text:
# Morita equivalence bimodules for Wick type star products

## 1 Introduction

Deformation quantization as introduced in  is a well-established and successful way of understanding the transition from classical physics to quantum physics as a deformation of the algebraic structures, see  for recent reviews. The classical observable algebra is modelled by the complex-valued smooth functions $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ on the phase space $`M`$, which is a Poisson manifold. In particular, $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ is a Poisson algebra. The deformation is done by means of a star product $``$ which is an associative $`[[\lambda ]]`$-bilinear multiplication for $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)[[\lambda ]]`$ such that in zeroth order of the deformation parameter $`\lambda `$ it coincides with the pointwise product and in first order of $`\lambda `$ the $``$-commutator equals $`\mathrm{i}`$ times the Poisson bracket. In case of convergence $`\lambda `$ corresponds to Planck’s constant $`\mathrm{}`$. Existence and classification of such products is now well-established .

In this article we shall consider a particular situation, namely when $`M`$ is a Kähler manifold and the Poisson structure is induced by its Kähler symplectic form. Deformation quantization of Kähler manifolds has a long history dating back to the work of Berezin . The relation between Berezin-Toeplitz quantization and star products has been explored by various authors . Since on a Kähler manifold one has a compatible complex structure it is meaningful to speak of bidifferential operators (and hence of star products) which differentiate one function in holomorphic directions and the other in anti-holomorphic directions only. This property of a star product was known for various examples and led Karabegov to the notion of star products with *separation of variables*. In  he proved existence and gave a classification of such star products. In an alternative approach, Fedosov’s construction was adapted to the Kähler situation and used to show the existence of such star products as well , see also  for a classification in this context and  for a comparison of both approaches.

It turns out that on a Kähler manifold one has (at least) three canonically given star products: the Weyl ordered Fedosov star product $`_{\mathrm{Weyl}}`$ as well as the Wick and anti Wick star product $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ and $`_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}`$, obtained by the above mentioned modified Fedosov construction, all using the Kähler connection as starting point. Moreover, the characteristic classes of these three star products are explicitly known to be

$$c(_{\mathrm{Weyl}})=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\lambda }[\omega ],c(_{\mathrm{Wick}})=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\lambda }[\omega ]\mathrm{i}\pi c_1(L_{\text{can}})c(_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}})=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\lambda }[\omega ]+\mathrm{i}\pi c_1(L_{\text{can}}),$$
(1)
where $`L_{\text{can}}=^{(n,0)}T^{}M`$ is the canonical line bundle of $`M`$, see e.g. .

In  the notion of deformation quantization of vector bundles was introduced: If $`EM`$ is a (complex) vector bundle and $``$ is a star product for $`M`$ then a deformation quantization of $`E`$ is a deformed right module structure $``$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(E)[[\lambda ]]`$ with respect to $``$. It was shown that such a $``$ always exists and is unique up to equivalence. Moreover, $``$ also induces an associative formal deformation $`^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(E))[[\lambda ]]`$ together with a corresponding left module structure $`^{}`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(E)`$ is deformed into a $`^{}`$-$``$ bimodule via $`^{}`$ and $``$. Finally, the bimodule gives a *Morita equivalence bimodule* for the deformed algebras $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(E))[[\lambda ]],^{})`$ and $`(C^{\mathrm{}}(M)[[\lambda ]],)`$. In case of a line bundle $`E=L`$ one obtains a star product $`^{}`$ for $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(L))`$ and finally arrives at the classification of star products up to Morita equivalence: In the symplectic case two star products $`^{}`$ and $``$ are Morita equivalent if and only if there is a symplectic diffeomorphism $`\psi `$ of $`M`$ such that $`\psi ^{}c(^{})c()2\pi \mathrm{iH}_{\mathrm{deRham}}(M,)`$ is an *integral* de Rham class, see .

The aim of this work is two-fold: On one hand we shall construct particular bimodule deformations $`^{}`$, $``$ for a complex vector bundle $`E`$ over $`M`$ using the ideas of Fedosov’s construction as in  in order to obtain separation of variables for $`^{}`$ and $``$ as well, if $`E`$ is (anti-) holomorphic. On the other hand we give a Fedosov construction of the deformed bimodule structure of $`L_{\text{can}}`$ which yields a Morita equivalence bimodule for $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ and $`_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}`$. According to (1) and the general classification theorem in  such deformations necessarily exist. So our main emphasize is the canonical and constructive way how it can be obtained.

The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we collect some basic and well-known results on the Fedosov construction and adapt them to the Kähler situation. In order to handle the Weyl ordered, the Wick ordered and the anti Wick ordered case simultaneously we introduce a one-parameter family of fibrewise $`\kappa `$-ordered products. In Section 3 we state the main theorems of the Fedosov construction for the star products and the corresponding bimodule multiplications. Up to here the results are essentially standard. In Section 4 we investigate the case of (anti-) holomorphic vector bundles and show the separation of variables properties of the Wick and anti Wick ordered products. Section 5 contains local expressions for the deformed multiplications which can also be used to characterize them globally. In Section 6 we give a deformed version of a Hermitian fibre metric and investigate its compatibility with the holomorphic structure. Here we also give local expressions. Finally, Section 7 contains the construction of the canonical Morita equivalence bimodule structure on $`L_{\text{can}}`$ for $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ and $`_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}`$. In an appendix we have collected some standard results on Kähler geometry in order to explain our notation.

Conventions: By $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ we denote the *complex-valued* smooth functions and similarly $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(T^{}M)`$ stands for the complex-valued smooth one-forms etc. Moreover, we use Einstein’s summation convention in local expressions. Finally, we do not need the positive definiteness of the Kähler metric. So all results are still valid on *semi Kähler manifolds*. However, for ease of notation we shall not emphasize this in the text.

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Martin Schlichenmaier for valuable discussions on topics in Kähler geometry.

## 2 The Fedosov construction on Kähler manifolds

In this section we shall briefly recall the set-up for the Fedosov construction in order to explain our notation where we mainly follow . Details and proofs can be found in Fedosov’s book . For the additional structures on a Kähler manifold we refer to  as well as to Appendix A.

Given a complex vector bundle $`EM`$ over a Kähler manifold $`M`$ we define the following $`[[\lambda ]]`$-modules

$$𝒲:=\underset{s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(^sT^{}M)[[\lambda ]],$$
(2)
$$𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}:=\underset{s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(^sT^{}M^{}T^{}M)[[\lambda ]],$$
(3)
$$𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}:=\underset{s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(^sT^{}M^{}T^{}ME)[[\lambda ]],$$
(4)
$$𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}nd():=\underset{s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(^sT^{}M^{}T^{}M\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(E))[[\lambda ]].$$
(5)
Then $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ becomes a super-commutative associative algebra where the fibrewise product is defined by $`(f\alpha )(g\beta )=fg\alpha \beta `$. In particular $`𝒲𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ is a commutative sub-algebra. Using the fibrewise composition of endomorphisms of $`E`$ we observe that $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}nd()`$ becomes an associative algebra as well, which is no longer super-commutative unless $`E=L`$ is a line bundle. We can view $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ as sub-algebra of $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}nd()`$. Finally, $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ is a bimodule for $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}nd()`$ from the left and for $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ from the right. Besides the usual symmetric and anti-symmetric form degree $`\mathrm{deg}_\mathrm{s}`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}_\mathrm{a}`$, we have the $`\lambda `$-degree and the *total degree*, which is twice the $`\lambda `$-degree plus the symmetric degree. One also has the operators $`\delta =dx^ii_s(_i)`$ and $`\delta ^{}=dx^ii_a(_i)`$ which satisfy $`\delta ^2=0=(\delta ^{})^2`$. If one defines $`\delta ^1a=\frac{1}{k+l}\delta ^{}a`$ for homogeneous $`a`$ with symmetric degree $`k`$ and anti-symmetric degree $`ł`$ such that $`k+l0`$ and $`\delta ^1a=0`$ otherwise, then one has the *Hodge-de Rham decomposition*

$$\delta \delta ^1+\delta ^1\delta +\sigma =\mathrm{𝗂𝖽},$$
(6)
where $`\sigma `$ denotes the projection onto the part with symmetric and anti-symmetric degree $`0`$.

In a next step one needs a symplectic connection $``$ on $`M`$ and a connection $`^E`$ for $`E`$. For $``$ we shall always use the Kähler connection while $`^E`$ shall be specified later. One has the induced connection $`^{\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(E)}=[^E,]`$ on $`\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(E)`$ and the connections extend to super-derivations of anti-symmetric degree $`+1`$

$$D:𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1},$$
(7)
$$D^E:𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1},$$
(8)
$$D^{}:𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}nd()𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1}nd().$$
(9)
Then $`D^E`$ is a module derivation along $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$, respectively. A simple computation shows that $`\delta `$ super-commutes with $`D^{}`$, $`D^E`$ and $`D`$.

One observes that the curvature $`R^E`$ of $`^E`$ is an element in $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^2nd()`$ with $`\mathrm{deg}_\mathrm{s}R^E=0`$. For $`R^E`$ and for the symplectic curvature tensor $`R𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, see (84), we have the Bianchi identities $`\delta R=0=\delta R^E`$ and $`DR=0=D^{}R^E`$.

Now we pass to the deformed fibrewise products and bimodule structures. Originally, Fedosov used the fibrewise Weyl product, but on a Kähler manifold one also has fibrewise analogues of the Wick and anti Wick product, see . First one defines the fibrewise operator

$$𝒫=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ij}i_s(_i)i_s(_j)$$
(10)
acting on $`𝒲𝒲`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ij}_i_j`$ is the Poisson tensor in local coordinates. Clearly $`𝒫`$ is globally defined. As we have a complex structure the operators

$$P=g^{k\overline{\mathrm{}}}i_s(Z_k)i_s(\overline{Z}_{\mathrm{}})\text{and}\overline{P}=g^{k\overline{\mathrm{}}}i_s(\overline{Z}_{\mathrm{}})i_s(Z_k)$$
(11)
are globally well-defined as well and one has $`𝒫=\frac{2}{\mathrm{i}}(P\overline{P})`$. Finally, we need the fibrewise Laplace operator

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{fib}}=g^{k\overline{\mathrm{}}}i_s(Z_k)i_s(\overline{Z}_{\mathrm{}}),$$
(12)
which again is globally well-defined and satisfies the relation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{fib}}\mu =\mu (\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{fib}}\mathrm{𝗂𝖽}+P+\overline{P}+\mathrm{𝗂𝖽}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{fib}}),$$
(13)
where $`\mu :𝒲𝒲𝒲`$ denotes the fibrewise undeformed product of $`𝒲`$. We extend all the operators $`𝒫`$, $`P`$, $`\overline{P}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{fib}}`$ to $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$, $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$, and $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}nd()`$. Now the fibrewise Weyl product is defined by

$$a_{\mathrm{Weyl}}b:=\mu \mathrm{e}^{\frac{\mathrm{i}\lambda }{2}𝒫}ab$$
(14)
and clearly gives an associative deformation of $`\mu `$. For $`\kappa `$ we define the *fibrewise equivalence transformations*

$$S=\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{fib}}}\text{and}S^\kappa =\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \kappa \mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{fib}}}$$
(15)
and the fibrewise products

$$a_\kappa b:=S^\kappa (S^\kappa a_{\mathrm{Weyl}}S^\kappa b)=\mu \mathrm{e}^{(\kappa +1)\lambda P+(\kappa 1)\lambda \overline{P}}ab.$$
(16)
Clearly $`_\kappa `$ is again a fibrewise associative deformation of $`\mu `$ and fibrewisely equivalent to $`_{\mathrm{Weyl}}`$ via $`S^\kappa `$. Besides the Weyl ordered case ($`\kappa =0`$) the Wick ordered case ($`\kappa =1`$) and the anti Wick ordered case ($`\kappa =1`$) are of particular interest as here $`\overline{P}`$ respectively $`P`$ are absent in (16). We shall denote these fibrewise products by $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ and $`_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}`$.

We also observe that the bimodule structure of $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ can be deformed yielding a bimodule structure with respect to the deformed products $`_\kappa `$ of $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}nd()`$ and $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$. We shall denote the corresponding bimodule multiplications by $`_\kappa `$ as well.

###### Remark 1

It is clear that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{fib}}`$, $`P`$, $`\overline{P}`$, and $`_\kappa `$ can be defined as soon as one has an almost complex structure compatible with the symplectic structure on an arbitrary symplectic manifold. In principle one can carry through Fedosov’s construction in this case as well . However, the resulting star products $`_\kappa `$ seem to have no particular properties like ‘separation of variables’ for the cases $`\kappa =\pm 1`$. This only will happen on a (semi-) Kähler manifold.

We finally mention some further relations between the various operators. First note that $`[\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{fib}},\delta ]=0`$ whence $`S^\kappa \delta S^\kappa =\delta `$ for all $`\kappa `$. Moreover, since $``$ is the Kähler connection we have $`[\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{fib}},D]=0`$ as well as $`[\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{fib}},D^E]=0`$ and $`[\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{fib}},D^{}]=0`$. This implies $`S^\kappa DS^\kappa =D`$ and hence $`D`$ is a $`_\kappa `$-derivation as well. Analogously, $`D^{}`$ and $`D^E`$ are (module-) derivations with respect to $`_\kappa `$. The following lemma is a slight variation of \[6, Prop. 4.1\] and \[17, Sect. 5.3\]:

###### Lemma 1

We have $`S^\kappa R=R+\kappa \lambda \mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{fib}}R=R+\kappa \lambda \varrho `$ and hence

$$D^2=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\lambda }\mathrm{ad}_\kappa (S^\kappa R)=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\lambda }\mathrm{ad}_\kappa (R),$$
(17)
as the Ricci form $`\varrho `$, see (82), is central with respect to $`_\kappa `$. Moreover, $`S^\kappa R^E=R^E`$ and hence

$$(D^E)^2=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\lambda }\mathrm{ad}_\kappa (R)+R^E\text{and}(D^{})^2=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\lambda }\mathrm{ad}_\kappa (R\mathrm{i}\lambda R^E).$$
(18)
## 3 Fedosov star products and deformed vector bundles

Using the results of the previous section as well as the standard arguments of Fedosov’s construction  we easily arrive at the following theorem:

###### Theorem 1

We fix $`\kappa `$. For any series of closed two-forms $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa \lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(^2T^{}M)[[\lambda ]]`$ there exist unique $`r_\kappa 𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$, $`r_\kappa ^{}𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^1nd()`$ of total degree $`3`$ such that

$$\delta r_\kappa =R+Dr_\kappa +\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\lambda }r_\kappa _\kappa r_\kappa +\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa \text{and}\delta ^1r_\kappa =0$$
(19)
and

$$\delta r_\kappa ^{}=R\mathrm{i}\lambda R^E+D^{}r_\kappa ^{}+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\lambda }r_\kappa ^{}_\kappa r_\kappa ^{}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa \text{and}\delta ^1r_\kappa ^{}=0.$$
(20)
In this case the super derivations

$$𝒟_\kappa =\delta +D+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\lambda }\mathrm{ad}_\kappa (r_\kappa )\text{and}𝒟_\kappa ^{}=\delta +D^{}+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\lambda }\mathrm{ad}_\kappa (r_\kappa ^{})$$
(21)
have square zero. The maps

$$\sigma :\mathrm{ker}𝒟_\kappa 𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^0C^{\mathrm{}}(M)[[\lambda ]]\text{and}\sigma :\mathrm{ker}𝒟_\kappa ^{}𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^0nd()\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(E))[[\lambda ]]$$
(22)
are $`[[\lambda ]]`$-linear bijections with inverses denoted by $`\tau _\kappa `$ and $`\tau _\kappa ^{}`$, respectively. Finally,

$$f_\kappa g=\sigma (\tau _\kappa (f)_\kappa \tau _\kappa (g))\text{and}A_{\kappa }^{}{}_{}{}^{}B=\sigma (\tau _\kappa ^{}(A)_\kappa \tau _\kappa ^{}(B))$$
(23)
define associative deformations of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(E))`$, respectively, and $`_\kappa `$ is a star product with characteristic class

$$c(_\kappa )=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\lambda }([\omega ]+[\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa ]\kappa \lambda [\varrho ]).$$
(24)
Proof: The proof is completely standard and follows from  with some obvious modifications. We only indicate the computation of the characteristic class: We define $`r=S^\kappa r_\kappa `$ whence clearly

$$\delta r=R\kappa \lambda \varrho +Dr+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\lambda }r_{\mathrm{Weyl}}r+\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa $$
(25)
using Lemma 1 and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{fib}}\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa =0`$. Moreover, $`\delta ^1r`$ is some element of total degree $`3`$. Thus the characteristic class of the Weyl ordered Fedosov star product $``$ built out of $`r`$ is simply given by the expression in (24), see e.g. . But $``$ and $`_\kappa `$ are equivalent as their Fedosov derivatives are fibrewisely conjugate by $`S^\kappa `$, see \[5, Prop. 1\]. $`\mathrm{}`$

For the deformed bimodule structure of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(E)`$ with respect to $`_{\kappa }^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ and $`_\kappa `$ we proceed completely analogously to . First we define

$$r_\kappa ^E:=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\lambda }(r_\kappa ^{}r_\kappa ),$$
(26)
which is a well-defined formal power series in $`\lambda `$ as $`r_\kappa ^{}`$ and $`r_\kappa `$ coincide in zeroth order of $`\lambda `$. Then we define $`𝒟_\kappa ^E:𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1}`$ by

$$𝒟_\kappa ^E=\delta +D^E+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\lambda }\mathrm{ad}_\kappa (r_\kappa )+r_\kappa ^E,$$
(27)
where $`\mathrm{ad}_\kappa (r_\kappa )`$ is defined as usual and $`r_\kappa ^E`$ acts by $`_\kappa `$-left multiplications. The following construction is an immediate adaption of \[35, Thm. 3\] to our $`\kappa `$-ordered situation:

###### Theorem 2

The Fedosov derivative $`𝒟_\kappa ^E`$ satisfies

$$𝒟_\kappa ^E(\mathrm{\Psi }_\kappa b)=𝒟_\kappa ^E\mathrm{\Psi }_\kappa b+(1)^k\mathrm{\Psi }_\kappa 𝒟_\kappa b,$$
(28)
$$𝒟_\kappa ^E(a_\kappa \mathrm{\Psi })=𝒟_\kappa ^{}a_\kappa \mathrm{\Psi }+(1)^{\mathrm{}}a_\kappa 𝒟_\kappa ^E\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(29)
and $`(𝒟_\kappa ^E)^2=0`$, for $`a𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{}}nd()`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^k`$, and $`b𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$. Moreover, $`\sigma :\mathrm{ker}𝒟_\kappa ^E𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^0\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(E)[[\lambda ]]`$ is a $`[[\lambda ]]`$-linear bijection with inverse denoted by $`\tau _\kappa ^E`$. Finally,

$$A_\kappa ^{}s:=\sigma (\tau _\kappa ^{}(A)_\kappa \tau _\kappa ^E(s))$$
(30)
$$s_\kappa f:=\sigma (\tau _\kappa ^E(s)_\kappa \tau _\kappa (f))$$
(31)
defines a $`_{\kappa }^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$-$`_\kappa `$ bimodule deformation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(E)`$.

###### Remark 2

1. In the particular case of a line bundle $`E=L`$ we obtain a star product $`_\kappa ^{}`$ for $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)[[\lambda ]]=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(L))[[\lambda ]]`$ with a corresponding bimodule deformation. Then the characteristic class of $`_\kappa ^{}`$ is given by

$$c(_\kappa ^{})=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\lambda }([\omega ]+[\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa ]\kappa \lambda [\varrho ])+2\pi \mathrm{i}c_1(L),$$
(32)
where $`c_1(L)`$ is the Chern class of $`L`$. This follows either from \[9, Thm. 3.1\] or by an analogous argument as in \[35, Cor. 2\].
2. In general, $`_\kappa ^{}`$ and $`_\kappa `$ are Morita equivalent deformations and $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(E)[[\lambda ]],_\kappa ^{},_\kappa )`$ is a Morita equivalence bimodule \[35, Prop. 1\].

## 4 The Wick Type Properties of $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$, $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}`$, $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ and $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}`$

In this section we shall consider the deformations $`_\kappa `$, $`_\kappa ^{}`$ and the bimodule structures $`_\kappa `$, $`_\kappa ^{}`$ more closely in the case $`\kappa =1`$. Actually an analogous consideration can also be carried out in the case $`\kappa =1`$ by almost trivial generalizations of the given results. We set $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_1=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{Wick}}`$.

First we need some additional notations that make use of the complex structure that enable us to consider the splittings into holomorphic and anti-holomorphic part of the mappings involved in the Fedosov construction. For a detailed discussion of this topic the reader is referred to \[32, Appx. A\]. By $`\pi _z`$ we denote the projection onto the holomorphic form part in the symmetric and the anti-symmetric part of $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$. Then $`\pi _z`$ naturally extends to a projection defined on $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}nd()`$ and $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ as well. Analogously $`\pi _{\overline{z}}`$ denotes the projection onto the anti-holomorphic form part of $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ that also extends naturally to $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}nd()`$ and $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$. Obviously we have $`\sigma =\pi _z\pi _{\overline{z}}=\pi _{\overline{z}}\pi _z`$. From the very definitions of the products and the fibrewise bimodule multiplications $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ it is easy to see that

$$\pi _z(F_{\mathrm{Wick}}G)=\pi _z((\pi _zF)_{\mathrm{Wick}}G)\text{and}\pi _{\overline{z}}(F_{\mathrm{Wick}}G)=\pi _{\overline{z}}(F_{\mathrm{Wick}}(\pi _{\overline{z}}G)),$$
(33)
where $`F,G`$ are elements in $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$, $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ or $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}nd()`$ such that the muliplications make sense. Using a local holomorphic chart of $`M`$ it is easy to see that $`\delta =\delta _z+\delta _{\overline{z}}`$, $`\delta ^{}=\delta _{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+\delta _{\overline{z}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$, $`D=D_z+D_{\overline{z}}`$, $`D^E=D_z^E+D_{\overline{z}}^E`$ and $`D^{}=D_z^{}+D_{\overline{z}}^{}`$, where for instance $`D_z^{}(f\alpha A):=_{Z_i}fdz^i\alpha A+f\alpha A+fdz^i\alpha _{Z_i}^{\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(E)}A`$ and $`D_{\overline{z}}^{}(f\alpha A):=_{\overline{Z}_i}fd\overline{z}^i\alpha A+f\overline{}\alpha A+fd\overline{z}^i\alpha _{\overline{Z}_i}^{\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(E)}A`$. The other splittings are defined similarly. Completely analogously to the definition of $`\delta ^1`$ one defines $`\delta _{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ for $`a`$ with $`dz^ii_s(Z_i)a=ka`$ and $`dz^ii_a(Z_i)a=la`$ by $`\delta _{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a:=\frac{1}{k+l}\delta _{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{}a`$ in case $`k+l0`$ and $`\delta _{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a:=0`$ in case $`k+l=0`$. $`\delta _{\overline{z}}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ is defined in the analogous way and an easy computation yields the following decompositions:

$$\delta _{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\delta _z+\delta _z\delta _{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}+\pi _{\overline{z}}=\mathrm{𝗂𝖽}\text{and}\delta _{\overline{z}}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\delta _{\overline{z}}+\delta _{\overline{z}}\delta _{\overline{z}}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}+\pi _z=\mathrm{𝗂𝖽}.$$
(34)
Furthermore we have the relations: $`\pi _z\delta =\delta _z\pi _z`$, $`\pi _z\delta ^1=\delta _{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\pi _z`$, $`\pi _zD=D_z\pi _z`$, $`\pi _zD^E=D_z^E\pi _z`$ and $`\pi _zD^{}=D_z^{}\pi _z`$ and analogous formulas with $`\overline{z}`$ instead of $`z`$. Using the equation $`\delta ^2=0`$, the fact that $`\delta `$ super-commutes with $`D`$, $`D^E`$ and $`D^{}`$ and the equations for $`D^2`$, $`D_{}^{E}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ and $`D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ it is easy to derive super-commutation relations for the holomorphic and the anti-holomorphic parts of the involved mappings, see also \[32, Lem. 3\].

###### Lemma 2

Let $`r_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$, $`r_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{Wick}}^E`$ denote the elements of $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$, $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^1nd()`$ constructed in the preceding section in case $`\kappa =1`$. Then we have the following:

1. In case $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is of type $`(1,1)`$ then in addition

$$\pi _zr_{\mathrm{Wick}}=0\text{and}\pi _{\overline{z}}r_{\mathrm{Wick}}=0.$$
(35)
2. In case $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`R^E`$ are of type $`(1,1)`$ then

$$\pi _zr_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}=\pi _{\overline{z}}r_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}=0\text{and}\pi _zr_{\mathrm{Wick}}^E=\pi _{\overline{z}}r_{\mathrm{Wick}}^E=0.$$
(36)

Proof: The proof of i.) can be found in \[32, Lem. 4.1\]. Applying $`\pi _z`$ to (20) we obtain

$$\delta _z\pi _zr_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}=D_z^{}\pi _zr_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\lambda }\pi _z\left(\left(\pi _zr_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}\right)_{\mathrm{Wick}}r_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}\right)\text{ and }\delta _{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\pi _zr_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}=0$$

using $`\pi _zR^E=\pi _z\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. Using the decomposition $`\delta _{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\delta _z+\delta _z\delta _{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}+\pi _{\overline{z}}=\mathrm{𝗂𝖽}`$ this implies that $`\pi _zr_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}`$ is a fixed point of the mapping $`L:\pi _z(𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^1nd())a\delta _{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(D_z^{}a+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\nu }\pi _z(a_{\mathrm{Wick}}r_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}))\pi _z(𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^1nd())`$ that raises the total degree at least by one and hence has a unique fixed point. Obviously $`L`$ has $`0`$ as trivial fixed point implying $`\pi _zr_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}=0`$ by uniqueness. Analogously one proves that $`\pi _{\overline{z}}r_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}=0`$. Then the statement for $`r_{\mathrm{Wick}}^E`$ follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

From the explicit shape of the fibrewise products and the bimodule multiplications $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ it is obvious that the products $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$, $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}`$ and the bimodule muliplications $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$, $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}`$ are completely determined by the knowledge of the projections on the totally holomorphic resp. anti-holomorphic part of the respective Fedosov-Taylor series. Therefore it is worth deriving simpler formulas for these projections in order to investigate the products and the bimodule multiplications.

###### Proposition 1

Let $`R^E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be of type $`(1,1)`$ then the projections of $`\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}(f)`$, $`\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}(A)`$ and $`\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^E(s)`$ for $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)[[\lambda ]]`$, $`A\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(E))[[\lambda ]]`$ and $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(E)[[\lambda ]]`$ satisfy the equations:

$`\delta _z\pi _z\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}(f)=D_z\pi _z\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}(f){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\lambda }}\pi _z((\pi _z\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}(f))_{\mathrm{Wick}}r_{\mathrm{Wick}})`$ and $`\sigma (\pi _z\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}(f))=f,`$ (37)
$`\delta _{\overline{z}}\pi _{\overline{z}}\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}(f)=D_{\overline{z}}\pi _{\overline{z}}\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}(f)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\lambda }}\pi _{\overline{z}}(r_{\mathrm{Wick}}_{\mathrm{Wick}}(\pi _{\overline{z}}\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}(f)))`$ and $`\sigma (\pi _{\overline{z}}\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}(f))=f,`$ (38)
$`\delta _z\pi _z\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}(A)=D_z^{}\pi _z\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}(A){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\lambda }}\pi _z((\pi _z\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}(A))_{\mathrm{Wick}}r_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{})`$ and $`\sigma (\pi _z\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}(A))=A,`$ (39)
$`\delta _{\overline{z}}\pi _{\overline{z}}\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}(A)=D_{\overline{z}}^{}\pi _{\overline{z}}\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}(A)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\lambda }}\pi _{\overline{z}}(r_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}_{\mathrm{Wick}}(\pi _{\overline{z}}\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}(A)))`$ and $`\sigma (\pi _{\overline{z}}\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}(A))=A,`$ (40)
$`\delta _z\pi _z\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^E(s)=D_z^E\pi _z\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^E(s){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\lambda }}\pi _z((\pi _z\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^E(s))_{\mathrm{Wick}}r_{\mathrm{Wick}})`$ and $`\sigma (\pi _z\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^E(s))=s,`$ (41)
$`\delta _{\overline{z}}\pi _{\overline{z}}\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^E(s)=D_{\overline{z}}^E\pi _{\overline{z}}\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^E(s)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\lambda }}\pi _{\overline{z}}(r_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}_{\mathrm{Wick}}(\pi _{\overline{z}}\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^E(s)))`$ and $`\sigma (\pi _{\overline{z}}\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^E(s))=s`$ (42)
from which they are uniquely determined.

Proof: The proof of equations (37) and (38) again can be found in \[32, Prop. 4.3\]. It is easy to see that this proof can be slightly modified to obtain the remaining statements of the proposition. $`\mathrm{}`$

As an easy consequence of the preceding proposition we find:

###### Lemma 3

Let $`𝒰M`$ be an open subset of M and let $`R^E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be of type $`(1,1)`$.

1. For all $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ anti-holomorphic on $`𝒰`$ we have $`\pi _z\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}(f)|_𝒰=f|_𝒰`$.
2. For all $`gC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ holomorphic on $`𝒰`$ we have $`\pi _{\overline{z}}\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}(g)|_𝒰=g|_𝒰`$.
3. For all $`A\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(E))`$ such that $`_Y^{\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(E)}A|_𝒰=0`$ for all $`Y\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(TM^{1,0})`$ we have $`\pi _z\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}(A)|_𝒰=A|_U`$.
4. For all $`B\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(E))`$ such that $`_X^{\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(E)}B|_𝒰=0`$ for all $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(TM^{0,1})`$ we have $`\pi _{\overline{z}}\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}(B)|_𝒰=B|_𝒰`$.
5. For all $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(E)`$ such that $`_Y^Es|_𝒰=0`$ for all $`Y\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(TM^{1,0})`$ we have $`\pi _z\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^E(s)|_𝒰=s|_𝒰`$.
6. For all $`t\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(E)`$ such that $`_X^Et|_𝒰=0`$ for all $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(TM^{0,1})`$ we have $`\pi _{\overline{z}}\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^E(t)|_𝒰=t|_𝒰`$.

Proof: To prove these assertions one just has to show that the given expressions for the projections of the respective Fedosov-Taylor series solve the equations given in Proposition 1 which is an easy task using that the projections of $`r_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}`$ onto the totally holomorphic and anti-holomorphic form part vanish. $`\mathrm{}`$

From the results of the preceding lemma we can deduce that the products $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$, $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}`$ and the bimodule multiplications $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$, $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}`$ have the following Wick type properties:

###### Theorem 3

Let $`𝒰M`$ be an open subset of M and let $`R^E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be of type $`(1,1)`$.

1. For all $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(E)`$, $`f,gC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ such that $`g`$ is holomorphic in $`𝒰`$ we have

$$s_{\mathrm{Wick}}g|_𝒰=sg|_𝒰\text{and}f_{\mathrm{Wick}}g|_𝒰=fg|_𝒰.$$
(43)
2. For all $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(E)`$, $`A,B\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(E))`$ such that $`_Y^{\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(E)}B|_𝒰=0`$ for all $`Y\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(TM^{1,0})`$ we have

$$B_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}s|_𝒰=Bs|_𝒰\text{and}B_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}A|_𝒰=BA|_𝒰.$$
(44)
3. For all $`t,s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(E)`$, $`A\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(E))`$, $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ such that $`_X^Et|_𝒰=0`$ for all $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(TM^{0,1})`$ and $`_Y^Es|_𝒰=0`$ for all $`Y\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(TM^{1,0})`$ we have

$$A_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}t|_𝒰=At|_𝒰\text{and}s_{\mathrm{Wick}}f|_𝒰=sf|_𝒰.$$
(45)
4. For all $`A,B\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(E))`$, $`f,gC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ such that $`_X^{\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(E)}B|_𝒰=0`$ for all $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(TM^{0,1})`$ and $`g`$ anti-holomorphic on $`𝒰`$ we have

$$A_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}B|_𝒰=AB|_𝒰\text{and}g_{\mathrm{Wick}}f|_𝒰=gf|_𝒰.$$
(46)

To conclude this section we want to discuss some more concrete situations where the precondition that the curvature endomorphism $`R^E`$ is of type $`(1,1)`$ naturally occurs. If $`(E,h)`$ is a (anti-) holomorphic vector bundle with Hermitian fibre metric then there exists a unique connection $`^E`$ which is compatible with the (anti-) holomorphic structure as well as with the Hermitian fibre metric (cf. Appendix A). In this case it is known that $`R^E`$ is of type $`(1,1)`$. Moreover, in this case the conditions of the preceding Proposition under which the products and the bimodule multiplications are just the pointwise ones just mean that the respective sections resp. functions are locally holomorphic resp. anti-holomorphic. In the case of a holomorphic vector bundle $`(E,h)`$ a section $`s`$ is called locally anti-holomorphic on $`𝒰`$ if the section $`s^{\mathrm{}}`$ of the dual bundle $`E^{}`$ which is also a holomorphic vector bundle defined by $`s^{\mathrm{}}(s^{}):=h(s,s^{})`$ is locally holomorphic on $`𝒰`$. Similarly a section $`A\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(E))`$ is called locally anti-holomorphic if the section $`A^{}`$ defined by $`h(A^{}s,s^{})=h(s,As^{})`$ for all $`s,s^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(E)`$ is locally holomorphic. In the case of an anti-holomorphic vector bundle $`(E,h)`$ one proceeds similarly to define the notion of locally holomorphic sections.

## 5 Local Expressions for the Bimodule Multiplications $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$, $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}`$

In this section we want to consider the bimodule multiplications constructed above in the case of a (anti-) holomorphic vector bundle $`E`$ of fibre dimension $`k`$ equipped with a connection that is compatible with the (anti-) holomorphic structure and the curvature of which is of type $`(1,1)`$. We denote by $`\{𝒰_\alpha \}`$ a good open cover of $`M`$.

###### Proposition 2

In case $`E`$ is an anti-holomorphic vector bundle and $`e_\alpha `$ is an anti-holomorphic frame on $`𝒰_\alpha `$ one has

$$\pi _z\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^E(s)|_{𝒰_\alpha }=e_\alpha \pi _z\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}(s_\alpha )=\pi _z\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}(s_\alpha ^i)e_{\alpha ,i},$$
(47)
where $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(E)[[\lambda ]]`$ has been written as $`s|_{𝒰_\alpha }=e_\alpha s_\alpha =e_{\alpha ,i}s_\alpha ^i`$. Hence we have for all $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)[[\lambda ]]`$

$$s_{\mathrm{Wick}}f|_{𝒰_\alpha }=e_\alpha (s_\alpha _{\mathrm{Wick}}f)=e_{\alpha ,i}(s_\alpha ^i_{\mathrm{Wick}}f).$$
(48)
Conversely, $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ is globally well-defined by equation (48) and thus it is completely determined by $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$.

Proof: To prove that $`\pi _z\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^E(s)`$ is locally given by $`\pi _z\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}(s_\alpha ^i)e_{\alpha ,i}`$ it is enough to show that this expression solves the equations (41) what is easily done using that the frame $`e_\alpha `$ is anti-holomorphic. But then (48) is immediate from the definition of $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$. It remains to show that $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ is globally defined by this equation. To this end let $`e_\beta =e_\alpha \varphi _{\alpha \beta }`$ another anti-holomorphic frame where $`\varphi _{\alpha \beta }`$ denotes the anti-holomorphic transition matrix on $`𝒰_\alpha 𝒰_\beta `$ as in Appendix A. We find

$$e_\alpha \left(s_\alpha _{\mathrm{Wick}}f\right)=e_\beta \varphi _{\beta \alpha }\left(\left(\varphi _{\alpha \beta }s_\beta \right)_{\mathrm{Wick}}f\right)=e_\beta \left(s_\beta _{\mathrm{Wick}}f\right)$$

on $`𝒰_\alpha 𝒰_\beta `$, where we have used that the star product $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ is of Wick type implying $`(\varphi _{\alpha \beta }s_\beta )_{\mathrm{Wick}}f=\varphi _{\alpha \beta }(s_\beta _{\mathrm{Wick}}f)`$ since the entries of $`\varphi _{\alpha \beta }`$ are anti-holomorphic. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3

In fact the preceding proposition states that for an anti-holomorphic vector bundle $`E`$ with a connection that is compatible with the anti-holomorphic structure the right module multiplication $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ is canonical in the sense that is independent of the connection. Actually the statement of the proposition could also be proved without using the local formula for $`\pi _z\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^E(s)`$ but only the Wick type properties of $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ and $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ according to Theorem 3. To do so observe that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(E)[[\lambda ]]s=e_\alpha s_\alpha =e_\alpha _{\mathrm{Wick}}s_\alpha `$ since $`e_\alpha `$ is an anti-holomorphic frame. But then

$$s_{\mathrm{Wick}}f|_{𝒰_\alpha }=(e_\alpha _{\mathrm{Wick}}s_\alpha )_{\mathrm{Wick}}f=e_\alpha _{\mathrm{Wick}}(s_\alpha _{\mathrm{Wick}}f)=e_\alpha (s_\alpha _{\mathrm{Wick}}f).$$

To see that this yields a global definition for $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ we note the following equations that are valid on $`𝒰_\alpha 𝒰_\beta `$

$$e_\beta =e_\alpha \varphi _{\alpha \beta }=e_\alpha _{\mathrm{Wick}}\varphi _{\alpha \beta }\text{and}s_\alpha =\varphi _{\alpha \beta }s_\beta =\varphi _{\alpha \beta }_{\mathrm{Wick}}s_\beta $$
(49)
$$\varphi _{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{\beta \alpha }=\varphi _{\alpha \beta }_{\mathrm{Wick}}\varphi _{\beta \alpha }=\mathrm{𝗂𝖽}\text{and}\varphi _{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{\beta \gamma }\varphi _{\gamma \alpha }=\varphi _{\alpha \beta }_{\mathrm{Wick}}\varphi _{\beta \gamma }_{\mathrm{Wick}}\varphi _{\gamma \alpha }=\mathrm{𝗂𝖽},$$
(50)
where $`\varphi _{\alpha \beta }`$ denotes the *classical* transition matrices, which imply the statement using \[36, Lem. 9.3\].

As an immediate consequence of these observations we have:

###### Corollary 1

Let $`E`$ be an anti-holomorphic vector bundle and let $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ be a $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ right module multiplication on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(E)[[\lambda ]]`$ that has the Wick type property, then $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ coincides with $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$.

In contrast the bimodule multiplication $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}`$ drastically simplifies in case $`E`$ is a holomorphic vector bundle, but even in this case it actually depends on the connection $`^E`$ and hence is not canonical like $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$. Nevertheless it is completely determined by the product $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}`$ as we state it in the following proposition.

###### Proposition 3

In case $`E`$ is a holomorphic vector bundle and $`e_\alpha `$ is a holomorphic frame and $`e^\alpha `$ is the dual frame of the vector bundle $`E^{}`$ on $`𝒰_\alpha `$ one has

$$\pi _{\overline{z}}\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^E(s)|_{𝒰_\alpha }=\frac{1}{k}\pi _{\overline{z}}\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}(se^{\alpha ,i})e_{\alpha ,i}$$
(51)
for all $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(E)[[\lambda ]]`$. Hence we have for all $`A\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(E))[[\lambda ]]`$

$$A_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}s|_{𝒰_\alpha }=\frac{1}{k}(A_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}(se^{\alpha ,i}))e_{\alpha ,i}.$$
(52)
Moreover, $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}`$ is globally well-defined by equation (52) and thus it is completely determined by $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}`$.

Proof: An easy computation using that $`e^\alpha `$ is a holomorphic frame of $`E^{}`$ shows that the expression given in (51) solves the equations (42). But then the local formula (52) follows immediately. In fact this could also be proved directly just using the Wick type property of $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}`$ and $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}`$. To see this we observe that on $`𝒰_\alpha `$ we have

$$s=\frac{1}{k}\left(se^{\alpha ,i}\right)e_{\alpha ,i}=\frac{1}{k}\left(se^{\alpha ,i}\right)_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}e_{\alpha ,i}$$

since $`e_\alpha `$ is a holomorphic frame. But this implies that on $`𝒰_\alpha `$

$`A_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}A_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}\left(\left(se^{\alpha ,i}\right)_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}e_{\alpha ,i}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}\left(A_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}\left(se^{\alpha ,i}\right)\right)_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}e_{\alpha ,i}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}\left(A_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}\left(se^{\alpha ,i}\right)\right)e_{\alpha ,i}.`$
We now write $`e_{\alpha ,i}=\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^{}{}_{i}{}^{j}e_{\beta ,j}`$ and $`e^{\alpha ,i}=\varphi _{}^{\alpha \beta }{}_{k}{}^{i}e^{\beta ,k}`$ with $`\varphi _{}^{\alpha \beta }{}_{r}{}^{n}\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^{}{}_{i}{}^{r}=\delta _i^n`$. Using the Wick type property of $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}`$ and $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}`$ and that the transition matrices $`\varphi _{\alpha \beta },\varphi ^{\alpha \beta }`$ have holomorphic entries we moreover get

$`\left(A_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}\left(se^{\alpha ,i}\right)\right)e_{\alpha ,i}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(A_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}\left(se^{\beta ,k}\right)_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}\left(\varphi _{}^{\alpha \beta }{}_{k}{}^{i}\mathrm{𝗂𝖽}\right)\right)_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}\left(\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^{}{}_{i}{}^{j}e_{\beta ,j}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`A_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}\left(\left(\left(se^{\beta ,k}\right)_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}\left(\left(\varphi _{}^{\alpha \beta }{}_{k}{}^{i}\mathrm{𝗂𝖽}\right)_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}\left(\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^{}{}_{i}{}^{j}e_{\beta ,j}\right)\right)\right)\right)=\left(A_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}\left(se^{\beta ,j}\right)\right)e_{\beta ,j}`$
on $`𝒰_\alpha 𝒰_\beta `$ and hence $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}`$ is globally well-defined by (52). $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 2

Let $`E`$ be a holomorphic vector bundle and let $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}`$ be a $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}`$ left module multiplication on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(E)[[\lambda ]]`$ that has the Wick type property, then $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}`$ coincides with $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}`$.

## 6 Deformed Hermitian Metrics

In this section we consider a Hermitian fibre metric $`h`$ for $`E`$ which is assumed to be either a holomorphic or anti-holomorphic vector bundle. Moreover, let $`^E`$ be the canonical connection for $`(E,h)`$. As in the preceding sections we assume $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is of type $`(1,1)`$ and in addition we consider the case where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is real i.e. $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Now $`h`$ equips $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(E))`$ with a natural -involution defined by $`h(As,s^{})=h(s,A^{}s^{})`$ for $`A\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(E))`$ and $`s,s^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(E)`$. We extend this involution, together with the complex conjugation, to a super--involution of $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}nd()`$ and $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$, respectively. It is well-known that the fibrewise Wick product $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ is compatible with this -involution, i.e. $`(a_{\mathrm{Wick}}b)^{}=(1)^{\mathrm{deg}_\mathrm{a}a\mathrm{deg}_\mathrm{a}b}b^{}_{\mathrm{Wick}}a^{}`$ for all $`a,b𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}nd()`$. From the unique characterizations of $`r_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ the following lemma is straightforward, see also \[35, Lem. 7\].

###### Lemma 4

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ be real, then

$$(r_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{})^{}=r_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{},\overline{r_{\mathrm{Wick}}}=r_{\mathrm{Wick}},(r_{\mathrm{Wick}}^E)^{}=r_{\mathrm{Wick}}^E$$
(53)
and hence $`(𝒟_{}^{}{}_{\mathrm{Wick}}{}^{}a)^{}=𝒟_{}^{}{}_{\mathrm{Wick}}{}^{}a^{}`$ and $`\overline{𝒟_{\mathrm{Wick}}b}=𝒟_{\mathrm{Wick}}\overline{b}`$ for $`a𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}nd()`$ and $`b𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$. Moreover we have $`(\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}(A))^{}=\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}(A^{})`$ and $`\overline{\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}(f)}=\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}(\overline{f})`$ and hence $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}`$ and $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ are Hermitian deformations, i.e.

$$(A_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}B)^{}=B^{}_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}A^{}\text{and}\overline{f_{\mathrm{Wick}}g}=\overline{g}_{\mathrm{Wick}}\overline{f}.$$
(54)
In a next step we extend the fibre metric $`h`$ to a metric on $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ with values in $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ by defining

$$H(f\alpha s,g\beta s^{}):=\overline{f}_{\mathrm{Wick}}g\overline{\alpha }\beta h(s,s^{})$$
(55)
The following properties are immediate<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3In  an obvious sign was missing.:

###### Lemma 5

For $`a𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}nd()`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{}𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ and $`b𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ we have

$$H(a_{\mathrm{Wick}}\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{})=(1)^{\mathrm{deg}_\mathrm{a}a\mathrm{deg}_\mathrm{a}\mathrm{\Psi }}H(\mathrm{\Psi },a^{}_{\mathrm{Wick}}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}),$$
(56)
$$H(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{\mathrm{Wick}}b)=H(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{})_{\mathrm{Wick}}b,$$
(57)
$$H(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{})=(1)^{\mathrm{deg}_\mathrm{a}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{deg}_\mathrm{a}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}}\overline{H(\mathrm{\Psi }^{},\mathrm{\Psi })}.$$
(58)
Now a simple computation using the preceding two lemmas yields the following compatibility of $`𝒟_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ with $`H`$

$$𝒟_{\mathrm{Wick}}(H(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{}))=H(𝒟_{\mathrm{Wick}}^E\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{})+(1)^{\mathrm{deg}_\mathrm{a}\mathrm{\Psi }}H(\mathrm{\Psi },𝒟_{\mathrm{Wick}}^E\mathrm{\Psi }^{}).$$
(59)
As a consequence we can define a deformed Hermitian metric $`𝒉`$ by

$$𝒉(s,s^{}):=\sigma (H(\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^E(s),\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^E(s^{}))).$$
(60)
###### Proposition 4

The map $`𝐡`$ is $`[[\lambda ]]`$-linear in the second argument and satisfies

$`𝒉(s,s^{})=\overline{𝒉(s^{},s)}`$ and $`𝒉(s,s)0`$ (61)
$`𝒉(s,s^{}_{\mathrm{Wick}}f)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒉(s,s^{})_{\mathrm{Wick}}f`$ (62)
$`𝒉(A_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}s,s^{})`$ $`=`$ $`𝒉(s,A^{}_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}s^{})`$ (63)
for all $`s,s^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(E)[[\lambda ]]`$, $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)[[\lambda ]]`$ and $`A\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(E))[[\lambda ]]`$.

Here the positivity of $`𝒉`$ is understood in the sense of .

From the properties of $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ it is obvious that $`𝒉(s,s^{})=\sigma (H(\pi _{\overline{z}}\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^E(s),\pi _{\overline{z}}\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}^E(s^{})))`$ and this implies the following lemma using the statements of Lemma 3.

###### Lemma 6

Let $`𝒰M`$ be an open subset of $`M`$. In case $`s`$ or $`s^{}`$ are locally holomorphic sections on $`𝒰`$ we have

$$𝒉(s,s^{})|_𝒰=h(s,s^{})|_𝒰.$$
(64)
To conclude this section we now want to give an explicit local expression for $`𝒉`$.

###### Proposition 5

In case $`E`$ is an anti-holomorphic vector bundle and $`e_\alpha `$ is an anti-holomorphic frame on $`𝒰_\alpha `$ one has

$$𝒉(s,s^{})|_{𝒰_\alpha }=\overline{s_\alpha ^i}_{\mathrm{Wick}}𝒉(e_{\alpha ,i},e_{\alpha ,j})_{\mathrm{Wick}}s_{}^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{j},$$
(65)
where we have written $`s|_{𝒰_\alpha }=e_{\alpha ,j}s_\alpha ^j`$ and $`s^{}|_{𝒰_\alpha }=e_{\alpha ,j}s_{}^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{j}`$.

Proof: The proof is straightforward using Proposition 4, Lemma 6 and the Wick type property of $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 4

In fact it is easy to see that the expression for $`𝐡(s,s^{})|_{𝒰_\alpha }`$ given in the preceding proposition globally defines the deformed metric $`𝐡`$ by similar arguments as in Section 5.

###### Proposition 6

In case $`E`$ is a holomorphic vector bundle and $`e_\alpha `$ is a holomorphic frame on $`𝒰_\alpha `$ and $`e^\alpha `$ is the dual frame of the vector bundle $`E^{}`$ on $`𝒰_\alpha `$ one has

$$𝒉(s,s^{})|_{𝒰_\alpha }=\frac{1}{k^2}h(e_{\alpha ,i},((se^{\alpha ,i})^{}_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}(s^{}e^{\alpha ,j}))e_{\alpha ,j}).$$
(66)
Proof: Again the proof is easily done using Proposition 4, Lemma 6 and the Wick type property of $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}^{}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 5

Again the above expression globally defines the metric $`𝐡`$ and here $`𝐡`$ turns out to be canonical in the sense that given a deformation of the metric $`h`$ that satisfies (64) and (63) it coincides with $`𝐡`$.

## 7 Morita equivalence of Wick and anti Wick products

In this section we fix a series of closed two-forms $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of type $`(1,1)`$. Then consider the Wick and anti Wick star product constructed out of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as in Theorem 1. Their characteristic classes satisfy

$$c(_{\mathrm{Wick}})c(_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}})=[R^{L_{\mathrm{can}}}]=2\pi \mathrm{i}c_1(L_{\mathrm{can}}),$$
(67)
whence $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ and $`_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}`$ are known to be Morita equivalent \[9, Thm. 3.1\]. Moreover, as the difference of their characteristic classes is given by the Chern class of $`L_{\mathrm{can}}`$ a Morita equivalence bimodule is obtained by deforming $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(L_{\mathrm{can}})`$ into a bimodule for $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ from the left and $`_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}`$ from the right. Finally, such a bimodule deformation necessarily exists. However, the concrete bimodule structure usually depends on non-canonical choices, even within its equivalence class of bimodule deformations, see e.g. the constructions in  as well as the discussion in . Thus one may ask the question whether in our particular situation there is a *canonical construction*, i.e. only using the Kähler geometry, of a Morita equivalence bimodule structure for $`L_{\mathrm{can}}`$. As we shall show now this is indeed the case.

First we consider the space $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ where $`=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(L_{\mathrm{can}})`$. We equip $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ with the fibrewise products $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ and $`_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}`$ as before. But for $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ we use *different* bimodule multiplications, namely

$$a_{\mathrm{Wick}}\mathrm{\Psi }=S^1a_{\mathrm{Weyl}}\mathrm{\Psi }\text{and}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}b=\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{Weyl}}Sb,$$
(68)
for $`a,b𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$. Then we indeed obtain a bimodule as a simple computation shows:

###### Lemma 7

Using $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ and $`_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}`$ the space $`𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ becomes a bimodule for $`(𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{},_{\mathrm{Wick}})`$ from the left and for $`(𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{},_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}})`$ from the right.

Now let $`r_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ and $`r_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}`$ be the curvature elements as in Theorem 1, where we assume to have the *same* $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Moreover, as connection $`^{L_{\mathrm{can}}}`$ we use the canonical connection induced by the Kähler connection, see (80). Then we define $`𝒟^L:𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1}`$ explicitly by

$$𝒟^L\mathrm{\Psi }:=\delta \mathrm{\Psi }+D^L\mathrm{\Psi }+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\lambda }\left(r_{\mathrm{Wick}}_{\mathrm{Wick}}\mathrm{\Psi }(1)^{\mathrm{deg}_\mathrm{a}\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}r_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}\right).$$
(69)
Since the lowest orders of $`r_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ and $`r_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}`$ coincide the map $`𝒟^L`$ is well-defined, i.e. it does not produce negative powers of $`\lambda `$.

###### Lemma 8

The map $`𝒟^L`$ is a module derivation along $`𝒟_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ and $`𝒟_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}`$, respectively, i.e.

$$𝒟^L(a_{\mathrm{Wick}}\mathrm{\Psi })=𝒟_{\mathrm{Wick}}a_{\mathrm{Wick}}\mathrm{\Psi }+(1)^{\mathrm{deg}_\mathrm{a}a}a_{\mathrm{Wick}}𝒟^L\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(70)
$$𝒟^L(\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}b)=𝒟^L\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{Wick}}b+(1)^{\mathrm{deg}_\mathrm{a}\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{Wick}}𝒟_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}b.$$
(71)
Proof: This is a straightforward computation using the properties of $`\delta `$, $`D^L`$, and $`S`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 9

For the symplectic curvature $`R`$ of the Kähler connection we have

$$R_{\mathrm{Weyl}}\mathrm{\Psi }=R_{\mathrm{Wick}}\mathrm{\Psi }+\lambda \varrho \mathrm{\Psi }\text{and}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{Weyl}}R=\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}R\lambda \varrho \mathrm{\Psi },$$
(72)
$$(D^L)^2=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\lambda }\left(R_{\mathrm{Wick}}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}R\right).$$
(73)
Proof: The equation (72) follows directly from the definitions and $`SR=R+\lambda \varrho `$. Moreover, (82) together with Lemma 1 applied for $`E=L_{\mathrm{can}}`$ and (72) implies (73). $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 4

We have $`(𝒟^L)^2=0`$ and

$$\sigma :\mathrm{ker}𝒟^L𝒲\mathrm{\Lambda }^0\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(L_{\mathrm{can}})[[\lambda ]]$$
(74)
is a $`[[\lambda ]]`$-linear bijection with inverse denoted by $`\tau ^{L_{\mathrm{can}}}`$. Hence

$$f\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{Wick}}s=\sigma (\tau _{\mathrm{Wick}}(f)_{\mathrm{Wick}}\tau ^{L_{\mathrm{can}}}(s))$$
(75)
$$s\mathrm{}_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}g=\sigma (\tau ^{L_{\mathrm{can}}}(s)_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}\tau _{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}(g))$$
(76)
defines a bimodule structure on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(L_{\mathrm{can}})[[\lambda ]]`$ for $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ from the left and $`_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}`$ from the right, deforming the classical bimodule structure of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(L_{\mathrm{can}})`$.

Proof: To compute $`(𝒟^L)^2=0`$ one has to use Lemma 9 and the particular properties of $`r_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ and $`r_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}`$ as in Theorem 1. Taking into account that we have used the *same* $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for $`r_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ and $`r_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}`$ it easily follows that $`(𝒟^L)^2=0`$. The fact that (74) is a bijection is proved in the usual fashion by examining the fixed point equation

$$\tau ^L\left(s\right)=s+\delta ^1\left(D^L\tau ^L\left(s\right)+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\lambda }r_{\mathrm{Wick}}_{\mathrm{Wick}}\tau ^L\left(s\right)\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\lambda }\tau ^L\left(s\right)_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}r_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}\right)$$
(77)
for $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(L_{\mathrm{can}})[[\lambda ]]`$ of the strictly contracting operator defined by the right hand side, analogously to \[35, Thm. 3\]. Then (75) and (76) obviously define a bimodule structure deforming the classical one. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 3

The bimodule $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(L_{\mathrm{can}})[[\lambda ]],\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{Wick}},\mathrm{}_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}})`$ is a Morita equivalence bimodule for $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ and $`_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}`$.

Proof: This follows from the general argument in \[35, Prop. 1\]. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 6

Clearly, the above construction is canonical in so far as it uses only the Kähler geometry. Hence there exists a distinguished bimodule structure on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(L_{\mathrm{can}})[[\lambda ]]`$ as desired. Note however, that $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ and $`\mathrm{}_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}`$ do not have any separation of variables properties.

###### Remark 7

Surprisingly, the Weyl product for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is *not* Morita equivalent to $`_{\mathrm{Wick}}`$ or $`_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}}`$ in general as their relative class is given by $`c(_{\mathrm{Weyl}})c(_{\overline{\mathrm{Wick}}})=\frac{1}{2}[R^{L_{\mathrm{can}}}]=\pi \mathrm{i}c_1(L_{\mathrm{can}})`$. Thus their relative class needs not to be $`2\pi \mathrm{i}`$ integral in general.

## Appendix A Some Kähler geometry

In this appendix we shall recall some basic structures on Kähler manifolds in order to set up our notation and specify our sign conventions, see e.g.  for details.

Let $`(M,I,g,\omega )`$ be a Kähler manifold where $`I`$ denotes the complex structure, $`g`$ the Kähler metric, and $`\omega `$ the symplectic Kähler form. Since $`I`$ is integrable we have holomorphic local coordinates around any point. If $`z^1,\mathrm{},z^n`$ are such holomorphic local coordinates on $`𝒰M`$ then we use the abbreviation $`Z_k=\frac{}{z^k}`$ and $`\overline{Z}_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{}{\overline{z}^{\mathrm{}}}`$. Locally, the $`Z_k`$ span the eigenbundle of $`I`$ to eigenvalue $`+\mathrm{i}`$ while the $`\overline{Z}_{\mathrm{}}`$ span the eigenbundle of $`I`$ to eigenvalue $`\mathrm{i}`$. In such holomorphic coordinates the Kähler metric and the Kähler form are given by

$$g|_𝒰=\frac{1}{2}g_{k\overline{\mathrm{}}}dz^kd\overline{z}^{\mathrm{}}\text{and}\omega |_𝒰=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}g_{k\overline{\mathrm{}}}dz^kd\overline{z}^{\mathrm{}}.$$
(78)
By $`^{(p,q)}T^{}M`$ we denote the bundle of $`p+q`$ forms of type $`(p,q)`$. In particular,

$$L_{\mathrm{can}}:=^{(n,0)}T^{}M$$
(79)
is the so-called *canonical line bundle* of ‘holomorphic $`n`$-forms’. Locally, a section $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(L_{\mathrm{can}})`$ can be written as $`s|_𝒰=fdz^1\mathrm{}dz^n`$ with $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(𝒰)`$. The Kähler connection $``$ extends to a connection $`^{L_{\mathrm{can}}}`$ for $`L_{\mathrm{can}}`$ which locally is given by

$$_X^{L_{\mathrm{can}}}s=(X(f)dz^k(X)\mathrm{\Gamma }_k\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}f)dz^1\mathrm{}dz^n.$$
(80)
Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{km}^{\mathrm{}}=dz^{\mathrm{}}(_{Z_k}Z_m)`$ are the Christoffel symbols of the Kähler connection. As $`L_{\mathrm{can}}`$ is a line bundle the curvature of $`^{L_{\mathrm{can}}}`$ is just a two-form $`R^{L_{\mathrm{can}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(^{(1,1)}T^{}M)`$ which is of type $`(1,1)`$. Locally one has

$$R^{L_{\mathrm{can}}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kj,\overline{\mathrm{}}}^jdz^kd\overline{z}^{\mathrm{}}=R_{jk\overline{\mathrm{}}}^jdz^kd\overline{z}^{\mathrm{}},$$
(81)
where $`R_{mk\overline{\mathrm{}}}^j=dz^j(\widehat{R}(Z_k,\overline{Z}_{\mathrm{}})Z_m)`$ are the components of the curvature tensor $`\widehat{R}`$ of $``$. The *Ricci form* $`\varrho `$ is defined by

$$\varrho =\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}R^{L_{\mathrm{can}}}=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}R_{jk\overline{\mathrm{}}}^jdz^kd\overline{z}^{\mathrm{}},$$
(82)
whence we obtain the following relations for the (first) Chern class $`c_1(L_{\mathrm{can}})`$ of the canonical line bundle

$$c_1(L_{\mathrm{can}})=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2\pi }[R^{L_{\mathrm{can}}}]=\frac{1}{\pi }[\varrho ]\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{deRham}}^2(M,).$$
(83)
Note that $`\frac{1}{\pi }\varrho `$ is integral but $`\frac{1}{2\pi }\varrho `$ does *not* need to be integral.

The symplectic curvature tensor $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(^{(1,1)}T^{}M^{(1,1)}T^{}M)`$ is defined as usual by

$$R(X,Y,Z,W)=\omega (X,\widehat{R}(Z,W)Y)$$
(84)
for $`X,Y,Z,W\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(TM)`$ and locally one has

$$R=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}g_{k\overline{m}}R_{\overline{\mathrm{}}i\overline{j}}^{\overline{m}}dz^kd\overline{z}^{\mathrm{}}dz^id\overline{z}^j.$$
(85)
The fact that the Kähler connection is metric implies $`g_{k\overline{m}}R_{\overline{\mathrm{}}i\overline{j}}^{\overline{m}}=g_{m\overline{\mathrm{}}}R_{ki\overline{j}}^m`$ whence one easily obtains

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{fib}}R=\varrho .$$
(86)
We note that $`\overline{R}=R`$ and $`\overline{\varrho }=\varrho `$ are real tensor fields while $`\overline{R^{L_{\mathrm{can}}}}=R^{L_{\mathrm{can}}}`$ is imaginary.

Now let $`EM`$ be a holomorphic vector bundle of fibre dimension $`k`$ with Hermitian fibre metric $`h`$. By $`e=(e_1,\mathrm{},e_k)`$ we denote a local holomorphic frame of $`E`$, i.e. $`e_i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(E|_𝒰)`$ are holomorphic local base sections of $`E`$. Any local section $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(E|_𝒰)`$ can be written as $`s=e_is^i`$ with unique local smooth functions $`s^iC^{\mathrm{}}(𝒰)`$. Then $`s`$ is holomorphic if and only if the $`s^i`$ are holomorphic. Different local holomorphic frames $`e_\alpha `$ and $`e_\beta `$ on $`𝒰_\alpha `$ and $`𝒰_\beta `$, respectively, give rise to holomorphic transition matrices $`\varphi _{\alpha \beta }=\varphi _{\beta \alpha }^1M_k(C^{\mathrm{}}(𝒰_\alpha 𝒰_\beta ))`$ by $`e_\beta =e_\alpha \varphi _{\alpha \beta }`$. As usual they satisfy the co-cycle identity

$$\varphi _{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{\beta \gamma }\varphi _{\gamma \alpha }=\mathrm{𝗂𝖽}$$
(87)
on triple overlaps $`𝒰_\alpha 𝒰_\beta 𝒰_\gamma `$. The coefficients of a section $`s`$ transform according to $`s_\alpha =\varphi _{\alpha \beta }s_\beta `$.

A connection $`^E`$ for $`E`$ gives rise to a matrix $`A`$ of local connection one-forms $`AM_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(T^{}𝒰))`$ with respect to a local holomorphic frame $`e`$ by

$$_X^Ee=\mathrm{i}eA(X)\text{for}X\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(TM).$$
(88)
Then $`^E`$ is called compatible with the holomorphic structure if $`_X^Es=0`$ for all locally holomorphic sections $`s`$ and all vector fields $`X`$ of type $`(0,1)`$. Equivalently, the connection one-forms $`A`$ with respect to any holomorphic frame are of type $`(1,0)`$. The connection is called compatible with the Hermitian fibre metric if

$$X(h(s,s^{}))=h(_{\overline{X}}^Es,s^{})+h(s,_X^Es^{})$$
(89)
for all $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(TM)`$ and $`s,s^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(E)`$. This gives the local condition $`dH=\mathrm{i}(A^{}HHA)`$, where $`HM_k(C^{\mathrm{}}(𝒰))`$ is the local Hermitian matrix $`H_{ij}=h(e_i,e_j)`$ defined by the frame $`e`$. It is well-known that there exists a unique connection $`^E`$ which is compatible with both structures, the holomorphic structure and the Hermitian fibre metric, see e.g. \[38, Chap. III, Sec. 2\]. We shall refer to this connection as the *canonical connection* of $`(E,h)`$. Locally in a holomorphic frame one has

$$A=\mathrm{i}H^1H.$$
(90)
Moreover, the curvature tensor $`R^E\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(^2T^{}M\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}(E))`$ is of type $`(1,1)`$. Finally, analogous statements hold for anti-holomorphic vector bundles as well.


format: text

text:
# Comment to ‘The dependence of the anomalous 𝐽/𝜓 suppression on the number of participant nucleons’

## Abstract

The recently published experimental dependence of the $`J/\psi `$ suppression pattern in Pb+Pb collisions at the CERN SPS on the energy of zero degree calorimeter $`E_{ZDC}`$ are analyzed. It is found that the data obtained within the ‘minimum bias’ analysis (using ‘theoretical Drell-Yan’) are at variance with the previously published experimental dependence of the same quantity on the transversal energy of neutral hadrons $`E_T`$. The discrepancy is related to the moderate centrality region: $`100N_p200`$ ($`N_p`$ is the number of nucleon participants). This could result from systematic experimental errors in the minimum bias sample. A possible source of the errors may be contamination of the minimum bias sample by off-target interactions. The data obtained within the standard analysis (using measured Drell-Yan multiplicity) are found to be much less sensitive to the contamination.

Recently, the NA50 collaboration published new data on the centrality dependence of the $`J/\psi `$ suppression pattern in Pb+Pb collisions at CERN SPS . The centrality of the collisions was estimated by measuring the energy of projectile spectator nucleons $`E_{ZDC}`$ by a zero degree calorimeter. The purpose of the present comment is to compare the new data with the ones published by the NA50 collaboration previously , where the transverse energy of produced neutral hadrons $`E_T`$ was used as the centrality estimator. It is shown that the two sets of data (for brevity, we shall call them ‘$`E_{ZDC}`$-data’ and ‘$`E_T`$-data’, respectively), having very similar qualitative behavior, seem, nevertheless, to be at variance on the quantitative level. This may point out a presence of systematic errors in one of the data sets.

In each data set, the $`J/\psi `$ suppression pattern were obtained in two different ways: by the standard analysis and the minimum bias analysis. In the standard analysis, the ratio $`R`$ of $`J/\psi `$ multiplicity to the physical multiplicity of Drell-Yan pairs was calculated from the measured dimuon spectra. In the minimum bias analysis, the ratio $`R`$ was obtained by dividing the experimentally measured ratio of the number of $`J/\psi `$ events to the number of minimum bias events by the theoretical Drell-Yan’ given by

$$DY(E_T)=\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}d^2bP(E_T|b)DY(b)P_{int}(b)}{_0^{\mathrm{}}d^2bP(E_T|b)P_{int}(b)}$$
(1)
Here $`DY(b)`$ is the average number of Drell-Yan dimuon pairs per Pb+Pb collision at impact parameter $`b`$. $`P_{int}(b)`$ is the probability that an interaction between two nuclei at impact parameter $`b`$ takes place. Both quantities were calculated in the Glauber approach.

The $`E_T`$-distribution of events at fixed impact parameter $`b`$, $`P(E_T|b)`$, was assumed to have the Gaussian form with the central value and dispersion given by

$$E_T(b)=qN_p(b)\sigma _{E_T}(b)=q\sqrt{aN_p(b)}$$
(2)
Here $`N_p(b)`$ is the average number of nucleon participants in a Pb+Pb collision at impact factor $`b`$ calculated in the Glauber approach. The parameter values $`q=0.274`$ GeV and $`a=1.27`$  were fixed from the minimum bias transverse energy distribution .

The $`E_{ZDC}`$-dependence of ‘theoretical Drell-Yan’ was found from the formula similar to (1). The $`E_{ZDC}`$-distribution $`P(E_{ZDC}|b)`$ was assumed to be a Gaussian with the central value and dispersion given by Eqs. (1) and (2) of Ref. .

It is obvious that in absence of essential systematic errors, the $`E_T`$\- and $`E_{ZDC}`$-data should be consistent with each other. If there exists a parameterization of the $`b`$-dependence of the $`J/\psi `$ multiplicity $`J/\psi (b)`$, such that the $`E_T`$ dependence of $`R`$ computed from

$$R(E_T)=\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}d^2bP(E_T|b)J/\psi (b)P_{int}(b)}{DY_{E_T}}$$
(3)
agrees with the $`E_T`$-data, then the dependence of $`R`$ on $`E_{ZDC}`$

$$R(E_{ZDC})=\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}d^2bP(E_{ZDC}|b)J/\psi (b)P_{int}(b)}{DY_{E_{ZDC}}}$$
(4)
should agree with the $`E_{ZDC}`$-data without any additional parameter fit. And vice versa: a model fitted to the $`E_{ZDC}`$-data should automatically agree with the $`E_T`$-data.

To check, whether the two sets of the NA50 data indeed possess the above property, we used three different models to parameterize $`J/\psi (b)`$. Two of them, the models A and B (see below), were fitted to the $`E_T`$-data presented in Fig. 4 of Ref. and then were compared with the ‘minimum bias’ $`E_{ZDC}`$-data from Fig.5 of Ref.. The third one, the model C, was fitted to the ‘minimum bias’ $`E_{ZDC}`$-data and compared with the $`E_T`$-data.

Model A is essentially the statistical coalescence model (SCM) , which assumes that charmonia are created at the final stage of the heavy ion reaction from the charmed quark-antiquark pairs produced in hard parton collisions at the initial stage. The free parameters of the SCM (see Ref.  for details) are $`\sigma _{c\overline{c}}^{NN}`$, the in-medium modified  cross section of open charm production in nucleon-nucleon collisions, and $`\eta `$, the fraction of dimuon pairs, originating from $`J/\psi `$ decays, that satisfies the kinematical conditions of the NA50 spectrometer.

The SCM is known to be applicable only for sufficiently large systems ($`N_p>100`$). To parameterize the data in the low $`E_T`$ region, we assumed a smooth transition between the normal nuclear suppression (NNS) to the statistical coalescence model:

$$J/\psi (b)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\zeta N_p^2(b)\right]J/\psi (b)_{NNS}+\left\{1\mathrm{exp}\left[\zeta N_p^2(b)\right]\right\}J/\psi (b)_{SCM}.$$
(5)
This introduces an additional free parameter $`\zeta `$. The value of NNS cross section was fixed at $`\sigma _{abs}=6.4`$ mb.

The drop of $`R(E_T)`$ at $`E_T100`$ GeV appears in SCM due to fluctuations of the thermodynamical parameters and due to $`E_T`$ losses in the dimuon event sample relative to the minimum bias one .

A good fit of the $`E_T`$-data ($`\chi ^2/\text{dof}=1.10`$) is obtained with

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\sigma _{c\overline{c}}^{NN}=3.67\mu \text{b}\hfill & & \eta =0.129\hfill & & \zeta =1.0410^4\hfill \end{array}.$$
(6)
Model B is the geometrical model of charmonium suppression . It is assumed that all charmonia suffer the normal nuclear suppression with the cross section $`\sigma _{abs}`$. Then all excited charmonium states are destroyed in the region, where the nucleon participant density in the plane transverse to the collision axis exceeds the value $`n_1`$. This suppresses the $`J/\psi `$ yield by a factor $`X<1`$, because excited charmonia contribute to the final $`J/\psi `$ multiplicity through their decays. No charmonium state survives in the region, where the participant density exceeds the value $`n_2`$. Fluctuations of $`E_T`$ result in additional suppression at $`E_T100`$ GeV . $`E_T`$ losses are ignored.

To make our parameterization as good as possible we treated not only $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$, but also $`\sigma _{abs}`$ and $`X`$ as free parameters. A very good fit ($`\chi ^2/\text{dof}=0.95`$) is obtained at

$$\begin{array}{ccc}n_1=2.97\text{ fm}^2\hfill & & n_2=4.05\text{ fm}^2\hfill \\ \sigma _{abs}=5.16\text{ mb}\hfill & & X=0.366\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
In spite of the fact that the underlying ideas of the models A and B are very different, the fits are completely consistent with each other everywhere, except the low $`E_T`$ region, where only two points with large statistical errors are available (see Fig. 1).

The both parameterizations are, however, in obvious disagreement with the ‘minimum bias’ $`E_{ZDC}`$-data: $`\chi ^2/\text{dof}=12.1`$ and $`\chi ^2/\text{dof}=11.5`$ for the models A and B, respectively. The strongest discrepancy is observed in the domain $`100N_p200`$ (see Fig. 2).

It must be noted that the effects that were responsible for the drop of the ratio R at $`E_T100`$ GeV, the fluctuations and $`E_T`$ losses, do not influence the $`E_{ZDC}`$ dependence. Therefore, neither of the models is able to reproduce the drop of $`R(E_{ZDC})`$ at $`E_{ZDC}9`$ TeV.

Let us go the opposite way, i.e. we fit the $`E_{ZDC}`$ data and check, whether the fit agrees with the $`E_T`$ data. For this purpose, the model C will be used.

Model C was proposed by NA50 collaboration in Ref.. The idea is similar to the model B, but the parameter that controls the charmonium suppression is not the nucleon participant density, but rather the number of participants. It is assumed that at $`N_p>N_{p1}`$, the $`J/\psi `$ yield is suppressed by the factor of $`X_1<1`$ relative to the normal nuclear suppression value. At $`N_p>N_{p2}`$ the remaining $`J/\psi `$ yield is additionally suppressed by the factor $`X_2`$. A minimum of $`\chi ^2`$ is reached at

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}N_{p1}=122\hfill & & N_{p2}=335\hfill & & \sigma _{abs}=5.47\text{mb}\hfill \\ X_1=0.670\hfill & & X_2=0.752\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(8)
Although the quality of the fit is not very good ($`\chi ^2/\text{dof}=2.73`$), the model satisfactory reproduces the shape of the $`E_{ZDC}`$ data, including the drop of the ratio $`R`$ at $`E_{ZDC}9`$ TeV.

Comparing the model C with the $`E_T`$ data reveals strong disagreement: $`\chi ^2/\text{dof}=13.3`$. The strongest discrepancy is again related to the region $`100N_p200`$ (see Fig. 1). At large $`E_T`$, although the drop of $`R`$ at $`E_T100`$ GeV is present on the curve, it does not reproduce the behavior of the data. Account for $`E_T`$ losses in the dimuon sample (similar to ) somewhat improves agreement with the data, but still the shape of the drop is not reproduced.

The above consideration demonstrates that the two sets of the NA50 data on the centrality dependence of the $`J/\psi `$ suppression pattern: the $`E_T`$-dependence in Fig. 4 of Ref. and the $`E_{ZDC}`$-dependence in Fig. 5 of Ref. are at variance with each other. This could mean that at least one of the two sets may contain sizable systematic errors.

In our opinion, the $`E_{ZDC}`$-data obtained within the minimum bias analysis are very likely to contain essential systematic errors because of possible contamination of the minimum bias sample by off-target interactions. In the data analysis procedure of Ref., empty target runs were used to remove the contribution of the off-target interactions. This approach, however, does not take into account possible influence of target on the shape of the contamination. In fact, spectator fragments from an off-target collision may interact with the target. On the other hand, the spectator fragment from a normal collision with a target nuclei may experience off-target interactions before they are registered by the zero degree calorimeter. Therefore, in presence of the target, the off-target contribution may be shifted downwards in $`E_{ZDC}`$.

Indeed, the minimum bias $`E_T`$ distribution perfectly agrees with the Glauber model (see Fig. 1 of Ref.).*** Disagreement is observed only in the low $`E_T`$ region, because the efficiency of the target algorithm is less than unity there. In contrast, the agreement of the $`E_{ZDC}`$ minimum bias distribution seems to be not so perfect. Unfortunately, the authors of Ref. do not quote the value of $`\chi ^2/\text{dof}`$, which characterizes the quality of the fit of the minimum bias $`E_{ZDC}`$ distribution (shown in Fig.1 of Ref.). Nevertheless, it is seen from the plot, that the experimental points lie slightly above the theoretical curves in the region $`25E_{ZDC}18`$ TeV (which corresponds to $`100N_p200`$). Although the difference does not exceeds even the size of the point symbols, it, nevertheless, indicates a sizable discrepancy, because of the logarithmic scale of the vertical axis of the plot. Note, that at low $`E_{ZDC}`$, i.e. in the region of the ‘second drop’ of the $`E_{ZDC}`$-data, the theoretical models are also in disagreement with the data. Therefore, the discrepancy of the two sets of data in the region $`100N_p200`$ and the drop of the ratio $`R(E_{ZDC})`$ at $`E_{ZDC}9`$ TeV may have a common origin: contamination of the minimum bias sample by off-target interactions.

The standard analysis data appear to be less sensitive to the off-target contamination. In fact, the models A and B are consistent with the standard analysis $`E_{ZDC}`$-data (presented in Fig. 3 of ): $`\chi ^2/\text{dof}=0.85`$ and $`\chi ^2/\text{dof}=0.83`$, respectively (see Fig. 3). No definite conclusion is possible because of the large statistical errors. The model C may be also considered to be consistent with the standard analysis data with slightly worse but still quite satisfactory fit quality: $`\chi ^2/\text{dof}=1.10`$. Nevertheless, no contradiction between $`E_T`$ and $`E_{ZDC}`$ is seen in the recently presented by the NA50 collaboration standard analysis data from the year 2000 run, which have essentially smaller error bars . This allows to conclude that the minimum bias sample seem to be more sensitive to the off-target contaminations than the dimuon one.

The discrepancy between $`E_T`$ and $`E_{ZDC}`$ data are unlikely to be related to interactions of Pb nuclei and their fragments with air. In fact, comparing of the data collected in the year 2000 with the target in vacuum  with the data from previous runs  indicates that interactions with air influence both $`E_T`$ and $`E_{ZDC}`$ data and that the influence is related mostly to the peripheral domain $`N_p100`$.

The contaminations at moderate centrality, $`100N_p200`$, may come from interactions of reactions fragments with nuclei in zero degree calorimeter. If such an interaction takes place, a fraction of the produced particles (those having large transversal momenta) may leave the calorimeter without deposing their energy in it. This could cause sizable losses of zero-degree energy, which result in distortion of the shape of the minimum bias sample. Therefore, the mentioned problem will likely persist even in the new vacuum data, if they are analyzed within the ‘minimum bias’ procedure, unless losses of the zero degree energy are taken into account.

We conclude, that the new data on the $`E_{ZDC}`$ dependence of the $`J/\psi `$ suppression pattern in Pb+Pb at the CERN SPS  are at variance with the other data published by the same collaboration . This problem is related only to the data obtained within the ‘minimum bias’ analysis. A possible source of the discrepancy might be distortion of the minimum bias sample most likely by losses of zero degree energy because of interactions of reaction fragments with nuclei inside the zero degree calorimeter.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to R. Arnaldi, P. Bordalo, M. Gonin, L. Kluberg, M. Mac Cormick, E. Scomparin, N. Topilskaya for their interest to the paper and for interesting discussions. We acknowledge the financial support of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, DFG, GSI and BMBF, Germany.


text:
# Detection of the BL Lac object 1ES 1426+428 in the Very High Energy gamma-ray band by the CAT Telescope from 1998-2000

## 1 Introduction

BL Lac objects, together with Flat Spectrum Radio Quasars (FSRQs), constitute the extreme class of Active Galactic Nuclei known as blazars. They exhibit a highly variable non-thermal spectral energy distribution (SED) which is interpreted as the Doppler boosted emission of a jet pointing towards the Earth.

While at least 66 blazars are reported in the third Egret catalogue (Hartman et al. (1999)), in the TeV range only two nearby BL Lac objects, Mkn 421 ($`z`$$`=`$$`0.031`$) and Mkn 501 ($`z`$$`=`$$`0.034`$), have been firmly established so far. This can be explained partially by the small field of view of ground-based telescopes (a few degrees), although, as compared to satellite-borne instruments, they benefit from a much larger sensitivity. The attenuation of $`\gamma `$-rays through pair-production with Intergalactic Infrared field (IIR) is another limiting factor for viewing distant sources in the Very High Energy (VHE) domain. However, the detection of absorption features in blazar spectra can provide interesting constraints on the poorly-measured $`0.520\mu \mathrm{m}`$ IR band.

In this context, a survey of nearby BL Lacs has been carried out with the Cat telescope since 1997. Among them, 1ES 1426+428 ($`\alpha _{J2000}`$$`=`$$`14^\mathrm{h}28^\mathrm{m}32.7^\mathrm{s}`$, $`\delta _{J2000}`$$`=`$$`+42^{}40^{}21^{\prime \prime }`$) at a red-shift of $`z=0.129`$, occupies a peculiar position: the characteristics of its radio-to-X-ray SED are very similar to those of the two TeV BL Lacs, especially its hard X-ray emission which flags the presence of ultra-relativistic electrons. On the other hand, the relatively high red-shift of 1ES 1426+428 can imply significant absorption by the IIR photons.

VHE $`\gamma `$-ray detections of 1ES 1426+428 have recently been reported by Whipple and Hegra during 1999-2001 (Horan et al. (2002), Aharonian et al. (2002)). In this letter, we report on its detection based on observations made by the Cat telescope from February 1998 to June 2000. In Sect. 5 we will also give a first estimation of its spectrum.

## 2 The CAT telescope and its standard data analysis

The Cat imaging Čerenkov telescope, equipped with a $`3.1^{}`$ high resolution camera ($`4.8^{}`$ full field of view) and a $`17.8\mathrm{m}^2`$ mirror, is located in the French Pyrénées at an altitude of 1650 m a.s.l. (Barrau et al. (1998)). The instrument records Čerenkov light from the particles in cosmic-ray showers. The analysis is based on the comparison of individual events and theoretical average images of $`\gamma `$-rays as a function of impact parameter and energy (Le Bohec et al. (1998)). To separate $`\gamma `$-ray initiated shower images from those due to hadronic showers the $`\chi ^2`$-like goodness-of-fit parameter, $`P_{\chi ^2}`$, given by the above procedure is used, together with a cut on the pointing angle, $`\alpha `$ — which is the angle at the image barycentre between the actual source position and the reconstructed image axis of the $`\gamma `$-ray candidate — while requiring a minimum total charge, $`Q_{\mathrm{p}.\mathrm{e}}`$ in photo-electrons (p.e.). The standard cuts are dedicated to strong and fairly hard sources (“SH” hereafter). They are $`P_{\chi ^2}`$$`>`$$`0.35`$, $`\alpha `$$`<`$$`6^{}`$ and $`Q_{\mathrm{p}.\mathrm{e}}`$$`>`$$`30\mathrm{p}.\mathrm{e}.`$ (Piron et al. (2001)), yielding a sensitivity of 4.5 standard deviations ($`\sigma `$) per $`\sqrt{T_{\mathrm{ON}}/1\mathrm{h}}`$ for a Crab-like source at transit ($``$$`21`$ from Zenith) and a rate of 1.8 $`\gamma \text{min}^1`$ after cuts.

## 3 Weak point source data analysis

Given the relatively high red-shift ($`z`$$`=`$$`0.129`$) of 1ES 1426+428 as compared to the two confirmed BL Lacs, Mkn 421 and Mkn 501, one expects a rather weak flux and a soft spectrum due mainly to source distance and the IIR attenuation effect. The standard cuts have therefore been modified, trading-off $`\gamma `$-ray efficiency against background rejection. A study was made to get an indication of the IIR softening effect. Many estimates and models have been proposed for the IIR density (see Hauser & Dwek (2001) for a review). Conservative assumptions yield roughly a change of $`1.01.5`$ of the spectral index for the red-shift considered here. On the other hand, given its hard X-ray emission, a rather hard VHE spectrum is expected at the source, i.e. $`2`$. Consequently a weak simulated signal (1 $`\gamma \text{min}^1`$ before cuts) with a spectral index $`3`$ was tested against real background data taken from off observations of other sources (with roughly the same elevation as 1ES 1426+428). For such a steep spectrum, a tighter cut on $`P_{\chi ^2}`$ and a higher value of $`Q_{\mathrm{p}.\mathrm{e}}`$ were found to improve the background rejection, while a looser cut on $`\alpha `$ improves the efficiency because of the low-energy nature of the signal (for low energy $`\gamma `$-rays the estimation of the direction is less precise).

The final values of the cuts (“WS” for Weak and Soft) were chosen by requiring a minimum efficiency of 25 % such as to keep a sufficient number of $`\gamma `$-ray events for spectral measurements and to avoid systematic effects due to a too small efficiency : $`P_{\chi ^2}`$$`>`$$`0.5`$, $`\alpha `$$`<`$$`8`$ and $`Q_{\mathrm{p}.\mathrm{e}}`$$`>`$$`45`$ p.e. The resulting quality factor, $`QF`$, and $`\gamma `$-ray rate on the Crab nebula, as compared to SH cuts, are given in Table 1. It has been verified that using the WS cuts for spectral analysis of Crab data yield, as expected, the same results as obtained by the standard cuts.

## 4 Data sample and detected signal

The observations reported in this paper were made with the Cat telescope from February 1998 to June 2000, in the on-off mode, where control regions with the same trajectory on the sky are used as off-source data (i.e., with the same declination and shifted right ascension).

A set of 26 hours on and 12.5 hours off was selected according to criteria for good weather and smooth telescope operation (Piron (2000)). Using the Cat data-base, the off sample was expanded by adding 59.9 hours of observations of control regions (off) made during the same observing periods and with the same zenith angle range (i.e. 0–32). The compatibility of the two off sample sets was checked over the tracking ratio distributions (i.e., the ratio of events within the $`\alpha `$ cut to the 20–100 control region) for all energy and zenith angle bins. This is the only relevant distribution to compare for signal and spectrum calculations. Figure 1 shows the accumulated on-off pointing angle $`\alpha `$ plot. An excess of 321 $`\gamma `$-ray events, corresponding to a mean rate of 0.21 $`\gamma \text{min}^1`$, is observed with a significance level of 5.2 $`\sigma `$. The measured $`\gamma `$-ray rate is 18% of that of the Crab nebula within the same cuts (see Table 1). There is a significant sensitivity improvement with the WS set as compared to SH cuts: the latter yield an excess of 367 events at 3.8 $`\sigma `$.

The detected signal in each observing season is summarized in Table 2. In 1998, an excess of $`3.1\sigma `$ was seen in 8.9 hours (February–May) with no flaring period evident.

From February to June 1999, a $`3.9\sigma `$ signal was detected in 13.4 hours. This period was consecutive to the campaign by BeppoSax in February 1999 where the X-ray flux was very low as compared to archive data, but showed an extremely hard X-ray spectrum with a differential index of $`0.92`$ (Costamante et al. (2001)). The source flux was the highest during two nights in March and April with some indication of rapid variability (see Fig. 2): a rate of 0.8 Crab ($`3.4\sigma `$) followed by 0.3 Crab ($`1.5\sigma `$) was detected in two runs (each of 30 min) at MJD 51261.5 (23-24/03/99). During MJD 51278.5 (9-10/04/99) a rate of 0.6 Crab ($`2.7\sigma `$) was followed immediately by two runs showing no signal.

Weather conditions in the Pyrénées limited the observations in the on \- off mode to only 3.7 hours during spring 2000 (some other data are available in 2000, but with a different observation mode which is not analysed here). The measured $`\gamma `$-ray rate is nevertheless compatible with that of the preceding periods.

## 5 Spectral measurements

Cat’s spectrum analysis method has been applied to the data. The method (Djannati-Ataï et al. (1999); Piron et al. (2001)) relies on a maximum-likelihood estimation of the parameters taking into account the Poissonian probability distributions of the $`\gamma `$-ray and background events, as well as the instrument response functions (effective area and resolution) derived by Monte-Carlo simulations and validated by comparison against nearly pure $`\gamma `$-ray samples (Piron (1999)). Data are classified within zenith angle and energy bins. The high energy bins show no excess: when requiring the energy per event to be less than $`1.3\mathrm{TeV}`$ the significance level rises to 6.1$`\sigma `$ while almost no variation in the total number of excess events is seen. Consequently, a power-law is adjusted in the limited range of $`250\mathrm{GeV}`$ to $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$, yielding a differential flux $`\varphi _0(400\mathrm{GeV})=6.73\pm 1.27^{\mathrm{stat}}`$ in $`10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{TeV}^1`$ units, and a very steep differential index $`\gamma =3.60`$$`\pm `$$`0.57`$. With no cut on the maximum energy (i.e., from $`250\mathrm{GeV}`$ to $`10\mathrm{TeV}`$) the fitted value of the index increases: $`\gamma =4.04\pm 0.52`$. The corresponding integral flux has been computed above the energy for which the errors on the two parameters $`\varphi _0`$ and $`\gamma `$ de-correlate: $`\varphi _{\mathrm{int}(>300\mathrm{GeV})}=2.17\pm 0.39\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$.

To get a better determination of the spectral index, one can improve the signal-to-background ratio by selecting the data, requiring a minimum $`\gamma `$-ray rate (High Flux subset). We make here the reasonable assumption that the background spectrum variations as a function of the statistical fluctuations of the tracking ratio are negligible. On the other hand, if the intensity-hardness correlations seen on other BL Lac sources (Djannati-Ataï et al. (1999); Aharonian et al. (2001)) hold for 1ES 1426+428, the selection could in principle bias the time-averaged spectrum. However, given the weakness of the signal and the magnitude of a possible spectral variability ($`<0.5`$) as compared to that of the statistical error, the bias should be negligible here. In consequence, a subset of 10.7 hours of on data with a minimal $`\gamma `$-ray rate of 0.2 $`\gamma \text{min}^1`$ was selected (corresponding to an average rate of 0.5 $`\gamma \text{min}^1`$), and a differential spectral index $`\gamma =3.66\pm 0.41`$ was derived. Figure 3 shows the $`68`$% confidence-level contour given by the likelihood estimator as well as the residuals to the fit for this subset.

Systematic errors could arise from the uncertainty on the absolute energy scale (variations of the atmosphere transparency and light-collection efficiencies during the observation periods) and, to a lesser extent, from limited Monte-Carlo statistics in the determination of the response functions of the instrument. They have been estimated from detailed simulations (Piron (2000)): $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _0/\varphi _0)^{\mathrm{syst}}=\pm 20`$% and $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma )^{\mathrm{syst}}=\pm 0.06`$. Here, the systematic error in the index remains negligible compared to the statistical error, while for the flux these errors are comparable in magnitude.

## 6 Discussion

Observations of 1ES 1426+428 from 1998 to 2000 by Cat show a signal at $`5.2\sigma `$ with an average event rate of order of $`0.2`$ Crab. This is the most distant detected BL Lac in the VHE range.

For the three observing seasons studied here the source average emission seems stable, within the measurements’ accuracy, while there is some evidence for time variability with transient emission rates $`>0.5`$ Crab.

Given its broad-band properties, 1ES 1426+428 was one of the most promising VHE candidates, despite its red-shift of $`>\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.1}`$ (Costamante et al. (2000)). Its detection supports the unifying scheme by Ghisellini et al. (1998), where the lower luminosity blazars with high frequency peaked synchrotron emission (HBLs) are efficient accelerators to very high energies. It is remarkable that X-ray measurements (Costamante et al. (2001)), contemporaneous to Cat observations in February 1999 reported a peak emission energy of $`100\mathrm{keV}`$, comparable to that of Mkn 501 during its strong activity in 1997.

If, as suggested by these data, the same acceleration/cooling mechanisms are at play within the two sources under similar conditions, one would expect a hard VHE differential spectrum with $`\gamma 2.0`$ at the source (see Djannati-Ataï et al. (1999)). The very steep spectrum observed here, $`\gamma =3.66\pm 0.41`$, supports a strong absorption of $`\gamma `$-rays by the diffuse Intergalactic Infrared field, even though the effect is compatible with several — among many — estimates and models of its density in the $`0.520\mu \mathrm{m}`$ band. Any definite conclusion on this subject and any measurement of the IIR density will require the detection of more sources at different red-shifts.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors wish to thank Electricité de France for making available to them equipment at the former solar plant “Thémis”. L.R. thanks for the financial support granted by IPNP Project MSMT (LN00A006).