as

$$G^{(d)}(k_ir)=\{\begin{array}{cc}i\pi H_0^{(1)}(k_ir),\hfill & d=2\hfill \\ k_i\frac{e^{ik_ir}}{k_ir},\hfill & d=3.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
Note that the Green’s function $`G^{(d)}`$ also represents the wave transmitted from the unit source without the presence of the layered structures; its complex conjugate represents the inward moving wave.

To solve for the unknown coefficients $`A_i`$ and $`B_i`$, we invoke the boundary conditions that require the pressure field and the radial displacement be continuous across the interfaces. Consider an arbitrary interface at $`R`$. The wave on the inner ($`<`$) and outer ($`>`$) sides of the interface are respectively denoted by

$$p_{<,>}(r)=A_{<,>}G^{(d)}(k_{<,>}r)+B_{<,>}G_{}^{(d)}{}_{}{}^{}(k_{<,>}r).$$
(6)
The coefficients $`A`$ and $`B`$ on the two sides of the interface can be related by the usual boundary conditions,

$$A_<G^{(d)}(k_<R)+B_<G_{}^{(d)}{}_{}{}^{}(k_<R)=A_>G^{(d)}(k_>R)+B_>G_{}^{(d)}{}_{}{}^{}(k_>R),$$
(7)
and

$$\frac{k_<}{\rho _<}\left[A_<G_{}^{(d)}{}_{}{}^{}(k_<R)+B_<G_{}^{(d)}{}_{}{}^{,}(k_<R)\right]=\frac{k_>}{\rho _>}\left[A_>G^{(d)}(k_>R)^{}+B_>G_{}^{(d)}{}_{}{}^{,}(k_>R)\right],$$
(8)
where “$``$” means the derivative, e. g. $`G_{}^{(d)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)=\frac{d}{dx}G^{(d)}(x).`$ Eqs. (7) and (8) can be written in the matrix form

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}A_<\\ B_<\end{array}\right)=T(R)\left(\begin{array}{c}A_>\\ B_>\end{array}\right),$$
(9)
with

$$T(R)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}G^{(d)}(k_<R)& G_{}^{(d)}{}_{}{}^{}(k_<R)\\ \frac{k_<}{\rho _<}G_{}^{(d)}{}_{}{}^{}(k_<R)& \frac{k_<}{\rho _<}G_{}^{(d)}{}_{}{}^{,}(k_<R)\end{array}\right)^1\left(\begin{array}{cc}G^{(d)}(k_>R)& G_{}^{(d)}{}_{}{}^{}(k_>R)\\ \frac{k_>}{\rho _>}G_{}^{(d)}{}_{}{}^{}(k_>R)& \frac{k_>}{\rho _>}G_{}^{(d)}{}_{}{}^{,}(k_>R)\end{array}\right).$$
(10)
The matrix $`T`$ is called the transfer matrix.

For a system consisting of multiple interfaces, the transmission and reflection coefficients can be related through a consecutive product of the transfer matrices at all the interfaces. We denote the resulting matrix by $`𝐌`$. Therefore, the waves inside and outside the layered structure are related through

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}A_{in}\\ B_{in}\end{array}\right)=𝐌\left(\begin{array}{c}A_{out}\\ B_{out}\end{array}\right),$$
(11)
where

$$𝐌=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}T(R_i)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{11}& m_{12}\\ m_{21}& m_{22}\end{array}\right).$$

Now we come back to the problem. Inside the most inner interface, the transmitted wave from the source is subject to reflection from the interface at $`R_1`$. The total wave can be expressed as

$$p(r)=G^{(d)}(k_1r)+p_R(r),\text{for}0<r<R_1,$$
(12)
where the first term is the transmitted wave from the source, and the second term is the reflected wave. Since the reflected wave must be finite at the origin, it can be written as

$$p_R(r)=QG^{(d)}(k_1r)+QG_{}^{(d)}{}_{}{}^{}(k_1r).$$
(13)
The negative sign in front of the first term asserts that the reflected wave remains finite at the origin. Thus the total wave inside the layered structure is

$$p(r)=(1Q)G^{(d)}(k_1r)+QG_{}^{(d)}{}_{}{}^{}(k_1r),$$
(14)
which gives $`A_{in}=1Q`$ and $`B_{in}=Q`$. Another observation is that there is no reflected wave outside the layered structure, i. e. beyond $`R_N`$, we have

$$B_{out}=0,\text{for}r>R_N.$$
(15)
Taking these into consideration, Eq. (11) becomes

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}1Q\\ Q\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{11}& m_{12}\\ m_{21}& m_{22}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}A_{out}\\ 0\end{array}\right).$$
(16)
This equation yields the solutions

$$Q=\frac{m_{21}}{m_{11}+m_{21}},A_{out}=\frac{1}{m_{11}+m_{21}}.$$
(17)
¿From these solutions, the radiated acoustic intensity can be computed from

$$I_{out}(r)=\frac{1}{2\rho c}\left(\frac{2\pi }{k}\right)^{3d}\frac{|A_{out}|^2}{r^{d1}}.$$
(18)
The reflected intensity is

$$I_R(r)=\frac{1}{2\rho _1c_1}\left(\frac{2\pi }{k_1}\right)^{3d}\frac{|Q|^2}{r^{d1}}.$$
(19)
¿From Eq. (14) states that the effective source transmission intensity is

$$I_s(r)=\frac{1}{2\rho _1c_1}\left(\frac{2\pi }{k_1}\right)^{3d}\frac{|1Q|^2}{r^{d1}}.$$
(20)
Energy conservation states

$$\left(\frac{2\pi }{k_1}\right)^{3d}\frac{1}{\rho _1c_1}|1Q|^2=\left(\frac{2\pi }{k}\right)^{3d}\frac{1}{\rho c}|A_{out}|^2+\left(\frac{2\pi }{k_1}\right)^{3d}\frac{1}{\rho _1c_1}|Q|^2.$$
(21)
We note some typographical errors about Eqs. (21), (22) and (23) in .

We define the transmission (TR) and reflected (RF) coefficients as follows

$$\text{TR}=|A_{out}|,\text{RF}=|Q|.$$
(22)
It will become clear that when randomness is added, the transmission will be inhibited for all frequencies. The energy will be confined inside the layered structure. With the random layers, the energy flow in the radial direction decreases as the randomness or the number of layers increases, a useful property for random layered cavities to transport energies.

## II. NUMERICAL RESULTS

The situation that the coating layers are periodically placed for spherical cavities has been considered in . For the reader’s convenience, we re-plot the results in Fig. 2. In the computation, the layered structure is constructed as $`𝐀𝐌𝐖𝐌𝐖\mathrm{}𝐖`$, where $`𝐀`$ represents the air inside the cavity, i. e. the air fills the space $`r<R_1`$, $`𝐌`$ refers to the coating material whose acoustic impedance is $`\rho _mc_m`$, and $`W`$ refers to another coating material and we assume it to be similar to that of the surrounding medium, i. e. the water. We define $`g=g_2=\rho _m/\rho `$ and $`h=h_2=c_m/c`$. Here we take the acoustic contrasts as $`\rho _m/\rho =2,c_m/c=2`$. The parameters for air are $`\rho _1/\rho =0.00129,c_1/c=0.23`$. The horizontal bars represent the interfaces. There are 30 interfaces. The thickness of each layer is set to be identical and equals $`0.2R_1`$; thus the total thickness of the layered materials is $`29\times 0.2R_1`$.

Figure 2 indicates the following. (1) Periodically layered structures selects particular frequencies for transmission, i. e. at these frequencies, the transmission is greatly enhanced. (2) The spectral valleys in which transmission is greatly inhibited are equivalent to the forbidden bands observed in regular lattice solids. These valleys are called forbidden frequency bands. It is known from the previous results that these forbidden bands are caused by Bragg reflection for a periodic structure. (3) The reflection is also significantly enhanced at certain frequencies, and the separation of the reflection peaks is almost constant. (4) It is interesting to see that the results for both spherical and cylindrical geometries are qualitatively similar. The transmission and reflection peaks are only shifted slightly. In the later discussion, we will focus on the results for the cylindrical geometry while the relevant results for the spherical structure will be added only when needed.

Now we consider the randomly layered cases. In the simulation, the layered structures are constructed in the similar way as in the periodical structures, except that the interfaces are randomly placed. To be explicit, the layered structure is $`𝐀𝐌𝐖𝐌𝐖\mathrm{}𝐖`$. There are $`N`$ interfaces, i. e. there are $`N`$ horizontal bars. When there is no randomness, the interfaces are equally spaced along the radial direction; the distance between the interfaces is $`D=0.2R_1`$. In this way, the $`i`$-th interface is located at $`r_i=R_1+(i1)D`$ with $`i`$ ranging from 1 to $`N`$. The level of randomness is controlled by the degree of allowing the interfaces to shift from their locations for underlying periodically structures. We define the randomness as $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{|\delta |}{D}`$, where $`\delta `$ is the range within which the interfaces are allowed to shift from their locations when there are no disorders. For example, the location of the $`i`$-th interface can be randomly varied with the range between $`R_1+(i1)D\delta `$ and $`R_1+(i1)D+\delta `$. Clearly, the total random is the case that $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$.

The effects of the level of randomness, numbers of random layers, and acoustic contrast on the radial transmission are shown in Fig. 3. As both spherical and cylindrical geometries have the similar features, we only plot the results for the cylindrical structures here. The important message from the figure is that when the randomness is added, the transmission is repressed for all frequencies. In other words, no energy can escaped and all energies are confined inside the structure. In particular, Fig. 3 shows the following. (1) When the randomness is introduced, the transmission becomes subdued; when the randomness is small, the band effects from the underlying periodic structures are still noticeable for low frequency bands. This is shown by the case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.3`$. (2) The inhibition is more significant for high frequencies. For the low frequencies, the inhibition seems still possible. This is due to the finiteness in the number of layers. With increasing number of layers, the inhibition will be extended to low frequencies. (3) Fixing the number of layers and when the randomness is greater than a certain value, the effect of the variation in randomness becomes not prominent for high frequencies. This is shown by the tendency that the curves for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.3`$ and $`1`$ merge at high frequencies, referring to the case in, for example, (c) and (e). (4) Increasing the number of random layers, the transmission will be reduced further. In fact, the transmission will decay exponentially with the number of the random layers, as will be shown later. (5) The above features hold when the acoustic parameters vary. (6) For the spherical geometry, we obtain the similar results as in Fig. 3, and because of this we do not show the results here.

With increasing the number of the random layers, the transmission will decrease exponentially. This is illustrated by Fig. 4 for the case $`g=h=2`$. Here the results are averaged over 200 random configurations. Here is shown the transmission versus the number of random layers for four frequencies and four randomness levels. Out of the four frequencies, two are located at where the transmission is possible when no randomness is introduced, and one is within and one is within but close to the edge of the forbidden band of the underlying periodic structure. It is clear that the increasing randomness decreases gradually the transmission in the regimes in which the transmission is possible when there is no disorder. These regimes may be called the passing bands for the underlying periodical structures. This property is also true for frequencies with but in the vicinity of the forbidden band. Inside the forbidden bands, however, though inhibited the transmission is increased with the added disorder as compared to the case without disorders. This property has also been observed in one-dimensional random liquid media. This indicates that the inhibition due to randomness and the inhibition due to Bragg reflection may have different causes, and the two effects compete. For all frequencies, be within the passing or forbidden bands, the transmission decreases exponentially with increasing numbers of random layers, implying that the most energy is localized near the transmitting source.

The relation between the transmission and the number of layers can be approximately described as

$$I=\frac{I_0}{r^{d1}}e^{2N/N_0}.$$
(23)
The parameter $`N_0`$ represents the effective number of random interfaces to localize the energy, and is named the localization length in terms of the number of interfaces. The localization lengths for the cases in Fig. 4 are summarized in Table 1. It is clear from the table that within the passing bands of the underlying period structure the localization length decreases with increasing frequency and disorders, while well within the forbidden bands the localization length decreases with increasing disorders. This table also shows that the localization lengths are almost identical for the spherical and cylindrical geometries. Moreover, we also see that for the totally random configurations, the energy confinements can be achieved by just a few random interfaces. Further simulation indicates that the localization length decreases with increasing the acoustic contrast.

We also examine the reflection behavior. The conservation law in Eq. (21) is rewritten as

$$\left(\frac{2\pi }{k_1}\right)^{3d}\frac{1}{\rho _1c_1}\left(|1Q|^2|Q|^2\right)=\left(\frac{2\pi }{k}\right)^{3d}\frac{1}{\rho c}|A_{out}|^2.$$
(24)
When the radiation is stopped, i. e. $`|A_{out}|0`$, we are thus led to the relation

$$|1Q|^2|Q|^2.$$
(25)
The numerical confirmation is shown in Fig. 5, in which the ratio $`|1Q|/|Q|`$ is plotted as a function of frequency in terms of $`kR_1`$. With reference to Fig. 2, we see that the ratio deviates from one only for frequencies within the passing bands for the regular structures. With added disorders, this ratio is virtually one for all frequencies. Note that the reason why the ratio is close to one even for the periodic structures is that we take out a term associated with the acoustic impedance.

Finally we note that the results in this papers bear some similarities to the Anderson localization in one dimensional random systems in that no waves can propagate in such a system. The most significant difference is that in the present case, the waves are localized near the transmitting site. In the 1D cases, however, the energy needs not be confined near the source, and there is a stochastic resonance behavior which is absent from the present situations.

## III. SUMMARY

In this paper, we consider acoustic radiation from randomly layered cavities. The results in the present paper convey the information that when a cavity is coated by random layers, virtually no energy can be radiated in the radial direction. The waves are mainly localized inside the cavity, and its decay along the radial direction follows an exponential law. The results presented here may be useful for designing acoustic ‘lasers’, resonators, or energy transport. For example, suppose there is a cylindrical wave guide. The propagating wave can be generically written as $`e^{ik_zz}f(r)`$ in the cylindrical coordinates. When the guide is coated by random materials, according to the results, no energy can be radiated into the transverse directions, all energies will be confined inside the guide and can only propagate in the longitudinal direction, i. e. $`f(r)`$ decreases with $`r`$. By adjusting the coating materials, the energy transport along the longitudinal axis may be tuned to fit the applications. The results may also be useful for designing possible ‘sonic fibers’ in analogy with the recent all-dielectric optical fibers . For the spherical waveguides, various energies can be stored inside the guides by adjusting the coating materials.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The work received support from the National Science Council.


text:
# LARGE-SCALE DISTRIBUTION and SPECTRAL PROPERTIES of GALAXIES in the SHAPLEY CONCENTRATION

## 1 Large-scale distribution of galaxies

In collaboration with G.Zamorani, L.Moscardini, R.Scaramella
The distribution of clusters inside the Shapley Concentration is quite well studied; on the contrary, little is known about the distribution and the overdensity of intercluster galaxies.
For this reason we performed a redshift survey of galaxies which are outside the clusters and the obvious bi–dimensional overdensities in this region, in order to derive the distribution and the overdensity of “field” objects. These data have been added to our surveys covering the cluster complexes (Bardelli et al. 1994, 1998a, 2000b), resulting in a total redshift sample of $`2000`$ radial velocities. In Figure 2 we show our sampling strategy: big and small circles correspond to the field of view of the MEFOS and OPTOPUS multifiber spectrographs (at the 3.6m ESO telescope), respectively.
In Figure 3 we show the wedge diagram of our sample. It is clear the presence of the two cluster complexes dominated by A3558 (on the left) and by A3528 (on the right). These two structures appear to be connected by a bridge of galaxies, resembling the Coma-A1367 system, the central part of the Great Wall. The scale of this system is $`23`$ h-1 Mpc and it is comparable to that of Coma-A1367 ($`21`$ h-1 Mpc ). Note the presence of two voids at $`20000`$ km/s and $`30000`$ km/s in the easternmost half of the wedge, labelled as V1 and V2 respectively. Other two voids (V3 and V4) are visible in the westernmost part of the plot: in particular, void V3 appears to be delimited by two elongated features (S300a and S300b) which appear to “converge” in a single feature at right ascension $`13^h`$ (S300c). We refer to this structure with the name S300: as shown below, the overdensity corresponding to this excess is remarkably high.
Our main results are the following (Bardelli et al. 2000a):
– The average velocity of the observed intercluster galaxies in the Shapley Concentration appears to be a function of the ($`\alpha `$, $`\delta `$) position, and can be fitted by a plane in the three–dimensional space ($`\alpha `$, $`\delta `$, $`v`$): the distribution of the galaxy distances around the best fit plane is described by a Gaussian with $`\sigma =3.8`$ h-1 Mpc .
– Using the 1440 galaxies of our sample in the magnitude range $`1718.8`$, we reconstructed the density profile in the central part of the Shapley Concentration and we detected another significant overdensity at $`30000`$ km/s (see Figure 4).
– We estimate the total overdensity in galaxies, the mass and the dynamical state of these structures, discussing the effect of considering a bias between the galaxy distribution and the underlying matter. The estimated total overdensity in galaxies of these two structures is $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{\overline{N}}}5.2`$ on scale of $`15.5`$ h-1 Mpc for the Shapley Concentration and $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{\overline{N}}}2.9`$ on scale of $`24.8`$ h-1 Mpc for S300. If light traces the mass distribution, the corresponding masses are $`2.3\times 10^{16}`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ h-1 M and $`5.1\times 10^{16}`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ h-1 M for Shapley Concentration and S300, respectively (see Table 1 and Figure 5).
The dynamical analysis reveals that, if light traces mass and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, the Shapley Concentration already reached its turnaround radius and started to collapse: the final collapse will happen in $`\mathrm{3\; 10}^9`$ h-1 yrs.
– We compare our mass estimates on various scales with other results in the literature, finding a general agreement (see Figure 5).
– We find an indication that the value of the bias between clusters and galaxies in the Shapley Concentration is higher than that reported in literature, confirming the impression that this supercluster is very rich in clusters.
– Finally from the comparison with some theoretical scenarios, we find that the Shapley Concentration is consistent with the predictions of the models with more power on large scale (such as Open and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ CDM), while it is inconsistent with the standard CDM normalized to the cluster abundance.

## 2 Spectral properties of galaxies

In collaboration with A.Baldi
The large amount of spectra in our sample allows a uniform spectral classification of galaxies in the Shapley Concentration, in order to investigate the morphology–density relation in a wide range of densities, from the cluster to the supercluster environment, in this dynamically active region (Baldi, Bardelli & Zucca, 2000).
The method we have chosen to perform spectral classification of our sample of galaxies is the Principal Components Analysis, following the Galaz & deLapparent (1998) paper.
We have considered only galaxies in the velocity range $`1000022500`$ km/s, in order to limit the spectral analysis to the physical extension of the Shapley Concentration. Moreover, given the fact that the intercluster survey is limited to the the magnitude range 17 $``$ $`b_J`$ $``$ 18.8, when we compare the cluster galaxy properties with the intercluster ones, we use subsamples with these magnitude limits. Our final sample contains $`800`$ spectra.
Note that, although fiber spectra do not allow a very precise flux calibration, in our case the use of a limited distance range maintains the spectral features at approximately the same wavelength and therefore at the same instrumental response.
In order to have a comparison of supercluster spectra with those of “true” field galaxies, we have considered a sample taken from the ESO Slice Project (ESP) galaxy redshift survey (Vettolani et al. 1997). This survey was obtained with the same telescope and instrumental set up of our sample and therefore represents a well defined reference sample.
From the PCA analysis, we found that the first three principal components (PCs) (reported in Figure 6) are sufficient to reconstruct $``$99% in flux of the sample. Then, following Galaz & deLapparent (1998), we applied a coordinate trasformation from the three-dimensional space defined by the PCs to the bi-dimensional space $`(\delta ,\theta )`$. The $`\delta `$ parameter represents the importance of the blue part of the continuum with respect to the red one, while $`\theta `$ is an indicator of the emission line strength in a galaxy spectrum.
The galaxies follow a well defined sequence in the $`(\delta ,\theta )`$ plane (Figure 6) and the Kennicutt’s galaxies (of known morphological type) are located in a succession of increasing values of $`\delta `$, going from the ellipticals to the irregulars. For this reason, in the following we’ll use $`\delta `$ to classify galaxies.
In Figure 7 the fractions of galaxies in three morphological bins (early, intermediate and late type) are shown for each sample. As expected, cluster galaxies show a completely different morphological distribution with respect to ESP and intercluster galaxies, being the fraction of early-type galaxies dominant in such high density environment.
More interesting, this figure shows a broad agreement between the intercluster and the ESP sample: this fact suggests that the galaxies located in the intercluster regions of the Shapley supercluster have a morphological mix not different from field galaxies.
Looking at the dependence of the morphological mix on the local density (Figure 7), a decreasing of the late-type galaxies fraction with increasing values of density is clearly visible, both in the A3528 and in the A3558 complexes, reflecting the well-known morphology–density relation. Moreover, for every density value, this fraction remains significantly below the mean field value.
From the A3528 complex, we have eliminated galaxies belonging to the poor cluster A3535 (which is not dynamically part of the structure): the morphological mix of these objects remains almost constant with the density and with values in agreement with those found for the field population.
The spatial distribution of early-type and late-type galaxies in the two cluster complexes is shown in Figure 8.
In Figure 9 we show the dependence of the mean \[OII\] equivalent width and of the mean star formation rate (derived following Kennicut 1992) on the local density.

## References


text:
# Morphological Symmetry Breaking During Epitaxial Growth at Grazing Incidence

\[

## Abstract

It is shown that, in submonolayer growth at off-normal incidence, even much less than one percent of transfer from the condensation energy of the deposited atoms into adatom motion is sufficient to induce a net adatom current from the illuminated edge of a two-dimensional island to the other edges, thereby breaking the island symmetry. Such a symmetry breaking phenomenon is most pronounced for deposition at grazing incidence. Comparison between our theoretical predictions and existing experimental results confirms the general validity of the model.

\]

Because of their application potentials in future electronic devices, a great deal of effort is being devoted to developing novel methods for fabrication of organized low-dimensional structures, such as ordered arrays of quantum wires or quantum dots. Epitaxial growth and its inverse process, atom removal by sputtering or etching, are two of the most promising approaches for mass production of controlled nanostructures on various substrates. Typically, ordered structures are obtained in heteroepitaxial systems, and the long-range elastic field associated with the lattice mismatch between the two systems plays an essential role in leading to self-organized growth . However, in recent studies of Cu(100) homoepitaxy, an intriguing phenomenon about island formation and ordering has been discovered, i.e., the average island symmetry varies with the incident angle of deposition, leading to the formation of elongated islands, or ripples, of twofold symmetry . In contrast, earlier studies of Cu(100) homoepitaxial growth at normal incidence resulted in only square-shaped islands of fourfold symmetry . Such a symmetry breaking phenomenon is already present even in the submonolayer growth regime, and is more dramatic at grazing incidence . For atom removal by sputtering under ion bombardment at off-normal incidence, formation of coherent ripples has also been observed on different substrates .

In earlier attempts to understand these symmetry breaking phenomena, some qualitative suggestions have been proposed, all of which relying on atoms climbing down from steps as an essential atomic process . In this Letter, through a detailed study of a simple model, we offer an alternative and quantitative interpretation of the widely observed incidence geometry induced symmetry breaking. Our model is based on an experimentally widely-invoked concept, namely, transient mobility of deposited atoms on various surfaces . Through studying shape evolution of monolayer-high islands on an fcc(100) surface, we demonstrate that even much less than one percent of transfer of the condensation energy from the deposited atoms into adatom motion is sufficient to induce a net adatom current transferring adatoms from the illuminated island edge to neighboring edges. As a consequence, the symmetry of the growing islands changes from initially square shape to rectangular shape elongated perpendicularly to the incident direction. Such a symmetry breaking phenomenon is most pronounced for deposition at grazing incidence. A comparison between theory and experiment confirms the general validity of the model. We also make several specific predictions that can be tested in future experiments.

We use Fig. 1 to schematically show the growth process of a monolayer-high island on an fcc(100) surface during deposition at off-normal incidence. We denote the island width and length by $`W=m_xa`$ and $`L=m_ya`$, respectively, where $`a`$ is the surface lattice constant. We name the four island edges as $`x^+`$, $`x^{}`$, $`y^+`$, and $`y^{}`$ edges. Atoms are deposited onto the surface at an angle $`\alpha `$ with respect to the surface normal, with a deposition flux $`F`$. We consider the three most important kinetic processes for adatom motion, i.e., the surface diffusion, the island edge diffusion, and the island corner crossing, with rates $`q_i=\nu _i\mathrm{exp}(V_i/kT)`$, where $`V_i`$ and $`\nu _i`$ ($`i=s,e,c`$) are the corresponding barriers and attempt frequencies. In general, one has $`V_c=V_e+\mathrm{\Delta }V`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }V>0`$ because an adatom has to lower its coordination in crossing an island corner .

In the case of deposition at off-normal incidence, the effective flux for depositing atoms on the surface is $`F\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$. The adatoms diffuse on the surface and attach to an existing island with a flux $`f_s=\frac{F\mathrm{cos}\alpha }{N}`$, where $`N`$ is the island density. Following classical nucleation theory , we have

$$f_s=(\frac{\nu _sa^2F^2\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha }{3\theta })^{\frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{V_s}{3kT}),$$
(1)
where $`\theta `$ is the coverage. Because of the isotropic nature of adatom diffusion on an fcc(100) surface, the fluxes for adatom attachment at the $`x`$ ($`x^+`$ or $`x^{}`$) and $`y`$ ($`y^+`$ or $`y^{}`$) island edges are given by $`f_x=\frac{m_x}{2(m_x+m_y)}f_s`$ and $`f_y=\frac{m_y}{2(m_x+m_y)}f_s`$, respectively. A remarkable feature for the off-normal deposition is that it directly deposits atoms on the island edge facing the incident beam (the illuminated edge), with a flux $`f_d=Fm_ya^2\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$, valid in the low coverage limit.

It is easy to conjecture on the island shape evolution if without the contribution of the condensation energy. Because of the existence of the direct landing flux $`f_d`$, the illuminated edge (the $`y^+`$ edge in Fig. 1) has more arriving atoms than the other three edges. In the low temperature regime where island-corner crossing is not frequent enough to establish equilibrium adatom distribution along the four edges, the islands would elongate parallel to the incident direction. In contrast, at higher temperatures, frequent edge diffusion and corner crossing can take place, leading to adatom transfer from one edge to the other edges. This yields a uniform adatom distribution on the four island edges. Therefore, without the contribution of condensation energy, one would only find compact islands of either square shape or rectangular shape elongated parallel to the incident direction.

Now, let us consider the effect of the condensation energy transfer to adatom diffusion. As stated above, the illuminated island edge has more landing atoms than the other three edges. The existence of the transient mobility  implies that those adatoms directly deposited at the illuminated edge will have higher mobility to cross the two island corners bounding this edge. Such anisotropic island corner crossing induces a net current transferring adatoms from the illuminated edge to its neighboring edges, and may therefore change the symmetry of the initially square-shaped islands. As a result, the islands can elongate along the direction perpendicular to the incident direction, which is just the opposite to the expectation given above without consideration of condensation energy transfer.

To quantify the above picture, next we derive a set of equations describing the island evolution in the presence of condensation energy transfer. In a unit time, the total condensation energy given up by the atoms directly deposited at the illuminated edge amounts to $`f_dU_0`$, where $`U_0`$ is the condensation energy for each atom. During the same time, the number of atoms landing on the illuminated edge is $`f_d+f_y`$. Because only a portion of the condensation energy is transferred into diffusional motion, we write the average energy gain of an adatom on the illuminated edge as $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=\beta f_dU_0/(f_d+f_y)`$. Here $`\beta `$ is a parameter describing the transfer efficiency from the condensation energy of the incident atom to its diffusional motion, with $`\beta =1`$ corresponding to complete transfer and $`\beta =0`$ to zero transfer. It should be noted that, besides its being finite based on the experimental evidences for transient mobility , very little is known about this parameter $`\beta `$. Nevertheless, it is known to possess the following qualitative features, based on simple physical considerations. First, $`\beta `$ is weakly temperature-dependent for a given system, because the condensation energy is much larger than the thermal energy at typical growth temperatures. Second, $`\beta `$ is also weakly dependent on the incident angle, because the primary angular dependence of the problem has already been incorporated into the flux expression $`f_d`$. Thirdly, $`\beta `$ is expected to be strongly system-dependent, larger for a larger mass mismatch between the incident atom and the substrate atom. This last point is transparent within the simple picture of elastic collision between the incident atom and a surface atom, and is still qualitatively correct even if the frictional forces due to vibrational and/or electronic damping are included.

With the above considerations, here we can treat $`\beta `$ as a fitting parameter, and approximate the higher rate of an adatom on the illuminated island edge by $`q_h=\nu _c\mathrm{exp}(\frac{V_c}{kT+\mathrm{\Delta }E})`$ when crossing an island corner to a neighboring edge. The average frequency for an adatom on an island edge of length $`m`$ to cross the island corner with rate $`q_c`$ can be well approximated  by $`\frac{1}{m}q_c`$ when $`V_c>V_e`$. Assume that the numbers of adatoms on the $`x^+`$, $`x^{}`$, $`y^+`$, and $`y^{}`$ edges at time $`t`$ are $`n_x^+`$, $`n_x^{}`$, $`n_y^+`$, and $`n_y^{}`$, respectively. Because of the higher island corner crossing rate for adatoms on the illuminated island edge, there must exist a net adatom current, $`j_1`$, which transfers adatoms from the $`y^+`$ edge to its neighboring $`x^+`$ or $`x^{}`$ edge. As a consequence, one has $`n_x^+>n_y^{}`$ and $`n_x^{}>n_y^{}`$, which further induce another net adatom current, $`j_2`$, carrying adatoms from the $`x^+`$ and $`x^{}`$ edges to the $`y^{}`$ edge. All together, the growth of the island is described by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn_y^+}{dt}}=f_y+f_d2j_1`$

$$\frac{dn_y^{}}{dt}=f_y+2j_2$$
(2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn_x^+}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{dn_x^{}}{dt}}=f_x+j_1j_2,`$

where

$$j_1=\frac{n_y^+}{m_y}q_h\frac{n_x^+}{m_x}q_c,j_2=(\frac{n_x^+}{m_x}\frac{n_y^{}}{m_y})q_c.$$
(3)
Variations of the island width, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_xa`$, and island length, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_ya`$, are given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_x=\frac{n_y^++n_y^{}}{m_y}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_y=\frac{n_x^++n_x^{}}{m_x}`$. The ratio $`r\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }L}{\mathrm{\Delta }W}=\mathrm{\Delta }m_y/\mathrm{\Delta }m_x`$ predicts the evolution of the island shape. A square-shaped island will remain a square if $`r=1`$ (stable growth), and will elongate perpendicularly to the incident direction if $`r>1`$ or parallel to the incident direction if $`r<1`$ (unstable growth).

Because $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ reaches its maximum when $`\alpha `$ approaches $`90^{}`$, the effect of the condensation energy is most pronounced in the case of grazing incidence. In the following, we first focus our attention on the growth at grazing incidence. Typical behaviors of $`r`$ versus $`T`$ for different $`\beta `$ are shown in Fig. 2, where the growth parameters are $`F=0.1\mathrm{MLs}^1`$, $`\nu _s=\nu _c=10^{12}\mathrm{s}^1`$, $`V_s=0.35`$eV, $`V_e=0.1`$eV, $`\mathrm{\Delta }V=0.3`$eV, $`U_0=5`$eV, and $`t=0.1`$s. Fig. 2(a) is for an initial square island of size $`m_x^0=m_y^0=2`$. Fig. 2(b) is for an intermediate rectangular island with $`m_x^0=2`$ and $`m_y^0=8`$. As expected, without contribution of the condensation energy, i.e., $`\beta =0`$, the ratio $`r`$ remains a constant $`r=1`$ when $`T>>T_c`$ and $`r<1`$ when $`T<T_c`$, where $`T_c190`$K is the freezing temperature for island corner crossing defined by $`tq_c(T_c)1`$. For a non-zero $`\beta `$, we find three different $`rT`$ behaviors upon changing the energy transfer coefficient $`\beta `$. In the case of a very small $`\beta `$, e.g., $`\beta =10^4`$ in Fig. 2, $`r`$ increases with decreasing temperature until it reaches $`T_c`$. Further decreasing $`T`$ rapidly turns $`r`$ to zero. A notable feature of $`r`$ in the temperature regime $`T>T_c`$ is $`1<r<2`$. For larger $`\beta `$, e.g., $`\beta =6\times 10^4`$ in Fig. 2, when $`T`$ approaches $`T_c`$, $`r`$ increases from $`r=1`$ at high temperatures to a ratio $`r=2`$. After that, a highly anisotropic growth with $`r>2`$ appears until the temperature reaches another critical value $`T_a170`$K. When $`T`$ further goes down, $`r`$ drops to zero. We identify $`T_a`$ to be the freezing temperature for condensation energy assisted island corner crossing defined by $`tq_h(T_a)1`$. In the case of a much larger coefficient $`\beta `$, e.g., $`\beta =0.05`$, a steady growth regime characterized by $`r2`$ exists at moderate temperatures, and the strongly anisotropic growth mode $`r>2`$ remains in the whole temperature range of $`T<T_c`$. We note that the steady growth regime exists for all $`\beta >0.05`$. Figure 2 also shows that the value of $`r`$ is larger for a larger value of $`m_y^0/m_x^0`$ (except for the steady state regime where $`r2`$), indicating that the elongation instability is more pronounced for already developed rectangular islands.

The observed different behaviors of $`r`$ for different $`\beta `$ can be rationalized based on the competition of the three rate processes: surface diffusion, thermally activated island corner crossing (without the assistance of the condensation energy), and condensation energy assisted island corner crossing. In the temperature regime $`T>T_c`$, frequent corner crossing with $`q_c>>1`$ and $`q_h>q_c`$ induces a net current $`j_1`$ transferring adatoms from the illuminated edge to its neighboring edges. On the other hand, $`q_c>>1`$ also results in a uniform adatom distribution on the $`x^+`$, $`x^{}`$, and $`y^{}`$ edges, with $`j_2=0`$. From Eqs. (2)-(3), we have $`r=2/[1+(1+2m/n)\xi ]`$, where $`\xi =(f_y+f_d2j_1)/(2f_x+f_y+j_1)`$. Because typically $`V_sV_c`$, surface diffusion is activated when $`q_c>>1`$, leading to $`f_s>>f_d`$. Moreover, for a small $`\beta `$, the net current is small with $`j_1<(f_d+f_s)/2`$. Therefore, we have $`1<r<2`$ for $`T>T_c`$, as shown in Fig. 2 for $`\beta =10^4`$. By increasing $`\beta `$, $`j_1`$ reaches the maximum current $`j_1=(f_s+f_d)/2`$ upon decreasing $`T`$ toward $`T_c`$. In this case, we find $`r=2`$, as shown in Fig. 2 for $`\beta =6\times 10^4`$ and $`\beta =0.05`$. In the temperature regime $`T<T_c`$ for small $`\beta `$, corner crossing and surface diffusion are frozen with $`q_c<<1`$, $`q_h<<1`$ and $`q_s<<1`$. The landing atoms from the direct flux $`f_d`$ accumulate on the illuminated edge, leading to $`0r<1`$. For $`T_a<T<T_c`$, we have $`q_c<<1`$ and $`q_s<<1`$ but $`q_h>>1`$. Such a regime of strongly anisotropic island corner crossing leads to $`j_1=(j_s+j_d)/2`$, which in turn results in strongly anisotropic growth with $`r>2`$, as shown in Fig. 2 for $`\beta =6\times 10^4`$. Finally, for even larger $`\beta `$, we have $`q_h>>1`$ for any temperature below $`T_c`$, leading to $`r>2`$ for $`T<T_c`$ (see Fig. 2 for $`\beta =0.05`$). The above discussions are valid as long as the islands are compact .

Finally, through studying Cu/Cu(001) growth, we examine how the aspect ratio $`r`$ depends on the incident angle. Fig. 3 is obtained for various temperatures with the same flux $`F=0.0042`$MLs<sup>-1</sup> as used in the experiments . The barriers are $`V_s=0.505`$ eV, $`V_e=0.265`$ eV, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V=0.29`$ eV, as suggested by experiments and embedded-atom model calculations. The condensation energy  is taken as $`U_0=3`$eV and a reasonably small energy transfer coefficient, $`\beta =8\times 10^5`$, is used. Figure 3 indicates that, at room temperature, the elongation is not easily measurable for smaller $`\alpha `$. Significant change of the island shape occurs at larger grazing angles ($`\alpha >80^{}`$). This explains why one usually observes square-shaped islands during deposition at normal incidence or small-angle incidence  but elongated islands at grazing incidence . Furthermore, after integration of Eq. (2) to a coverage $`\theta =0.5`$, we found that the aspect ratio has a value $`r\frac{L}{W}=1.05`$ for $`T=250`$ K at $`\alpha =80^{}`$, as found in the experiments . Moreover, Fig. 3 shows that $`r`$ can be greatly enhanced by slightly decreasing the growth temperature, a prediction to be confirmed in future experiments. We also note that if $`\beta `$ increases weakly with $`\alpha `$, the crossover shown in Fig. 3 will be even sharper.

In summary, through studying monolayer-high island shape evolution on an fcc(100) surface, we have shown that the condensation energy of deposited adatoms can play an important rule in controlling the island shape during epitaxial growth. In the case of deposition at off-normal incidence, the component of the deposition flux parallel to the surface provides additional atoms on the illuminated island edge and thus more condensation energy. This leads to an enhancement of the mobility of the adatoms on the illuminated edge, and results in island elongation perpendicular to the incident direction. Such an island symmetry breaking phenomenon is most pronounced at grazing incidence. A comparison between the theoretical predictions and the experimental findings in Cu/Cu(001) growth confirms the general validity of the model. We have also found strong temperature dependence of the aspect ratio, and the existence of a well-defined incident angle above which the elongation instability is most pronounced. These latter predictions are to be verified in future experiments.

We thank Dr. W.F. Egelhoff, Jr. for a careful reading of the manuscript, and for his helpful comments and suggestions. This research was supported by the US National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMR-9702938, by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed by Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corp. for the Department of Energy under contract No. DE-AC05-96OR22464, and by the Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 19810760328 and 19928409.

On leave from the Department of Physics, Xiangtan University, Hunan 411105, China.