text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The fracture of materials is a catastrophic phenomenon of considerable technological and scientific importance. However, a reliable identification of precursory signatures of impending failure is lacking in most cases. A notable exception has been found  in the analysis of acoustic emissions recorded during the pressurization of spherical tanks of kevlar or carbon fibers pre-impregnated in a resin matrix wrapped up around a thin metallic liner (steel or titanium) fabricated and instrumented by Aérospatiale-Matra Inc. (now EADS). A recent thorough analysis  of the seven acoustic emission recordings of seven pressure tanks, that was brought to rupture, has unambiguously characterized the acceleration of acoustic energy rate $`dE/dt`$ and found it to be in agreement with a power law “divergence” expected from the critical point theory proposed in Ref. . In addition, strong evidence of log-periodic corrections was found , that quantify the intermittent succession of accelerating bursts and quiescent phases of the acoustic emissions on the approach to rupture. Ref.  also proposed an improved model accounting for the cross-over from the non-critical to the critical region close to the rupture point exhibits interesting predictive potential. The critical rupture concept, confirmed by other experiments , opens the road towards industrial applications involving heterogeneous materials such as fiber composites, rocks, concrete under compression and materials with large distributed residual stresses .

However, a time-to-failure behavior following a power law $`dE/dt(t_ct)^\alpha `$ does not provide a reliable and unique signature: fits of noisy data by such power laws are notoriously unreliable; for instance, an error of $`1\%`$ in the determination of $`t_c`$ usually leads to errors of tens of percent for the exponent $`\alpha `$. In addition, the determination of $`t_c`$ is very sensitive to the presence of noise. In order to improve the determination of $`t_c`$, the existence of log-periodic oscillations have been found useful  and have been used for the implementation of prediction schemes  with reasonable success.

The demonstration of the existence of log-periodic corrections to the power law is of both fundamental and practical interest. From a fundamental point of view, log-periodicity signals a spontaneous hierarchical organization of damage with an approximate geometrical set of characteristic scales. A possible mechanism involves a succession of ultraviolet instabilities of the Mullins-Sekerka type  (see also  for a review). More generally, the presence of log-periodicity signals the partial breaking of continuous scale invariance into discrete scale invariance, which requires that the underlying field theory be non-unitary . From a practical view point, log-periodicity may help locking in the fit on experimental data to obtain a better precision on the recovery of the critical rupture time $`t_c`$ .

However, most of the evidence of log-periodicity in rupture results from parametric fits of the experimental or numerical data by a log-periodic power law formula, except for Ref.  which introduced a “canonical” averaging method to extract the log-periodic signal directly. Parametric fits suffer from two problems: (1) the formula cannot avoid some simplification which for instance omits the presence of harmonics and/or other structures; (2) parametric fits are delicate due to possible degeneracies and, in addition, their statistical significance (i.e., added value) is difficult to estimate. It is thus important to develop further non-parametric tests. This is our goal here to present a novel non-parametric method, that turns out to be very powerful in identifying log-periodicity in noisy data.

Our method is based on the concept of a $`q`$-derivative, the inverse of the Jackson $`q`$-integral , which is the natural tool  for describing discrete scale invariance. Indeed, $`q`$-derivatives can be identified with the generators of fractal and multifractal sets with discrete dilatation symmetries . Nowhere differentiable functions which characterize fractal or multifractal sets turn out to be perfectly well behaved under the $`q`$-derivative. Discrete renormalization group equations, whose general mathematical solutions are power laws with complex exponents (and hence exhibit log-periodicity), can be seen as nothing but Jackson $`q`$-integrals of regular functions of the decimated degrees of freedom. Jackson $`q`$-integrals constitutes the natural generalization of regular integrals for discretely self-similar systems . The way that Jackson $`q`$-integral can be related to the free energy of a spin system on a hierarchical lattice was explained in .

In section 2, we introduce the $`q`$-derivative and generalize it to take into account of anomalous scaling. We discuss the main properties of the generalized $`q`$-derivative that will be useful for our analysis of this paper. Section 3 presents our analysis with the generalized $`q`$-derivative of the acoustic emission data, both for the energy release rate and for the cumulative energy release, obtained during the pressurization of spherical tanks of kevlar or carbon fibers pre-impregnated in a resin matrix wrapped up around a thin metallic liner (steel or titanium). For comparison, we use exactly the same set of seven acoustic emission recordings of the seven pressure tanks used in the previous study reported in . Our new results confirm strongly the existence of log-periodicity with a much enhanced confidence. Section 4 tests a scheme using the generalized $`q`$-derivative for prediction purpose. Here, we find disappointing results: the parametric approach in  turns out to be more powerful.

## 2 The generalized $`q`$-analysis and log-periodicity

### 2.1 Definition

Let us take some $`q(0,1)(1,\mathrm{})`$. The $`q`$-derivative of an arbitrary function $`f(x)`$ is defined as

$$D_qf(x)=\frac{f(x)f(qx)}{(1q)x}.$$
(1)
For $`q1`$, the definition (1) recovers the usual definition of a derivative.

For $`q1`$, $`D_qf(x)`$ is more than just a derivative: it compares the relative variations of $`f(x)`$ and of $`x`$ when $`x`$ is magnified by the finite factor $`q`$. It is thus intuitive that the $`q`$-derivative tests the scale invariance property of the function $`f(x)`$. As we said above, it was actually shown by Erzan and Eckmann  that the $`q`$-derivative is the natural tool for describing discrete scale invariance, since a fixed finite $`q`$ compares $`f(x)`$ with $`f(qx)`$ at $`x`$ magnified by a fixed factor, and thus it also compares $`f(qx)`$ with $`f(q^2x)`$, $`f(q^2x)`$ with $`f(q^3x)`$, etc. When $`x`$ is taken as the distance from a critical point, $`D_qf(x)`$ thus quantifies the discrete self-similarity of the function $`f(x)`$ in the vicinity of the critical point. From the definition (1), it is clear that

$$D_{1/q}f(x)=D_qf(x/q).$$
(2)
It is thus enough to study $`D_qf(x)`$ for $`q(0,1)`$ to derive its values for all $`q`$’s.

The necessary and sufficient condition for a function $`f(x)`$ of order $`\psi `$ to be homogeneous is

$$D_qf(x)=\frac{q^\psi 1}{q1}\frac{f(x)}{x}.$$
(3)
This expression suggests the introduction of a generalized $`q`$-derivative that we call $`(H,q)`$-derivative, such that the dependence in $`x`$ of $`D_q^Hf(x)`$ disappears for homogeneous functions, for the choice $`H=\psi `$. Consider therefore the following definition

$$D_q^Hf(x)\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{=}\frac{f(x)f(qx)}{[(1q)x]^H},$$
(4)
such that $`D_q^{H=1}f(x)`$ recovers the standard $`q`$-derivative $`D_qf(x)`$. For a power law function $`f(x)=Bx^m`$, $`D_q^{H=m}[Bx^m]=B(1q^m)/(1q)^m`$ is constant. For a statistically homogeneous function $`f(x)\stackrel{d}{=}Bx^m`$, $`D_q^{H=1}f(x)\stackrel{d}{=}`$ constant.

The generalized $`(H,q)`$-derivative has two control parameters: the discrete scale factor $`q`$ devised to characterize the log-periodic structure and the exponent $`H`$ introduced to account for a possible power law dependence, i.e., to trends in log-log plots.

### 2.2 Application to log-periodic functions

Since Erzan and Eckmann  showed that the $`q`$-derivative is the natural tool for describing discrete scale invariance, it is natural to study the properties of the $`(H,q)`$-derivative of the simplest function exhibiting discrete scale invariance, namely a power law decorated by a simple log-periodic function:

$$y(x)=AB\tau ^mx^m+C\tau ^mx^m\mathrm{cos}\left(\omega \mathrm{ln}x\right),$$
(5)
where the presence of a phase $`\varphi =\omega \mathrm{ln}\tau `$ has been absorbed in the definition of $`x`$, $`0<C<B`$ and $`\omega =2\pi f`$. This equation, where $`x`$ is interpreted as the normalized distance $`x=(p_cp)/\tau `$ to a critical point $`p_c`$, has been used in several works to describe material rupture , precursory patterns of large earthquakes , rock bursts , aftershocks , and speculative bubbles preceding financial crashes .

The $`(H,q)`$-derivative of $`y(x)`$ is

$$D_q^Hy(x)=x^{mH}[B^{}+C^{}g(x)],$$
(6)
where

$$B^{}=\frac{B\tau ^m(1q^m)}{(1q)^H},C^{}=\frac{C\tau ^m}{(1q)^H}$$
(7)
and

$$g(x)=C_1\mathrm{cos}(\omega \mathrm{ln}x)+C_2\mathrm{sin}(\omega \mathrm{ln}x),$$
(8)
with $`C_1=1q^m\mathrm{cos}(\omega \mathrm{ln}q)>0`$ and $`C_2=\mathrm{sin}(\omega \mathrm{ln}q)`$. The special choice $`H=m`$ gets rid of the power law and the $`(H,q)`$-derivative $`D_q^Hy(x)`$ becomes the pure log-periodic function $`g(x)`$.

For the special choices $`q=e^{n2\pi /\omega }`$ where $`n`$ is a positive integer corresponding to choosing $`q`$ equal to one of the preferred scaling factor of the log-periodic function, we obtain $`C_1=1q^m`$ and $`C_2=0`$. Therefore, the $`(H,q)`$-derivative offers a novel approach for detecting the preferred scaling factors of the discretely scale invariant function by a measure of its phase: those values of $`q`$ such that the phases of the $`(H=m,q)`$-derivative is that of a pure cosine should qualify as the preferred scaling factors. Such phases can be for instance measured by the Hilbert transform. Here, we do not persue this possibility which wll be explored in another presentation.

In the Appendix A, it is shown that $`g(x)`$ is extremal at $`x_m`$ solution of

$$\omega \mathrm{ln}(x_m)=n\pi +\mathrm{arctan}(C_2/C_1),$$
(9)
where $`n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$, and that the extreme values of $`g(x)`$ are

$$g(x_m)=\pm \sqrt{C_1^2+C_2^2}.$$
(10)
The amplitude of $`D_q^Hy(x)`$ is then

$$A=x_m^{mH}C^{}\sqrt{C_1^2+C_2^2},$$
(11)
while the successive extreme values are

$$D_m=\left(B^{}\pm C^{}\sqrt{C_1^2+C_2^2}\right)(x_m)^{mH},$$
(12)
where $`B^{}`$ and $`C^{}`$ are defined in (7). By fixing $`H`$ close to $`m`$, one can in principle obtain the amplitude $`A_m`$ to be constant as a function of $`x`$. This value $`H=m`$ should provide theoretically the most significant log-periodic component, quantified for instance by the largest peak of the Lomb periodogram. However, in practice, the noise embedded in the data may distort the log-periodic oscillations and the most significant log-periodicity may occur for $`Hm`$. The introduction of $`H`$ affords a convenient detrending scheme.

Figure 1 shows $`y(x)`$ defined in Eq. (5) as a function of the distance $`x`$ to the critical point with $`A=1260`$, $`B=300`$, $`C=6`$, $`m=0.3`$, $`\omega =5.4`$ and $`\varphi =0`$. Figure 2 shows its generalized $`q`$-derivative with $`q=0.5`$ for $`H=0.2`$, $`H=0.3`$ and $`H=0.4`$, respectively. This generalized $`q`$-derivative has been calculated by using the incorrect assumption that the critical point is at $`x=1`$ in order to also show the distortion resulting from an error in the determination of the critical point. This distortion becomes important when $`x`$ is not large compared to $`1`$. We observe that the amplitude of the oscillations of $`D_q^Hy(x)`$ increases with $`H`$ when going towards the critical point $`x=0`$, in agreement with the prediction (11).

In the next section, using the $`(H,q)`$-analysis, we test for the presence of log-periodicity in the energy release rate and its cumulative obtained in the experimental recordings of the seven pressure tanks used in the previous study reported in .

## 3 Investigation of the significance of log-periodicity in acoustic emission energy release using the generalized $`(H,q)`$-analysis

We use the same notations to label the data sets as used in Ref. . In this analysis, we use the true value $`p_c`$ of the pressure at which rupture occurred in order to define the pressure-to-failure $`p_cp`$ quantifying the distance to the critical rupture point. We follow  and use the acoustic emission data from the pressure at which a noticeable acceleration in the cumulative energy release takes place. This choice is not crucial at all, since the $`(H,q)`$-analysis is not sensitive to the points far from the critical point. We also exclude the last six points nearest to $`p_c`$ because they contain the largest noise and may suffer from finite size effects that may lead to serious distortions. In our analysis, we exclude data sets of pressure tanks $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}`$, because for these two data sets, $`p_{\mathrm{𝚕𝚊𝚜𝚝}}p_c`$ (the last data point is for a pressure far below the critical rupture value). This leads to few oscillations and low statistical significance. We thus are left to analyze five data sets $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$, $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$, $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$, $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}`$.

### 3.1 Energy release rate

In each analysis, $`q`$ ranges from $`0.1`$ to $`0.9`$ with spacing $`0.1`$, while $`H`$ takes values from $`0.9`$ to $`0.9`$ with spacing $`0.1`$. This defines $`9\times 19=171`$ parameter pairs $`(H,q)`$. For each parameter pair $`(H,q)`$, we calculate the generalized $`q`$-derivative of the energy release rate. We then perform a spectral analysis of the generalized $`q`$-derivative using the Lomb periodogram method , in order to test for the statistical significance of possible log-periodic oscillations. For each $`(H,q)`$ pair, the highest peak $`P_N(H,q)`$ and its associated logarithmic angular frequency $`\omega (H,q)`$ in the Lomb periodogram are obtained. The first criterion used to identify a log-periodic signal is the strength of the Lomb periodogram analysis, i.e., the height of the spectral peaks.

The results for the five data sets $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$, $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$, $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$, $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}`$ are shown in Figs. 3 to 22. Figures 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 show the dependence of the highest peak $`P_N(H,q)`$ in each Lomb periodogram as a function of $`H`$ and $`q`$. Figs. 3, 7, 11, 15 and 19 give the associated logarithmic angular frequencies $`\omega (H,q)`$. The other figures show the generalized $`q`$-derivative for the pair $`(H,q)`$ giving the highest Lomb peak and the associated Lomb periodogram.

In order to interpret the results presented in the figures 3 to 22, we need to explain the criteria that we have used. First, to make the description simpler and more geometrical, as shown in Fig. 3, we first classify all pairs of $`(H,q)`$ into three classes: $`𝐖`$ (wedge or wall), $`𝐏`$ (platform) and $`𝐁`$ (bottom of valley or basin).

In Fig. 4, the pairs $`(H,q)`$ near $`(0.1,0.1)`$ gives the largest $`P_N`$, which implies the most significant log-periodic oscillations in the generalized $`q`$ derivative. However, the associated $`\omega `$ is about $`34`$ as shown in the region $`𝐁`$ of Fig. 3. The problem is that this value is dangerously close to the most probable (log-periodic) angular-frequency $`\omega ^{mp}=3.6`$, resulting solely from the most probable noise. It was indeed shown  that noise decorating power laws may lead to artifactual log-periodicity with a most probable frequency corresponding roughly to $`1.5`$ oscillations over the whole range of analysis. In the present context, this defines the most probable (log-periodic) angular frequency $`\omega ^{mp}`$ by the following formula

$$\omega ^{mp}=\frac{2\pi \times 1.5}{\mathrm{ln}(p_cp_{\mathrm{min}})\mathrm{ln}(p_cp_{\mathrm{max}})},$$
(13)
where the acoustic emission signal is recorded from the pressure $`p_{\mathrm{min}}`$ to $`p_{\mathrm{max}}`$. In the case of experiment $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$, this leads to $`\omega ^{mp}=3.6`$. Thus, a value of $`\omega `$ in the range $`34`$ corresponds to approximately 1.5 oscillations in the plot of the generalized $`q`$-derivative as a function of $`\mathrm{ln}(p_cp)`$ for the whole range of pressure. This is not sufficient. We should thus exclude these pairs of $`(H,q)`$. This defines our second criterion for qualifying the existence of log-periodicity: pairs of $`(H,q)`$ with $`\omega (H,q)\omega ^{mp}`$ should be discarded, because there is a non-negligible probability that the observed log-periodicity may result from noisy fluctuations around the power law and is thus spurious. Ideally, we should estimate the probability that random noise, of several plausible standard distributions, creates a false alarm that a periodicity (or log-periodicity) is found in the $`(H,q)`$-derivative of the signal. This has been done in a systematic way for a large variety of noise, without and with long-range correlation . However, it is difficult to identify what should be the correct null hypothesis of the noise decorating the generalized $`q`$-derivative. For the sake of simplicity, we thus stick to the simple rule called second criterion just discussed.

A log-periodic angular frequency which is too small may result from noise, as we just said. Similarly, a too high log-periodic angular frequency is also the signature of noise, simply because it is easy to fit noisy data with many oscillations. We should thus also discard the pairs of $`(H,q)`$ whose $`\omega `$ are too large. Ref.  used this criterion to discard solutions with $`\omega 14`$. This gives us a third criterion. It is not always obvious to fix the value of the threshold angular frequency beyond which solutions are rejected as noise. Fortunately, this third criterion can often be obtained to follow from the first criterion, since the Lomb peak $`P_N`$ corresponding to a large angular frequency is usually low . We apply this criterion and hence exclude $`(H,q)`$ pairs in the regions of $`𝐖_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`𝐖_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝐖_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ shown in Fig. 3.

A physically meaningful optimal pair of $`(H,q)`$ is thus obtained. For data set $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$, it corresponds to $`(H,q)=(0.9,0.5)`$, which is indicated by arrows in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. It lies within a platform shown in Fig. 3. We also show in Fig. 5 the generalized $`q`$-derivative and in Fig. 6 its corresponding Lomb periodogram. The log-periodic oscillations are found to be very significant. Under the null hypothesis of independent Gaussian noise decorating the signal, the false-alarm probability of the log-periodic component is $`0.06\%`$. The false-alarm probability for the null hypothesis of independent heavy-tailed noises (say, Lévy stable noise and power-law noise) and weakly correlated noises (say, Garch(1,1) noise and fractional Gaussian noise (fGn) with the Hurst index less than $`0.5`$) is even lower . If we assume a strongly correlated noise such as fractional Gaussian noise with the Hurst index greater than $`0.5`$, the false-alarm probability increases: for instance, a fractional Gaussian noise with Hurst index of $`0.62`$ leads to a false-alarm probability of $`1\%`$ .

As a fourth criterion, if the majority of the pairs $`(H,q)`$ have similar oscillatory behavior (i.e., similar $`\omega `$), we take that this indicates a robust log-periodic signal and that the optimal pair should be within these pairs with high probability. This excludes $`𝐖_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`𝐖_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, $`𝐖_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ and $`𝐖_\mathrm{𝟒}`$ in Fig. 3 and strengthens the choice of the previous criteria. This fourth criterion is sometimes ambiguous to apply in practice. However, all experimental systems have their optimal pair $`(H,q)`$ in well-defined platforms $`𝐏`$, except for experiment $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$ which presents its optimal $`(H,q)`$ in $`𝐖_\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

Table 1 summurizes the results of the $`(H,q)`$-analysis on the energy release rate of data sets $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$, $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$, $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$, $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}`$. For each data set, the generalized $`q`$-analysis was performed between $`(p_{\mathrm{min}},p_{\mathrm{max}})`$, with a number of points varying between 55 and 164 as indicated in the column “Points.” $`p_c`$ is the true critical pressure at rupture. $`P_N`$ is the optimal value of the Lomb peak height, and $`\omega `$ is the corresponding logarithmic angular frequency. The column “Gaussian” presents the false-alarm probability of the Lomb peak under the null hypothesis of independent Gaussian noise. The column “fGn” evaluates the value of the Hurst index of a fractional Brownian noise which would give a false-alarm probability $`1\%`$ to get the same peak as in our analysis.

These results give a very strong confidence that there is a genuine log-periodicity of the energy release rate before rupture in the data sets $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$, $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$, $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$, $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}`$. This confirms and strengthens Ref. , which claimed that a pure power law fails to parameterize the data but a log-periodic formulae does a good job.

### 3.2 Cumulative energy release

We follow the same procedure as in the previous section to analyze the cumulative energy release of the same five experimental data sets discussed previously. We use slightly different truncations in this analysis of the cumulative energy release. The results obtained for the five data sets are shown in Figs. 23 to 42. Figures 24, 28, 32, 36 and 40 show the dependence of the highest peak $`P_N(H,q)`$ in each Lomb periodogram as a function of $`H`$ and $`q`$. Figs. 23, 27, 31, 35 and 39 are plots of the associated logarithmic angular frequencies $`\omega (H,q)`$. The generalized $`q`$-derivative of the cumulative energy release corresponding to the optimal pairs of $`(H,q)`$ for the five data sets are illustrated respectively in Figs. 25, 29, 33, 37 and 41 with their Lomb periodograms shown in Figs. 26, 30, 34, 38 and 26.

In Fig. 24, the largest $`P_N`$’s are in the region $`𝐁`$. However, the corresponding frequencies are very low as shown in Fig. 23 which gives the most probable frequency. Hence we excludes region $`𝐁`$ in accordance with the second criterion. The optimal pair in the platform $`𝐏`$ is $`(H=0.5,q=0.6)`$. One can observe a platform of $`\omega `$ in Fig. 23, which is consistent with the fourth criterion. In Fig. 25, the log-periodic oscillations of the $`(H,q)`$-derivative are clearly visible, and correspond to the high Lomb peak shown in Fig. 26. The log-periodic oscillations become even strongly and more significant if more points are discarded at the low and high pressure ends of the data set.

Data set $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ is more noisy and a major part of the pairs $`(H,q)`$ give very low frequencies close to $`\omega ^{mp}`$, as shown in Fig. 27, which lead us to exclude all the local maxima shown in Fig. 28. The optimal pair $`(0.3,0.1)`$ is located at the wedge $`(W_3)`$ indicated by an arrow (in contradiction the fourth criterion). The log-periodicity is quite apparent in Fig. 29. Correspondingly, its Lomb peak shown in Fig. 30 is very significant. The data sets $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}`$ are similar to $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$. For $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}`$, the optimal pair $`(0.3,0.8)`$ located on the platform shown in Fig. 39 has a local maximum shown in Fig. 40. We summarize all these results in Table 2.

### 3.3 Comparison between energy release rates and their cumulative

Comparing Table 1 and Table 2, we find that the cumulative energy releases present a more significant log-periodic component. Taking the cumulative corresponds to perform a low-pass filter that smooths out significantly the noise and usually provides better signals with higher signal-to-noise ratio. Of course, taking the cumulative also reduces the amplitude of the underlying log-periodic oscillations. There is thus a compromise. As an illustration, let us compare Fig. 13 and Fig. 33. It is clear that the $`(H,q)`$-derivative of the energy release rate in Fig. 13 is much more noisy than that of the cumulative energy release shown in Fig. 33. On the other hand, the high-frequency oscillations which are clearly visible in Fig. 33 are suppressed in Fig. 33 and can not be captured by the Lomb analysis. Thus, the log-frequency with largest peak power of the energy rate ($`f=1.97`$) is much higher than that of the cumulative energy ($`f=0.72`$). We note however that the second highest peak in Fig. 33 corresponds to the highest peak of the energy release rate.

In general, we find that the cumulative energy release keeps the same underlying log-periodic structure as found in the energy release rate. We observe that data sets $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$, $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}`$ have very similar logarithmic frequencies for the energy release rate and their cumulative. Most Lomb periodograms exhibit harmonics of each other. This close correspondence obtained in the $`(H,q)`$-analysis provides a better characterization of the log-periodic nature in the system than obtained previously with the parameterization approach of fitting the data sets with a log-periodic function .

Finally, we note that all data sets exhibit a fundamental value of the logarithmic angular frequency which is compatible with the value $`\omega =5.8\pm 0.9`$. In some cases, it is its second harmonic that gives the strongest peak of the Lomb periodograms. This value corresponds to a preferred scaling ratio $`\lambda =e^{2\pi /\omega }=3.0\pm 0.5`$.

## 4 Post-diction of ruptures

The $`(H,q)`$-analysis has shown its power for detecting log-periodicity, conditioned on our knowledge of the critical pressure $`p_c`$ at rupture. It is natural to ask whether it can be extended to provide advanced prediction of $`p_c`$. For carrying these tests, we use the cumulative energy release which provided the strongest log-periodic signal in the analysis reported in previous sections. Our strategy is to use each data up to a maximum pressure $`p_{\mathrm{max}}<p_c`$, assume some value for $`p_c`$ and perform the same analysis as in section 3. i.e., for a given presumed critical points $`p_c`$, we determine the optimal pair $`(H,q)`$. For each presumed $`p_c`$, we thus obtain the Lomb peak height $`P_N(H,q)`$ and its associated logarithmic angular frequency $`\omega (H,q)`$ as a function of $`H`$ and $`q`$. In order to find the optimal $`(H,q)`$ corresponding to the maximum $`P_N(H,q)`$, we add the second criterion to exclude those $`(H,q)`$ with $`\omega (H,q)\omega ^{mp}`$. Having determined the optimal $`P_N(p_c)`$ and $`\omega (p_c)`$ as functions of the presumed critical pressure $`p_c`$, we determine the predicted critical pressure $`\widehat{p}_c`$ by the condition

$$P_N(\widehat{p}_c)=\underset{p_c}{\mathrm{max}}\{P_N(p_c)\},$$
(14)
without further constraints on $`\omega (p_c)`$.

In practice, we analyze the function $`P_N(p_c;H,q)`$ of the three variables $`p_c,H`$ and $`q`$ in the following sequence: we fix a value for $`p_c`$ and explore the plane $`(H,q)`$. We then change $`p_c`$ and redo the exploration of the plane $`(H,q)`$, etc. Fig. 43 through 47 give the optimal Lomb peak height $`P_N`$ as a function of the presumed critical pressure $`p_c`$. It is obvious that this scheme does not give a good predictive skill, as the most important pattern observed in these figures is the systematic increasing trend, tending to reject the predicted $`p_c`$ towards too large values.

We thus attempt to improve this prediction skill by requesting that the predicted $`p_c`$ should not be too far from the last point, i.e., it is nonsensical to hope to predict too far from the “present.” To implement this idea, we impose $`\omega >k\omega ^{mp}`$, namely,

$$\frac{\omega }{2\pi }>\frac{1.5k}{\mathrm{ln}(p_cp_{\mathrm{min}})\mathrm{ln}(p_cp_{\mathrm{max}})},$$
(15)
where $`k1`$ is a “safety factor.” This constraint translates into the following condition for $`p_c`$:

$$p_c<p_{\mathrm{max}}+\frac{p_{\mathrm{max}}p_{\mathrm{min}}}{e^{\frac{3k\pi }{\omega }}1}.$$
(16)
This constraint (16) means that there exists an upper threshold beyond which we can not make a physically meaningful prediction. Since the left-hand-side of (16) is monotonously increasing with $`\omega `$, it is possible to make a prediction much earlier before the critical point, the larger $`\omega `$ is. This is natural since large $`\omega `$ implies more log-periodic oscillations and thus a stronger log-periodic signal. To implement this condition in practice, we take $`\omega =5.8`$ as the central value of the log-periodic angular frequency. According to this constraint (16), ruptures of tanks $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}`$ are unpredictable, since the last point $`p_{\mathrm{𝚕𝚊𝚜𝚝}}`$ is too far from the true critical pressure.

The results are given in Table 3. The columns $`\widehat{p}_c^{(1)}`$ and $`\widehat{p}_c^{(2)}`$ list the predicted critical pressure $`\widehat{p}_c`$ and its corresponding upper threshold in the parenthesis with the constraint (16) for the two choices $`k=4/3`$ and $`k=1`$ respectively. The prediction for experiment $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ is very good. For the other experiments, $`\widehat{p}_c`$ is found to be very close to the upper threshold. The predictions for experiments $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$, $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}`$ are reasonable while the prediction for case $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}`$ fails completely.

Acknowledgments: We are grateful to A. Erzan for a discussion on Jackson’s integral and for supplying the corresponding references. This work was supported by NSF-DMR99-71475 and the James S. Mc Donnell Foundation 21st century scientist award/studying complex system.

## APPENDIX A

From the definition (8), the extremal condition $`dg(x)/dx=0`$ gives the extreme points of $`g(x)`$ solutions of

$$C_1\mathrm{sin}(\omega \mathrm{ln}x)C_2\mathrm{cos}(\omega \mathrm{ln}x)=0,$$
(17)
that is,

$$\omega \mathrm{ln}(x_m)=n\pi +\mathrm{arctan}(C_2/C_1),$$
(18)
where $`n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$. It follows that the extreme values of $`g(x)`$ are

$$g(x_m)=\pm \sqrt{C_1^2+C_2^2}.$$
(19)
When $`\omega \mathrm{ln}(x_m)=2n\pi +\mathrm{arctan}(C_2/C_1)`$, $`g(x_m)=\sqrt{C_1^2+C_2^2}`$ is the maximum; when $`\omega \mathrm{ln}(x_m)=(2n+1)\pi +\mathrm{arctan}(C_2/C_1)`$, $`g(x_m)=\sqrt{C_1^2+C_2^2}`$ is the minimum. This is proved by the following exhaustive classification.

1. $`e^{(2k1)\pi /\omega }<q<e^{2k\pi /\omega }`$, with $`k=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$.

In this case, $`C_2<0`$. Thus $`\pi /2<\mathrm{arctan}(C_2/C_1)<0`$. When $`\omega \mathrm{ln}(x_m)=2n\pi +\mathrm{arctan}(C_2/C_1)`$, $`\mathrm{cos}(\omega \mathrm{ln}x_m)>0`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}(\omega \mathrm{ln}x_m)<0`$, and thus $`g(x_m)=\sqrt{C_1^2+C_2^2}`$ is the maximum. When $`\omega \mathrm{ln}(x_m)=(2n+1)\pi +\mathrm{arctan}(C_2/C_1)`$, $`\mathrm{cos}(\omega \mathrm{ln}x_m)<0`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}(\omega \mathrm{ln}x_m)>0`$, and thus $`g(x_m)=\sqrt{C_1^2+C_2^2}`$ is the minimum.
2. $`q=e^{k\pi /\omega }`$, with $`k=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$.

In this case, $`C_2=0`$. Thus $`\mathrm{arctan}(C_2/C_1)=0`$ and $`g(x)=C_1\mathrm{cos}(\omega \mathrm{ln}x)`$. When $`\omega \mathrm{ln}(x_m)=2n\pi `$, $`g(x_m)=C_1`$ is the maximum. When $`\omega \mathrm{ln}(x_m)=(2n+1)\pi `$, $`g(x_m)=C_1`$ is the minimum.
3. $`e^{2k\pi /\omega }<q<e^{(2k+1)\pi /\omega }`$, with $`k=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$.

In this case, $`C_2>0`$. Thus $`0<\mathrm{arctan}(C_2/C_1)<\pi /2`$. When $`\omega \mathrm{ln}(x_m)=2n\pi +\mathrm{arctan}(C_2/C_1)`$, $`\mathrm{cos}(\omega \mathrm{ln}x_m)>0`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}(\omega \mathrm{ln}x_m)>0`$, and thus $`g(x_m)=\sqrt{C_1^2+C_2^2}`$ is the maximum. When $`\omega \mathrm{ln}(x_m)=(2n+1)\pi +\mathrm{arctan}(C_2/C_1)`$, $`\mathrm{cos}(\omega \mathrm{ln}x_m)<0`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}(\omega \mathrm{ln}x_m)<0`$, and thus $`g(x_m)=\sqrt{C_1^2+C_2^2}`$ is the minimum.

The amplitude of $`D_q^Hy(x)`$ is then

$$A=C^{}\sqrt{C_1^2+C_2^2}(x_m)^{mH},$$
(20)
while the local extreme values are

$$D_m=\left(B^{}\pm C^{}\sqrt{C_1^2+C_2^2}\right)(x_m)^{mH}.$$
(21)


format: text

text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

The biparametric quantum deformation of $`GL(2)GL(1)`$ was introduced in  as a novel Hopf algebra involving five generators $`\{a,b,c,d,f\}`$ and two deformation parameters $`\{r,s\}`$. From among the five generators, four $`\{a,b,c,d\}`$ correspond to $`GL(2)`$ and the fifth one $`f`$ is related to $`GL(1)`$. These can be arranged in the matrix of generators

$$𝒯=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}f& 0& 0\\ 0& a& b\\ 0& c& d\end{array}\right)$$
(1)
with the labelling $`0,1,2`$. The associated solution of the quantum Yang-Baxter equation is

$$R=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}r& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 𝖲^1& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Lambda }& 𝖲& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& R_r\end{array}\right)$$
(2)
in block form, i.e., in the order $`(00)`$, $`(01)`$, $`(02)`$, $`(10)`$, $`(20)`$, $`(11)`$, $`(12)`$, $`(21)`$, $`(22)`$ (which is chosen in conjunction with the block form of the $`𝒯`$-matrix) where

$$R_r=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}r& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& \lambda & 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& r\end{array}\right);𝖲=\left(\begin{array}{cc}s& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right);\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\lambda & 0\\ 0& \lambda \end{array}\right);\lambda =rr^1$$

The $`R𝒯𝒯`$ relations

$$R𝒯_1𝒯_2=𝒯_2𝒯_1R$$
(3)
(where $`𝒯_1=𝒯\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝒯_2=\mathrm{𝟏}𝒯`$) give the commutation relations between the generators $`a`$,$`b`$,$`c`$,$`d`$ and $`f`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}ab=r^1ba,\hfill & bd=r^1db\hfill \\ ac=r^1ca,\hfill & cd=r^1dc\hfill \\ bc=cb,\hfill & [a,d]=(r^1r)bc\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
and

$$\begin{array}{cc}af=fa,\hfill & cf=sfc\hfill \\ bf=s^1fb,\hfill & df=fd\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
Note that the first set of these relations is exactly the $`q`$-deformation of $`GL(2)`$ with deformation parameter $`r`$ while the second set involves the fifth generator $`f`$ and the second deformation parameter $`s`$. This results in a biparametric $`q`$-deformation of $`GL(2)GL(1)`$, say, $`𝒜_{r,s}`$. The coproduct and counit is given as

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒯)=𝒯\dot{}𝒯\hfill \\ \epsilon (𝒯)=\mathrm{𝟏}\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
The Casimir operator $`\delta =adr^1bc`$ is invertible and determines the antipode

$$S(f)=f^1,S(a)=\delta ^1d,S(b)=\delta ^1rb,S(c)=\delta ^1r^1c,S(d)=\delta ^1a$$
(7)
The quantum determinant $`𝒟=\delta f`$ is group-like but not central. Some of the interesting features of the above quantum deformation are the following:

* If we write the set of generators $`\{a,b,c,d,f\}`$ as $`\{f^Na,f^Nb,f^Nc,f^Nd\}`$ ($`N`$ being a fixed nonzero integer), i.e., reducing the five-dimensional set to the four-dimensional set, then we obtain an exact realisation of the biparametric $`(p,q)`$-deformation of $`GL(2)`$, i.e., $`GL_{p,q}(2)`$ subject to the relations

$$p=r^1s^N\text{and}q=r^1s^N$$
(8)
This realisation also reproduces the full Hopf algebraic structure underlying $`GL_{p,q}(2)`$.
* Another interesting feature of the $`𝒜_{r,s}`$ deformation is that it can be contracted (by means of the contraction procedure  based on the concept of singular limit of a similarity transformation) to yield the corresponding biparametric Jordanian deformation of $`GL(2)GL(1)`$, which in turn provides a complete realisation of the biparametric $`(h,h^{})`$-deformation of $`GL(2)`$, i.e., $`GL_{h,h^{}}(2)`$ in a manner similar to that for the $`q`$-deformed case .
* Both the biparametric quantum and Jordanian deformations of $`GL(2)GL(1)`$ admit coloured extensions  which also commute with the contraction procedure.
* The physical interest in studying $`𝒜_{r,s}`$ lies in the observation that when endowed with a $``$-structure, this specialises to its compact form, i.e., provides a biparametric $`q`$-deformation of $`SU(2)U(1)`$ which is precisely the gauge group for the theory of electroweak interactions.

Another deformation similar to $`𝒜_{r,s}`$ has also been recently given in , though in a different context. In the present article, we give an explicit description of the algebra dual to $`𝒜_{r,s}`$ as a starting point in further investigation of this quantum group structure. Motivated by the relation of this deformation with gauge theory, we also construct a bicovariant differential calculus since gauge theories have an obvious differential geometric description. This would then provide insights into possible scenarios for constructing $`q`$-gauge theories based on this deformation. In pursuing our aim, we follow the convenient $`R`$-matrix approach . In Sec. II, we give the cross-product structure and go over to the $`R`$-matrix duality in Sec. III. The constructive calculus is presented in Sec. IV, while Sec. V is a brief description of the Jordanian analogue. The results are discussed in Sec. VI.

## II Cross-product structure

The biparametric $`q`$-deformation $`𝒜_{r,s}`$ can also be considered as the semidirect or cross-product $`GL_r(2)\underset{𝑠}{}[f,f^1]`$ built on the vector space $`GL_r(2)[f,f^1]`$ where $`GL_r(2)=[a,b,c,d]`$ modulo the relations (4) and $`[f,f^1]`$ has the cross relations (5). Then, $`𝒜_{r,s}`$ can also be interpreted as a skew Laurent polynomial ring $`GL_r[f,f^1;\sigma ]`$ where $`\sigma `$ is the automorphism given by the action of element $`f`$ on $`GL_r(2)`$. Knowing properties of cross-product algebras (general theory given in ), we already know that the algebra dual to $`𝒜_{r,s}`$ would be the cross-coproduct coalgebra $`𝒰_{r,s}=U_r(gl(2))\underset{𝑠}{}[[\varphi ]]`$ with $`\varphi `$ as an element dual to $`f`$. If we let $`A=GL_r(2)`$ and $`H=[f,f^1]`$, then $`A`$ is a left $`H`$-module algebra and the action of $`f`$ on $`GL_r(2)`$ is given by

$$fa=a,fb=sb,fc=s^1c,fd=d$$
(9)
As a vector space, the dual is $`𝒰_{r,s}=U_r(gl(2))U(u(1))`$. Now, the duality relation between $`GL_r(2),U_r(gl(2))`$ is already well-known , while that between $`[f,f^1],U(u(1))`$ is given by $`f,\varphi =1`$, i.e., $`U(u(1))=[[\varphi ]]`$. More precisely, we work algebraically with $`[s^\varphi ,s^\varphi ]`$ where $`f,s^\varphi =s`$ (this is a standard notational convention which we adopt). This induces duality on the vector space tensor products and the left action dualises to the left coaction. This results in the dual algebra being a cross-coproduct $`𝒰_{r,s}=U_r(gl(2))\underset{𝑠}{}[[\varphi ]]`$. Let us recall  that $`U_r(gl(2))`$, the algebra dual to $`GL_r(2)`$, is isomorphic to the tensor product $`U_r(sl(2))\stackrel{~}{U}(u(1))`$ where $`U_r(sl(2))`$ has the usual generators $`\{H,X_\pm \}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{U}(u(1))=[[\xi ]]=[r^\xi ,r^\xi ]`$ with $`\xi `$ central. Therefore, $`𝒰_{r,s}`$ is nothing but $`U_r(sl(2))`$ and two central generators $`\xi `$ and $`\varphi `$, where $`\xi `$ is the generating element of $`\stackrel{~}{U}(u(1))`$ and $`\varphi `$ is the generating element of $`U(u(1))`$. Also note that $`s^\varphi `$ ($`s`$ being the second deformation parameter) is dually paired with the element $`f`$ of $`𝒜_{r,s}`$. Defining the left coaction $`U_r(gl(2))U(u(1))U_r(gl(2))`$ we have

$$X_+s^\varphi X_+,X_{}s^\varphi X_{},H1H,\xi 1\xi $$
(10)
It can be checked that this gives the correct duality pairings. For example, we have for $`X_+`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{\Delta }_L(X_+),1\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)=s^\varphi X_+,1\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)=s^\varphi ,1X_+,\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Delta }_L(X_+),f\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)=s^\varphi X_+,f\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)=s^\varphi ,fX_+,\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)=s\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)\hfill \\ & X_+,f\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)=X_+,\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& sb\\ s^1c& d\end{array}\right)=s\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
Therefore, the coalgebra structure of $`𝒰_{r,s}`$ is given as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(X_+)=X_+r^{\frac{H}{2}}+r^{\frac{H}{2}}s^\varphi X_+`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(X_{})=X_{}r^{\frac{H}{2}}+r^{\frac{H}{2}}s^\varphi X_+`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(H)=H1+1H`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\xi )=\xi 1+1\xi `$ (15)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )=\varphi 1+1\varphi `$ (16)
In this way, we have obtained the Drinfeld-Jimbo form of the dual algebra $`𝒰_{r,s}`$ using the cross-product construction. Given other approaches to the problem of duality for quantum groups, we also construct explicitly the dual algebra using the $`R`$-matrix procedure.

## III $`R`$-matrix duality

The biparametric $`(r,s)`$-deformation, $`𝒜_{r,s}`$, of $`GL(2)GL(1)`$ has been defined in the previous section at the group level, i.e., as the $`q`$-deformation of algebra of functions on $`GL(2)GL(1)`$. In this section, we derive explicitly the corresponding quantised universal enveloping algebra, i.e., its dual within the framework of the $`R`$-matrix formulation. We first construct functionals (matrices) $`^+`$ and $`^{}`$ which are dual to the matrix of generators in the fundamental representation. The linear functionals $`(^\pm )_b^a`$ (following the method of ) are defined by their value on the elements of the matrix of generators $`𝒯`$

$$(^\pm )_b^a,𝒯_d^c=(R^\pm )_{bd}^{ac}$$
(17)
where

$`(R^+)_{bd}^{ac}`$ $`=`$ $`c^+(R)_{db}^{ca}`$ (18)
$`(R^{})_{bd}^{ac}`$ $`=`$ $`c^{}(R^1)_{bd}^{ac}`$ (19)
and $`c^+`$ , $`c^{}`$ are free parameters. Matrices $`(^\pm )_b^a`$ satisfy

$$(^\pm )_b^a,uv=(^\pm )_c^a(^\pm )_d^c,uv=(^\pm )_c^a(u)(^\pm )_d^c(v)$$
(20)
$$\text{i.e.}\mathrm{\Delta }(^\pm )_b^a=(^\pm )_c^a(^\pm )_b^c$$

For $`𝒜_{r,s}`$, the $`(R^+)`$ and $`(R^{})`$ matrices read

$$(R^+)=c^+\left(\begin{array}{cccc}r& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 𝖲& \mathrm{\Lambda }& 0\\ 0& 0& 𝖲^1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& R_r^T\end{array}\right);(R^{})=c^{}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}r^1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 𝖲& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Lambda }& 𝖲^1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& R_r^1\end{array}\right)$$
(21)
where $`R_r`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`𝖲`$ are the same as before and $`R_r^1=R_{r^1}`$. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to make the following remark about the $`^\pm `$ functionals. Let $`A(R)`$ be a bialgebra or a Hopf algebra underlying a $`3\times 3`$ quantum matrix and let $`\stackrel{~}{U}(R)`$ be a similar matrix bialgebra with two full matrices $`^\pm `$ of generators. These may be viewed as functionals $`A(R)`$ via (17), but duality pairing at this level may be degenerate. So, we look at appropriate quotients of these such that the pairing is non-degenerate. In our case, upon quotienting $`A(R)`$ would descend to $`𝒜_{r,s}`$, and likewise $`\stackrel{~}{U}(R)`$ to the dual of $`𝒜_{r,s}`$. The quotient on $`A(R)`$ is obtained by setting certain entries of the T-matrix to zero. The most general $`3\times 3`$ quantum matrix has nine elements

$$𝒯=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}𝒯_0^0& 𝒯_1^0& 𝒯_2^0\\ 𝒯_0^1& 𝒯_1^1& 𝒯_2^1\\ 𝒯_0^2& 𝒯_1^2& 𝒯_2^2\end{array}\right)$$
(22)
Now, let $`𝒯_1^0=0=𝒯_2^0`$ and $`𝒯_0^1=0=𝒯_0^2`$. Checking the coideal property (via coproduct of $`𝒯`$), we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒯_1^0)=𝒯_0^0𝒯_1^0+𝒯_1^0𝒯_1^1+𝒯_2^0𝒯_1^2\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }(𝒯_2^0)=𝒯_0^0𝒯_2^0+𝒯_1^0𝒯_2^1+𝒯_2^0𝒯_2^2\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }(𝒯_0^1)=𝒯_0^1𝒯_0^0+𝒯_1^1𝒯_0^1+𝒯_2^1𝒯_0^2\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }(𝒯_0^2)=𝒯_0^2𝒯_0^0+𝒯_1^2𝒯_0^1+𝒯_2^2𝒯_0^2\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
These generate biideals. Therefore, setting them to zero gives the quotient of $`A(R)`$

$$𝒯=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}𝒯_0^0& 0& 0\\ 0& 𝒯_1^1& 𝒯_2^1\\ 0& 𝒯_1^2& 𝒯_2^2\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}f& 0& 0\\ 0& a& b\\ 0& c& d\end{array}\right)=𝒯(𝒜_{r,s})$$
(24)
Similarly, the quotient on $`\stackrel{~}{U}(R)`$ is obtained by setting certain entries of $`^\pm `$ matrices to zero. Starting with

$$^+=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}_0^{+0}& _1^{+0}& _2^{+0}\\ _0^{+1}& _1^{+1}& _2^{+1}\\ _0^{+2}& _1^{+2}& _2^{+2}\end{array}\right),^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}_0^0& _1^0& _2^0\\ _0^1& _1^1& _2^1\\ _0^2& _1^2& _2^2\end{array}\right)$$
(25)
we make the ansatz

$$\begin{array}{cc}& _1^{+2}=0=_2^1\hfill \\ & _1^{+0}=_2^{+0}=_0^{+1}=_0^{+2}=0\hfill \\ & _1^0=_2^0=_0^1=_0^2=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
and, similar to the above for $`A(R)`$, check the coideal property. We also verify explicitly  that this ansatz is compatible with the duality pairing

$$\begin{array}{cc}& _1^{+2},𝒯_j^i=R_{1j}^{+2i}=R_{j1}^{i2}=0\hfill \\ & _2^1,𝒯_j^i=R_{2j}^{1i}=(R^1)_{2j}^{1i}=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
and so on for their pairing with products of the $`𝒯_j^i`$. Therefore, setting these elements to zero yields a quotient bialgebra $`U(R)`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{U}(R)`$

$$^+=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}_0^{+0}& 0& 0\\ 0& _1^{+1}& _2^{+1}\\ 0& 0& _2^{+2}\end{array}\right),^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}_0^0& 0& 0\\ 0& _1^1& 0\\ 0& _1^2& _2^2\end{array}\right)$$
(28)
Therefore, the initial pairing $`A(R),\stackrel{~}{U}(R)`$ descends to $`𝒜_{r,s},U(R)`$. So, for $`𝒰_{r,s}`$ (or $`U(R)`$) we make the following ansatz for the $`^\pm `$ matrices:

$`^+`$ $`=`$ $`c^+r\left(\begin{array}{ccc}s^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{F}H_21)}r^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{F}H_11)}& 0& 0\\ 0& s^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{F}H_1+1)}r^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{F}+H_21)}& r^1\lambda \stackrel{~}{C}\\ 0& 0& s^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{F}+H_11)}r^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{F}H_21)}\end{array}\right)`$
$`^{}`$ $`=`$ $`c^{}r^1\left(\begin{array}{ccc}s^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{F}H_21)}r^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{F}H_11)}& 0& 0\\ 0& s^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{F}H_1+1)}r^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{F}+H_21)}& 0\\ 0& r\lambda \stackrel{~}{B}& s^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{F}+H_11)}r^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{F}H_21)}\end{array}\right)`$
where $`H_1=\stackrel{~}{A}+\stackrel{~}{D}`$, $`H_2=\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{D}`$, and $`\{\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{B},\stackrel{~}{C},\stackrel{~}{D},\stackrel{~}{F}\}`$ is the set of generating elements of the dual algebra. This is consistent with the action on the generators of $`𝒜_{r,s}`$ and gives the correct duality pairings. More conveniently,

$$^+=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}J& 0& 0\\ 0& M& P\\ 0& 0& N\end{array}\right)\text{and}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}J^{}& 0& 0\\ 0& M^{}& 0\\ 0& Q& N^{}\end{array}\right)$$
(29)
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}& J=s^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{F}H_21)}r^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{F}H_1+1)}\hfill \\ & M=s^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{F}H_1+1)}r^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{F}+H_2+1)}\hfill \\ & N=s^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{F}+H_11)}r^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{F}H_2+1)}\hfill \\ & J^{}=s^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{F}H_21)}r^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{F}H_1+1)}\hfill \\ & M^{}=s^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{F}H_1+1)}r^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{F}+H_2+1)}\hfill \\ & N^{}=s^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{F}+H_11)}r^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{F}H_2+1)}\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
and

$$\begin{array}{cc}& P=\lambda \stackrel{~}{C}\hfill \\ & Q=\lambda \stackrel{~}{B}\hfill \end{array}$$
(31)
These can also be arranged in terms of smaller $`L^+`$ and $`L^{}`$ matrices

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& ^+=c^+\left(\begin{array}{cc}J& 0\\ 0& L^+\end{array}\right)\hfill & \text{where}\hfill & L^+=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M& P\\ 0& N\end{array}\right)\hfill \\ & ^{}=c^{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}J^{}& 0\\ 0& L^{}\end{array}\right)\hfill & \text{where}\hfill & L^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M^{}& 0\\ Q& N^{}\end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(32)
### Commutation relations of the dual

The dual algebra is generated by $`^\pm `$ functionals which satisfy the $`q`$-commutation relations (the so-called $`R`$ relations)

$`R_{12}_2^\pm _1^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`_1^\pm _2^\pm R_{12}`$ (33)
$`R_{12}_2^+_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`_1^{}_2^+R_{12}`$ (34)
where $`_1^\pm =^\pm \mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`_2^\pm =\mathrm{𝟏}^\pm `$. Since $`𝒜_{r,s}`$ is a quotient Hopf algebra, it is necessary to amend the $`R`$-matrix to eliminate relations that are inconsistent with the quotient structure. Consequently, the $`R`$-matrix for the $`R`$ relations is different from the one used in the $`R𝒯𝒯`$ relations. The $`R`$ relations are constructed with the $`R`$-matrix:

$$R_{12}=c^{}^{},𝒯^1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}r& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 𝖲^1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 𝖲& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& R_r\end{array}\right)$$
(35)
Evaluating $`_1^\pm `$, $`_2^\pm `$ matrices and substituting in the above $`R`$\- relations yields the dual algebra commutation relations. From $`R_{12}_2^{}_1^{}=_1^{}_2^{}R_{12}`$ and $`R_{12}_2^+_1^+=_1^+_2^+R_{12}`$ we obtain

$`R_rL_2^{}L_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`L_1^{}L_2^{}R_r`$ (36)
$`R_rL_2^+L_1^+`$ $`=`$ $`L_1^+L_2^+R_r`$ (37)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& MJ=JM\hfill & M^{}J^{}=J^{}M^{}\hfill \\ & NJ=JN\hfill & N^{}J^{}=J^{}N^{}\hfill \\ & PJ=sJP\hfill & J^{}Q=sQJ^{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(38)
where

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}& R_rL_2^{}L_1^{}=L_1^{}L_2^{}R_r\hfill & \hfill & QM^{}=rM^{}Q,N^{}Q=rQN^{}\hfill & \text{and}\hfill & N^{}M^{}=M^{}N^{}\hfill \\ & R_rL_2^+L_1^+=L_1^+L_2^+R_r\hfill & \hfill & PM=rMP,NP=rPN\hfill & \text{and}\hfill & NM=MN\hfill \end{array}$$
(39)
In addition, the cross relation $`R_{12}_2^+_1^{}=_1^{}_2^+R_{12}`$ yields

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& NJ^{}=J^{}N\hfill & MJ^{}=J^{}M\hfill & PJ^{}=sJ^{}P\hfill \\ & N^{}J=JN^{}\hfill & M^{}J=JM^{}\hfill & JQ=sQJ\hfill \end{array}$$
(40)
and $`R_rL_2^+L_1^{}=L_1^{}L_2^+R_r`$ which further implies

$$QPPQ=\lambda (N^{}MNM^{})$$
(41)
Simplifying the above, we get the following commutation relations

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& [\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{B}]=\stackrel{~}{B},\hfill & [\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{C}]=\stackrel{~}{C}\hfill \\ & [\stackrel{~}{D},\stackrel{~}{B}]=\stackrel{~}{B},\hfill & [\stackrel{~}{D},\stackrel{~}{C}]=\stackrel{~}{C}\hfill \\ & [\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{D}]=0,\hfill & [\stackrel{~}{F},]=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(42)
and

$$[\stackrel{~}{B},\stackrel{~}{C}]=\frac{r^{\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{D}}s^{\stackrel{~}{F}}r^{(\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{D})}s^{\stackrel{~}{F}}}{rr^1}=\frac{r^{\gamma \stackrel{~}{F}}}{rr^1}[r^{\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{D}}r^{(\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{D})}]$$
(43)
where $`\gamma =\frac{\mathrm{ln}s}{\mathrm{ln}r}`$. So, we obtain a single-parameter deformation of $`U(gl(2))U(u(1))`$ as an algebra. Including the coproduct, we again obtain a semidirect product $`U_r(gl(2))\underset{𝑠}{}U(u(1))`$, as expected.

## IV Constructive calculus

In order to investigate the differential geometric structure of the $`(r,s)`$-deformation, $`𝒜_{r,s}`$, of $`GL(2)GL(1)`$, we use Jurc̆o’s constructive procedure  based on the $`R`$-matrix formulation. This method has so far been applied only to full matrix quantum groups but we demonstrate here that it works equally well for appropriate quotients of these. For $`𝒜_{r,s}`$, we obtain a first order bicovariant differential calculus employing the ansatz for $`^\pm `$ introduced in Sec. III.

### A One-forms

Let $`\{\omega \}`$ be the basis of all left-invariant quantum one-forms. So, we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_L(\omega )=\mathrm{𝟏}\omega $$
(44)
This defines the left action on the bimodule $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (space of quantum one-forms). The bimodule $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is further characterised by the commutation relations between $`\omega `$ and $`a𝒜`$ ($`𝒜_{r,s}`$),

$$\omega a=(fa)\omega $$
(45)
The left convolution product is

$$fa=(\mathrm{𝟏}f)\mathrm{\Delta }(a)$$
(46)
where $`f𝒜^{}(=\text{Hom}(𝒜,𝐂))`$ belongs to the dual. This means

$$\omega a=(\mathrm{𝟏}f)\mathrm{\Delta }(a)\omega $$
(47)
Now the linear functional $`f`$ is defined in terms of the $`^\pm `$ matrices as

$$f=S(^+)^{}$$
(48)
Thus we have

$$\omega a=[(\mathrm{𝟏}S(^+)^{})\mathrm{\Delta }(a)]\omega $$
(49)
In terms of components,

$$\omega _{ij}a=[(\mathrm{𝟏}S(l_{ki}^+)l_{jl}^{})\mathrm{\Delta }(a)]\omega _{kl}$$
(50)
using the expressions $`^\pm =l_{ij}^\pm `$ and $`\omega =\omega _{ij}`$ where $`i,j=\mathrm{1..3}`$. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to be a bicovariant bimodule, the right coaction is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_R(\omega )=\omega M$$
(51)
where functionals $`M`$ are defined in terms of the matrix of generators $`𝒯`$,

$$M=𝒯S(𝒯)$$
(52)
Again, in component form, we can write

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_R(\omega _{ij})=\omega _{kl}t_{ki}S(t_{jl})$$
(53)
Using the above formulas, we obtain the commutation relations of all the left-invariant one forms with the generating elements $`\{a,b,c,d,f\}`$ of $`𝒜_{r,s}`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\omega ^0a=a\omega ^0\hfill & \omega ^0b=b\omega ^0\hfill \\ \omega ^1a=r^2a\omega ^1\hfill & \omega ^1b=b\omega ^1\hfill \\ \omega ^+a=r^1a\omega ^+\hfill & \omega ^+b=r^1b\omega ^+\lambda r^1a\omega ^1\hfill \\ \omega ^{}a=r^1a\omega ^{}\lambda r^1b\omega ^1\hfill & \omega ^{}b=r^1b\omega ^{}\hfill \\ \omega ^2a=a\omega ^2\lambda b\omega ^+\hfill & \omega ^2b=r^2b\omega ^2\lambda r^1a\omega ^{}+\lambda ^2b\omega ^1\hfill \end{array}$$
(54)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\omega ^0c=c\omega ^0\hfill & \omega ^0d=d\omega ^0\hfill \\ \omega ^1c=r^2c\omega ^1\hfill & \omega ^1d=d\omega ^1\hfill \\ \omega ^+c=r^1c\omega ^+\hfill & \omega ^+d=r^1d\omega ^+\lambda r^1c\omega ^1\hfill \\ \omega ^{}c=r^1c\omega ^{}\lambda r^1d\omega ^1\hfill & \omega ^{}d=r^1d\omega ^{}\hfill \\ \omega ^2c=c\omega ^2\lambda d\omega ^+\hfill & \omega ^2d=r^2d\omega ^2\lambda r^1c\omega ^{}+\lambda ^2d\omega ^1\hfill \end{array}$$
(55)
$$\begin{array}{c}\omega ^0f=r^2f\omega ^0\hfill \\ \omega ^1f=f\omega ^1\hfill \\ \omega ^+f=sf\omega ^+\hfill \\ \omega ^{}f=s^1f\omega ^{}\hfill \\ \omega ^2f=f\omega ^2\hfill \end{array}$$
(56)
where $`\omega ^0=\omega _{11},\omega ^1=\omega _{22},\omega ^+=\omega _{23},\omega ^{}=\omega _{32},\omega ^2=\omega _{33}`$ and the components $`\omega _{12},\omega _{13},\omega _{21},\omega _{31}`$ have null contribution, given the structure of the $`𝒯`$ matrix (i.e., $`t_{12}=t_{13}=t_{21}=t_{31}=0`$).

### B Vector fields

The linear space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (space of all left invariant one-forms) contains a bi-invariant element $`\tau =_i\omega _{ii}`$ which can be used to define a derivative on $`𝒜`$. For $`a𝒜`$, one sets

$$𝐝a=\tau aa\tau $$
(57)
Now

$$\omega _{ii}a=[(\mathrm{𝟏}S(l_{ki}^+)l_{il}^{})\mathrm{\Delta }(a)]\omega _{kl}$$
(58)
So

$$𝐝a=[(\mathrm{𝟏}\chi _{kl})\mathrm{\Delta }(a)]\omega _{kl}$$
(59)
where $`\chi _{kl}=S(l_{ki}^+)l_{il}^{}\delta _{kl}\epsilon `$, $`\epsilon `$ being the counit. Denote

$$\chi _{ij}=S(l_{ik}^+)l_{kj}^{}\delta _{ij}\epsilon $$
(60)
or more compactly

$$\chi =S(^+)^{}\mathrm{𝟏}\epsilon $$
(61)
the matrix of left-invariant vector fields $`\chi _{ij}`$ on $`𝒜`$. The action of the vector fields on the generating elements is

$`\chi _{ij}a`$ $`=`$ $`(S(l_{ik}^+)l_{kj}^{}\delta _{ij}\epsilon )a`$ (62)
$`\chi _{ij}a`$ $`=`$ $`S(l_{ik}^+)l_{kj}^{},a\delta _{ij}\epsilon (a)`$ (63)
Explicitly, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}\chi _0(a)=0\hfill & \chi _0(b)=0\hfill \\ \chi _1(a)=r^21\hfill & \chi _1(b)=0\hfill \\ \chi _+(a)=0\hfill & \chi _+(b)=0\hfill \\ \chi _{}(a)=0\hfill & \chi _{}(b)=(rr^1)\hfill \\ \chi _2(a)=0\hfill & \chi _2(b)=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(64)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\chi _0(c)=0\hfill & \chi _0(d)=0\hfill \\ \chi _1(c)=0\hfill & \chi _1(d)=(rr^1)^2\hfill \\ \chi _+(c)=(rr^1)\hfill & \chi _+(d)=0\hfill \\ \chi _{}(c)=0\hfill & \chi _{}(d)=0\hfill \\ \chi _2(c)=0\hfill & \chi _2(d)=r^21\hfill \end{array}$$
(65)
$$\begin{array}{c}\chi _0(f)=r^21\hfill \\ \chi _1(f)=0\hfill \\ \chi _+(f)=0\hfill \\ \chi _{}(f)=0\hfill \\ \chi _2(f)=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(66)
where $`\chi _0=\chi _{11},\chi _1=\chi _{22},\chi _+=\chi _{23},\chi _{}=\chi _{32},\chi _2=\chi _{33}`$ and again (by previous argument) the components $`\chi _{12},\chi _{13},\chi _{21},\chi _{31}`$ have null contribution. The left convolution products are given as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\chi _0a=0\hfill & \chi _0b=0\hfill \\ \chi _1a=(r^21)a\hfill & \chi _1b=((rr^1)^2)b\hfill \\ \chi _+a=(rr^1)b\hfill & \chi _+b=0\hfill \\ \chi _{}a=0\hfill & \chi _{}b=(rr^1)a\hfill \\ \chi _2a=0\hfill & \chi _2b=(r^21)b\hfill \end{array}$$
(67)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\chi _0c=0\hfill & \chi _0d=0\hfill \\ \chi _1c=(r^21)c\hfill & \chi _1d=((rr^1)^2)d\hfill \\ \chi _+c=(rr^1)d\hfill & \chi _+d=0\hfill \\ \chi _{}c=0\hfill & \chi _{}d=(rr^1)c\hfill \\ \chi _2c=0\hfill & \chi _2d=(r^21)d\hfill \end{array}$$
(68)
$$\begin{array}{c}\chi _0f=(r^21)f\hfill \\ \chi _1f=0\hfill \\ \chi _+f=0\hfill \\ \chi _{}f=0\hfill \\ \chi _2f=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(69)
### C Exterior derivatives

Using $`𝐝a=_i(\chi _ia)\omega ^i`$ for $`a𝒜`$, we obtain the action of the exterior derivatives:

$`𝐝a`$ $`=`$ $`(r^21)a\omega ^1\lambda b\omega ^+`$ (70)
$`𝐝b`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2b\omega ^1\lambda a\omega ^{}+(r^21)b\omega ^2`$ (71)
$`𝐝c`$ $`=`$ $`(r^21)c\omega ^1\lambda d\omega ^+`$ (72)
$`𝐝d`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2d\omega ^1\lambda c\omega ^{}+(r^21)d\omega ^2`$ (73)
$`𝐝f`$ $`=`$ $`(r^21)f\omega ^0`$ (74)
where $`\lambda =rr^1`$. The exterior derivative $`𝐝:𝒜\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ satisfies the Leibniz rule and $`𝐝𝒜`$ generates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as a left $`𝒜`$-module. This then defines a first-order differential calclulus $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },𝐝)`$ on $`𝒜_{r,s}`$. Furthermore, the calculus is bicovariant due to the coexistence of the left and the right actions

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_L:\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒜\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (75)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_R:\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒜`$ (76)
since $`𝐝`$ has the invariance property

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_L𝐝=(\mathrm{𝟏}𝐝)\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (77)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_R𝐝=(𝐝\mathrm{𝟏})\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (78)
The bicovariance holds also due to the existence of the bi-invariant element $`\tau =_i\omega _{ii}`$ (eqn.(57)) of the linear space of left-invariant one-forms. If we rewrite the derivatives $`\{𝐝a,𝐝b,𝐝c,𝐝d,𝐝f\}`$ as $`\{𝐝(f^Na),𝐝(f^Nb),𝐝(f^Nc),𝐝(f^Nd)\}`$, i.e., reducing from the five-dimensional to the four-dimensional algebra, then the latter set of exterior derivatives provides a realisation of the differential calculus on the biparametric $`(p,q)`$-deformation of $`GL(2)`$, i.e., $`GL_{p,q}(2)`$, with the defining relations between the two sets of deformation parameters $`(p,q)`$ and $`(r,s)`$ as before. Furthermore, the differential calculus also respects the cross-product structure of $`𝒜_{rs}`$. It can be checked (using the Leibniz rule) that

$$𝐝(affa)=0,𝐝(cfsfc)=0,𝐝(bfs^1fb)=0,𝐝(dffd)=0,$$
(79)
which is consistent with the cross relations (5).

## V Jordanian analogue

It was shown in  that the $`𝒜_{r,s}`$ deformation could be contracted (by means of singular limit of similarity transformations) to obtain a nonstandard or Jordanian analogue, say $`𝒜_{m,k}`$, with deformation parameters $`\{m,k\}`$ and the associated $`R`$-matrix is triangular. In analogy with $`𝒜_{r,s}`$, $`𝒜_{m,k}`$ can also be considered as the semidirect or cross-product $`GL_m(2)\underset{𝑘}{}[f,f^1]`$ where $`GL_m(2)=[a,b,c,d]`$ modulo the relations

$$\begin{array}{cc}[c,d]=mc^2,\hfill & [c,b]=m(ac+cd)=m(ca+dc)\hfill \\ [c,a]=mc^2,\hfill & [d,a]=m(da)c=mc(da)\hfill \end{array}$$
(80)
$$\begin{array}{c}[d,b]=m(d^2\delta )\hfill \\ [b,a]=m(\delta a^2)\hfill \end{array}$$
(81)
where $`\delta =adbc+mac=adcbmcd`$, and $`[f,f^1]`$ has the cross relations

$$\begin{array}{cc}[f,a]=kcf,\hfill & [f,b]=k(dffa)\hfill \\ [f,c]=0,\hfill & [f,d]=kcf\hfill \end{array}$$
(82)
Thus, $`𝒜_{m,k}GL_m(2)\underset{𝑘}{}[f,f^1]`$ can also be interpreted as a skew Laurent polynomial ring $`GL_m[f,f^1;\sigma ]`$ where $`\sigma `$ is the automorphism given by the action of element $`f`$ on $`GL_m(2)`$. The (left) action is given by

$$fa=a+kc,fb=b+k(da)k^2c,fc=c,fd=dkc$$
(83)
## VI Discussion

In this article, we have investigated the algebro-geometric structure of the biparametric quantum deformation of $`GL(2)GL(1)`$, namely, $`𝒜_{r,s}`$. A particular feature of this deformation is that it has an interpretation as a semidirect or cross-product algebra. We exhibit this cross-product structure and establish a picture of duality in this setting. Using the $`R`$-matrix formalism, we have given an explicit derivation of the corresponding dual agebra, i.e., the quantised universal enveloping algebra and also constructed a bicovariant differential calculus. The dual algebra obtained via $`R`$-matrices is isomorphic to the dual algebra obtained by the cross-product construction. We note that the differential calculus satisfies the required axioms, contains the calculus on $`GL_q(2)`$ and our results match with those given in . Besides, the calculus is also consistent with the cross-product structure of $`𝒜_{r,s}`$. We expect that the calculus could as well be obtained by projection from the calculus on multiparameter $`q`$-deformed $`GL(3)`$. The differential calculus obtained on $`𝒜_{r,s}`$ enables us to investigate the associated gauge theory from a noncommutative perspective. It would be useful to repeat the analysis presented in this paper for the biparametric Jordanian deformation of $`GL(2)GL(1)`$ obtained in  and also to investigate corresponding hybrid $`(q,h)`$-deformations . Furthermore, it would indeed be interesting to generalise the setting to the case of coloured quantum and Jordanian deformations.

## Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Profs. Shahn Majid and Konrad Schmüdgen for several fruitful discussions.