text:
# Required sample size for learning sparse Bayesian networks with many variables

## 1 Introduction

Learning joint probability measures on a large set of variables is an important task of statistics. One of the main motivations to estimate joint probabilities is to study statistical dependencies and independencies between the random variables . In many applications the goal is to obtain information on the underlying causal structure that produces the statistical correlations. However, the problem of learning causal structure from statistical data is in general a deep problem and cannot be solved by statistical considerations alone .

Here we do not focus on the problem of uncovering the causal structure, we rather address the problem of learning the probability distribution on a large set of variables. In general, the sample size required for estimating an unknown measure on the variables $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$ grows exponentially with $`n`$. Assume for simplicity that each $`X_j`$ is a discrete variable with $`d`$ possible values. Then the probabilities of $`d^n`$ possible outcomes have to be estimated. The sample size can be decreased considerably if prior knowledge on the possible correlations is given. Consider for example the trivial case when no statistical dependencies are possible at all, i.e.,

$$P(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)=P(x_1)P(x_2)\mathrm{}P(x_n),$$

where $`x_j`$ denotes particular realizations of the corresponding variable $`X_j`$. Then one has only to learn the probabilities $`P(x_1),\mathrm{},P(x_n)`$.

There are less trivial examples where prior information on the statistical dependencies strongly reduce the required sample size. For instance, this information may stem from knowledge on the underlying causal structure. Following  we encode causal structure in a directed graph with random variables as its nodes. Here we assume the graph to be acyclic. The decisive prior information assumed to be given here is that each variable has at most $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ parents, i.e., is influenced directly by at most $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ other nodes. Note that we do not assume that we know which nodes are the parents. Therefore, our assumption is merely a kind of simplicity assumption on the causation for the statistical dependencies. Furthermore, it should be emphasized that in many cases one will not find any pair of variables that are statistically independent. The constraints on the causal structure for the joint probability measure are more sophisticated and are only reflected in conditional probabilities. These constraints are well-known as the Markov condition in Bayesian networks . Conversely, Bayesian networks may be considered as a convenient and intuitive way of encoding statistical dependencies among variables in a graph (without any causal interpretation).

## 2 Bayesian networks

Let us briefly introduce Bayesian networks. To do that we define conditional independence relationships among variables, a central notion in the analysis of probability distributions.

###### Definition 1 (Conditional independence)

Let $`𝐕=\{X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_n\}`$ be a finite set of variables. Let $`P()`$ be a joint probability distribution over the variables in $`V`$, and let $`𝐗`$, $`𝐘`$ and $`𝐙`$ stand for any three subsets of $`𝐕`$. The sets $`𝐗`$ and $`𝐘`$ are said to be conditionally independent given $`𝐙`$, denoted by

$$(𝐗𝐘|𝐙)$$
(1)
if

$$P(𝐱,𝐲|𝐳)=P(𝐱|𝐳)P(𝐲|𝐳),\text{whenever }P(𝐳)>0,$$
(2)
where $`𝐱`$ is the tuple denoting a particular realization of the values of the variables in $`𝐗`$ and the tuples $`𝐲`$ and $`𝐳`$ are defined analogously. In words, if all the actual values of the variables in $`𝐙`$ are known the actual values of the variables in $`𝐘`$ do not provide any further information on the actual values of the variables in $`𝐗`$.

Directed acyclic graphs or Bayesian networks – a term coined in  – are used to facilitate economical representation of joint probability distributions. The basis decomposition scheme offered by directed acyclic graphs can be illustrated as follows. Let $`P()`$ be a joint probability distribution as in Definition 1. The chain rule of probability calculus always permit to decompose $`P`$ as a product of $`n`$ conditional probability distributions:

$$P(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}P(x_j|x_1,\mathrm{},x_{j1}).$$
(3)
Now suppose that the conditional probability of some variable $`X_j`$ is not sensitive to all the predecessors of $`X_j`$ but only to a small subset of those predecessors. In words, suppose that $`X_j`$ is independent of all other predecessors, once we know the values of a selected group of predecessors called $`𝐏_j:=\{X_{j,1},\mathrm{},X_{j,m_j}\}`$. We can then write

$$P(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}P(x_j|𝐩_j)$$
(4)
considerably simplifying the input information. Instead of specifying the probability of $`X_j`$ conditional on all possible realizations of its predecessors $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_{j1}`$, we need only to take into account the possible realizations of the set $`𝐏_j`$. The set $`𝐏_j`$ is called the Markovian parents of $`X_j`$, or the parents for short. The reason for the name becomes clear when we introduce graphs around this concept.

###### Definition 2 (Markov parents)

Let $`V=\{X_1,\mathrm{},X_n\}`$ be an ordered set of variables, and let $`P()`$ be the joint probability distribution on these variables. A set of variables $`𝐏_j`$ is said to be Markovian parents of $`X_j`$ if $`𝐏_j`$ is a minimal set of predecessors of $`X_j`$ that renders $`X_j`$ independent of all its other predecessors. In words, $`𝐏_j`$ is any subset of $`\{X_1,\mathrm{},X_{j1}\}`$ satisfying

$$P(x_j|𝐩_j)=P(x_j|x_1,\mathrm{},x_{j1})$$
(5)
such that no proper subset of $`𝐏_j`$ satisfies Eq. (5).

This definition assigns to each variable $`X_j`$ a selected set $`𝐏_j`$ of preceding variables that are sufficient for determining the probability of $`X_j`$. The values of the other preceding variables are redundant once we know the values $`𝐩_j`$ of the parent set $`𝐏_j`$. This assignment can be encoded in a directed acyclic graph in which the variables are represented by the nodes and arrows are drawn from each node of the parent set toward the child node $`X_j`$.

Furthermore, Definition 2 also provides a simple recursive method for constructing such a DAG: Starting with the pair $`(X_1,X_2)`$, we draw an arrow from $`X_1`$ to $`X_2`$ if and only if the two variables are dependent. Assume that we have constructed the DAG up to node $`j1`$. At the $`j`$th stage, we select any minimal set of predecessors of $`X_j`$ that renders $`X_j`$ independent from its other predecessors (as in Eq. (5)), call this set $`𝐏_j`$ and draw an arrow from each member in $`𝐏_j`$ to $`X_j`$. The result is a directed acyclic graph, called a Bayesian network, in which an arrow from $`X_i`$ to $`X_j`$ assigns $`X_i`$ as a Markovian parent of $`X_j`$, consistent with Definition 2.

Let us mention that the set $`𝐏_j`$ is unique whenever the distribution $`P()`$ is strictly positive, i.e. every configuration of variables, no matter how unlikely, has some finite probability of occurring. Under such conditions, the Bayesian network associated with $`P()`$ is unique, given the ordering of the variables .

###### Definition 3 (Markov Compatibility)

Let $`G`$ be a DAG. If a probability distribution $`P`$ admits a factorization relative to $`G`$, i.e.

$$P(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}P(X_j=x_j|𝐏_j=𝐩_j),$$
(6)
where $`𝐏_j`$ are the parents of the node $`X_j`$ defined by the graph $`G`$, then we say $`G`$ and $`P`$ are compatible, or that $`P`$ is Markov relative to $`G`$.

The problem of learning a Bayesian network usually treated in the literature is as follows. Given a training set  $`\{𝐱^1,\mathrm{},𝐱^l\}`$, find a network that best matches the training set (see e.g. ), i.e. to determine a graph $`G`$ such that $`P`$ is Markov relative to $`G`$.

## 3 Networks with bounded in-degree

To motivate our decisive assumption we would like to note that scientific reasoning always tries to find a simple explanation for the data (“Occam’s Razor”). We are aware of the fact that “simplicity” is hard to formalize. However, it seems reasonable to try to explain data by simple causal graphs. Here we may use the in-degree of the graph as criterion for simplicity. It is defined as the greatest number of parents that occurs. The intuitive meaning of in-degree $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is that no variable is directly influenced by more than $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ others. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }n`$ we call the graph sparse. Clearly, the in-degree is only one of the graph theoretical notions that may be used to define simplicity of causal explanations; we could use e.g. the number of edges.

Let $`G`$ be an arbitrary DAG with in-degree $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Then every probability measure that is Markovian relative to $`G`$ is already determined by the probabilities of all $`(\mathrm{\Delta }+1)`$-tuples. This follows directly from the decomposition in Eq. (5) since the conditional probabilities $`P(x_j|𝐩_j)`$ are the quotients of the probabilities $`P(x_j,𝐩_j)`$ and $`P(𝐩_j)`$ of sizes at most $`\mathrm{\Delta }+1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, respectively. Consequently, if $`G`$ is known we can learn the probability measure $`P`$ by learning the probabilities of all $`\mathrm{\Delta }+1`$-tuples.

In contrast, we do not assume that we know the exact structure of $`G`$ but only that its in-degree at most $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Now the situation is more complicated. Since we do not know the set of parents for any $`X_j`$, we do not know which conditional probabilities have to appear in the factorization in Eq. (5). Therefore, it is not sufficient to know the probabilities of all tuples of size $`\mathrm{\Delta }+1`$ to reconstruct the structure. We have to know the probabilities of at least all $`(\mathrm{\Delta }+2)`$-tuples to be able to test conditional independencies. The following theorem shows that it is sufficient to know the probabilities of all $`(2\mathrm{\Delta }+1)`$ tuples.

###### Theorem 4 (Graph structure from correlations)

Let $`X_1<X_2<\mathrm{}<X_n`$ be an ordering of the variables. Assume that $`P`$ is a probability measure that is Markov relative to a directed acyclic graph (DAG) $`G`$. Let $`G`$ be consistent with the ordering, i.e., the graph $`G`$ contains no arrow from $`X_j`$ to $`X_i`$ for $`i<j`$. Let $`G`$ have in-degree $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and assume that the probabilities of all $`(2\mathrm{\Delta }+1)`$-tuples are known. Then we can find a graph $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ (possibly different from $`G`$) that is Markov relative to $`P`$ and has at most in-degree $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Proof: We can find the correct graph structure by the following iteration: Draw an arrow from $`X_1`$ to $`X_2`$ if the two variables are dependent. Assume we have found the correct structure on $`X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_{j1}`$.

In order to find a possible minimal set $`𝐏_j`$ of parents of $`X_j`$ we proceed as follows: Let $`m:=\mathrm{min}\{j1,\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$. For each $`m`$-subset $`KV_j:=\{X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_{j1}\}`$ test whether the following statement is true:

$`(X_jL|K)`$ for all sets $`L`$ (disjoint from $`K`$) that contain at most $`m`$ elements.

If this is true, $`K`$ contains necessarily a set $`𝐏_j^{}`$ that can be taken as Markovian parents of $`X_j`$. This can be seen as follows: Choose $`L`$ such that $`(LK)𝐏_j`$ for an arbitrary minimal choice of parents of $`X_j`$. This is possible since $`X_j`$ has at most $`m`$ parents. Since $`LK`$ contains the parents of $`X_j`$ it renders $`X_j`$ independent of its predecessors (see the $`d`$-separation criteria in ). Formally we have $`(X_jV_j|LK)`$. By the contraction rule for conditional independencies (see ) the statements $`(X_jV_j|LK)`$ and $`(X_jL|K)`$ imply $`(X_jV_j|K)`$. Hence $`K`$ must contain a set $`𝐏_j^{}`$ that can be viewed as Markovian parents of $`X_j`$.

Now we can test whether a proper subset $`K^{}`$ of $`K`$ satisfies $`(X_jL|K^{})`$ and obtain a minimal set of parents of $`X_j`$ by iterating this procedure. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Learning the probabilities of $`k`$-tuples

Now we shall present an upper bound on the required sample size in order to learn the probabilities of all $`k`$-tuples with good reliability. Then we can apply this result to the case $`k:=2\mathrm{\Delta }+1`$.

Let $`P()`$ be a probability distribution over an (ordered) set of random variables $`𝐕=\{X_1,\mathrm{},X_n\}`$ taking on values in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$.

Let $`X_{j_1},\mathrm{},X_{j_k}`$ be any $`k`$-subset of $`𝐕`$. We would like to have a reliable statement on the probability of the event $`(x_{j_1},\mathrm{},x_{j_k})\mathrm{\Omega }_{j_1}\times \mathrm{}\times \mathrm{\Omega }_{j_k}`$, i.e. the probability

$$P(X_{j_1}=x_{j_1},\mathrm{},X_{j_k}=x_{j_k}).$$
(7)
The problem to determine the sample size required for estimating reliably the probability of one specific event is a usual problem of statistics. However, the problem we encounter in learning Bayesian networks is more sophisticated: we have to be almost sure that the estimated probabilities of all $`(2\mathrm{\Delta }+1)`$-tuples are sufficiently close to the real (unknown) probabilities.

The problem to determine whether and how fast the relative frequencies of a large set of events converge uniformly to their probabilities is well-known in statistical learning theory . Statements on uniform convergence rely on the so-called Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension (VC-dimension) of the considered set of events.

###### Definition 5 (VC dimension)

Let $`P`$ be an unknown probability measure on a probability space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`S`$ a set of events, i.e., a set of measurable subsets of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Define the VC-dimension of $`S:=(M_\lambda )`$ as the largest number $`h`$ such that there exist $`h`$ points $`\omega _1,\omega _2,\mathrm{},\omega _h\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that the sets $`M_\lambda \{\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _h\}`$ run over all $`2^h`$ subsets of $`\{\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _h\}`$. Intuitively, one can consider the sets $`M_\lambda `$ as classifiers and the VC-dimension as the largest number of points that can be classified in all $`2^h`$ possible ways. The VC-dimension is said to be infinite if such an $`h`$-subset can be found for all $`h`$.

A trivial upper bound on the VC-dimension is given by the logarithm to base $`2`$ of the number of events (in the case that $`S`$ is finite).

Finite VC-dimension is known to be sufficient and necessary in order to have uniform convergence of relative frequencies to their probabilities. Quantitatively, one has the following theorem:

###### Theorem 6 (Uniform convergence)

Let $`f(M)`$ be the relative frequency of the number of occurrences of $`M`$ after $`l`$ runs. Let $`S`$ have VC-dimension $`h`$. Let $`R_ϵ`$ be the risk (probability) that $`S`$ contains at least one set $`M`$ such that $`|f(M)P(M)|ϵ`$ for an arbitrary positive $`ϵ`$. Then we have

$$R_ϵ<4\mathrm{exp}\left\{\left(\frac{h(1+\mathrm{ln}(2l/h))}{l}(ϵ1/l)^2\right)l\right\}.$$
(8)
Proof: see Theorem 4.4. in  $`\mathrm{}`$

This theorem allows to derive a lower bound on the required sample size in order to estimate the probability of all $`k`$-tuples. First we have to define the set of events and give an upper bound on its VC-dimension.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }:=\mathrm{\Omega }_1\times \mathrm{}\times \mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ be the probability space. This means that the $`j`$th random variable takes on values from $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$. The $`k`$-tuples are characterized by the positions and values the corresponding random variables take on. Let $`𝐣:=\{j_1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_k\}`$ be an arbitrary $`k`$-subset of $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and $`𝐱\mathrm{\Omega }_{j_1},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }_{j_k}`$.

We then denote by $`M_𝐱^𝐣`$ the event that the random variables $`X_{j_1},X_{j_2},\mathrm{},X_{j_k}`$ take on the values $`x_{j_1},\mathrm{},x_{j_k}`$. This event corresponds uniquely to a cylinder set $`C_𝐱^𝐣\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

An upper bound on the VC-dimension of the set of those events that correspond to cylinder sets $`C_𝐱^𝐣`$ is easy to get. Let $`d`$ be the maximal cardinality of the sets $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j`$. Then, for fixed $`k`$, there exist at most

$$d^k\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)$$

such cylinder sets. The first term gives an upper bound on the possible combinations of values and the second term the number of different positions. This number is smaller than $`(nd)^k`$. By taking the logarithm to base $`2`$ we obtain an upper bound on the VC-dimension

$$hk\mathrm{log}_2(nd)$$
(9)
Obviously, we can use much better bounds for concrete applications, e.g. given by Stirling’s approximation (giving a less intuitive expression but providing a tighter bound). However, this crude upper bound is sufficient to study the asymptotic behavior.

Now we will present a lower bound on the VC-dimension in order to get an idea how tight the upper bound in (9) is.

We construct $`l`$ $`n`$-tuples with $`l:=\mathrm{log}_2(nk+1)`$ as follows. For each set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j`$ we choose two different values $`x_{j;0}`$ and $`x_{j;1}`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$. This defines a map $`\varphi `$ from the set of binary words of length $`n`$ into $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by setting

$$\varphi :b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_nx_{1,b_1}x_{2,b_2}\mathrm{}x_{n,b_n}.$$
(10)
Now we define an $`l\times n`$ matrix $`M`$ with entries $`0`$ and $`1`$ as follows: The first $`k1`$ columns have only $`1`$ as entries. The next $`2^l`$ columns are the binary words of length $`l`$. The remaining $`(nk+12^l)`$ columns can be chosen arbitrarily.

The rows of $`M`$ correspond to $`n`$-tuples by the map $`\varphi `$. Let $`𝒴`$ be the set of those $`n`$-tuples and $`S`$ be an arbitrary subset of $`𝒴`$. $`S`$ can uniquely be characterized by a vector $`s`$ of length $`l`$ with entries $`0`$ and $`1`$ where the $`j`$-th entry of $`s`$ indicates whether the $`j`$-th $`n`$-tuple is an element of $`S`$ or not. The matrix $`M`$ contains a column that coincides with $`s`$. Assume it to be the $`i`$-th column. Than $`C_𝐱^𝐣𝒴`$ contains exactly those $`n`$-tuples that are elements of $`S`$ provided that $`C_𝐱^𝐣`$ is chosen as follows. Let $`𝐣`$ be $`(1,2,\mathrm{},k1,i)`$ and choose $`𝐱`$ as the $`k`$-tuple $`(x_{1;1},x_{2;1},\mathrm{},x_{k1;1},x_{i;1})`$. This shows that the cylinder sets corresponding to $`k`$-tuples are able to classify $`𝒴`$ on all $`2^l`$ possibilities. Therefore $`\mathrm{log}_2(nk+1)`$ is a lower bound on the VC-dimension of the cylinder sets. Comparing this bound with the upper bound in (9), we see that it gives the correct asymptotic behavior in the $`O`$-notation if $`k`$ and $`d`$ are considered as constants.

###### Theorem 7

For $`ϵ>0`$ let $`R_ϵ`$ be the risk that there is a cylinder set $`C_𝐱^𝐣`$ such that its relative frequency deviates from its probability by more than $`ϵ`$. Than $`R_ϵ`$ can be made smaller than any $`\delta >0`$ while only increasing the sample size linearly with $`n`$.

Proof: We choose $`l`$ such that

$$\frac{l}{1+\mathrm{ln}(2l)}\frac{(ϵ1/l)^2}{2}k\mathrm{log}_2(nd).$$

This can asymptotically be achieved by increasing $`l`$ with $`O(n)`$, since $`l/(1+\mathrm{ln}(2l))l/(\mathrm{ln}(l))`$ and the latter term increases less than linearly in $`l`$.

Using our bound

$$hk\mathrm{log}_2(nd)$$

we obtain

$$h\frac{(ϵ1/l)^2}{2}\frac{l}{1+\mathrm{ln}(2l)}$$

and get

$$\frac{h(1+\mathrm{ln}(2l))}{l}\frac{(ϵ1/l)^2}{2}.$$

By elementary calculation, this implies

$$\frac{h(1+\mathrm{ln}(2l/h))}{l}(ϵ1/l)^2\frac{(ϵ1/l)^2}{2}.$$

Using the bound of Theorem 6 this shows that the risk $`R_ϵ`$ can even be made to decrease exponentially in $`n`$ while increasing the sample size $`l`$ only linearly in $`n`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Note that the sample size has to be chosen such that the deviation of the relative frequencies from their probabilities is small compared to the relative frequencies. Then we have a reasonable criterion to decide for which sets $`𝐗,𝐘,𝐙`$ of variables we may assume $`𝐗`$ and $`𝐘`$ to be independent given $`𝐙`$. This criterion is as follows: Based on the error bound of Theorem 6 we compute the relative uncertainty of the conditional probabilities used in the algorithm in the proof of Theorem 4. If the observed statistical dependencies are greater than the uncertainty we assume the variables to be dependent.

## 5 Conclusions

The sample size to learn the joint probability distribution on $`n`$ nodes does only increase linearly with $`n`$ if the underlying causal structure is assumed to be sufficiently simple. Here we considered the case that we know that the (unknown) causal graph has at most in-degree $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and a known time order exists. Than a graph that is Markov relative to the unknown probability measure can be found efficiently if only the probabilities of all $`(2\mathrm{\Delta }+1)`$-tuples are known. They can be learned with linear sample size. We have shown this by finding bounds on the VC-dimension of the corresponding cylinder sets. We would like to note that the causal structure can at least be guessed if only the probabilities of $`(2\mathrm{\Delta }+1)`$-tuples are known, since they allow to test a large number of statistical independencies.


format: text

text:
# Low momentum nucleon-nucleon potentials with half-on-shell T-matrix equivalence

## I Introduction

Recently there has been much interest in studying nuclear physics problems, particularly the two-nucleon problem, using effective field theory (EFT) kaplan ; epel00 . The basic idea of the EFT approach is to shrink the full-space theory to a small-space one which contains only the low-momentum modes. This is accomplished by integrating out the high momentum modes, thus generating effective couplings which implicitly contain the effects of the high-momentum modes. In this way, one can derive a low-momentum nucleon-nucleon (NN) potential, which is specifically designed for low-energy nuclear physics. The low-momentum NN potentials so constructed have indeed been quite successful in describing the two-nucleon system at low energy . epel00

In the present work, we would like to derive also a low-momentum NN potential, although along a different direction. There are a number of realistic nucleon-nucleon potentials $`V_{NN}`$, such as the Bonn bonn  and Paris paris  potentials, which all describe the observed deuteron and NN scattering data very well. They have both low- and high-momentum components. In fact because of the strong short range repulsion contained in them, their momentum space matrix elements $`V(k,k^{})`$ are still significant at large momentum. We would like to reduce such realistic potentials, in a physically equivalent way, to certain effective low-momentum NN potentials, $`V^{lowk}`$, which have only slow momentum components, below a chosen cut-off momentum $`k_{cut}`$.

## II Transformation method

The Schroedinger equation for the full-space two-nucleon problem is written as

$$H\mathrm{\Psi }=E\mathrm{\Psi };H=H_0+V_{NN},$$
(1)
where $`H_0`$ is the kinetic-energy operator for the two-nucleon system. A model space P is defined as a momentum subspace with $`kk_{cut}`$, $`k`$ being the two-nucleon relative momentum. We want to transform the above equation to a model-space one

$$PH_{eff}P\mathrm{\Psi }=EP\mathrm{\Psi };H_{eff}=H_0+V^{lowk},$$
(2)
where the low-momentum effective interaction is denoted as $`V^{lowk}`$. As far as the low-energy physics is concerned, we would like to have $`H_{eff}`$ to be physically equivalent to $`H`$. Specifically, this means the requirement that the deuteron binding energy, low-energy NN phase shifts and the low-momentum half-on-shell T-matrix of H are all reproduced by $`H_{eff}`$. The full-space half-on-shell T-matrix for $`V_{NN}`$ is defined as

$$p^{}T(\omega )p=p^{}V_{NN}p+_0^{\mathrm{}}k^2𝑑kp^{}V_{NN}k\frac{1}{\omega H_0(k)}kT(\omega )p;\omega =\epsilon _p,$$
(3)
where $`\epsilon _p`$ is the unperturbed energy for state $`p`$. The corresponding model-space T-matrix given by $`V_{lowk}`$ is

$`p^{}T_{eff}(\omega )p=p^{}V^{lowk}p+{\displaystyle _0^{k_{cut}}}k^2𝑑kp^{}V^{lowk}k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega H_0(k)}}kT_{eff}(\omega )p;`$
$`\omega =\epsilon _p.`$ (4)
Note for $`T_{eff}`$ the intermediate states are integrated up to $`k_{cut}`$. The boundary conditions associated with the free Green’s function are not written out, for simplicity. For p and p’ both belonging to P (i.e. both $`k_{cut}`$), we require

$$p^{}T(\omega =\epsilon _p)p=p^{}T_{eff}(\omega =\epsilon _p)p.$$
(5)
Base on the Kuo-Lee-Ratcliff (KLR) folded-diagram method klr71 ; ko90 , Bogner, Kuo and Coraggio bogner99  have recently shown that the above requirements can be satisfied when the low-momentum effective interaction is given by the folded-diagram series

$$V^{lowk}=\widehat{Q}\widehat{Q^{}}\widehat{Q}+\widehat{Q^{}}\widehat{Q}\widehat{Q}\widehat{Q^{}}\widehat{Q}\widehat{Q}\widehat{Q}+\mathrm{},$$
(6)
where $`\widehat{Q}`$, often referred to as the $`\widehat{Q}`$-box, is an irreducible vertex function in the sense that its intermediate states must be outside the model space P. The integral sign appearing above represents a generalized folding operation klr71 ; ko90 . $`\widehat{Q^{}}`$ is obtained from $`\widehat{Q}`$ by removing terms of first order in the interaction $`V_{NN}`$.

Let us outline their proof. A general term of the above T-matrix can be written as $`p^{}(V+V\frac{1}{e(p)}V+V\frac{1}{e(p)}V\frac{1}{e(p)}V+\mathrm{})p`$ where $`e(p)(\epsilon _pH_o)`$. Note that the intermediate states cover the entire space (1=P+Q where P denotes the model space and Q its complement). Writing it out in terms of P and Q, a typical term of T is $`V\frac{Q}{e}V\frac{Q}{e}V\frac{P}{e}V\frac{Q}{e}V\frac{P}{e}V`$. Note it has three segments partitioned by two $`\frac{P}{e}`$ propagators. Let us define a $`\widehat{Q}`$-box as $`\widehat{Q}=V+V\frac{Q}{e}V+V\frac{Q}{e}V\frac{Q}{e}V+\mathrm{}`$, where all intermediate states belong to Q. One readily sees that the previous term is just a part of the three-$`\widehat{Q}`$-box term, and in general we have $`T=\widehat{Q}+\widehat{Q}\frac{P}{e}\widehat{Q}+\widehat{Q}\frac{P}{e}\widehat{Q}\frac{P}{e}\widehat{Q}+\mathrm{}`$. By performing a folded-diagram factorization of each term with more than one $`\widehat{Q}`$-box, one can rewrite the T-matrix as $`T=V^{lowk}+V^{lowk}\frac{P}{e}V^{lowk}+V^{lowk}\frac{P}{e}V^{lowk}\frac{P}{e}V^{lowk}+\mathrm{}`$. The above result then follows.

## III Results and discussion

The above $`V^{lowk}`$ may be calulated using iteration methods. We have done so using both the Andreozzi-Lee-Suzuki (ALS) and Andreozzi-Krenciglowa-Kuo (AKK) iteration methodsandre96 , for both the Bonn-A and Paris potentials. We note that $`V^{lowk}`$ is energy independent, and it contains less information than the full-space $`V_{NN}`$. The ALS method converges to the lowest (in energy) d states of H, d being the dimension of the model space. (Here we have discretized the momentum space, writing H as a finite matrix.) In contrast, the AKK method converges to the d states of H with maximum P-space overlaps. We have found that the $`V^{lowk}`$ given by both methods are very close to each other, an indication that the intruder-state problem suzuki93  does not seem to be present in our present calculation. The deuteron binding energy given by $`V_{NN}`$ is very accurately reproduced by $`V^{lowk}`$, for a wide range of $`k_{cut}`$. In Fig.1, we compare the phase shifts given by $`V_{NN}`$ and those by $`V^{lowk}`$. They agree quite well. Empirical phase shifts are determined up to $`E_{lab}300`$MeV, and they are given by the fully-on-shell T-matrix. Hence we need to use $`k_{cut}2fm^1`$, if we want $`V^{lowk}`$ to reproduce the phase shifts up to this energy. In Fig. 2, we compare the half-on-shell T-matrices (calculated with the principal-value boundary condition) given by $`V_{NN}`$ and $`V^{lowk}`$, they also agree quite well. Note that plotted are the (k’,k) matrix elements with $`k^2=E_{lab}M/2\mathrm{}^2`$, M being the nucleon mass. There are a number of similarities between the model-space reduction method used here and the renormaliztion group method employed in effective field theory, and it would be useful to elucidate the connection between them. Since our method exactly preserves the half-on-shell T-matrix, it may provide a convenient way to study the flow equation which describes the change of the low-momentum effective interaction with respect to the momentum cutoff.

To summarize, we have reduced realistic NN potentials $`V`$ (Bonn-A and Paris) to corresponding effective low-momentum potentials $`V^{lowk}`$ for a model space of $`kk_{cut}`$. The deuteron binding energy, low-energy phase shifts and the low-momentum half-on-shell T-matrix given by $`V_{NN}`$ are all reproduced by $`V^{lowk}`$. Because of the strong short-range repulsion contained in $`V_{NN}`$, it is well known that we can not use it directly in shell-model calulations of nuclei and/or in Hartree-Fock calculations of nuclear matter; we need first to convert $`V_{NN}`$ into a G-matrix, to take care of the short-range correlations. The G-matrix so obtained is energy dependent. We have found that our $`V^{lowk}`$ is a generally smooth potential (without strong short range repulsion), and it is energy independent. It may be suitable to use $`V^{lowk}`$ directly in the above calculations, without the need of first calculating the usual Brueckner G-matrix. This would be of interest and desirable. We have done some shell model calculations bogner99  in this direction, and obtained rather encouraging results. Nuclear matter calculations using $`V^{lowk}`$ are in progress.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Prof. G.E. Brown for many stimulating discussions. This work was supported in part by the U.S. DOE Grant No. DE-FG02-88ER40388, and the Italian Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica (MURST). TTSK is particularly grateful to T.S.H. Lee for several helpful discussions.


text:
# The Fermion Model of Representations

## 1. Introduction

Affine Krichever–Novikov algebras appeared in  as a generalization of affine Kac–Moody algebras that is related to a compact Riemann surface with two distinguished points. They belong to the new class of quasigraded algebras (see the definition in §2), whose structure and representations are at present at the initial stage of investigation. At the same time, the notion of a quasigraded algebra is of importance and enables one to generalize many properties of the well-studied class of graded algebras, in particular, the most important property that one can construct representations generated by the vacuum vector. The first constructions of representations of affine Krichever–Novikov algebras (Verma modules and irreducible modules) were suggested in , and, in the case of several distinguished points, in . These constructions are of abstract algebraic nature. The problem of finding geometric objects on which these algebras act in a natural way remained open. In this paper we present such an object, namely, function spaces related in a special way to holomorphic vector bundles over the corresponding Riemann surface (these spaces were introduced earlier in  in connection with the solution of soliton equations).

Starting from these spaces, we construct representations generated by highest vectors bymeans of the known construction of an infinite fermion representation (the wedge representation); see also . To this end, we use some bases in the function spaces under consideration; these bases were introduced in  and generalize the well-known Krichever–Novikov bases in function and tensor spaces on a Riemann surface with two distinguished points . In §2 we give a construction of these bases and slightly extend the exposition in .

The main theorem of the paper, Theorem 3.2, establishes conditions for the equivalence of fermion representations, and the most substantial condition is the equivalence of bundles generating these representations.

The appearance of bundles in representation theory of Krichever–Novikov algebras is by no means occasional. It was shown in  that the orbit space of the coadjoint representation of such an algebra coincides with the space of equivalence classes of finite-dimensional irreducible representations of the fundamental group of a punctured Riemann surface. In fact, these are just the data that arose earlier in the classification of Narasimhan–Seshadri modules of stable bundles on a (compact) Riemann surface. These data are also closely related  to the Hitchin construction of Higgs bundles.

Krichever and Novikov  arrived at the idea of constructing representations by using algebraic curves for other reasons. The quasigraded structure on the Krichever–Novikov algebras and modules over these algebras enables one to treat the representation theory of these algebras as a part of the theory of difference operators, where the theory of commuting difference operators developed in the papers of these authors  plays a substantial role and readily leads to holomorphic bundles over curves. In fact, they had in mind the relationship with the theory of solitons already when writing the papers . Note that the deep connection between the representation theory of affine Krichever–Novikov algebras and the theory of commutative rings of difference operators is revealed, in particular, in the proof of Theorem 3.1 in the present paper.

This paper appeared as the result of my discussions with I. M. Krichever of all specific features of the construction in question, and the author is deeply indebted to I. M. Krichever for these discussions. Moreover, I. M. Krichever told the author about the results of the paper  long before the publication, expressed a lot of ideas about the application of these results in the posed problem of representation theory, and patiently discussed versions of their realization. Of these suggestions, the most significant was to pass from the space of sections of a vector bundle (on which, as is known, there is no action of matrix algebras in general) to the corresponding space of vector functions (see §2), where the desired action exists.

## 2. Krichever–Novikov Bases in Spaces of Sections of Holomorphic Bundles

(a) Krichever–Novikov algebras. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a compact algebraic curve over $``$ with two distinguished points $`P_\pm `$, let $`\text{A}(\mathrm{\Sigma },P_\pm )`$ be the algebra of meromorphic functions on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ regular outside $`P_\pm `$, and let $`𝔤`$ be a complex semisimple Lie algebra. Then

$$\widehat{𝔤}=𝔤_{}\text{A}(\mathrm{\Sigma },P_\pm )c$$
(2.1)
is called a Krichever–Novikov algebra of affine type  with one-dimensional center generated by the element $`c`$. Elements of $`\widehat{𝔤}`$ will be denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{X}=X+ac`$, where $`X𝔤_{}\text{A}(\mathrm{\Sigma },P_\pm )`$ and $`a`$. The bracket on $`\widehat{𝔤}`$ is defined by

$$[xA,yB]=[x,y]AB+\gamma (xA,yB)c,[xA,c]=0,$$

where $`\gamma `$ is the cocycle defined by the relation

$$\gamma (xA,yB)=(x,y)\mathrm{res}_{P_+}(AdB).$$
(2.2)
As was mentioned in the introduction, the algebra $`\widehat{𝔤}`$ carries a remarkable quasigraded structure.

Definition 2.1. (a) Let L be a Lie algebra or an associative algebra that admits a decomposition $`\text{L}=_n\text{L}_n`$ into a direct sum of finite-dimensional subspaces $`\text{L}_n`$. The algebra L is said to be quasigraded (almost graded, graded in the extended sense) if $`dim\text{L}_n<\mathrm{}`$ and there exist constants $`R`$ and $`S`$ such that

$$\text{L}_n\text{L}_m\underset{h=n+mR}{\overset{n+m+S}{}}\text{L}_hn,m.$$
(2.3)
The elements of the subspaces $`\text{L}_n`$ are called homogeneous elements of degree $`n`$.

(b) Let L be a quasigraded Lie algebra or an associative algebra, and let M be an L-module that admits a decomposition $`\text{M}=_n\text{M}_n`$ into a direct sum of subspaces. The module M is said to be quasigraded (almost graded, graded in the extended sense) if $`dim\text{M}_n<\mathrm{}`$ and there exist constants $`R^{}`$ and $`S^{}`$ such that

$$\text{L}_m\text{M}_n\underset{h=n+mR^{}}{\overset{n+m+S^{}}{}}\text{M}_hn,m.$$
(2.4)
The elements of the subspaces $`\text{M}_n`$ are called homogeneous elements of degree $`n`$.

In the following, we sometimes refer to the constants $`R`$, $`S`$, $`R^{}`$, and $`S^{}`$ as the coefficients of diversity of the grading.

For Krichever–Novikov algebras, the space of homogeneous elements of degree $`n`$ for $`n>0`$ and $`n<g`$ is $`𝔤\text{A}_n`$, where $`\text{A}_n\text{A}`$ is the subspace of functions that are of order $`n`$ at the point $`P_+`$ and of order $`n+g`$ at the point $`P_{}`$ (cf. also Example 2.1 below). For the constants $`R`$ and $`S`$ and other details, see .

(b) Holomorphic bundles. Tyurin parameters. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a Riemann surface of genus $`g`$ and $`F`$ a holomorphic bundle of rank $`l`$ over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Suppose that $`l`$ holomorphic sections $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Psi }_l`$ of $`F`$ are given that form a basis in the fiber over any point except for finitely many points $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _{gl}`$, referred to as points of degeneration. This set of sections is called a framing, and a bundle that admits a framing is said to be framed .

If one chooses a local trivialization of $`F`$ and defines sections $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Psi }_l`$ in this trivialization, say, by column vectors (of functions), then one can take a matrix $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ formed by these column vectors, which is nondegenerate everywhere except for the points $`\gamma _i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},gl`$, at which $`det\mathrm{\Psi }`$ has simple zeros for any generic bundle, i.e., $`det\mathrm{\Psi }(\gamma _i)=0`$ and $`(det\mathrm{\Psi })^{}(\gamma _i)0`$. In what follows, when speaking of generic bundles, we mean just the validity of these conditions. The divisor $`D=\gamma _1+\mathrm{}+\gamma _{gl}`$ is referred to as the divisor of the bundle $`F`$. Under our conditions one has $`\mathrm{rank}\mathrm{\Psi }(\gamma _i)=l1`$. Indeed, $`(det\mathrm{\Psi })^{}(\gamma _i)`$ is the sum of determinants in which $`l1`$ rows are taken from the matrix $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and one row from the matrix $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$. By assumption, at least one of these determinants is nonzero, and hence $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ has $`l1`$ linearly independent rows.

In this case, for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},gl`$ there exists a nontrivial solution of the system of linear equations $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\gamma _i)\alpha _i=0`$; this solution is unique up to proportionality. Let $`\alpha _i=(\alpha _{ij})^{j=1,\mathrm{},l}`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},gl`$). In , the divisor of the bundle and the numbers $`(\alpha _{ij})_{i=1,\mathrm{},gl}^{j=1,\mathrm{},l}`$ are called the Tyurin parameters of the bundle $`F`$. A framing is defined uniquely up to a right action of elements of the group $`GL(l)`$ on the matrix $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (while the transition functions act on this matrix on the left; we see that the action of $`GL(l)`$ commutes with the transition functions and hence takes sections to sections). Owing to this fact, the Tyurin parameters are defined uniquely up to proportionality and to multiplication by elements of $`GL(l)`$ on the left. According to the results in , the Tyurin parameters define the corresponding bundle uniquely up to equivalence. We point out that the set of points $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _{gl}`$ is the same for equivalent framed bundles.

As was noted in , Tyurin’s results in  imply the following description of the space of meromorphic sections of $`F`$ (we consider only meromorphic sections that are holomorphic outside $`P_\pm `$). The elements $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j(P)`$ ($`j=1,\mathrm{},l`$) form a basis in the fiber over any point $`P`$ outside the divisor $`D`$. Hence the value $`S(P)`$ for any meromorphic section $`S`$ can be decomposed with respect to this basis. To the section $`S`$ we assign the vector function $`f=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_l)^T`$ on the Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in such a way that outside $`D`$ one has

$$S(P)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_j(P)f_j(P).$$
(2.5)
It follows from the Kronecker formula that $`f_j=det(\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Psi }_{j1},S,\mathrm{\Psi }_{j+1},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Psi }_l)(det\mathrm{\Psi })^1`$, and therefore, the functions $`f_j`$ can be extended to the points of the divisor $`D`$. The extensions have at most simple poles at these points, since $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Psi }_l`$ are holomorphic at the points of $`D`$ and $`det\mathrm{\Psi }`$ has simple zeros at these points. In local coordinates in a neighborhood of the point $`\gamma _i`$, it follows from (2.5) that $`S(z)=\mathrm{\Psi }(\gamma _i)(\mathrm{res}_{\gamma _i}f)z^1+O(1)`$. The left-hand side of the last relation is holomorphic. Hence, the residues of the functions $`f_j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},l`$, at the point $`\gamma _i`$ satisfy the system of linear equations $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\gamma _i)(\mathrm{res}_{\gamma _i}f)=0`$, which is just the system satisfied by the Tyurin parameters at this point. By assumption, the matrix $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\gamma _i)`$ is of rank $`l1`$. Hence, the vectors $`\mathrm{res}_{\gamma _i}f`$ and $`\alpha _i`$ are proportional.

The following assertion represents the results of .

Proposition 2.1 . For a generic bundle $`F`$, the space of meromorphic sections holomorphic outside the distinguished points $`P_\pm `$ is isomorphic to the space of meromorphic vector functions $`f=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_l)^T`$ on the same Riemann surface such that $`f`$ is holomorphic outside $`D`$ and $`P_\pm `$, has at most simple poles at the points of $`D`$, and satisfies the relations

$$(\mathrm{res}_{\gamma _i}f_j)\alpha _{ik}=(\mathrm{res}_{\gamma _i}f_k)\alpha _{ij},i=1,\mathrm{},gl,j=1,\mathrm{},l.$$

(c) Krichever–Novikov bases. In this subsection, the exposition up to and including Proposition 2.3 follows the note .

For any pair of integers $`n`$, $`j`$ ($`0j<l`$), we shall construct a vector function in the space defined in Proposition 2.1 and denote this function by $`\psi _{n,j}`$. The number $`n`$ is called the degree of $`\psi _{n,j}`$. The function $`\psi _{n,j}`$ will be specified by its asymptotic behavior at the points $`P_\pm `$. Let us treat $`\psi _{n,j}`$ as a column vector and form a matrix $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ of these vectors. At the point $`P_+`$, we set

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_n(z_+)=z_+^n\underset{s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\xi _{n,s}^+z_+^s,\text{where }\xi _{n,0}^+=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& & \mathrm{}& \\ 0& 1& \mathrm{}& \\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(2.6)
and at the point $`P_{}`$, we set

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_n(z_{})=z_{}^n\underset{s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\xi _{n,s}^{}z_{}^s,\text{where }\xi _{n,0}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ & & \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ & & \mathrm{}& \end{array}\right),$$
(2.7)
where $`z_\pm `$ are the local parameters in neighborhoods of the points $`P_\pm `$, respectively, and the asterisks $``$ stand for arbitrary complex numbers.

Thus, the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ has a zero of order $`n`$ at the point $`P_+`$ and a pole of order $`n`$ at the point $`P_{}`$, and the determinant of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ has $`gl`$ simple poles at the points of the divisor $`D`$ and admits an additional divisor of zeros outside the points $`P_\pm `$; the latter divisor is not given a priori.

Example 2.1. In the Krichever–Novikov basis in the algebra $`\text{A}(\mathrm{\Sigma },P_\pm )`$ with singularities at two points, the asymptotics are of the following form  (for $`m>0`$ and for $`m<g`$):

$$A_m\alpha _m^\pm z_\pm ^{\pm m+\epsilon _\pm }(1+O(z_\pm )),\alpha _m^+=1,$$
(2.8)
where $`\epsilon _+=0`$ and $`\epsilon _{}=g`$, i.e., the sum of orders (the degree of the divisor of distinguished points) is equal to $`g`$ (note that $`l=1`$ in this case). Hence, there are exactly $`g`$ zeros outside the points $`P_\pm `$. This example differs from the general case studied above in that the additional $`g`$ poles are concentrated at the same points $`P_\pm `$ and the external divisor of degree $`g`$ is absent. This difference is unessential. The isomorphism is established by the multiplication (division) by a scalar function that has a zero of multiplicity $`g`$ at the point $`P_{}`$ and a given divisor of (simple) poles of degree $`g`$ (such a function exists by the Riemann–Roch theorem).

Proposition 2.2 .1. There exists a unique matrix function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ satisfying conditions (2.6) and (2.7).

2. The dimension of the spaces generated by the vector functions $`\psi _{n,j}`$ for a given $`n`$ is equal to $`l`$.

Proof. It is clear that assertions 1 and 2 are equivalent. In the part related to the matrices $`\xi _{n,0}^\pm `$, conditions (2.6) and (2.7) are the normalization conditions that uniquely select the vector functions $`\psi _{n,j}`$ in the $`l`$-dimensional space.

The dimension of the space of functions with $`gl`$ poles at the points of the divisor $`D`$ with the orders $`\pm n`$ at the points $`P_\pm `$, respectively, is equal to $`glg+1`$. Since our vector functions are of dimension $`l`$, we find that the dimension of the corresponding space is $`l(glg+1)`$. However, these functions satisfy the $`(l1)gl`$ Tyurin relations. Therefore, the dimension of the function space under consideration is equal to $`l(glg+1)(l1)gl=l`$. ∎

The algebra $`\text{A}(\mathrm{\Sigma },P_\pm )`$ naturally acts both on the sections of the bundle $`F`$ by the multiplication of these sections by functions and on the corresponding vector functions.

Proposition 2.3. The action of the elements of the algebra $`\text{A}(\mathrm{\Sigma },P_\pm )`$ on the basis elements $`\psi _{n,j}`$ is quasigraded:

$$A_m\psi _{n,j}=\underset{k=m+n}{\overset{m+n+\overline{g}}{}}\underset{j^{}=0}{\overset{l1}{}}C_{m,n,j}^{k,j^{}}\psi _{k,j^{}},$$
(2.9)
where $`\overline{g}=g+1`$ for $`gm0`$ and $`\overline{g}=g`$ otherwise.

Proof. Let us use the asymptotic behavior (2.8), where $`\epsilon _{}=g`$ for $`m>0`$ and for $`m<g`$ and $`\epsilon _{}=g1`$ for $`gm0`$ . Set $`\overline{g}=\epsilon _{}`$. Multiplying the matrix $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ by $`A_m`$, we obtain the order $`z_+^{n+m}`$ at the point $`P_+`$ and the order $`z_{}^{nm\overline{g}}`$ at the point $`P_{}`$. This is sufficient for the validity of relations (2.9) for some values of the constants $`C_{m,n,j}^{k,j^{}}`$. In particular, the diversity of the grading with respect to the index $`n`$ in the general case is equal to $`g`$ (for $`gm0`$ this index is equal to $`g+1`$), and hence it is bounded. This proves that the action is quasigraded. In what follows we use the fact that the diversity of the grading with respect to the index $`lnj`$ is equal to $`lg`$ in the general case. ∎

In contrast with the algebra $`\text{A}(\mathrm{\Sigma },P_\pm )`$, the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ admits no natural action on sections of the bundle. However, suppose that a representation $`\tau `$ of the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ in an $`l`$-dimensional space is given. Then this representation induces an action of this algebra on the vector functions $`\psi _{n,j}`$. Namely, let $`x𝔤`$ and let $`\tau (x)=(x_i^{}^i)`$, where $`(x_i^{}^i)`$ is a matrix and the indices $`i`$ and $`i^{}`$ range from $`1`$ to $`l`$. We represent the vector function $`\psi _{n,j}`$ in the form of the set of its coordinates, $`\psi _{n,j}=(\psi _{n,j}^i^{})`$. In the coordinate representation, the action of $`x`$ on $`\psi _{n,j}`$ can be written in the form $`(x\psi _{n,j})^i=_i^{}x_i^{}^i\psi _{n,j}^i^{}`$. Having the action of the algebras $`𝔤`$ and $`\text{A}(\mathrm{\Sigma },P_\pm )`$ on vector functions, we define the corresponding action of the Lie algebra $`𝔤\text{A}(\mathrm{\Sigma },P_\pm )`$ as follows:

$$((xA_m)\psi _{n,j})^i=\underset{k=m+n}{\overset{m+n+\overline{g}}{}}\underset{j^{}=0}{\overset{l1}{}}\underset{i^{}}{}C_{m,n,j}^{k,j^{}}x_i^{}^i\psi _{k,j^{}}^i^{}.$$
(2.10)
Formula (2.10) is an expression for the tensor product of the representation $`\tau `$ of $`𝔤`$ and the action $`(2.9)`$ of $`\text{A}(\mathrm{\Sigma },P_\pm )`$. Thus, this formula defines a representation of the tensor product of these algebras. It follows from Proposition 2.3 that the action (2.10) is quasigraded and the diversity of the grading with respect to the index $`n`$ (respectively, $`lnj`$) is equal to $`g`$ (respectively, $`gl`$).

In the sequel, we interpret the $`\psi _{n,j}^i`$ as formal symbols rather than coordinates of vector functions and treat relations (2.10) as formal linear transformations of these symbols. Under this approach, the action of $`𝔤`$ does not change the indices $`n`$ and $`j`$, and the role of a highest vector is played by the symbol $`\psi _{n,j}^l`$ for given $`n`$ and $`j`$.

## 3. Fermion Representations

Let us consider a framed holomorphic bundle $`F`$ of rank $`l`$ and the corresponding space $`F_{KN}`$ of Krichever–Novikov vector functions. In this space, we consider the basis $`\{\psi _{n,j}n,j=0,\mathrm{},l1\}`$, the corresponding set of symbols $`\psi _{n,j}^i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},l`$), and the action (2.10) on this set; these objects were defined in the preceding section. Recall that this action depends on some representation $`\tau :𝔤𝔤𝔩(l)`$. Starting from these data, we will construct a space $`V_F`$ of semi-infinite forms and a representation $`\pi _{F,\tau }`$ of $`\widehat{𝔤}`$ in this space.

Let us number the symbols $`\psi _{n,j}^i`$ in lexicographically ascending order of the triples $`(n,j,i)`$, setting the index of the element $`\psi _{0,0}^l`$ to be equal to $`1`$. Let $`N=N(n,j,i)`$ be the index of a triple $`(n,j,i)`$; then $`N(n,j,i)=l^2nlj+il1`$. Set $`\psi _N=\psi _{n,j}^i`$. Formal finite linear combinations of the symbols $`\{\psi _NN\}`$ form a vector space, which we denote by $`F_{KN}^s`$.

The space $`V_F`$ is constructed in the following way. It is spanned over $``$ by formal expressions $`\psi _{N_0}\psi _{N_1}\mathrm{}`$, referred to as semi-infinite monomials, where $`N_0<N_1<\mathrm{}`$ . It is required that, under a transposition of $`\psi _N`$ and $`\psi _N^{}`$ ($`NN^{}`$), a semi-infinite monomial changes its sign and one has $`N_k=k+m`$ for sufficiently large $`k`$ ($`k1`$), where $`m`$ is an integer; following , $`m`$ is called the charge of the monomial (the reader should not confuse this with the central charge: it follows from Remark 3.1 that the charge $`m`$ is rather a component of the weight).

By the degree of a monomial $`\psi `$ of charge $`m`$ one means

$$\mathrm{deg}\psi =\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(N_kkm).$$
(3.1)
The degree thus defined equips the space $`V_F`$ with a quasigraded structure, i.e., a decomposition into a direct sum of finite-dimensional subspaces. Note that the definition of the numbers $`N_k`$ is ambiguous; namely, it depends on the numbering of the elements $`\psi _{n,j}^i`$ for a given $`n`$. It is of importance that the definition of degree is independent of this ambiguity since the modification of the above numbering amounts to a permutation of some summands in formula (3.1).

The representation $`\pi _{F,\tau }`$ is defined as follows. Consider the Lie algebra $`\overline{𝔤}=𝔤\text{A}(\mathrm{\Sigma },P_\pm )`$ embedded in the Lie algebra $`\widehat{𝔤}`$ as a linear space. Every element $`x\overline{𝔤}`$ acts on the symbols $`\psi _N`$ by linear changes in a quasigraded way by formula (2.10). This precisely means that if the symbols $`\psi _N`$ are regarded as a formal basis of an infinite-dimensional linear space, then the action of an element $`x\overline{𝔤}`$ in this basis is defined by an infinite matrix with finitely many nonzero diagonals, or, equivalently, by a difference operator. Following , we denote the algebra of these matrices by $`𝔞_{\mathrm{}}`$. Thus, to the basis $`\{\psi _N\}`$ there corresponds an embedding of $`\overline{𝔤}`$ in the algebra $`𝔞_{\mathrm{}}`$. It suffices to define the action of the algebra $`𝔞_{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`V_F`$, and then, by virtue of this embedding, we obtain a representation of $`\widehat{𝔤}`$ in the same space.

Let us take a basis element $`E_{IJ}𝔞_{\mathrm{}}`$. We define its action on a semi-infinite monomial $`\psi =\psi _{I_0}\psi _{I_1}\mathrm{}`$ as follows:

$$r(E_{IJ})\psi =(E_{IJ}\psi _{I_0})\psi _{I_1}\mathrm{}+\psi _{I_0}(E_{IJ}\psi _{I_1})\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}.$$
(3.2)
By virtue of the condition $`I_k=k+m`$ ($`k1`$), the action (3.2) is well defined for $`I>J`$ and for $`I<J`$. The operator $`r(E_{II})`$ acts on a semi-infinite monomial by multiplication by $`1`$ or by $`0`$, depending on whether the monomial contains $`\psi _I`$. Therefore, for a diagonal matrix $`D=_{i=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\lambda _IE_{II}`$ with infinitely many coefficients $`\lambda _I0`$ such that $`I>0`$, the sum $`D\psi `$ (which is well defined by (3.2)) can contain infinitely many terms. In this case, we apply the following regularization . Let

$`\widehat{r}(E_{IJ})`$ $`=r(E_{IJ})`$ $`\text{for }IJ\text{ and for }I=J<0,`$ (3.3)
$`\widehat{r}(E_{II})`$ $`=r(E_{II})\mathrm{Id}`$ $`\text{for }I0.`$ (3.4)
Then the following commutation relations hold :

$`[\widehat{r}(E_{IJ}),\widehat{r}(E_{MN})]`$ $`=\delta _{_{JM}}\widehat{r}(E_{IN})\delta _{_{NI}}\widehat{r}(E_{MJ})\text{for }(I,J)(N,M),`$ (3.5)
$`[\widehat{r}(E_{IJ}),\widehat{r}(E_{JI})]`$ $`=\widehat{r}(E_{II})\widehat{r}(E_{JJ})+\mathrm{Id}.`$ (3.6)
Thus, the regularization gives the following cocycle $`\alpha `$:

$`\alpha (E_{IJ},E_{JI})`$ $`=\alpha (E_{JI},E_{IJ})=1`$ $`\text{for }I0,J<0,`$
$`\alpha (E_{IJ},E_{MN})`$ $`=0`$ $`\text{otherwise}.`$
It is quite clear that the action of the algebra $`𝔞_{\mathrm{}}`$ preserves the charge of a monomial, since the infinite “tail” of each of the monomials on the right-hand side in (3.2) coincides with the “tail” of the monomial on the left-hand side in (3.2). Moreover, $`\pi _{F,\tau }`$ is a quasigraded representation. This follows from the fact that the action on the space $`F_{KN}`$ is quasigraded (Proposition 2.3 and relations (2.9) and (2.10)).

By highest (or vacuum) monomials we mean semi-infinite monomials of the form $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_M=\psi _M\psi _{M+1}\psi _{M+2}\mathrm{}`$ (the indices are successive, starting from some number).

The algebra $`\text{A}(\mathrm{\Sigma },P_\pm )`$ can also be embedded in the algebra $`𝔞_{\mathrm{}}`$ of matrices with finitely many nonzero diagonals. To prove this fact, it suffices to rewrite relation (2.9) by replacing every $`\psi _{n,j}`$ by $`\psi _{n,j}^i`$ and every triple of indices $`n`$, $`j`$, $`i`$ by the corresponding index $`N=N(n,j,i)`$:

$$A_m\psi _N=\underset{N^{}=l^2m+N}{\overset{l^2m+N+g_l}{}}C_{m,N}^N^{}\psi _N^{},$$

where $`g_l=l^2\overline{g}`$ (see Proposition 2.3). The following lemma clarifies the character of the action of the algebra $`\text{A}(\mathrm{\Sigma },P_\pm )`$ on the highest monomials. Let us take a highest monomial $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_M=_{N=M}^{\mathrm{}}\psi _N`$.

Lemma 3.1. The element $`A_m\stackrel{~}{\psi }_M`$ has a nonzero projection on $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_M`$ only for $`m=g,\mathrm{},1,0`$, and this projection is equal to $`_{K=M}^1C_{mK}^K`$.

Proof. It follows from relation (2.9) that, for arbitrary integer $`N`$, the element $`A_j\psi _N`$ has a nonzero projection on $`\psi _N`$ if and only if $`\psi _N`$ occurs on the right-hand side in (2.9), i.e., only for $`n+mnn+m+g`$. This implies that $`gm0`$.

Let us represent the action of an element $`A_m`$, $`gm0`$, by an infinite matrix with finitely many nonzero diagonals. Then one has $`A_m=\mathrm{}+_KC_{mK}^KE_{KK}+\mathrm{}`$, where the dots stand for terms with $`E_{IJ}`$ for $`IJ`$. For $`I<J`$, these terms send $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_M`$ to $`0`$ and, for $`I>J`$, to either $`0`$ or a monomial of some degree less than that of $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_M`$. For $`E_{KK}`$, where $`K`$ is arbitrary, one has $`E_{KK}\psi _N=\delta _{_{KN}}\psi _N`$, and for $`K0`$ it follows from the above regularization that $`E_{KK}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_M=0`$. Hence,

$$A_m\stackrel{~}{\psi }_M=\left(\underset{K=M}{\overset{1}{}}C_{mK}^K\right)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_M+\mathrm{},$$
(3.7)
where the dots stand for the sum of all terms whose degrees are less than that of $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_M`$.∎

Remark 3.1. It follows from the proof of Lemma 3.1 that the eigenvalue of the operator $`\mathrm{Id}=_NE_{NN}`$ (the identity operator of the space $`F_{KN}^s`$) on $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_M`$ coincides with $`M`$ for $`M<0`$ and is zero for $`M0`$.

Definition 3.1. Two fermion representations are said to be strongly equivalent (isomorphic) if there exists an isomorphism of the underlying linear spaces that commutes with the action of the algebra $`\widehat{𝔤}`$, is quasi-homogeneous (i.e., takes every homogeneous component of the first module to a homogeneous component of the other), and takes any highest monomial to a highest monomial of the same charge.

Theorem 3.1. Let a fermion representation $`\pi `$ be defined by a framed holomorphic bundle $`F`$ and by an irreducible representation $`\tau `$ of the algebra $`𝔤`$, and let a fermion representation $`\pi ^{}`$ be defined by a framed holomorphic bundle $`F^{}`$ and by an irreducible representation $`\tau ^{}`$. The representations $`\pi `$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ are equivalent if and only if the corresponding framed bundles $`F`$ and $`F^{}`$ are equivalent and the representations $`\tau `$ and $`\tau ^{}`$ of the algebra $`𝔤`$ are equal.

Proof. Let the bundles $`F`$ and $`F^{}`$ be equivalent, and let the equivalence be defined by a mapping $`C:FF^{}`$. Obviously, $`C`$ induces the following isomorphisms:

$`(1)`$ of the spaces of global holomorphic sections, $`H^0(\mathrm{\Sigma },F)H^0(\mathrm{\Sigma },F^{})`$; under this isomorphism, the matrices $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ composed of the basis holomorphic sections correspond to each other, $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=C\mathrm{\Psi }`$;

$`(2)`$ of the spaces of meromorphic Krichever–Novikov vector functions regarded as $`\text{A}(\mathrm{\Sigma },P_\pm )`$-modules: $`F_{KN}F_{KN}^{}`$, and the same holds for the related spaces $`F_{KN}^s`$ and $`F_{KN}^s`$.

Since the representations $`\tau `$ and $`\tau ^{}`$ are equal, it follows that the spaces $`F_{KN}^s`$ and $`F_{KN}^s`$ are isomorphic as $`𝔤`$-modules as well. Hence, the corresponding representations of the algebra $`\widehat{𝔤}`$ in the spaces of semi-infinite forms over $`F_{KN}^s`$ and $`F_{KN}^s`$ are equivalent.

Let us pass to the proof of the second part of the theorem. Consider two equivalent fermion representations $`\pi `$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ of $`\widehat{𝔤}`$ generated by framed bundles $`F`$ and $`F^{}`$ and by irreducible representations $`\tau `$ and $`\tau ^{}`$, respectively, in the sense of the above construction. Let $`C`$ be a strong isomorphism, $`\pi ^{}=C\pi C^1`$.

Let $`v`$ be a highest monomial in the representation space of $`\pi `$, and let $`v^{}=Cv`$. Then it follows from Definition 3.1 that $`v^{}`$ is also a highest monomial. Our immediate aim is to prove that the representations $`\tau `$ and $`\tau ^{}`$ are equivalent. To this end, we consider the structure of the highest monomials $`v`$ and $`v^{}`$.

Let $`v=\stackrel{~}{\psi }_M`$. A triple of indices $`(n,j,i)`$ such that $`M=N(n,j,i)`$ is determined uniquely (see above). We write $`n=n(M)`$, $`j=j(M)`$, and $`i=i(M)`$. Let us choose $`v`$ in such a way that $`i=l`$. As was noted at the end of the previous section, this is equivalent to the condition that $`\psi _M`$ is a highest vector of a subrepresentation equivalent to $`\tau `$ and acting on the space $`F_{KN}^s`$. Let $`v^{}=\stackrel{~}{\psi }_M^{}^{}`$, and accordingly, let $`n^{}=n(M^{})`$, $`j^{}=j(M^{})`$, and $`i^{}=i(M^{})`$. By definition, a quasi-homogeneous isomorphism preserves the charge. Therefore, $`M=M^{}`$, and hence $`i=i^{}=l`$ and $`\psi _M^{}^{}`$ is a highest vector of a subrepresentation equivalent to $`\tau ^{}`$.

Thus, $`\psi _M`$ and $`\psi _M^{}^{}`$ are highest vectors of the representations $`\tau `$ and $`\tau ^{}`$, respectively. Hence, the structure of the monomial $`v=\stackrel{~}{\psi }_M`$ is as follows: the first place is occupied by the highest vector $`\psi _M`$ of the representation $`\tau `$, and to the right of this place one can find an infinite exterior product of the symbols $`\psi _N`$, which can be partitioned into consecutive groups (we call them bags) each of which is the exterior product of (all) basis elements of the representation $`\tau `$. This readily implies that

$$\pi (x)v=(\tau (x)\psi _M)\psi _{M+1}\mathrm{}$$
(3.8)
for an arbitrary $`x𝔤`$. Indeed, if $`\tau (x)`$ is a nilpotent element, then the other terms (that occur under the action of $`\pi (x)`$ on $`v`$ by the Leibniz formula) are equal to $`0`$. If $`\tau (x)`$ is a diagonal element, then their sum is annihilated for any bag, since the sum of the weights (counted according to their multiplicity) of a finite-dimensional representation of a semisimple Lie algebra is equal to $`0`$. (This is obvious for any irreducible representation of $`sl(2)`$, and the other cases can be reduced to this one by decomposing into irreducible representations of simple three-dimensional subalgebras corresponding to simple roots. In the case of a reductive algebra, this argument would fail for a central element.) A similar consideration shows that

$$\pi ^{}(x)v^{}=(\tau ^{}(x)\psi _M^{}^{})\psi _{M^{}+1}^{}\mathrm{}.$$
(3.9)
Let $`x=h`$ be a Cartan element, and let $`\alpha _\tau `$ and $`\alpha _\tau ^{}`$ be the highest weights of the representations $`\tau `$ and $`\tau ^{}`$, respectively. Then it follows from formulas (3.8) and (3.9) that $`\pi (h)v=\alpha _\tau (h)v`$ and $`\pi ^{}(h)v^{}=\alpha _\tau ^{}(h)v^{}`$. Since the representations $`\pi `$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ are equivalent, it follows that $`\alpha _\tau =\alpha _\tau ^{}`$. Hence, $`\tau `$ and $`\tau ^{}`$ are equivalent.

The Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ acts on the spaces $`F_{KN}^s`$ and $`V_F`$, and hence the same holds for the universal enveloping algebra $`U(𝔤)`$. The associative algebra $`\text{A}(\mathrm{\Sigma },P_\pm )`$ and the tensor product $`U(𝔤)\text{A}(\mathrm{\Sigma },P_\pm )`$ also act on these spaces. Moreover, by construction, the representation of the algebra $`U(𝔤)\text{A}(\mathrm{\Sigma },P_\pm )`$ is decomposed into a product of representations of the algebras $`U(𝔤)`$ and $`\text{A}(\mathrm{\Sigma },P_\pm )`$. Namely, if $`uAU(𝔤)\text{A}(\mathrm{\Sigma },P_\pm )`$, then $`\pi (uA)=\tau (u)\pi (A)`$. We claim that the equivalence of representations of the algebra $`\widehat{𝔤}`$ implies the equivalence of the corresponding representations of the algebra $`\text{A}(\mathrm{\Sigma },P_\pm )`$. Let $`u=u^{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}e_{i_1}\mathrm{}e_{i_n}U(𝔤)`$ (where summation with respect to repeated sub- and superscript is assumed). Consider the element $`u^{}=u^{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}e_{i_1}\mathrm{}(e_{i_n}A)`$ in which the function $`A`$ in any monomial is placed in the last factor. Then $`\pi (u^{})=\tau (u)\pi (A)`$. For the equivalent representation $`\pi ^{}`$ of the algebra $`\widehat{𝔤}`$, one has $`\pi ^{}=C\pi C^1`$, where $`C`$ is an intertwining operator, and hence

$$\tau ^{}(u)\pi ^{}(A)=C(\tau (u)\pi (A))C^1.$$
(3.10)
Let $`Z(𝔤)`$ be the center of the ring $`U(𝔤)`$. Since the representations $`\tau `$ and $`\tau ^{}`$ are irreducible, it follows that the ring $`Z(𝔤)`$ acts on $`F_{KN}^s`$ and $`F_{KN}^s`$ by scalar operators. For $`uZ(𝔤)`$, we set $`\tau (u)=\lambda _u\mathrm{Id}`$ and $`\tau ^{}(u)=\lambda _u^{}\mathrm{Id}`$. Since $`\tau \tau ^{}`$, it follows that $`\lambda _u=\lambda _u^{}`$. Now it follows from relation (3.10) that, cancelling $`\lambda _u`$ (which can be done for at least one element $`u`$), we obtain $`\pi ^{}(A)=C\pi (A)C^1`$, as desired.

Let us show that the representations of the ring $`\text{A}(\mathrm{\Sigma },P_\pm )`$ in the spaces $`F_{KN}`$ and $`F_{KN}^{}`$ are equivalent. To this end, consider the action of an element $`A_n\text{A}(\mathrm{\Sigma },P_\pm )`$ on monomials of the form $`\psi _{N,M}=\psi _N\psi _{M+1}\psi _{M+2}\mathrm{}`$. If $`MN`$ is large compared with $`n`$, then the structure constants of the action of the element $`A_n`$ on $`\psi _N`$ are contained in the set of the structure constants of the action of $`A_n`$ on $`\psi _{N,M}`$. Thus, one can recover the first action from the other one. As usual, let $`N=N(n,j,i)`$. The structure constants of the action of the element $`A_m`$ on $`\psi _{n,j}^i`$ are independent of $`i`$ and coincide with the structure constants of the action of $`A_m`$ on $`\psi _{n,j}`$, which can be observed by comparing formulas (2.9) and (2.10). Thus, we have obtained the desired equivalence of $`F_{KN}`$ and $`F_{KN}^{}`$ treated as $`\text{A}(\mathrm{\Sigma },P_\pm )`$-modules. As was shown in , in this case the framed bundles $`F`$ and $`F^{}`$ are equivalent. Let us return to the representations $`\tau `$ and $`\tau ^{}`$. As was shown above, they are equivalent, i.e., there exists an element $`\gamma GL(l)`$ such that $`\tau ^{}=\gamma \tau \gamma ^1`$. If the matrix $`\gamma `$ were not scalar, then it would “mix” homogeneous components $`\psi _{n,j}^i`$ with respect to the index $`i`$. Thus, the isomorphism $`C`$ would be not quasi-homogeneous, which contradicts our assumption. Hence, $`\gamma `$ belongs to the center of the group $`GL(l)`$, and therefore, $`\tau =\tau ^{}`$. This completes the proof. ∎

There is a more general notion of equivalence for fermion representations than that in Definition 3.1.

Definition 3.2. Two fermion representations are said to be equivalent (isomorphic) if there is an isomorphism of the form $`C_\gamma =C\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ between the representation spaces that commutes with the action of the algebra $`\widehat{𝔤}`$, where $`C`$ is a strong isomorphism in the sense of Definition 3.1, $`\gamma GL(l)`$, and the mapping $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ is defined as follows: $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(\psi _{N_1}\psi _{N_2}\mathrm{})=\gamma \psi _{N_1}\gamma \psi _{N_2}\mathrm{}`$.

Each of the mappings $`C`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ in this definition appears as a result of some operation over bundles. As was shown in the proof of Theorem 3.1, to a strong isomorphism $`C`$ there corresponds a bundle isomorphism that can be defined by an equivalent change of the gluing functions. In Theorem 3.2 we will prove that the mapping $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ arises from the change of framing in a bundle. Any two operations of these two types commute (see §2, Sec. (b)). Hence, the mappings $`C`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ commute, and thus an isomorphism of the form $`C_\gamma `$ is an equivalence relation indeed. The following lemma will be used in the proof of Theorem 3.2.

Lemma 3.2. For any irreducible $`l`$-dimensional representation $`\tau `$ of the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ and any generic holomorphic bundle $`F`$ of rank $`l`$ and of degree $`gl`$, the equivalence class of the representation $`\tau `$ is in a one-to-one correspondence with the set of framings of the bundle $`F`$.

Proof. The group $`GL(l)`$ acts on the irreducible representations of the algebra $`𝔤`$ in $`^l`$ as follows: an element $`\gamma GL(l)`$ takes the representation $`\tau `$ to the equivalent representation $`\gamma ^1\tau \gamma `$, and then the representation $`\tau `$ remains stable if and only if the element $`\gamma `$ is scalar, $`\gamma \mathrm{Id}`$.

At the same time, the group $`GL(l)`$ acts on the framings of the bundle $`F`$ as follows: an element $`\gamma `$ takes a framing defined by the matrix $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of sections to the framing defined by the matrix $`\mathrm{\Psi }\gamma `$ of sections (see §2, Sec. (b)). Moreover, the scalar operators (and only these operators) preserve the Tyurin parameters as points of the projective space, since they multiply all parameters by the same number.

Thus, both sets under consideration are equal to $`GL(l)/\mathrm{Id}`$ as manifolds.∎

Theorem 3.2. The isomorphism relation introduced by Definition 3.2 is an equivalence relation on the set of fermion representations. The corresponding set of equivalence classes of fermion representations is in a one-to-one correspondence with the set of pairs $`([F],[\tau ])`$, where $`F`$ is an equivalence class of (nonframed) holomorphic bundles of rank $`l`$ and of degree $`gl`$ (in general position) and $`[\tau ]`$ is an equivalence class of $`l`$-dimensional irreducible representations of the algebra $`𝔤`$.

Proof. Let a generic holomorphic (nonframed) bundle $`F`$ of rank $`l`$ of degree $`gl`$ and an irreducible $`l`$-dimensional representation $`\tau `$ of the algebra $`𝔤`$ be given. Choose any two framings in $`F`$ that are defined by matrices of holomorphic sections $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$. Then there exists a matrix $`\gamma GL(l)`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=\mathrm{\Psi }\gamma ^1`$. Suppose that to the data $`\{F,\tau ,\mathrm{\Psi }\}`$ ($`\{F,\tau ^{},\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\}`$) there corresponds a fermion representation $`\pi =\pi (F,\tau ,\mathrm{\Psi })`$ ($`\pi ^{}=\pi (F,\tau ^{},\mathrm{\Psi }^{})`$, respectively). In this case, we have an isomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ between the representation spaces $`\pi `$ and $`\pi ^{}`$: by the construction of the fermion representation, for each monomial $`\psi _{N_1}\psi _{N_2}\mathrm{}`$ (if it belongs to the representation space of $`\pi `$) we have the corresponding monomial $`\gamma \psi _{N_1}\gamma \psi _{N_2}\mathrm{}`$. This can be seen from relation (2.5). For the framing $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, this relation (in matrix form) becomes $`S=\mathrm{\Psi }f`$. Respectively, for the framing $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ this relation is of the form $`S=\mathrm{\Psi }\gamma ^1\gamma f`$, i.e., the elements $`fF_{KN}`$ are subjected to the automorphism $`\gamma `$.

Thus, we have proved that the mapping $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ appears as the result of the change of framing $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\gamma ^1`$ in the holomorphic bundle. As was noted above, this implies that an isomorphism in the sense of Definition 3.2 is an equivalence relation on the set of fermion representations.

For the mapping $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ to commute with the action of the algebra $`𝔤`$ (this is also one of the conditions in Definition 3.2), it is necessary and sufficient that $`\tau ^{}=\gamma \tau \gamma ^1`$. Thus, we obtain the following picture. By Theorem 3.1, the classes of strong equivalence of fermion representations are parametrized by the data sets $`\{F,\tau ,\mathrm{\Psi }\}`$. For a given structure of a holomorphic bundle $`F`$, to an isomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ there corresponds a transformation of the related data set, $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\gamma ^1`$ and $`\tau \gamma \tau \gamma ^1`$. Hence, to the equivalence classes of fermion representations (in the sense of Definition 3.2) we can assign the orbits in the space of the data sets $`\{F,\tau ,\mathrm{\Psi }\}`$ under the action of the transformations $`FF`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\gamma ^1`$, and $`\tau \gamma \tau \gamma ^1`$. It follows from Lemma 3.2 that these orbits are in a one-to-one correspondence with the pairs $`([F],[\tau ])`$.∎


text:
# Metastability and uniqueness of vortex states at depinning

## Abstract

We present results from numerical simulations of transport of vortices in the zero-field cooled (ZFC) and the field-cooled (FC) state of a type-II superconductor. In the absence of an applied current $`I`$, we find that the FC state has a lower defect density than the ZFC state, and is stable against thermal cycling. On the other hand, by cycling $`I`$, surprisingly we find that the ZFC state is the stable state. The FC state is metastable as manifested by increasing $`I`$ to the depinning current $`I_c`$, in which case the FC state evolves into the ZFC state. We also find that all configurations acquire a unique defect density at the depinning transition independent of the history of the initial states.

Metastability is a generic feature in many disordered systems. Metastable states show characteristics distinct from the ground state, and are evidenced, for example, by the path or history dependence of the different response functions. A striking example of metastability is the difference between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field cooled (ZFC) magnetisation in vortex phase of type-II superconductorsbednorz . In superconductors, the FC magnetisation is much smaller than the ZFC magnetisation. This difference decreases with increasing temperature $`T`$ and vanishes above the irreversibility temperature $`T_{irr}`$. The ZFC state is believed to be metastable and the FC state to be a quasi-equilibrium state because it is possible to reach the FC state from the ZFC state by changing $`T`$ from a low value to $`T_{irr}`$ and back, but the ZFC state cannot be reached from a FC state through such a temperature cycle. Similar features are also observed in spin glassesbinder . The difference in FC and ZFC state magnetisation is explained by the emergence of energy barriers below $`T_{irr}`$, which inhibits the ZFC state from exploring the full configuration space.

In recent years, transport experiements have shown conflicting results regarding the stability of the FC and ZFC states. In the anomalous peak effect region, the FC state has been observed to be unstable against current annealing. The critical current $`I_c`$ is higher (upto a factor of 6) in the virgin FC state than in FC states annealed by a current or in the ZFC statehender . On the other hand, using a slow ramp rate for $`I`$, the FC and ZFC state $`I_c`$ was found to be same below and inside the peak effect regimexiao . This was interepreted as a signature of the metastability of the FC state. Also, the susceptibility of the FC state can be switched to that of the ZFC state by applying an ac pulse banerjee ; sergio . Moreover, recent scanning Hall probe measurements have also shown substantial vortex rearragement in FC states for $`I<I_c`$ march . One approach accounts for these experimental observations through the role of surface barriers paltiel . These differing pictures place in the focus the behavior of vortices in the FC and ZFC states in the presence of a transport current.

In this paper we use numerical simulations to study the transport of differently prepared vortex systems. Our first main result is that, in contrast to the temperature cycling, if the vortex system is cycled with a transport current, then the ZFC state is more stable than the FC state. In particular, the ZFC state can be reached from the FC state by current cycling, but not vice versa. Our second main result is that, with increasing currents, all vortex states, FC, ZFC, or prepared in any intermediate way, acquire an unique density of defects at depinning.

We consider vortices in a 2D plane perpendicular to the magnetic field $`𝐁=B\widehat{𝐳}`$ of a bulk superconductor, with $`B=n_v\varphi _0`$ where $`n_v`$ is the vortex density, and $`\varphi _0`$ is the flux quantum. Within the London approximation we treat the vortices as particles, with dynamics governed by an overdamped equation of motion,

$`\eta {\displaystyle \frac{d𝐫_i}{dt}}={\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}U^v(𝐫_i𝐫_j){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}U^p(𝐫_i𝐑_k)+`$
$`𝐅_{ext}+𝜻_i(t).`$
Here $`\eta `$ is the flux-flow viscosity, and the first term represents the inter-vortex interaction given by the potential $`U^v(r)=\frac{\varphi _0^2}{8\pi ^2\lambda ^2}K_0(\stackrel{~}{r}/\lambda )`$, where $`K_0`$ is the zeroth-order Bessel function, and $`\stackrel{~}{r}=(r^2+2\xi ^2)^{1/2}`$ with $`\lambda `$ and $`\xi `$ as penetration depth and coherence length of the superconductor, respectively clem . The second term is the attractive interaction with parabolic potential wells $`U^p(r)=U_0(\frac{r^2}{r_p^2}1)`$ for $`r<r_p`$, and 0 otherwise, centered at the random $`𝐑_k`$ locations. The third term $`F_{ext}=\frac{1}{c}𝐉\times \varphi _0\widehat{𝐳}`$ represents the Lorentz force due to the transport current density $`𝐉`$. The last term is the thermal noise (Langevin term) with the moments $`\zeta _{i,p}(t)=0`$, and $`\zeta _{i,p}(t)\zeta _{j,p^{}}(t^{})=2k_BT\eta \delta _{ij}\delta _{pp^{}}\delta (tt^{})`$, where $`T`$ is the temperature, $`k_B`$ is Boltzmann constant, and $`p,p^{}=x,y`$. We worked with reduced variables: all distances are in units of $`\lambda _0=\lambda (T=0)`$, the current density $`J`$ in units of $`cf_0/\varphi _0`$, and $`T`$ in units of $`\lambda _0f_0/k_B`$ where $`f_0=\frac{\varphi _0^2}{8\pi ^2\lambda _0^3}`$. The time $`t`$ is in units of $`\eta \lambda _0/f_0`$. This model is expected to reasonably capture the physics of stiff vortex lines, like those in Nb and NbSe2, while in strongly layered superconductors, the soft interlayer couplings introduce additional degrees of freedom.

To simulate the ZFC state, we confine the quenched disorder to a central region of the simulation box, while leaving the outer region defect free as illustrated in Fig. 1. The disordered region defines the extent of the superconductor and the disorder free region simulates the free-space. Periodic boundary conditions connect the edges of the simulation box. We employ a box of size $`40\lambda _0\times 24\lambda _0`$, with the disordered region occupying $`28\lambda _0\times 24\lambda _0`$. We used a pin density of 5.95/$`\lambda _0^2`$ with $`U_0=0.03`$, and $`r_p=0.1\lambda _0`$. The results presented below are for $`N_v=1148`$ vortices in the simulation box which corresponds to $`B800G`$. Typically, we used $`5\times 10^4`$ time steps for thermal equilibriation. For $`V`$-$`I`$ characteristics, $`2\times 10^4`$ time steps was used to equilibriate before averaging over a similar time scale. The real space configuration of vortices is characterized by the defect density $`n_d=N_d/S`$ where $`N_d`$ is the number of voritces which are non six-fold co-ordinated and $`S`$ is the area (in units of $`\lambda _0^2`$) of the disordered regioncomment1 . $`N_d`$ is counted by Delaunay triangulation of the real space position of vortices. The $`V`$-$`I`$ characteristics are calculated by varying $`𝐅_{ext}=F_{ext}\widehat{𝐱}`$ ($`F_{ext}I`$, the current) and calculating the average velocity ($`V`$, the voltage) $`𝐯=\frac{1}{N_v}_i^{N_v}\dot{𝐫}_i`$ along the $`x`$-axis.

We first consider the effect of cycling the temperature $`T`$. The ZFC state at $`T=0`$ is created by positioning vortices in the defect free region and allowing them to move into the disordered region by their own dynamics. The FC state is created by the thermal cycle of the ZFC state by first heating the system deep into the liquid phase, and subsequently cooling it back to $`T=0`$. Fig. 1 shows the behaviour of the defect density $`n_d`$ throughout this thermal cycle. The ZFC state at $`T=0`$ is formed by vortices diffusing through the free edges into the disordered region. With decreasing velocity of the diffusion front, plastic deformation induces a larger density of defects. These defects are non-equilibrium and is supported by a gradient ($`U^p`$) in vortex densitybean . On increasing $`T`$, the gradient, and subsequently $`n_d(T)`$, decreases due to thermal activation. Across $`T=0.012=T_m`$, the melting temperature, $`n_d(T)`$ increases rapidly as the system goes into the liquid phase. Compared to the ZFC state, the FC state has a lower $`n_d(T=0)`$ as it is cooled from the homogeneous liquid phase that has no macrosopic density gradients. The FC state shows no appreciable change in $`n_d`$ on repeated thermal cycling. The inset in Fig. 1 shows the hysteresis in $`n_d`$ on crossing $`T_m`$, which is evidence for the melting transition into the liquid phase being first order. A very slow cooling rate is used in the inset compared to the main panel to more accurately observe the hysteresis across $`T_m`$.

A partial thermal cycling of the system, consisting of a warming step to a temperature $`T_{PFC}`$, e.g. $`T_{PFC}=0.006=\frac{T_m}{2}`$, and a subsequent cooling step to $`T=0`$ generates a partially field-cooled (PFC) state (see Fig. 1). The PFC state is less disordered than the ZFC state, and is stable to thermal cycling between $`0`$ and $`T_{PFC}`$. For $`T>T_{PFC}`$, the PFC state follows the same path as the virgin ZFC state. This repeated warming and cooling allows one to access all the other PFC configurations at $`T=0`$. The behaviour of $`n_d(T)`$ is in consonance with the experimental measurement of magnetisation $`M(T)`$ for $`T<T_{irr}`$bednorz .

Next we consider the effect of current $`I`$ on various configurations. As shown in Ref.kosh , effects of the disorder on the moving vortex state can be characterized by a “shaking temperature” $`T_{sh}`$. $`T_{sh}v^1`$, where $`vI`$ is the average vortex velocity. At large $`v`$, a moving lattice is formed which undergoes an order to disorder transition as $`I`$ is decreased to zero across the depinning current $`I_c`$. Therefore, besides the above described thermal cycling, a disordered vortex state can be prepared by current cycling as well. As will be shown below, the resulting configuration is the most stable vortex state against repeated cycling of $`I`$. We call the resulting static configuration the current hardened (CH) state, in analogy to “strain hardening”, in which materials are cycled with increasing stress to increase the density of dislocations.

Fig. 2 shows $`V(I)`$ and $`n_d(I)`$ curves at $`T=0`$ for differently prepared states. We identify three current regimes : (1) a pinned regime $`I<I_c`$, with $`V=0`$ and $`n_d(I)`$ determined by the mode of preparation; (2) a plastic regime $`I_c<I<I_m`$, with non-linear $`V(I)`$ and the same $`n_d(I)`$ for all differently prepared states; and (3) a flowing-lattice regime $`I>I_m`$, with linear $`V(I)`$ and $`n_d(I)`$ substantially smaller. The small difference in $`n_d`$ in the flowing-lattice regime, as seen in Fig. 2, is due to the formation of a grain boundary at the free edges of the disorder region (see also Fig. 4(c)). Remarkably, $`V(I)`$ curves and the depinning current $`I_c`$ are independent of the mode of preparation of the systemcomment4 , in agreement with the experiments with slow ramping of $`I`$xiao . These characteristics persist at finite $`T`$ as well. The $`n_d(I)`$ for $`I<I_c`$, on the other hand, depends on the mode of preparation.

Strikingly, the defect density $`n_d(I)`$ at the depinning current $`I_c`$ assumes the same value $`n_d^c0.51`$ for the FC, ZFC, PFC, and CH states, as seen in Fig. 2. In other words, $`n_d^c`$ is independent of the mode of the preparation of the vortex state. The history independent unique value of $`n_d^c`$ implies that the characteristics and dynamics of all vortex states converge as the current approaches $`I_c`$. This idea is substantiated by studying the real space dynamics at depinning. As is known, vortices depin by forming few channels across the system moon . We find that, while in differently prepared states the channels are nucleated at different locations along the entry edge, in the bulk the channels converge quickly to a universal pattern. We also find the average transverse wandering of a channel is of the order of $`6`$-$`7`$ lattice constants, and is same for all states at $`I_c`$. This implies that the average displacement of the vortices at $`I_c`$ is the same for all states, thus providing an underlying physical picture for preparation independence of $`n_d^c`$. Further studies show that the value of $`n_d^c`$ depends on $`T`$, $`n_v`$, and the disorder strength.

Next, we study the stability of the different vortex states against cycling with $`I`$. The virgin FC state has a defect density $`n_{d,FC}(0)<n_d^c`$. Therefore, the density of defects in the virgin FC state increases from $`n_{d,FC}(0)`$ to $`n_d^c`$ as the $`I`$ is increased from 0 to $`I_c`$, as shown in Fig. 2. Furthermore, decreasing current from $`I_1<I_c`$, $`n_{d,FC}(I)`$ does not decrease to its virgin value, but stays approximately at $`n_d(I_1)`$. In particular, cycling $`I`$ between 0 and $`II_c`$ leaves $`n_{d,FC}(I)n_d^c`$ for $`I<I_c`$. At the same time, $`n_{d,ZFC}(0)n_d^c`$, and cycling $`I`$ does not affect this value. Therefore, the FC state, and its defect density $`n_{d,FC}`$, can be transformed into the ZFC state and $`n_{d,ZFC}`$ by cycling $`I`$ between 0 and $`I_c`$. The reverse is not true, i.e., the FC state cannot be reached from any state by cycling current. Therefore, in contrast to thermal cycling, we find that the FC state is metastable and the ZFC state is stable against current cycling. Fig. 2 further illustrates that the CH state and its defect density $`n_{d,CH}(I)`$ evolve into the ZFC state when the current is decreased from a large value to 0. The same holds for the PFC states, as $`n_{d,PFC}(I)`$ also evolves into $`n_{d,ZFC}(0)`$.

Since for $`I>I_c`$ $`n_d(I)`$ is approximately the same for all states, metastable configurations and the irreversible behavior of $`n_d(I)`$ emerge only below $`I_{irr}`$. For $`T=0`$, $`I_{irr}=I_c`$, but at finite temperatures these two current values separate, as evident for $`T=0.004`$, shown in the inset of Fig. 2. At finite $`T`$, $`n_d(I)n_d^c`$ at a current $`I_{irr}>I_c`$. This is possibly due to thermally activated vortex creep, which induces vortex displacements already for $`I<I_{irr}`$. The metastability of the FC state persists at finite $`T`$, and we believe is a generic phenomenon which brings out a fundamental difference in the nature of FC and ZFC states. The ZFC and CH states show similar behaviour throughout the studied current and temperature ranges.

Further evidence for metastability of the FC state is obtained by applying a current pulse $`I=0.15<I_c`$ to differently prepared vortex states, and observing the temporal evolution of $`n_d`$, as illustrated in Fig. 3(a). The application of a current pulse evolves the FC state into PFC states with an intermediate defect density $`n_{d,FC}<n_{d,PFC}<n_{d,ZFC}`$. The defect density remains at that elevated level even after the current drops to zero. In particular, a large enough current pulse evolves the FC state into the ZFC state. This transformation of the FC state to the ZFC state by a current pulse is in close analogy to experimental observations banerjee . In Ref.banerjee , the $`I_c`$ is also found to change during the transformation of the FC state to ZFC state, possibly due to the influence of surface barrierxiao1 . We emphasize that the transformation of the FC configuration to ZFC configuration as found here is a bulk characteristic, and is not influenced by the free edges of the disordered region. This was verified in simulation without free edgescomment2 . The FC state was again found to be metastable below $`I_{irr}`$, and is transformed into CH configuration on increasing $`I`$ above $`I_{irr}`$.

In Fig. 3(b) we plot $`I_c(T)`$ for a range of $`T`$ at which simulations were carried out. The $`I_c`$ follows an $`\mathrm{exp}(\frac{T}{T_0})`$ form, confirming that thermally activated motion dominates the dynamics at $`I_c`$. Fig. 3(c) shows the temperature dependence of $`n_d^c(T)`$, as obtained from $`V(I)`$ curves. The $`n_d(T)`$ values for the FC and ZFC states are superimposed from Fig. 1. $`n_d^c(T)`$ closely follows $`n_{d,ZFC}(T)`$, obtained by warming the ZFC state, thus corroborating the view that the ZFC state is essentially the frozen equivalent of the critical state at $`I_c`$. In other words, the channels formed by the penetrating front of vortices during the formation of the virgn ZFC state is frozen. Any subsequent application of $`I`$ essentially uses these pre-formed channels which explains why ZFC state shows no substantial change in $`n_d`$. In contrast, in the virgin FC state no such channels exists. On first passage of $`I`$, the resulting build up of stress at depinning leads to channel formation which increases $`n_d`$. Any further cycling of $`I`$ essentially uses the already formed channels. This is a plausible explanation for the metastability of the FC state on cycling $`I`$.

The configurational changes are illustrated in Fig. 4 for various states, during a composite $`T`$-$`I`$ cycle. Starting with the ZFC state, shown in Fig. 4(a), we obtain the FC state (Fig. 4(b)) by cycling $`T`$ from $`0`$ to $`T>T_m`$. The FC state is then driven with $`I>I_m`$ to obtain Fig. 4(c). And finally, decreasing $`I`$ to 0, the CH state is obtained in Fig. 4(d), which is indistinguishable from the ZFC state in Fig. 4(a). Thus a composite $`TI`$ cycle allows one to go from the ZFC state to the FC state and vice-versa.

In conclusion, we have shown that the ZFC state is stable against current cycling in contrast to the FC state which is found to be metastable. This behavior is opposite to the thermal cycling where the FC state is stable. We also find that the defect density $`n_d`$ for any initial state converges to the same value at $`I_c`$.

We thank Helmut Katzgraber for critical reading of the manuscript. M.C. also acknowledges useful discussions with E. Zeldov and A. K. Grover during the course of the work. This work was supported by NSF-DMR 9985978.