text:
# Measurement and Interpretation of Fermion-Pair Production at LEP Energies of 183 and 189 GeV

## 1 Introduction

Results are presented from the analyses of fermion–pair final states collected in 1997 and 1998 by the DELPHI experiment  at centre–of–mass energies, $`\sqrt{s}`$, close to 183 and 189 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$. Measurements of cross–sections for inclusive hadronic, electron–positron pairs, muon–pair and tau–pair final states are given, together with leptonic forward–backward asymmetries. These results complement those obtained from data collected in 1995 and 1996 at lower collision energies from 130 to $`172\mathrm{GeV}`$ . Polar angle distributions of $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ events recorded at $`\sqrt{s}183`$ and 189 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ are also given.

The measurements of the cross–sections and forward–backward asymmetries together with the results presented in  and from LEP running in the vicinity of the Z–resonance , are used to update the searches for new physics involving contact interactions, R-parity violating SUSY, and additional neutral gauge bosons given in . In addition, the measurements presented in this paper are used to search for possible effects of gravity proposed in theories with large extra dimensions.

Results on fermion–pair production at LEP at collision energies from 130 to $`189\mathrm{GeV}`$ from the other LEP experiments together with limits derived from these results, can be found in .

The measurements of cross–sections, forward–backward asymmetries and angular distributions are given in section 2. The interpretations of the data are presented in section 3. A summary and conclusions are given in section 4. Further details concerning the data analysis, including the event selection and the theoretical and technical details of the searches for new physics can be found in .

## 2 Measurements of cross–sections and asymmetries

### 2.1 Luminosity and centre–of–mass energy determination

The luminosity analysis of the data collected during LEP operation in 1997 and 1998 followed closely the one described in . The total experimental systematic uncertainty on the integrated luminosity determination amounts to $`0.50\%`$, to be combined with a $`0.25\%`$ uncertainty reflecting the precision of the theoretical calculations underlying the computation of the cross–section visible in the luminometers. The luminosities for the analysis of the inclusive hadronic final states were 52.80 and 155.21 $`\mathrm{pb}^1`$ for $`\sqrt{s}183`$ and 189 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ respectively. Estimates of the mean centre–of–mass energies led to values of (182.65 $`\pm `$ 0.05) and (188.63 $`\pm `$ 0.05) $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ . There are small differences in the luminosities and mean centre–of–mass energies for the other channels due to the selection of different running periods for analysis, based on the performance of the subdetectors of DELPHI.

### 2.2 Kinematical definition of signal

Cross–sections and forward–backward asymmetry measurements are given for different ranges of the reduced centre–of-mass energy, $`\sqrt{s^{}}`$: for hadronic final states an inclusive sample, $`\sqrt{s^{}}/\sqrt{s}>0.10`$, and a non–radiative sample, $`\sqrt{s^{}}/\sqrt{s}>0.85`$; for muon and tau final states an inclusive sample, $`\sqrt{s^{}}>75\mathrm{GeV}`$, and a non–radiative sample, $`\sqrt{s^{}}/\sqrt{s}>0.85`$. For electron–positron final states, a cut on the acollinearity111The acollinearity angle between two particles is defined as $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{acol}=p_1.p_2/|p_1||p_2|`$ where $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are the 3–momenta of the particles. angle between the electron and positron, $`\theta _{acol}<20^{}`$, was applied, corresponding approximately to a cut of $`\sqrt{s^{}}/\sqrt{s}>0.85`$.

The methods of estimating $`\sqrt{s^{}}`$ correspond to slightly different definitions of this variable. For $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and the $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ final states, $`\sqrt{s^{}}`$ is the invariant mass of the muons or tau-leptons in the final state. For the inclusive hadronic final states, the estimated $`\sqrt{s^{}}`$ can be treated in theoretical predictions to be the invariant mass of the $`s`$-channel propagator.

For the $`e^+e^{}`$ final state the measured cross–sections and forward–backward asymmetries are for the electron and positron both within the acceptance $`44{}_{}{}^{}<\theta <136^{}`$. For the $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ final states, the cross-sections and asymmetries were extrapolated to $`4\pi `$ acceptance using samples of events generated with KORALZ . In the calculations of KORALZ there is no interference between initial state and final state radiation. Corrections to the extrapolation for this interference were determined using the semi-analytical calculations of ZFITTER , in which the interference was computed to $`𝒪\left(\alpha \right)`$, and applied to the results. To account for missing higher order corrections, a systematic uncertainty of half the correction was taken. For the inclusive hadronic states, where the events are selected over the full solid angle, any correction for the interference between initial and final state radiation was estimated to be negligibly small compared to the precision of the measurement.

### 2.3 Improvements to analyses

The analyses of cross–sections for $`e^+e^{}`$, $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ and inclusive hadronic final states and forward–backward asymmetries for leptonic final states were similar to the ones performed at lower energies and the details, such as the event selection, and the determination of the reduced energy $`\left(\sqrt{\text{s}\text{}}\right)`$ can be found in , changes to each of the analyses are discussed below.

The distributions of $`\sqrt{s^{}}/\sqrt{s}`$ obtained for the real and the simulated data are shown in Figure 1 for the muon, tau and inclusive hadronic channels for $`\sqrt{s}189`$ GeV.

The numbers of events selected in the *inclusive* samples for each final state are given in Table 1. The efficiencies, the backgrounds from other channels and the backgrounds due to feed–up from the *inclusive* samples for the *non–radiative* event samples for each final states, are given in Table 2. Results are given in section 2.5

#### 2.3.1 Inclusive hadronic final states

A new cut was added. Events were only selected if their total transverse energy222The total transverse energy is defined as $`E_T=E_i\left|\mathrm{sin}\theta _i\right|`$ where $`E_i`$ is the energy and $`\theta _i`$ is the polar angle of the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ particle in the event. DELPHI uses a right handed coordinate system in which the $`z`$ axis is in the direction of the incoming electrons. was measured to be greater than $`20\%`$ of the collision energy. This cut improves the rejection of two–photon collisions. The sum of the energies of the charged particles in an event was now required to be greater than $`10\%`$ of the collision energy, relaxing the cut from the previous analysis.

The selection efficiencies and backgrounds were determined from simulated events. The four–fermion background was determined from events generated by PYTHIA  and EXCALIBUR . The size of the background predicted by the two generators was found to be in good agreement; residual differences were taken into account in the systematic uncertainty on the measurement. The main background contributions to the cross–section measurement at 183 (189) GeV came from W-pair production with a contribution of $`13.7\pm 0.3\mathrm{pb}`$ ($`14.7\pm 0.3\mathrm{pb}`$) to the total cross–section and $`8.3\pm 0.2\mathrm{pb}`$ ($`8.9\pm 0.2\mathrm{pb}`$) to the non–radiative cross–section. The combined production of Z–pair and $`\mathrm{Z}e^+e^{}`$ events was expected to contribute $`2.8\pm 0.5\mathrm{pb}`$ ($`3.4\pm 0.5\mathrm{pb}`$) to the total cross–section and $`0.8\pm 0.3\mathrm{pb}`$ ($`1.1\pm 0.2\mathrm{pb}`$) to the non–radiative event sample. Using samples of events generated with the TWOGAM  and BDKRC  generators, two–photon collisions were found to contribute significantly only to the total cross–section measurement for which there remains $`1.8\pm 0.2\mathrm{pb}`$ after event selection cuts at both 183 and 189 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$.

#### 2.3.2 $`e^+e^{}`$ final states

In  results were presented for two different cuts on the acollinearity angle between the electron and positron , $`\theta _{acol}<90^{}`$ and $`\theta _{acol}<20^{}`$. In this paper, results are given for $`\theta _{acol}<20^{}`$ only, which is the sample with the highest sensitivity to the models of physics beyond the Standard Model considered in this paper.

#### 2.3.3 $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ final states

Two improvements were made for the analysis of the data collected at $`\sqrt{s}189`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}`$. The significant increase in the luminosity at this energy made it possible to measure the efficiency of the track reconstruction and muon identification efficiency from the data, exploiting the nearly back–to–back topology of the events with $`\sqrt{s^{}}/\sqrt{s}>0.85`$ rather than relying on the efficiency determined from simulated events.

To do this, a sample of events with a high momentum muon was selected. The efficiency was then determined from the number of these events which did, or did not, contain a second reconstructed track or identified muon. The uncertainty on the combined track reconstruction and muon identification efficiency determined in this manner was $`\pm 1.0\%`$. The difference between the efficiency determined directly from simulation and that derived from the data at $`\sqrt{s}189`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ was $`2\%`$. The efficiency determined from the simulation at $`\sqrt{s}183`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ was corrected down by the $`2\%`$ difference measured at 189, and a systematic uncertainty of $`\pm 2\%`$ was applied to the results at $`\sqrt{s}183`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}`$.

The polar angular coverage was extended from $`20{}_{}{}^{}<\theta <160^{}`$ to $`14{}_{}{}^{}<\theta <164^{}`$, taking advantage of the increased luminosity to perform checks of the tracking and muon identification efficiency at extreme polar angles.

The background coming from four–fermion final states, via $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{ZZ}`$ and $`\mathrm{Z}\gamma ^{}`$ production, was estimated from events generated by EXCALIBUR. The background from two–photon collisions was estimated from events generated using BDKRC.

#### 2.3.4 $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ final states

There were several small improvements to the analysis of the $`e^+e^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}(\gamma )`$ process. The acollinearity cut was placed at $`0.3^{}`$ instead of $`0.5^{}`$. Events with less than or equal to three charged particles in each hemisphere were included in the event selection ( in addition to the events with only one charge particle in one hemisphere and less less than six charged particles in the other hemisphere ) provided that the reconstructed invariant mass in each hemisphere was less than 2 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$$`/c^2`$, consistent with being the decay products of $`\tau `$ lepton. Both these changes improve the efficiency for the signal while not significantly increasing the levels of background.

The backgrounds were, as far as possible, estimated from the data by studying samples of events failing the specific cuts designed for rejection of a given background final state. The total systematic uncertainties on the cross–section and forward–backward asymmetry measurements for the different collision energies and channels are shown in Table 3.

In the determination of the forward–backward charge asymmetry of the $`\tau `$ leptons, the scattering angle was taken as the polar angle of the highest momentum charged particle in the hemisphere determined to have originated from the negatively charged $`\tau `$ lepton. The asymmetry was corrected for acceptance, background and for contamination due to radiative events from lower $`\sqrt{s^{}}`$ values. The determined asymmetries and the associated uncertainties are given in Tables 4 and 3 for the different centre-of-mass energies.

### 2.4 Differential cross–sections

In addition to the measurements of the cross–sections and asymmetries, measurements of the differential cross–sections, $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, are given for the $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ final states for the non–radiative samples.

Figure 2 shows the numbers of events observed in bins of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ compared to simulations for each final state and each collision energy. For the $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ final states the scattering angle $`\theta `$ is the angle of the negative fermion with respect to the incoming electron in the laboratory frame, for the $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ final states the angle was defined in the same way as mentioned above for the measurement of the forward–backward asymmetry. Results are given in section 2.5

### 2.5 Results of analyses

The results of the cross–section and asymmetry measurements are presented in Table 4 together with theoretical predictions. The errors indicated are statistical only. Systematic errors due to the event selection and to the residual background subtraction are shown in Table 3. For the cross–section measurements, they must be added in quadrature to the uncertainty coming from the luminosity determination. The theoretical predictions in Table 4 are from the TOPAZ0 program  for electron–positron final states and ZFITTER program  for the other final states. The uncertainties on the theoretical predictions are estimated to be below $`1\%`$.

Some components of the systematic uncertainties are correlated between measurements in different channels and different energies. This is the case for the theoretical uncertainty on the luminosity determination which is correlated between all cross-section measurements at all energies. For the $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ final states, the uncertainty on the event selection efficiency is correlated between energy points. The uncertainty on the extrapolation to $`4\pi `$ acceptance coming from the interference between initial and final state radiation is correlated between $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ final states and between energies. Given the estimated size of the correlations compared to the precision of the measurements these correlations are ignored.

Figure 3 shows the measured hadron, electron–positron pair, muon–pair and tau–pair cross–sections for all collision energies ranging from 130 up to 189 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ from DELPHI. The forward–backward asymmetries for electron–positron pairs, muon–pairs and tau–pairs are shown in figure 4.

The results of the analyses of the differential cross–sections for $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ final states are tabulated, including statistical and systematic errors, in Table 5. The theoretical predictions are from the ZFITTER program, and have an uncertainty estimated to be below $`1\%`$.

For the $`e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ channel the systematic errors quoted in Table 5 include correlated systematic uncertainties of $`2\%`$ for the data at $`\sqrt{s}183\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`1\%`$ for the data at $`\sqrt{s}189\mathrm{GeV}`$ in the measured cross–sections for all bins of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ arising from the determination of the track reconstruction and muon identification efficiencies which were applied as an overall correction to the efficiencies determined bin by bin in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ from simulated events.

Overall, no substantial departure of the measurements of fermion–pair production from the Standard Model predictions was found.

## 3 Physics beyond the Standard Model

The data presented in this paper were used to improve the constraints on physics beyond the Standard Model given in section 6 of  for three sets of models: contact interactions between leptons, models including Z bosons and R-parity violating sneutrino exchange. The theoretical bases of each of these models are discussed in section 5 of , the key points are summarised below. New limits for models which include gravity in extra dimensions are derived from the measurements of the differential cross–sections given in this paper. Unless otherwise stated the systematic errors on the measurements at LEP II energies have been added in quadrature with the statistical errors treating them as uncorrelated between measurements.

### 3.1 Contact interaction models

Contact interactions between fermions can be parameterised as an effective Lagrangian with the form:

$$_{eff}=\frac{g^2}{\left(1+\delta \right)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\underset{i,j=L,R}{}\eta _{ij}\overline{e}_i\gamma _\mu e_i\overline{f}_j\gamma ^\mu f_j.$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the characteristic energy scale of the interactions. Different choices of $`\eta _{ij}`$ lead to 12 commonly studied models, referred to as LL, RR etc .

Fits were made using data at all energies from 130 to 189 GeV for $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{},e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{},e^+e^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ channels and $`e^+e^{}l^+l^{}`$, a combination of all leptonic final states assuming lepton universality. The parameter fitted was $`ϵ=1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. The values of $`ϵ`$ extracted for each model were all compatible with the Standard Model expectation $`ϵ=0`$, at the two standard deviation level. The errors on $`ϵ`$ in the $`e^+e^{}l^+l^{}`$ fit are typically $`30\%`$ smaller than those reported in  as a result of the inclusion of the data collected at $`\sqrt{s}183`$ and 189 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$. The fitted values of $`ϵ`$ were converted into lower limits on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at $`95\%`$ confidence level. The results are given in Table 6.

### 3.2 Sneutrino exchange

The second set of models consider possible $`s`$ or $`t`$ channel sneutrino ($`\stackrel{~}{\nu _{\mathrm{}}}`$) exchange in R-parity violating supersymmetry . The parameters of interest are the dimensionless couplings, $`\lambda _{ijk}`$, between the superfields of different generations, $`i,j`$ and $`k`$, together with the mass of the sneutrino exchanged, $`m_\stackrel{}{\nu }`$. The sneutrino width is not constrained within R-parity violating supersymmetry; a value of 1 GeV has been used .

For the $`e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`e^+e^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ channels, in the case that only one $`\lambda `$ value is non–zero there would only be $`t`$-channel sneutrino effects. The $`95\%`$ confidence exclusion upper limits on $`\lambda `$ are given in Table 7, assuming sneutrino masses of either 100 or 200 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. The limits are calculated by finding the value of $`\lambda `$ for $`\chi ^2=\chi _{min}^2+3.84`$. The limits are between 0.02 and 0.14 lower than those published in  depending on the channel and the mass assumed.

For the $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}`$ channel the resulting $`95\%`$ limits on $`\lambda `$, are given in Figure 5(a), as a function of $`m_\stackrel{}{\nu }`$. For the fits in the $`e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ channel, assuming that $`\lambda _{131}=\lambda _{232}=\lambda `$, the resulting $`95\%`$ limits on $`\lambda `$ are given in Figure 5(b). The exclusion contour for $`\lambda _{121}=\lambda _{233}=\lambda `$, using the $`e^+e^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ channel, is shown in Figure 5(c). In each case, the exclusion contours are calculated by finding the value of $`\lambda `$ for $`\chi ^2=\chi _{min}^2+3.84`$ for each value of $`m_\stackrel{}{\nu }`$ separately. A coupling of $`\lambda >0.1`$ can be excluded for $`m_\stackrel{}{\nu }`$ in the range 130 - 190 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ for all final states, extending the excluded region by approximately 20 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ compared to .

### 3.3 $`𝐙^{^{\mathbf{}}}`$-bosons

Existing data from LEP1 and LEP2 and the cross–sections and asymmetries given here were used to fit the data to models including additional $`\mathrm{Z}^{^{}}`$ bosons.

#### 3.3.1 Model dependent fits

Fits were made to the mass of a $`\mathrm{Z}^{^{}}`$, $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{Z}^{^{}}`$, the mass of the Z, $`\mathrm{M}_\text{Z}`$, and to the mixing angle between the two bosonic fields, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{ZZ}^{^{}}}`$, for 4 different models referred to as $`\chi `$, $`\psi `$, $`\eta `$ and L-R . The theoretical prediction made came from the ZEFIT package . The fitted value of $`\mathrm{M}_\text{Z}`$ was found to be in agreement with the value found from fits to the data with no additional $`\mathrm{Z}^{^{}}`$. No evidence was found for the existence of a $`\mathrm{Z}^{^{}}`$–boson in any of the models. The $`95\%`$ confidence level limits on $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{Z}^{^{}}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{ZZ}^{^{}}}`$, were computed for the different model by determining the contours of the domain in the $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{Z}^{^{}}\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{ZZ}^{^{}}}`$ plane where $`\chi ^2<\chi _{min}^2+5.99`$ . The allowed regions for $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{Z}^{^{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{ZZ}^{^{}}}`$ are shown in Figure 6. The lower limits, shown in Table 8, on the $`\mathrm{Z}^{^{}}`$ mass range from 310 to 440 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, an increase of between 70 and 190 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ on the limits presented in , depending on the model.

In addition to the models considered in  a limit has been obtained on the mass and mixing of the $`\mathrm{Z}^{^{}}`$ in the Sequential Standard Model . This model proposes the existence of a $`\mathrm{Z}^{^{}}`$ with exactly the same coupling to fermions as the standard Z. A limit of $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{Z}^{^{}}>710\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ is found at $`95\%`$ confidence level.

#### 3.3.2 Model independent fits

Model Independent fits were performed to the leptonic cross–sections and forward–backward asymmetries, for the leptonic couplings of a $`\mathrm{Z}^{^{}}`$, $`a_l^{}^N`$ and $`v_l^{}^N`$, normalised for the overall coupling scale and the mass of the $`\mathrm{Z}^{^{}}`$ .

Several values of the mass of the $`\mathrm{Z}^{^{}}`$ were considered (i.e. 300, 500 and 1000 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$), and the Z$`\mathrm{Z}^{^{}}`$–mixing was neglected. The limits on the normalised couplings are $`\left|a_l^{}^N\right|<0.15`$ and $`\left|v_l^{}^N\right|<0.22`$, a decrease of $`0.04`$ and $`0.22`$, respectively, on limits given in .

### 3.4 Gravity in Extra Dimensions

The large difference between the electroweak scale ($`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{EW}}10^210^3`$ GeV) and the scale at which quantum gravitational effects become strong, the Planck scale ($`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}10^{19}`$GeV), leads to the well known “hierarchy problem”. A solution, not relying on supersymmetry or technicolour, has been proposed  that involves an effective Planck scale, $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{D}`$, of $`𝒪`$(TeV). This is achieved by introducing $`n`$ compactified dimensions, into which spin 2 gravitons propagate, in addition to the 4 dimensions of standard space-time. The Planck mass seen in the 4 uncompactified dimensions, $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$, can be expressed in terms of $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{D}`$, the effective Planck scale in the $`n+4`$ dimensional theory,

$$\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{R}^n\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{D}}^{}{}_{}{}^{n+2}$$

where $`\mathrm{R}`$ is the size of the extra dimensions. With $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{D}=1`$ TeV, the case where $`n=1`$ is excluded as Newtonian gravitation would be modified at solar system distances whereas, $`n=2`$ corresponds to a radius for extra dimensions of $`𝒪`$(1 mm), which is not excluded by existing gravitational experiments .

In high energy collisions at LEP and other colliders, new channels not present in the Standard Model would be available in which gravitons could be produced or exchanged. Virtual graviton exchange would affect the differential cross section for $`e^+e^{}f\overline{f}`$, with the largest contributions seen at low angles with respect to the incoming electron or positron. Embedding the model into a string model, and identifying the effective Planck scale, $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{D}`$, with the string scale, $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{s}`$, the differential cross section for $`e^+e^{}f\overline{f}`$ with the inclusion of the spin 2 graviton can be expressed as :

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma }{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{cos}\theta }=A\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)+B\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)\left[\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{s}^4}\right]+C\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)\left[\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{s}^4}\right]^2,$$

with $`\theta `$ being the polar angle of the outgoing fermion with respect to the direction of the incoming electron. The functions $`A,B`$ and $`C`$ are known, and the maximum power in the expansion is $`\mathrm{cos}\theta ^4`$. The dimensionless parameter $`\lambda `$, of $`𝒪`$(1), is not explicitly calculable without full knowledge of the underlying quantum gravitational theory. It can be either positive or negative . For the purposes of the fits, two cases, $`\lambda =\pm 1`$, are considered. This parameterisation has no explicit dependence on the number of extra dimensions, $`n`$.

Fits to the differential cross–sections, $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, measured at $`\sqrt{s}183`$ and 189 GeV for the parameter $`ϵ=\lambda /\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{s}^4`$ were performed, giving values compatible with the Standard Model, i.e. $`ϵ=0`$. The systematics errors known to be fully correlated between bins of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ where treated as such. Table 9 shows the fitted values of $`ϵ`$ and $`95\%`$ confidence level lower limits on $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{s}`$. These limits were obtained using a method equivalent to that used to extract the limits on the scale, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, of contact interactions, as described in section 6.1.1 of .

The angular distributions predicted at $`\sqrt{s}189\mathrm{GeV}`$ for the fitted values of $`ϵ`$ are shown in Figure 7. The predictions for the values of $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{s}`$ at the limits with $`\lambda =\pm 1`$, the data and the Standard Model predictions are superimposed.

## 4 Summary and conclusions

The results of the analyses of cross–sections and asymmetries in the channels $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}(\gamma )`$, $`e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}(\gamma )`$, $`e^+e^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}(\gamma )`$ and inclusive $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}(\gamma )`$, at $`\sqrt{s}183189\mathrm{GeV}`$ have been presented. Overall, the data agree with the Standard Model predictions as calculated with ZFITTER and TOPAZ0. The data were used to update previous searches for physics beyond the Standard Model given and to investigate the possible effects of gravity in extra dimensions. No evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model was found and limits were set on parameters of several more general models. The scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ characterising contact interactions between leptons can be excluded at $`95\%`$ confidence level in the range $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<4.410.7\mathrm{TeV}`$ depending on the model. For sneutrino exchange in R-parity violating supersymmetry, the generic coupling in the purely leptonic part of the superpotential, $`\lambda >0.1`$ can be excluded for $`m_\stackrel{}{\nu }`$ in the range 130 - 190 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ for all leptonic states at the $`95\%`$ confidence level or above. Alternatively, $`\mathrm{Z}^{^{}}`$ bosons lighter than $`300\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ can be excluded at the $`95\%`$ confidence level in the models considered. Lastly, $`95\%`$ confidence level lower limits of $`542`$ and $`680`$ GeV on the string scale, $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{s}`$, in models of gravity involving extra dimensions are obtained for a combinations of $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ final states.

### Acknowledgements

We are greatly indebted to our technical collaborators, to the members of the CERN-SL Division for the excellent performance of the LEP collider, and to the funding agencies for their support in building and operating the DELPHI detector.
We acknowledge in particular the support of
Austrian Federal Ministry of Science and Traffics, GZ 616.364/2-III/2a/98,
FNRS–FWO, Belgium,
FINEP, CNPq, CAPES, FUJB and FAPERJ, Brazil,
Czech Ministry of Industry and Trade, GA CR 202/96/0450 and GA AVCR A1010521,
Danish Natural Research Council,
Commission of the European Communities (DG XII),
Direction des Sciences de la Mati$`\stackrel{`}{\text{e}}`$re, CEA, France,
Bundesministerium f$`\ddot{\text{u}}`$r Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie, Germany,
General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Greece,
National Science Foundation (NWO) and Foundation for Research on Matter (FOM), The Netherlands,
Norwegian Research Council,
State Committee for Scientific Research, Poland, 2P03B06015, 2P03B1116 and SPUB/P03/178/98,
JNICT–Junta Nacional de Investigação Científica e Tecnol$`\stackrel{´}{\text{o}}`$gica, Portugal,
Vedecka grantova agentura MS SR, Slovakia, Nr. 95/5195/134,
Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Slovenia,
CICYT, Spain, AEN96–1661 and AEN96-1681,
The Swedish Natural Science Research Council,
Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, UK,
Department of Energy, USA, DE–FG02–94ER40817.


format: text

text:
# 𝑊_𝑛^(𝜅) algebra associated with the Moyal KdV Hierarchy

## I Introduction

Over the past decade, much attention has been paid to the $`W`$-algebars in connection with integrable systems and string theories (see, for example,  and references therein). For example, it is well-known that the classical realizaion of $`W_n`$ algebra  can be constructed from the second Gelfand-Dickey(GD) structure  associated with the differential Lax operator. Furthermore, the GD bracket with graded commutators was proposed  for supersymmetric pseudo-differential operators and the classical version of extended supersymmetric $`W`$-algebras was obtained.

Recently, the so called dispersionless Lax equations were considered , which are the quasi-classical limit of the ordinary Lax equations. In such limit, the ordinary (pseudo-) differential Lax operators are replaced by the formal Laurent series in $`p`$ and the canonical Poisson bracket $`\{f(x,p),g(x,p)\}=_pf_xg_xf_pg`$ takes over the role of the commutator $`[A,B]=ABBA`$ in the ordinary Lax formalism. Moreover, the quasi-classical limit of the GD structure can be defined and the associated classical limit of $`W`$-algebras were constructed . All the mentioned results reveal that the algebraic structures associated with the GD bracket are profound.

More recently, there has been a great deal of interest to study the Moyal deformations of the Lax equations  in algebraic and/or geometric ways by using the so-called Moyal $``$-product defined by  (for a historical survey of $``$-product, see )

$$fg=\underset{s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\kappa ^s}{s!}\underset{j=0}{\overset{s}{}}(1)^j\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s}{j}\right)(_x^j_p^{sj}f)(_x^{sj}_p^jg)$$
(1)
where $`f`$ and $`g`$ are two arbitrary functions on the two-dimensional phase space with coordinate $`(x,p)`$. By (1), the Moyal bracket  is defined by

$$\{f,g\}_\kappa =\frac{fggf}{2\kappa }$$
(2)
that satisfies the following properties (i) $`\{f,g\}_\kappa =\{g,f\}_\kappa `$ (anti-symmetry) (ii) $`\{af+bg,h\}_\kappa =a\{f,h\}_\kappa +b\{g,h\}_\kappa `$ (linearity) (iii) $`\{f,\{g,h\}_\kappa \}_\kappa +\{g,\{h,f\}_\kappa \}_\kappa +\{h,\{f,g\}_\kappa \}_\kappa =0`$ (Jacobi identity). Since the Moyal bracket (2) recovers the canonical Poisson bracket in the limit $`\kappa 0`$, i.e. $`lim_{\kappa 0}\{f,g\}_\kappa =_pf_xg_xf_pg`$, thus it can be viewed as the higher-order derivative generalization of the canonical Poisson bracket. Motivated by the works described above and consulting the dispersionless KdV hierarchy  whose Lax flows are defined by the canonical Poisson bracket, the zero-th order term in $`\kappa `$ in (2), we attempt to define the the KdV hierarchy by using the Moyal bracket. We shall show that the integrability is still maintained under the Moyal deformation and a $`W`$-type algebra emerges naturally from the associated second GD structure.

Our paper is organized as follows: In Sec. II, we recall some basic notions and introduce the Lax formulation of the Moyal KdV hierarchy. In Sec. III, we show that the Gelfand-Dickey structure with respect to the Moyal $``$-product defines the bi-Hamiltonian structure of the Moyal KdV hierarchy. In Sec. IV, we study the conformal property of the Gelfand-Dickey algebras and explicitly identify the first few primary fields. In Sec. V, by factorizing the Lax operator, the free-field realization for the associated conformal algebras is given. We work out some examples in Sec. VI and present the concluding remarks in Sec. VII.

## II Moyal KdV Hierarchy

To begin with, let us consider an algebra of Laurent series of the form $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{A|A=_{i=\mathrm{}}^Na_ip^i\}`$ with coefficients $`a_i`$ depending on an infinite set of variables $`t_1x,t_2,t_3,\mathrm{}`$. The algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be decomposed into the sub-algebras as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_k\mathrm{\Lambda }_{<k},(k=0,1,2.)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_k=\{A\mathrm{\Lambda }|A=_{ik}a_ip^i\},\mathrm{\Lambda }_{<k}=\{A\mathrm{\Lambda }|A=_{i<k}a_ip^i\}`$ and using the notations : $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{<0}`$ for short. It’s obvious that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an associative but noncommutative algebra under the Moyal $``$-product. For a given Laurent series $`A`$ we define its residue as $`\text{res}(A)=a_1`$ and its trace as $`\text{tr}(A)=\text{res}(A)`$. For any two Laurent series $`A=_ia_ip^i`$ and $`B=_jb_jp^j`$ we have

$$\text{res}(AB)=\underset{i,j}{}\frac{\kappa ^{ij+1}i!}{(ij+1)!(j1)!}(a_ib_j)^{(ij+1)}=\underset{i}{}a_ib_{i+1}$$
(3)
which is the same as the case in the dispersionless limit $`\kappa 0`$. We shall see that it’s because of the nice property (3) so that the Hamiltonian formulation for the Moyal KdV becomes possible. Using (3) it is easy to show that $`\text{tr}\{A,B\}_\kappa =0`$ and $`\text{tr}(A\{B,C\}_\kappa )=\text{tr}(\{A,B\}_\kappa C)`$. Here we simply remark that, due to the property (3), the Moyal $``$-product within the trace can be replaced by the ordinary multiplication. However we shall reserve the product for convenience.

Finally, given a functional $`F(A)=f(a)`$ we define its gradient as

$`d_AF={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta a_i}}p^{i1}`$where the variational derivative is defined by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta a_k}}={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(1)^i\left(^i{\displaystyle \frac{f}{a_k^{(i)}}}\right),`$with $`a_k^{(i)}(^ia_k),/x`$. Note that we shall use the notations $`f=f^{}=f/x`$ and $`f=f+f^{}`$ in the following sections.

The Moyal KdV hierarchy is defined by the Lax equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{t_k}}`$ $`=`$ $`\{(L^{1/n})_+^k,L\}_\kappa ,(L^{1/n})_+^k=(\underset{k}{\underset{}{L^{1/n}L^{1/n}\mathrm{}L^{1/n}}})_+`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`\{L,(L^{1/n})_{}^k\}_\kappa `$ (5)
where the Lax operator $`L=p^n+_{i=0}^{n1}u_ip^i`$ is a polynomial in $`p`$ and $`L^{1/n}=p+_{i=0}a_ip^i`$ is the $`n`$th root of $`L`$ in such a way that

$`L=\underset{n}{\underset{}{L^{1/n}L^{1/n}\mathrm{}L^{1/n}}}.`$From the definition of the Moyal bracket, the highest order in $`p`$ on the right-hand side of the Lax equations (5) is $`n2`$. That means $`u_{n1}`$ is trivial in evolution equations and thus can be dropped in the Lax formulation. However, this is not the case for the Hamiltonian formulation (see next section).

Let us work out the simplest example. For $`n=2`$, $`L=p^2+u`$ and we have $`L^{1/2}=p+_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}a_ip^i`$ with

$`a_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u,`$
$`a_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}u^2,`$
$`a_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}u^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\kappa ^2(u_x^22uu_{xx}),`$
$`a_7`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{128}}u^4{\displaystyle \frac{5}{16}}\kappa ^2(uu_x^22u^2u_{xx}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\kappa ^4(u_{xx}^22u_xu_{xxx}+2uu^{(4)}),`$
$`a_9`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7}{256}}u^5+{\displaystyle \frac{35}{64}}\kappa ^2(u^2u_x^22u^3u_{xx})+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{16}}\kappa ^4(uu_{xx}^24uu_xu_{xxx}+3u^2u^{(4)}3u_{xx}u_x^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\kappa ^6(u_xu^{(5)}uu^{(6)}),`$
and $`a_{2k}=0`$ etc. The first few Lax flows are given by

$`u_{t_1}`$ $`=`$ $`u_x,`$ (6)
$`u_{t_3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}uu_x+\kappa ^2u_{xxx},`$ (7)
$`u_{t_5}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{15}{8}}u^2u_x+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\kappa ^2(uu_{xxx}+2u_xu_{xx})+\kappa ^4u^{(5)},`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{}`$ (9)
The set of equations (8) form what we call the Moyal KdV hierarchy which can also be obtained from the reduction of the Moyal KP hierarchy  or noncommutative zero-curvature equations . Note that, when $`\kappa =0`$, all higher-order derivative terms disappear and the Moyal KdV hierarchy reduces to the dispersionless KdV hierarchy which is of the hydrodynamic type . In this sense, the Moyal parameter $`\kappa `$ characterizes the dispersion effect. On the other hand, when $`\kappa =1/2`$, the Moyal KdV hierarchy (8) recovers the ordinary KdV hierarchy. This is not an accident due to the fact that, at $`\kappa =1/2`$, the Moyal KP hierarchy is isomorphic with the ordinary KP hierarchy . Thus the Moyal KdV is isomorphic with the ordinary KdV as well. For example, it is not hard to show that the Moyal Boussinesq hierarchy ($`L=p^3+u_1p+u_0`$) at $`\kappa =1/2`$ is isomorphic with the ordinary Boussinesq hierarchy ($`L=^3+v_1+v_0`$) by identifying

$$u_1=v_1,u_0=v_0\frac{1}{2}v_1^{}.$$
(10)
Finally we like to remark that a similar construction was established in . However, it was pointed out in  that the Lax equations obtained there do not have dispersionless limit as $`\kappa 0`$, not without a scaling transformation.

## III Bi-Hamiltonian structure

Having introduced the Lax formalism, in this section, we would like to discuss the Hamiltonian formalism of the Moyal KdV hierarchy. For the Lax operator $`L=p^n+_{i=0}^{n1}u_ip^i`$ and functionals $`F[L]`$ and $`G[L]`$ we define the second Gelfand-Dickey bracket  with respect to the Moyal $``$-product as

$$\{F,G\}_2=\text{tr}(J^{(2)}(d_LF)d_LG)=\text{res}(J^{(2)}(d_LF)d_LG)$$
(11)
in which $`J^{(2)}`$ is the Adler map defined by

$`J^{(2)}(X)`$ $`=`$ $`\{L,X\}_{\kappa +}L\{L,(XL)_+\}_\kappa ,`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`\{L,(XL)_{}\}_\kappa \{L,X\}_\kappa L`$ (13)
where $`X=_{i=1}^nx_ip^{i1}`$. To verify that $`J^{(2)}`$ is indeed Hamiltonian, we have to check that the Poisson bracket defined in (11) is antisymmetric and obeys the Jacobi identity. For antisymmetry, it can be easily shown that $`\{F,G\}_2=\{G,F\}_2`$ by using the cyclic property of the trace. For the Jacobi identity, instead of direct computation, we shall justify it by the Kupershmidt-Wilson (KW) theorem  that will be done in Sec.V.

Since $`J^{(2)}(X)`$ is linear in $`X`$ and has order at most $`n1`$ thus

$`J^{(2)}(X)={\displaystyle \underset{i,j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}(J_{ij}^{(2)}x_j)p^i`$where $`J_{ij}^{(2)}`$ are differential operators.

To impose the reduction $`u_{n1}=0`$, the standard Dirac procedure  gives

$$\widehat{J}^{(2)}(X)=\{L,X\}_{\kappa +}L\{L,(XL)_+\}_\kappa +\frac{1}{n}\{L,^x\text{res}\{L,X\}_\kappa \}_\kappa $$
(14)
or, in components,

$$\widehat{J}_{ij}^{(2)}=J_{ij}^{(2)}J_{i,n1}^{(2)}(J_{n1,n1}^{(2)})^1J_{n1,j}^{(2)}.$$
(15)
Hence the reduced Poisson brackets for $`u_i`$ can be expressed as

$$\{u_i(x),u_j(y)\}_2^D=\widehat{J}_{ij}^{(2)}\delta (xy).$$
(16)
So far we only discuss the second Poisson structure. To obtain the first structure, as usual, one can deform the second structure by shifting $`LL+\lambda `$ (or $`u_0u_0+\lambda `$) and extract the first structure from the term proportional to $`\lambda `$. It turns out that

$`J^{(1)}(X)=\{L,X\}_{\kappa +}={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n2}{}}}(J_{ij}^{(1)}x_j)p^i`$which is compatible with the reduction $`u_{n1}=0`$. The first Poisson brackets for $`u_i`$ read

$$\{u_i(x),u_j(y)\}_1=J_{ij}^{(1)}\delta (xy).$$
(17)
Using the GD brackets (16) and (17), the Lax flows (5) can be written as Hamiltonian flows as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{t_k}}=\{H_k,L\}_2^D=\{H_{k+n},L\}_1`$or, in components,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{u_i}{t_k}}=\widehat{J}_{ij}^{(2)}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta H_k}{\delta u_j}}=J_{ij}^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta H_{k+n}}{\delta u_j}}`$where the Hamiltonians $`H_k`$ are defined by

$$H_k=\frac{n}{k}\text{res}(L^{1/n}\mathrm{}L^{1/n}).$$
(18)
For $`n=2`$, $`L=p^2+u`$ and the bi-Hamiltonian structure is given by

$`\{u(x),u(y)\}_1`$ $`=`$ $`2\delta (xy),`$ (19)
$`\{u(x),u(y)\}_2^D`$ $`=`$ $`[2\kappa ^2^3+2u+u_x]\delta (xy).`$ (20)
The first few Hamiltonians from (18) are

$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle u},`$
$`H_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle u^2},`$
$`H_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle (u^3+2\kappa ^2uu_{xx})},`$
$`H_7`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64}}{\displaystyle (5u^440\kappa ^2uu_x^2+16\kappa ^4u_{xx}^2)},`$
which together with (20) implies

$`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{t_{2n+1}}}=[2\kappa ^2^3+2u+u_x]{\displaystyle \frac{\delta H_{2n+1}}{\delta u}}=2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta H_{2n+3}}{\delta u}}.`$Therefore we obtain the following recursion relation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{t_{2n+1}}}=R{\displaystyle \frac{u}{t_{2n1}}}`$with the recursion operator

$`R=\widehat{J}^{(2)}(J^{(1)})^1=\kappa ^2+u+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_x^1`$where the inverse operator $`^1`$ is realized as $`^1f=^xf`$.

## IV Moyal deformation of classical $`W_n`$-algebras

In general, for the $`n`$th-order generalized Moyal KdV, we can substitute $`L`$ and $`X`$ into $`J^{(1)}(X)`$ and $`\widehat{J}^{(2)}(X)`$ to read off the Hamiltonian operators $`J_{ij}^{(1)}`$ and $`\widehat{J}_{ij}^{(2)}`$. For the first structure, it is quite easy to show

$`J_{ij}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`n,(i+j=n2)`$
$`J_{ij}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa ^{<nji2>}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{<nji2>+1}}\right)^{<nji2>+1}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{l=i}{\overset{n4j}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{<li>+1}{}}}\kappa ^{<li>}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{l+j+2}{<li>+1m}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j+m}{j}}\right)u_{l+j+2}^{(m)}^{<li>+1m},`$
$`(i+jn4)`$
and $`J_{ij}^{(1)}=0`$ otherwise, where $`<..>=0`$ unless it’s an even number. On the other hand, the case for the second structure is more complicated. From (13) we have

$`J^{(2)}(X)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{nl1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{m+k}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{m+ks}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{q=m}{\overset{nl1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{qm}{}}}\kappa ^{<k+qs1>}(1)^i\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{sk+i}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{i}}\right)`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{q+l+1}{j}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{q+lmj}{l}}\right)u_k^{(m+ksi)}\left(u_{q+l+1}^{(qmj)}x_l^{(j)}\right)^{(i)}p^s.`$
In particular,

$`J_{n1,n1}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`n,`$
$`J_{s,n1}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=s}{\overset{n}{}}}\kappa ^{<ks1>}(1)^{ks}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{s}}\right)u_k^{ks},`$
$`J_{s,n2}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=s}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{q}{}}}\kappa ^{<ks+q1>}(1)^{ks}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{s}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{q+n1}{j}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{qj+n2}{n2}}\right)u_k^{ks}u_{q+n1}^{(qj)}^j`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k=s}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{1+ks}{}}}\kappa ^{<ks>}(1)^i\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{1+ksi}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{i}}\right)u_k^{1+ksi}^i`$
which together with (15) yields the reduced Poisson algebras

$`\{u_{n2}(x),u_{n2}(y)\}_2^D`$ $`=`$ $`[\kappa ^2{\displaystyle \frac{(n^3n)}{3}}^3+2u_{n2}+u_{n2}^{}]\delta (xy),`$ (21)
$`\{u_{n3}(x),u_{n2}(y)\}_2^D`$ $`=`$ $`[3u_{n3}+u_{n3}^{}]\delta (xy),`$ (22)
$`\{u_{n4}(x),u_{n2}(y)\}_2^D`$ $`=`$ $`[\kappa ^4{\displaystyle \frac{(n+1)n(n1)(n2)(n3)}{30}}^5`$ (25)
$`+\kappa ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{(n2)(n3)(n+2)}{3}}u_{n2}^3+{\displaystyle \frac{(n2)(n3)}{2}}u_{n2}^{}^2\right)`$
$`+4u_{n4}+u_{n4}^{}]\delta (xy),`$
$`\{u_{n3}(x),u_{n3}(y)\}_2^D`$ $`=`$ $`[\kappa ^4{\displaystyle \frac{(n+2)(n+1)n(n1)(n2)}{45}}^5\kappa ^2({\displaystyle \frac{2(n2)(n+2)}{3}}u_{n2}^3`$ (28)
$`+(n2)(n+2)u_{n2}^{}^2+n(n2)u_{n2}^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(n2)}{3}}u_{n2}^{\prime \prime \prime })`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2(n2)}{n}}u_{n2}u_{n2}+4u_{n4}+2u_{n4}^{}]\delta (xy).`$
Thus $`u_{n2}(x)`$ can be identified as the energy-momentum $`T(x)`$ of the Virasoro algebra with central charge $`c(n,\kappa )=\kappa ^2(n^3n)/3`$ whereas the other coefficient functions $`u_i`$, with respect to $`u_{n2}`$, are not primaries except $`u_{n3}`$ which is a spin-3 primary field $`W_3`$. However, if we appropriately linearly combine the differential polynomials of $`u_i`$, then the primary fields $`W_i(i4)`$ can be constructed such that $`\{W_i(x),u_{n2}(y)\}_2^D=[iW_i+W_i^{}]\delta (xy)`$. In summary, we have

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`u_{n2},`$ (29)
$`W_3`$ $`=`$ $`u_{n3},`$ (30)
$`W_4`$ $`=`$ $`u_{n4}\kappa ^2{\displaystyle \frac{(n2)(n3)}{10}}u_{n2}^{\prime \prime }\kappa ^4{\displaystyle \frac{(n2)(n3)(5n+7)}{10(n^3n)}}u_{n2}^2`$ (31)
etc. Based on the above discussions and some computations we expect that the $`W_n^{(1/2)}`$ algebra coincides with the classical $`W_n`$ algebra associated with the ordinary differential Lax operator $`L=^n+_{u=0}^{n2}v_i^i`$. We remark that the above relationship between the primaries $`W_i`$ and the coefficient functions $`u_i`$ is different from those tabulated in  due to the fact that the Moyal KdV at $`\kappa =1/2`$ is isomorphic with the ordinary KdV. As an illustration, again, let us consider the differential Lax operator $`L=^3+v_1+v_0(n=3)`$. The primary fields are given by

$`T=v_1,W_3=v_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v_1^{}`$which together with the isomorphism (10) implies

$`T=u_1,W_3=u_0.`$as desired. For higher primaries, such as $`W_4`$ in (30), one can verify the corresponding modifications in the same manner.

Before ending this section, it should be mentioned that, in the limit $`\kappa 0`$, both algebraic structures $`J_{ij}^{(1)}`$ and $`\widehat{J}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ will reduce to their corresponding dispersionless counterparts . Particularly, for the second structure $`\widehat{J}_{ij}^{(2)}`$, the coefficient functions $`u_i`$ under this limit are already primary fields with respect to $`u_{n2}`$, the generator of Diff$`S^1`$.

## V KW Theorem and free-field realization

Recall that the Poisson bracket defined by the Adler map (13) is given by

$`\{F,G\}_2(L)=\text{tr}\left[J^{(2)}(d_LF)d_LG\right]`$where $`F`$ and $`G`$ are functionals of $`L`$. Suppose the Lax operator $`L`$ can be factorized as $`L=L_1L_2`$, then from the variation

$`\delta F`$ $`=`$ $`\text{tr}(d_LF\delta L)=\text{tr}(d_{L_1}F\delta L_1+d_{L_2}F\delta L_2),`$
$`=`$ $`\text{tr}(d_LF\delta L_1L_2+d_LFL_1\delta L_2)`$
and (3) we have

$$d_{L_1}F=L_2d_LF,d_{L_2}F=d_LFL_1.$$
(32)
With the use of (3) and (32) the proof for the KW theorem is almost a repetition of that for the dispersionless case . We shall not spell it out here. It turns out that

$`\{F,G\}_2(L_1L_2)=\{F,G\}_2(L_1)+\{F,G\}_2(L_2).`$Hence, if we factorize the Lax operator as $`L=p^n+_{i=1}^nu_ip^i=(p+\varphi _1)\mathrm{}(p+\varphi _n)`$ which defines a Miura transformation between the coefficients $`\{u_i\}`$ and the Miura variables $`\{\varphi _i\}`$, then the second GD bracket becomes

$`\{F,G\}_2(L)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle (\frac{\delta F}{\delta \varphi _i})^{}(\frac{\delta G}{\delta \varphi _i})}`$which yields the Poisson brackets

$`\{\varphi _i(x),\varphi _j(y)\}_2=\delta _{ij}\delta (xy),i,j=1,\mathrm{},n`$The above brackets immediately justify the Jacobi identity for the second GD bracket (11) as we claimed in Sec. III. To impose the reduction $`u_{n1}=0`$, in view of $`u_{n1}=_{i=1}^n\varphi _i`$, we have

$$\{\varphi _i(x),\varphi _j(y)\}_2^D=\left[\frac{1}{n}\delta _{ij}\right]\delta (xy).$$
(33)
Equation (33) enables us to write down the reduced Poisson brackets of $`u_i`$ through the Miura transformation. Since the Poisson matrix in (33) is a $`n\times n`$ symmetric matrix, thus it can be diagonalized to obtain the free-field realization of the $`W_n^{(\kappa )}`$ algebra.

## VI $`W_3^{(\kappa )}`$ and $`W_4^{(\kappa )}`$-algebras

Let us work out the examples $`n=3`$ and $`n=4`$. For $`n=3`$, $`L=p^3+u_1p+u_0`$ and $`X=x_1p^2+x_0p^1`$ then the Poisson algebras for $`u_1=T`$ and $`u_0=W_3`$ are

$`\{T(x),T(y)\}_2^D`$ $`=`$ $`[8\kappa ^2^3+2T+T^{}]\delta (xy),`$
$`\{W_3(x),T(y)\}_2^D`$ $`=`$ $`[3W_3+W_3^{}]\delta (xy),`$
$`\{W_3(x),W_3(y)\}_2^D`$ $`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\kappa ^4^5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\kappa ^2(10T^3+15T^{}^2+9T^{\prime \prime }+2T^{\prime \prime \prime }){\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}TT]\delta (xy)`$
which is $`W_3^{(\kappa )}`$. In the limit $`\kappa 0`$, the $`W_3^{(0)}`$ algebra is just $`\text{w}_3`$  which is a nonlinear extension of Diff$`S^1`$ by a spin-3 primary field, while $`\kappa =1/2`$, $`W_3^{(1/2)}`$ is nothing but the classical realization of the Zamolodchikov’s $`W_3`$ algebra presented in .

If we factorize the Lax operator as

$`L=(p+\varphi _1)(p+\varphi _2)(p\varphi _1\varphi _2)`$then the primary fields can be expressed in terms of the Miura variables as

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`(\varphi _1^2+\varphi _1\varphi _2+\varphi _2^2)2\kappa (2\varphi _1^{}+\varphi _2^{}),`$
$`W_3`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _1\varphi _2(\varphi _1+\varphi _2)\kappa (\varphi _2\varphi _1^{}+2\varphi _2\varphi _2^{}+3\varphi _1\varphi _2^{})2\kappa ^2\varphi _2^{\prime \prime }.`$
Through the above Miura transformation the $`W_3^{(\kappa )}`$ can be rederived by using those brackets of $`\varphi _i`$.

For $`n=4`$, $`L=p^4+u_2p^2+u_1p+u_0`$ and $`X=x_2p^3+x_1p^2+x_0p^1`$. Then from (14) we have

$`\{u_2(x),u_2(y)\}_2^D`$ $`=`$ $`[20\kappa ^2^3+2u_2+u_2^{}]\delta (xy),`$
$`\{u_1(x),u_2(y)\}_2^D`$ $`=`$ $`[3u_1+u_1^{}]\delta (xy),`$
$`\{u_0(x),u_2(y)\}_2^D`$ $`=`$ $`[4\kappa ^4^5+\kappa ^2(4u_2^3+u_2^{}^2)+4u_0+u_0^{}]\delta (xy),`$
$`\{u_1(x),u_1(y)\}_2^D`$ $`=`$ $`[16\kappa ^4^52\kappa ^2(4u_2^3+6u_2^{}^2+4u_2^{\prime \prime }+u_2^{\prime \prime \prime })`$
$`u_2u_2+4u_0+2u_0^{}]\delta (xy),`$
$`\{u_0(x),u_1(y)\}_2^D`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\kappa ^2(5u_1^3+4u_1^{}^2+u_1^{\prime \prime }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_1u_2\right]\delta (xy),`$
$`\{u_0(x),u_0(y)\}_2^D`$ $`=`$ $`[4\kappa ^6^7+\kappa ^4(6u_2^5+15u_2^{}^4+20u_2^{\prime \prime }^3+15u_2^{\prime \prime \prime }^2+6u_2^{(4)}+u_2^{(5)})`$
$`+\kappa ^2((4u_0+2u_2^2)^3+(6u_0^{}+6u_2u_2^{})^2+(4u_2u_2^{\prime \prime }+2(u_2^{})^2+4u_0^{\prime \prime })`$
$`+(u_2u_2^{\prime \prime \prime }+u_2^{}u_2^{\prime \prime }+u_0^{\prime \prime \prime }))+(2u_0u_23u_1^2/4)`$
$`+(u_2u_0^{}+u_0u_2^{}3u_1u_1^{}/4)]\delta (xy).`$
According to (30), if we define $`T=u_2,W_3=u_1`$, and $`W_4=u_0\kappa ^2u_2^{\prime \prime }/59\kappa ^4u_2^2/100`$ then the brackets involving $`W_4`$ are

$`\{W_4(x),T(y)\}_2^D`$ $`=`$ $`[4W_4+W_4^{}]\delta (xy),`$
$`\{W_4(x),W_3(y)\}_2^D`$ $`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{9}{50}}\kappa ^4(3TW_3+2TW_3^{}){\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}\kappa ^2(14W_3^3+14W_3^{}^2+6W_3^{\prime \prime }+W_3^{\prime \prime \prime })`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(W_3T+W_3T^{})]\delta (xy),`$
$`\{W_4(x),W_4(y)\}_2^D`$ $`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^{10}}{125}}(81T^2^3+243TT^{}^2+243TT^{\prime \prime }+81TT^{\prime \prime \prime })`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^8}{2500}}(243T^2T^{}+81T^3)+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^6}{250}}(800^7288T^2^3864TT^{}^2`$
$`+(54(T^{})^2918TT^{\prime \prime })+27T^{}T^{\prime \prime }315TT^{\prime \prime \prime })`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^4}{100}}(448T^5+1120T^{}^4+1344T^{\prime \prime }^3+896T^{\prime \prime \prime }^2`$
$`+(18T^3+120T^{(4)}144TW_4)+27T^2T^{}72(TW_4)^{}+48T^{(5)})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{5}}((12W_4+10T^2)^3+(18W_4^{}+30TT^{})^2`$
$`+(10W_4^{\prime \prime }+22TT^{\prime \prime }+10(T^{})^2)+2W_4^{\prime \prime \prime }+6T^{}T^{\prime \prime }+6TT^{\prime \prime \prime })`$
$`+TW_4+W_4T{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}W_3W_3]\delta (xy)`$
which together with the rest of the bracket constitute the $`W_4^{(\kappa )}`$. Since the discussions for the limiting cases $`W_4^{(0)}`$ and $`W_4^{(1/2)}`$ are similar to those of $`W_3^{(\kappa )}`$, hence we omit it here.

## VII Concluding remarks

We have studied the integrability of the Moyal KdV hierarchy from Lax and Hamiltonian point of views. We show that the bi-Hamiltonian structure is encoded by the GD structure defined by the Moyal $``$-product. We work out the GD brackets and investigate the associated conformal algebras. The $`W_n^{(\kappa )}`$ algebra we obtained can be viewed as an one parameter deformation of the classical $`W_n`$ algebra arising from the differential Lax formalism. We prove the KW theorem for the second GD structure by factorizing the Lax operator and obtain a $`\kappa `$-independent free-field realization.

In spite of the results obtained, few remarks are in order. First, we may generalize the construction in this paper to the Moyal KP hierarchy  and investigate its associated $`W_{KP}^{(\kappa )}`$ algebra by considering the Lax operator $`L=p^n+_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}u_{ni}p^{ni}`$. We expect that $`W_{KP}^{(1/2)}`$ would coincide with the $`W_{KP}`$ algebra  defined by the pseudo-differential operator. Secondly, it would be interesting to search for some topological models so that their RG flows in module spaces are governed by the Moyal KdV equations. Works in these directions are now in progress.

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Prof. C. Zachos for his historical comment on the $``$-product. M.H.T thanks the National Science Council of Taiwan (Grant No. NSC 89-2112-M194-020) for support.

Note added: After submission of this manuscript for publication we become aware of the preprint by A. Das and Z. Popowicz  which partly overlaps our work.