format: text

text:
# Planar Dirac fermions in long-range-correlated random vector potential

## 1 Introduction

In recent years, the standard theory of electron localization in two dimensions has been extended to the situations where, instead of potential disorder, the fermions are subject to a random vector potential (often referred to as random magnetic field or RMF) whose Gaussian spatial fluctuations are described by a pairwise correlator

$$a_i(\stackrel{}{q})a_j(\stackrel{}{q}^{})=w_{ij}(\stackrel{}{q})\delta (\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{q}^{}),$$
(1)
where $`w_{ij}(\stackrel{}{q})=(\alpha /|\stackrel{}{q}|^\eta )\left(\delta _{ij}\frac{q_iq_j}{q^2}\right)`$.

This problem was first encountered and then extensively studied in the context of the compressible Quantum Hall Effect at even denominator filling fractions. In order to describe the ostensibly Fermi liquid-like properties of these strongly correlated electronic states, a new kind of quasiparticles (“composite fermions”) which would effectively “see” an ordinary potential disorder as a long-range-correlated RMF described by Eq.(1) with $`\eta =2`$ was introduced in .

Shortly thereafter, a (pseudo)relativistic version of the short-range-correlated, $`\eta =0`$, RMF problem had been proposed as the means of describing the Integer Quantum Hall plateau transitions  where it was later identified with the continuum limit of some network models. The intrinsic scale invariance of the $`\eta =0`$ problem prompted the use of the powerful machinery of two-dimensional conformal field theory in most of the subsequent work on this topic.

Recently, a novel (this time, long-range correlated, $`\eta =2`$) variant of the relativistic RMF problem has emerged in the theory of localization of the Dirac-like nodal quasiparticles in the mixed state of planar $`d`$-wave superconductors.

In the presence of vortices of the $`d`$-wave superconducting order parameter, not only do the nodal quasiparticles’ energies get semiclassically Doppler shifted due to the circulating supercurrent , but also their wave functions acquire intrinsically quantum mechanical Bohm-Aharonov (BA) phases.

In order to account for both effects on equal footing, a singular gauge transformation similar to that of Ref. was implemented in Ref.. In the case of a disordered vortex array, which corresponds to the experimentally well-documented vortex line liquid phase where the vortices are believed to be randomly pinned by columnar or other strong defects, the transformation of Ref. converts the nodal quasiparticles into auxiliary neutral Dirac fermions. The latter, in addition to a random scalar potential accounting for the Doppler shift, are subject to an effective RMF with zero mean described by Eq.(1) where $`\eta =2`$ and $`\alpha `$ is proportional to the areal density of vortices .

Moreover, a formally similar RMF problem has emerged in the theory of the pseudogap phase of the cuprates described as a plasma of thermally excited vortex-antivortex pairs, the parameter $`\alpha `$ being proportional to temperature . Furthermore, one encounters yet another formal analog of this problem when analyzing the effect of topological structural defects (dislocations) on the Dirac-like electronic excitations with the momenta near conical ($`K`$-)points in the hexagonal Brillouin zone of a graphite layer .

However, despite its occurrence in all of the above physical situations, the $`\eta =2`$ RMF problem for massless Dirac fermions has, thus far, remained unsolved. In fact, this problem does not appear to be readily amenable to any of the methods applied to its previously studied $`\eta =2`$ non-relativistic  and $`\eta =0`$ Dirac  counterparts.

In the present paper, we fill in this gap by developing a novel non-perturbative path integral approach to the single-fermion action

$$\mathrm{S}=d\stackrel{}{r}dt\overline{\psi }(t,\stackrel{}{r})\left[i\widehat{\gamma }_0_t\widehat{\stackrel{}{\gamma }}(\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{a}(\stackrel{}{r}))\right]\psi (t,\stackrel{}{r}),$$
(2)
where the correlation properties of the static random vector potential $`\stackrel{}{a}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ are governed by Eq.(1), and the $`\widehat{\gamma }_\mu `$-matrices obey the algebra $`\{\widehat{\gamma }_\mu ,\widehat{\gamma }_\nu \}=\stackrel{}{1}\delta _{\mu \nu }`$ (hereafter, we put the speed of the Dirac fermions equal to unity).

## 2 Path integral representation for gauge-invariant propagator

In order to gain a preliminary insight into the problem we first attempt to apply the customary self-consistent Born approximation (SCBA) to the conventional (retarded) fermion propagator $`\widehat{\mathrm{G}}^R(t,\stackrel{}{r})=\mathrm{\Theta }(t)\psi (t,\stackrel{}{r})\overline{\psi }(0,\stackrel{}{0})`$. A closed SCBA equation can be obtained for the fermion self-energy which is defined via the Fourier transform $`\widehat{\mathrm{G}}^R(ϵ,\stackrel{}{p})=[ϵ\widehat{\gamma }_0\stackrel{}{p}\widehat{\stackrel{}{\gamma }}+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^R(ϵ,\stackrel{}{p})]^1`$

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^R(ϵ,\stackrel{}{p})=\frac{\mathrm{d}\stackrel{}{q}}{(2\pi )^2}w_{ij}(\stackrel{}{q})\widehat{\gamma }_i\widehat{\mathrm{G}}^R(ϵ,\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q})\widehat{\gamma }_j.$$
(3)
Although one can readily solve Eq.(3) for any $`\eta <2`$, including the previously studied case of $`\eta =0`$ , at $`\eta =2`$ the analysis is impeded by the fact that this equation now exhibits an infrared divergence with the size $`L`$ of the system ($`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\widehat{\gamma }_0\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}L}`$), thus rendering the SCBA inapplicable.

This intrinsic divergence remains for all $`ϵ`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}`$, even if one proceeds beyond the SCBA by replacing (3) with the equation $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=n\widehat{\mathrm{T}}\widehat{\mathrm{G}}`$, where $`n`$ stands for the density of Poissonian-distributed localized RMF sources (hereafter, motivated by the discussion of the mixed state of $`d`$-wave superconductors, we refer to them as “vortices”). Although the exact $`\mathrm{T}`$-matrix given by the expression $`\widehat{\mathrm{T}}=\widehat{w}(\widehat{I}\widehat{\mathrm{G}}\widehat{w})^1`$ does account for all the events of multiple scattering by the same vortex, the above infrared divergence can not be made disappear, for it is directly related to the non-gauge invariant nature of $`\widehat{\mathrm{G}}^R(t,\stackrel{}{r})`$.

This problem does not arise, however, when calculating such observables such as the gauge-invariant Green function of the nodal quasiparticles introduced in in the context of the $`d`$-wave superconductors \[13, 14, FT2\]

$$\widehat{\mathrm{G}}_{\mathrm{inv}}^R(t,\stackrel{}{r})=\mathrm{\Theta }(t)\psi (t,\stackrel{}{r})\mathrm{exp}\left(i_\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{}{a}(\stackrel{}{r}^{})d\stackrel{}{r}^{}\right)\overline{\psi }(0,\stackrel{}{0}),$$
(4)
which is manifestly invariant under arbitrary time-independent gauge transformations for any choice of the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

In Refs., where the amplitude (4) was discussed in the case of a dynamic vector potential $`\stackrel{}{a}(t,\stackrel{}{r})`$ (the latter being a part of the fictitious time-dependent gauge field representing either spin  or pairing  fluctuations), the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ was chosen as a straight line between the end points $`(0,\stackrel{}{0})`$ and $`(t,\stackrel{}{r})`$.

It must be noted, however, that in the Lorentz-invariant situation considered in Refs. the amplitude (4) with the straight-line contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ appears to exhibit an unphysical power-law behavior characterized by a negative (instead of a positive, as one would have expected on the general physical grounds and as Refs. erroneously claimed to be the case) anomalous exponent .

Although, thus far, no physically sound alternative to the heuristic form of Eq.(4) conjectured in Refs. has been found, it turns out that in the non-Lorentz-invariant case of a static vector potential $`\stackrel{}{a}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ the situation is rather different.

Namely, in the case of interest, the most important features, such as the mean free path (see Eqs.(11,12) below) which controls the exponential (rather than a power-law, as in the case of a dynamic RMF ) decay of Eq.(4) or the structure of the ”near-shell” singularity of the fermion spectral function (see Eqs.(13,14) below), remain robust against deformations of the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (apparently, in the static case the only potentially important is the spatial projection of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, whereas its pitch in the temporal direction is not).

Moreover, while being representative of the properties of a generic gauge-invariant one-fermion amplitude, the above choice of the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ facilitates the calculation of Eq.(4) along the lines of the earlier analyses of the non-relativistic version of the $`\eta =2`$ RMF problem .

Of course, the spinor nature of the amplitude (4) makes it impossible to apply the results of Refs. directly. Therefore, we first utilize the (relatively unknown) path integral representation devised in  and, for a fixed RMF configuration $`\{\stackrel{}{a}(\stackrel{}{r})\}`$, cast the time Fourier transform of Eq.(4) in the form of a path integral over the spatial coordinate $`\stackrel{}{r}(\tau )`$ and an auxiliary vector-like variable $`\stackrel{}{k}(\tau )`$ parametrized by the proper time $`\tau `$ (not to be confused with the real time $`t`$!)

$$\widehat{\mathrm{G}}_{\mathrm{inv}}^R(ϵ,\stackrel{}{r}|\stackrel{}{a})=i_0^{\mathrm{}}d\tau _{\stackrel{}{r}(0)=\stackrel{}{0}}^{\stackrel{}{r}(\tau )=\stackrel{}{r}}\mathrm{D}\stackrel{}{r}\mathrm{D}\stackrel{}{k}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\widehat{\mathrm{S}}_0(\tau )+i_0^\tau \stackrel{}{a}(\stackrel{}{r})\frac{\mathrm{d}\stackrel{}{r}}{\mathrm{d}\tau ^{}}d\tau ^{}i_\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{}{a}(\stackrel{}{r}^{})d\stackrel{}{r}^{}\right)$$
(5)
where the first term in the exponent represents the (matrix-valued) free fermion action

$$\widehat{\mathrm{S}}_0(\tau )=_0^\tau d\tau ^{}\left[ϵ\widehat{\gamma }_0+\stackrel{}{k}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\stackrel{}{r}}{\mathrm{d}\tau ^{}}\widehat{\stackrel{}{\gamma }}\right)\right],$$
(6)
while the other two correspond to the RMF coupling term in Eq.(2) and the line integral in the exponential factor inserted into Eq.(4), respectively. In Eq.(5), the usual $`\tau `$-ordering of the $`\widehat{\gamma }`$-matrices must be performed according to the order of their appearance in the series expansion of the exponent. In contrast to various approximate (e.g., Bloch-Nordsieck) representations, the integration over $`\stackrel{}{k}(\tau )`$ allows one to exactly account for the spinor structure of the fermion propagator.

Averaging (5) over the Gaussian RMF introduces the exponential attenuation factor

$$W[\stackrel{}{r}(\tau )]=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}_0^\tau d\tau _1_0^\tau d\tau _2\frac{\mathrm{d}\stackrel{}{q}}{(2\pi )^2}e^{i\stackrel{}{q}(\stackrel{}{r}(\tau _1)\stackrel{}{r}(\tau _2))}w_{ij}(\stackrel{}{q})\frac{\mathrm{d}r_i}{\mathrm{d}\tau _1}\frac{\mathrm{d}r_j}{\mathrm{d}\tau _2}\right],$$
(7)
whose argument, in the case of $`\eta =2`$, turns out to be proportional to the so-called Amperian area of a closed contour which is composed of a given trajectory $`\stackrel{}{r}(\tau )`$ and the straight-line segment traversed backwards (from $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ to $`\stackrel{}{0}`$) .

## 3 Gauge-invariant propagator in the ballistic regime

While being strictly positive, the Amperian area coincides with the absolute value of the regular (algebraic) one only for non-self-intersecting closed contours, which, strictly speaking, precludes Eq.(7) from being interpreted as an additional term in the effective Dirac action. Nevertheless, this becomes possible for the trajectories whose projections onto the straight path $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are single-valued, whence (7) reduces to

$$W[\stackrel{}{r}(\tau )]\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\alpha }{2}_0^r|x_{}|dx_{}\right),$$
(8)
where the parallel and transverse components of the vector $`\stackrel{}{r}(\tau )=(x_{},x_{})`$ are defined with respect to the direction of the fermion’s propagation.

The relativistic kinematics of the Dirac fermions makes the present situation markedly different from the previously studied non-relativistic version of the $`\eta =2`$ RMF problem . As opposed to the interpretation of the non-relativistic analog of $`\delta \mathrm{S}=i\mathrm{ln}W[\stackrel{}{r}(\tau )]`$ as an effective linear confining potential , Eq.(8) can be best thought of as an (imaginary) position-dependent mass whose linear increase with $`|x_{}|`$ restrains the Dirac fermion’s motion in the direction perpendicular to its “classical trajectory” $`\stackrel{}{r}_0(\tau )=\tau (\stackrel{}{r}/r)`$, the latter representing the saddle point of the path integral (5).

Comparing the saddle-point action $`\mathrm{S}_0ϵ\tau `$ to the characteristic RMF correction $`\delta \mathrm{S}(\alpha ϵ/p)^{1/2}\tau `$, we find that the condition $`\mathrm{S}_0\delta \mathrm{S}`$, under which the path integral (5) is dominated by the trajectories close to $`\stackrel{}{r}_0(\tau )`$, is satisfied in the “ballistic” regime of high energies and large momenta ($`ϵp\alpha `$).

In this regime, one can integrate over the momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}(\tau )`$, thereby effectively squaring the Dirac operator (for details, see ), as well as the longitudinal spatial $`x_{}(\tau )`$ component of the coordinate vector $`\stackrel{}{r}(\tau )`$, thus reducing (5) to the one-dimensional path integral over $`x_{}(\tau )`$.

As in the non-relativistic $`\eta =2`$ RMF problem , the computation of the remaining path integral amounts to finding the resolvent of the second order ordinary differential equation

$$\left[(p_{}^2ϵ^2)_{}^2+\left(\alpha ϵ/p_{}\right)^2x_{}^2+i\alpha \mathrm{sign}x_{}\right]g(ϵ,p_{}|x_{},x_{}^{})=\delta (x_{}x_{}^{}),$$
(9)
whose exact form can be readily obtained in terms of the Wronskian of a pair of linearly independent solutions of the corresponding homogeneous equation

$$g(ϵ,p_{}|0,0)=\sqrt{\frac{ip_{}}{\alpha |ϵ|}}\left[\underset{\lambda =\pm }{}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(z_\lambda +1/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(z_\lambda )}\right]^1,$$
(10)
where $`z_\lambda =ip_{}(ϵ\lambda p_{})(ϵ+\lambda p_{}+i\alpha /p_{})/4ϵ\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)`$ is the standard $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-function.

The asymptotical large-distance behavior of the gauge-invariant propagator is controlled by the closest to the real $`p_{}`$-axis zero of the denominator in Eq.(10). Applying to $`g(ϵ,p_{}|0,0)`$ the one-dimensional Fourier transformation with respect to $`p_{}`$ we arrive at the expression

$$\widehat{\mathrm{G}}_{\mathrm{inv}}^R(ϵ,\stackrel{}{r})\left(ϵ\widehat{\gamma }_0\frac{\stackrel{}{r}}{r^2}\widehat{\stackrel{}{\gamma }}\right)\frac{e^{r/l}}{\sqrt{|ϵ|l}}\mathrm{sin}(|ϵ|r+\varphi _1),$$
(11)
where $`\varphi _11`$, which decays exponentially at $`r\mathrm{}`$ with the characteristic length scale

$$l\frac{8|ϵ|}{\pi \alpha }$$
(12)
The latter can be naturally identified with the RMF mean free path which, according to Eq.(12), decreases as the fermion energy gets lower, contrary to the situation for $`\eta =0`$  (but qualitatively similar to that found in the non-relativistic variant of the $`\eta =2`$ problem where $`l|ϵ|^{1/6}\alpha ^{2/3}`$ ).

The “near-maximum” ($`|ϵ^2p^2|<\alpha `$) behavior of the electron spectral function is determined by the two-dimensional Fourier transform of $`\mathrm{Im}\widehat{\mathrm{G}}_{\mathrm{inv}}^R(ϵ,\stackrel{}{r})`$ which can be obtained by convoluting Eq.(10) with the kernel $`(p^2q^2)^{3/2}`$, thus resulting in the expression

$$\mathrm{Im}\widehat{\mathrm{G}}_{\mathrm{inv}}^R(ϵ,\stackrel{}{p})\sqrt{\frac{ϵ}{l}}\frac{ϵ\widehat{\gamma }_0\stackrel{}{p}\widehat{\stackrel{}{\gamma }}}{[(ϵ^2p^2)^2+(ϵ/l)^2]^{3/4}},$$
(13)
which explicitly demonstrates that the bare pole gets replaced by branch cuts of the function $`z_\lambda ^{3/2}`$ (hence the emergence of the exponent 3/4 in (13)).

At larger deviations from the maximum ($`\alpha |ϵ^2p^2|<ϵ^2`$) the spectral function is determined by the large-$`z_\lambda `$ asymptotics of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-functions in Eq.(10). In this limit, the spectral function resembles the Lorentzian

$$\mathrm{Im}\widehat{\mathrm{G}}_{\mathrm{inv}}^R(ϵ,\stackrel{}{p})\alpha \frac{ϵ\widehat{\gamma }_0\stackrel{}{p}\widehat{\stackrel{}{\gamma }}}{(ϵ^2p^2)^2+\alpha ^2},$$
(14)
although, under a closer inspection, the shape of $`\mathrm{Im}\widehat{\mathrm{G}}_{\mathrm{inv}}^R(ϵ,\stackrel{}{p})`$ turns out to be asymmetrical as a result of the Lorentz invariance’s being broken by the static disorder. Moreover, the product of its maximum height and width reveals a marked departure from the Lorentzian value ($`\pi /4`$ instead of $`1`$).

## 4 Averaged products of Green functions

Our eikonal-type approach also enables one to study other gauge-invariant physical observables, such as a correlation function of the local density of states (DOS) which is related to the average $`\widehat{\mathrm{G}}^R\widehat{\mathrm{G}}^R`$. Owing to its gauge invariant nature, the latter is free of infrared divergencies and can be cast in the form of a two-particle path integral

$`\widehat{\mathrm{G}}^R(ϵ,\stackrel{}{r})\widehat{\mathrm{G}}^R(ϵ,\stackrel{}{r})={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\tau _1{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\tau _2{\displaystyle _0^\stackrel{}{r}}\mathrm{D}\stackrel{}{r}_1\mathrm{D}\stackrel{}{k}_1{\displaystyle _0^\stackrel{}{r}}\mathrm{D}\stackrel{}{r}_2\mathrm{D}\stackrel{}{k}_2`$ (15)
$`e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{S}}_0(\tau _1)}e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{S}}_0(\tau _2)}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1,2}{}}W(\stackrel{}{r}_i(\tau _1)\stackrel{}{r}_j(\tau _2)),`$ (16)
where the product of the $`W`$-factors yields the exponent of the Amperian area of the closed contour formed by a pair of trajectories $`\stackrel{}{r}_1(\tau )`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}_2(\tau )`$.

We mention, in passing, that the average (15) equals that composed of a pair of gauge-invariant amplitudes ($`\widehat{\mathrm{G}}^R\widehat{\mathrm{G}}^R=\widehat{\mathrm{G}}_{\mathrm{inv}}^R\widehat{\mathrm{G}}_{\mathrm{inv}}^R`$), since, regardless of the choice of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in Eq.(4), the phase factors from the two functions $`\widehat{\mathrm{G}}_{\mathrm{inv}}^R`$ exactly cancel against each other.

In the ballistic regime, the integral (15) receives its main contribution from the pairs of trajectories with single-valued projections to the direction of the vector $`\stackrel{}{r}`$. Upon separating the coordinate variables onto the “center of mass” and the relative motion ($`\stackrel{}{r}^\pm =\stackrel{}{r}_1\pm \stackrel{}{r}_2`$, $`\stackrel{}{k}^\pm =\stackrel{}{k}_1\pm \stackrel{}{k}_2`$) parametrized by $`\tau ^\pm =\tau _1\pm \tau _2`$ and integrating over all the variables but $`x_{}^{}(\tau ^+)`$, one finds that the average (15) can be again related to the solution of Eq.(9), albeit with some extra powers of two stemming from the Jacobian of the above transformation. As a result, the variance of the local DOS $`(\delta \nu (ϵ,\stackrel{}{r})=\nu (ϵ,\stackrel{}{r})\nu (ϵ))`$ decays with distance as

$$\delta \nu (ϵ,\stackrel{}{r})\delta \nu (ϵ,\stackrel{}{0})\frac{|ϵ|e^{2r/l}}{\sqrt{rl}}\mathrm{sin}(2|ϵ|r+\varphi _2),$$
(17)
where $`\varphi _21`$.

Notably, the average of the product of two Green functions (16) does not amount to the product of the two averages (each of which is given by Eq.(11)), thereby indicating the presence of non-trivial vertex corrections.

Nevertheless, the exponential decay of Eq.(16) is controled by a length scale equal to the half of the mean free path (12), which corroborates our conclusion that (alongside a number of other robust features such as the ”near-shell” asymptotic behavior (13)) Eq.(12) is, in fact, independent of the choice of the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in Eq.(4).

In a similar manner, one finds the average $`\widehat{\mathrm{G}}^A\widehat{\mathrm{G}}^R=\widehat{\mathrm{G}}_{\mathrm{inv}}^A\widehat{\mathrm{G}}_{\mathrm{inv}}^R(ϵ^2/lr)^{1/2}e^{2r/l}`$ which can be used for computing such transport coefficients as optical conductivity $`\sigma (\omega ,T)`$. However, such a result would be limited to the regime of high frequencies or temperatures $`\mathrm{max}(\omega ,T)\alpha ^{1/2}`$ where other mechanisms of scattering, which may exist in the known realizations of the RMF problem (see Refs.), might become important.

## 5 Localization of zero-energy modes

At low energies and small momenta $`ϵp<\alpha `$ our approach ceases to be valid, and, for instance, the low-energy behavior of the DOS can not be readily inferred from the above discussion. In order to shed some light on the effect of RMF scattering on the low-energy part of the Dirac spectrum we look into the properties of the zero-energy states. Quite remarkably, the latter exist for an arbitrary configuration of the non-uniform magnetic field, thanks to the exact cancellation between the orbital and the Zeeman terms in the total energy of a spinor particle with the gyromagnetic ratio equal two.

Parametrizing an arbitrary (up to a gauge transformation) RMF configuration in terms of a scalar function $`a_i(\stackrel{}{r})=ϵ_{ij}_j\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{r})`$ one can write a pair of independent zero-energy wave functions (there are no other states with $`ϵ=0`$ as long as the total RMF flux vanishes) as follows

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm (\stackrel{}{r})(\stackrel{}{1}\pm \widehat{\gamma }_0)\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{r})}\\ e^{\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{r})}\end{array}\right).$$
(18)
In a finite-size system, the degree of the wave functions’ localization (or a lack thereof) can be inferred from the set of inverse participation ratios

$$\mathrm{P}_n=\frac{|\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r})|^{2n}d\stackrel{}{r}}{L^2(|\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r}^{})|^2d\stackrel{}{r}^{})^n}.$$
(19)
Performing the Gaussian average over the disorder field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{r})`$ with the weight $`P[\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{r})]\mathrm{exp}(d\stackrel{}{r}(\stackrel{}{}^2\mathrm{\Phi })^2/2\alpha )`$ we obtain

$$\mathrm{P}_n\frac{\alpha ^{n1}}{L^2},$$
(20)
which is suggestive of strong localization of the zero-energy states, the “localization length” being of order $`\xi \alpha ^{1/2}`$. This conclusion is in stark contrast with the $`\eta =0`$ case  where the prelocalized zero-energy wave functions exhibit a multifractal spectrum of anomalous dimensions $`\mathrm{P}_nL^{an+bn^2}`$. Conceivably, as the energy decreases past $`\alpha ^{1/2}`$, the elastic mean free path (given by Eq.(12) at high energies) saturates at $`l\xi `$, followed by the onset of localization at still lower energies.

In the $`\eta =0`$ case, it was recently argued  that the corresponding localization scenario belongs to the so-called “$`\mathrm{C}`$” universality class which encompasses the $`d`$-wave superconductors with a strong inter-node scattering in the absence of time reversal symmetry . It was also conjectured in Refs. that the low-energy properties of the system are described by the non-linear $`\sigma `$-model (NL$`\sigma `$M) on the coset space $`\mathrm{OSp}(2|2)/\mathrm{GL}(1|1)`$.

In order to extend this conjecture to the Dirac $`\eta =2`$ RMF problem one would have to derive an effective NL$`\sigma `$M of the appropriate symmetry by carefully separating between the massless and massive modes of the (this time, non-local) Hubbard-Stratonovich disorder fields, by analogy with the procedure carried out in the nonrelativistic $`\eta =2`$ RMF problem .

There is a good reason to believe that the resulting localization scenario falls into the already existing classification of the $`d`$-wave universality classes chartered in Refs.. However, given the notorious sensitivity of the $`d`$-wave localization patterns not only to the type (potential vs magnetic vs extended defects, etc.) but even to the strength (Gaussian vs unitary) of disorder, such important details as the asymptotical form of the low-energy DOS ($`\nu (ϵ)ϵ^2`$ for a generic class “$`\mathrm{C}`$” system ) or a possible crossover from “$`\mathrm{C}`$” to another, e.g., the so-called “$`\mathrm{A}`$”, universality class at intermediate energies due to the predominantly small-angle nature of the BA scattering, remain to be worked out.

## 6 Summary

To conclude, in the present paper we investigated the properties of the two-dimensional Dirac fermions subject to a long-range-correlated random vector potential. In the ballistic regime of large quasiparticle energies, we obtained the asymptotics of a representative gauge-invariant fermion Green function and the DOS correlation function. In the complementary low-energy regime, we found a signature of strong localization of the zero-energy states by computing their inverse participation ratios.

Thus far, it has been rather difficult to find a conclusive experimental evidence of the quasiparticle localization in the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates. However, theoretical predictions based on the results of this paper which pertain to the more experimentally accessible ballistic regime may be possible to test with a number of standard probes (thermal transport, ARPES, tunneling, specific heat, NMR) performed in the vortex line liquid phase of the superconducting cuprates .

To this end, it is worth mentioning that the results of a recent numerical analyis of the low-field thermal quasiparticle conductivity in the vortex line liquid state of the $`d`$-wave superconductors  appear to be in good agreement with the analytical result based on the analog of Eq.(12) .

Moreover, the results of this paper can be used to study the effects of both thermal  and quantum  phase fluctuations on the spectrum of the nodal quasiparticles in the pseudogap phase of the cuprates as well as that of randomly distributed dislocations on the Dirac-like electronic excitations in graphite .

In particular, when applied to the theories of the pseudogap phase  where the nodal fermions are scattered by the quasi-static (thermal) gauge fluctuations which represent either the effect of a disordered flux-phase  or that of thermally excited vortices , the results of this paper imply that the gauge-invariant propagator should exhibit an exponential, rather than a power-law, decay, contrary to the conclusions drawn in Refs..

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the NSF under Grant No. DMR-0071362.


text:
# The three-nucleon bound state using realistic potential models

## Abstract

The bound states of 3H and 3He have been calculated using the Argonne $`v_{18}`$ plus the Urbana three-nucleon potential. The isospin $`T=3/2`$ state have been included in the calculations as well as the $`n`$-$`p`$ mass difference. The 3H-3He mass difference has been evaluated through the charge dependent terms explicitly included in the two-body potential. The calculations have been performed using two different methods: the solution of the Faddeev equations in momentum space and the expansion on the correlated hyperspherical harmonic basis. The results are in agreement within $`0.1`$% and can be used as benchmark tests. Results for the CD-Bonn interaction are also presented. It is shown that the 3H and 3He binding energy difference can be predicted model independently.

In the last years great efforts have been made to improve the description of the nucleon-nucleon ($`NN`$) interaction. A new generation of potentials including explicitly charge independence and charge symmetry breaking (CIB,CSB) terms appeared. These interactions describe the $`NN`$ scattering data below $`T_{lab}=300`$ MeV with a nearly perfect $`\chi ^2`$/datum$`1`$. The CD-Bonn R. Machleidt et al. (1996) and Argonne $`v_{18}`$ (AV18) R.B. Wiringa et al. (1995) interactions also provide a neutron-neutron ($`nn`$) force, which has been adjusted to the experimental $`nn`$ scattering length, whereas the Nijmegen interactions V.G.J. Stoks et al. (1994) are fitted only to proton-proton and proton-neutron data. Recently, the CD-Bonn potential has been updated to CD-Bonn 2000 R. Machleidt (2001). In this paper we only present results for the AV18 and CD-Bonn 2000 interactions. Both are quite different from each other in their functional form, but their description of the $`NN`$ data is almost equally accurate. Therefore a comparison of the results will give insights into the model dependence of our understanding of the three-nucleon ($`3N`$) bound states.

Following for example the notation of Ref. R.B. Wiringa et al. (1995), all these $`NN`$ potentials can be put in the general form

$$v(NN)=v^{EM}(NN)+v^\pi (NN)+v^R(NN).$$
(1)
The short range part $`v^R(NN)`$ of all of these interactions includes a certain number of parameters (around 40), which are determined by a fitting procedure to the $`NN`$ scattering data and the deuteron binding energy (BE), whereas the long range part is represented by the one-pion-exchange potential $`v^\pi (NN)`$ and an electromagnetic part $`v^{EM}(NN)`$.

For AV18, $`v^{EM}(pp)`$ consists of the one- and two-photon Coulomb terms plus the Darwin-Foldy term, vacuum polarization and magnetic moment interactions. The $`v^{EM}(np)`$ interaction includes a Coulomb term due to the neutron charge distribution in addition to the magnetic moment interaction. Finally, $`v^{EM}(nn)`$ is given by the magnetic moment interaction only. All these terms take into account the finite size of the nucleon charge distributions. The $`v^{EM}(NN)`$ for CD-Bonn is much simpler: $`v^{EM}(pp)`$ is given by the Coulomb force of point protons, whereas $`v^{EM}(np)=v^{EM}(nn)=0`$.

As it is well known, when these interactions are used to describe the $`3N`$ bound state, an underbinding of about $`0.5`$ MeV to $`0.9`$ MeV depending on the model is obtained (see for example Ref.A. Nogga, H. Kamada, W. Glöckle (2000)). The local potentials lead to less binding than the non-local ones, a characteristic related to the bigger $`D`$-state probability predicted for the deuteron. Hence, it seems to be not possible to describe the $`A>2`$ systems without the inclusion of three-nucleon interaction (TNI) terms in the nuclear Hamiltonian. Several TNI models have been studied in the literature mostly based on the exchange of two pions with an intermediate $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ excitation (for a recent review see Ref. J. Carlson, and R.Schiavilla (1998)). These interactions include a certain number of parameters not completely determined by theory, therefore some of them can be used to reproduce, for example, the triton BE.

In the following we show BE results for 3H and 3He. The AV18 interaction in conjunction with the Urbana IX (UIX) TNI B.S. Pudliner et al. (1995) has recently been discussed by the Argonne group in a study of several bound states with $`3A8`$ Steven C. Pieper,V.R. Pandharipande, R.B. Wiringa, J. Carlson (2001). Here we perform a detailed calculation of the $`A=3`$ system including total isospin states $`T=1/2`$ and $`3/2`$. In addition, particular attention will be given to the BE difference $`D=B(^3\mathrm{H})B(^3\mathrm{He})`$ as a test of the CSB terms present in the interaction. The experimental value of this quantity is $`764`$ keV, from which only $`85`$% correspond to the standard Coulomb potential J.L. Friar et al. (1987); Y. Wu et al. (1990, 1993). The remaining $`15`$% should come from other CSB terms. A previous analysis of the contributions to $`D`$ has been performed a decade ago Y. Wu et al. (1990, 1993) before the construction of the new interactions, which include for the first time the CSB terms in the fit to the $`NN`$ data. Therefore a reanalysis is in order and might remove uncertainties due to an inaccurate description of the $`NN`$ data.

Because the Coulomb energy scales with the BE of 3H J.L. Friar et al. (1987), we need $`3N`$ Hamilonians, which predict this observable accurately. This can be achieved with properly adjusted TNI’s. Then the calculation of $`D`$ requires reliable solutions of the $`3N`$ Schrödinger equation including these TNI’s. For this reason we performed, as a by-product of our analysis, a benchmark calculation for the bound states of 3H and 3He using the AV18+UIX potential model. The Bochum group solves the Faddeev equation in momentum space A. Nogga, H. Kamada, W. Glöckle (2000), whereas the Pisa group uses a decomposition of the wave function in pair-correlated hyperspherical basis functions A. Kievsky et al. (1993); A. Kievsky (1997). Both methods were used to find BE’s to an accuracy of 2 keV, which means an accuracy better than $`0.1`$%. Such a level of accuracy is nowadays routinely achieved for the $`3N`$ system by several methods using only $`NN`$ interactions Steven C. Pieper,V.R. Pandharipande, R.B. Wiringa, J. Carlson (2001); Y. Suzuki, K. Varga (1998); H. Kameyama, M. Kamimura, and Y. Fukushima (1989); P. Navrátil, B.R. Barrett (1998). Here we show that the same level of accuracy is obtained, when TNI terms are taken into account.

We start considering 3H. The calculations have been done for three equal fermions using the isospin formalism. We used an averaged nucleon mass $`M`$ with the value $`\mathrm{}^2/M=41.471`$ MeV fm2 (the contribution of the $`n`$-$`p`$ mass difference will be given separately). The AV18 and AV18+UIX have been used to calculate the BE $`B`$, the mean value of the kinetic energy $`T`$ as well as the $`S^{}`$, $`P`$\- and $`D`$-state probabilities. The results are given in Table 1 corresponding to two different calculations: $`i)`$ for total isospin limited to $`T=1/2`$ and $`ii)`$ including also $`T=3/2`$. The occupation probability $`P_{T=3/2}`$ of this state is given in the last column of Table 1. The first four rows of the table show the Pisa group results, whereas the last four show the Bochum group results. In the later case, the BE $`|E|`$ is determined from the eigenvalue spectrum of the Faddeev equations. Additionally, we present the absolute value of the expectation value of the Hamiltonian $`B`$. One sees that both values agree within the numerical accuracy. In Table 2 the same set of results are given for 3He. For the $`T=3/2`$ calculations we find good agreement for the BE results and the wave function properties for both nuclei. The BE’s are in agreement within 2 keV or 0.05 %. The deviations for the wave function properties, especially for $`P_S^{}`$, are slightly bigger, but remain below 0.4 %. This is below our numerical error bounds and confirms the reliability of both methods, even in presence of a TNI. The tables also reveal a small, but appreciable, contribution of the $`T=3/2`$ state to the BE. Its inclusion produces 5 keV (8 keV) more binding in 3H (3He). It should be noted that the $`T=1/2`$ results depend on the numerical method. The truncation of the Hilbert space to $`T=1/2`$ leads to average $`pp`$ ($`nn`$) and $`np`$ matrix elements in the isospin $`t=1`$ $`NN`$ channels. This averaging is performed for the potential matrix elements in case of the Pisa calculations, but for the $`t`$-matrix in case of the Bochum scheme. The small, but visible differences show that benchmarks to this accuracy require the comparison of fully charge-dependent calculations. This inconsistency also shows up in a visible deviation of $`|E|`$ and $`B`$ for the $`T=1/2`$ Faddeev calculations, because $`B`$ is based on matrix elements of the potential wheareas $`|E|`$ is based on the $`t`$-matrix.

The contribution of the n-p mass difference is visible, but sufficiently small to be treated perturbatively. Therefore we show only perturbative estimates in Table 3. The positive sign in the tritium case indicates a slightly more bound system, conversely the 3He results slightly less bound. Again we find an encouraging agreement between the Pisa and Bochum results.

Taking into account the contribution of the n-p mass difference and averaging the Pisa and Bochum results, the final values of the BE’s for the AV18+UIX are: $`B(^3\mathrm{H})=8.485(2)`$ MeV and $`B(^3\mathrm{He})=7.741(2)`$ MeV. This is to be compared to the experimental values: $`B_{exp}(^3\mathrm{H})=8.482`$ MeV and $`B_{exp}(^3\mathrm{He})=7.718`$ MeV. Therefore, the AV18+UIX potential overbinds the tritium only by 3 keV, whereas the 3He is overbound by 23 keV. This can be better analyzed looking at the predicted BE difference $`D=744`$ keV, which is 20 keV smaller than the experimental value.

The calculations have been performed using the static Coulomb potential, i.e. the momentum dependence through $`\alpha ^{}`$ has been disregarded G.J.M. Austen and J.J. de Swart (1983), so that our results correspond to $`\alpha ^{}=\alpha `$. It has been estimated that the momentum dependence of $`\alpha `$ might contribute about half of the $`20`$ keV shortage found in the value of $`D`$ S.C. Pieper ; Y. Wu et al. (1993). Therefore our results show that there is room from other contributions as for example CSB of TNI terms and a refinement of relativistic effects on $`D`$.

The contributions to $`D`$ of different parts of the interaction have been studied calculating the 3H and 3He BE’s omitting these parts and comparing to the full calculations. Note that this is not perturbative. The results for the AV18+UIX potential including isospin states $`T=1/2`$ and $`3/2`$ states are collected in Table 4. We distinguish $`i)`$ the nuclear CSB terms, $`ii)`$ the point Coulomb interaction, $`iii)`$ the complete $`pp`$ and $`np`$ Coulomb interaction, which includes the finite size charge distributions, the one- and two-photon terms and the Darwin-Foldy and vacuum polarization interactions, $`iv)`$ the magnetic moment interaction, $`v)`$ the $`n`$-$`p`$ mass difference.

One sees that the electromagnetic interaction on top of point Coulomb visibly contributes to $`D`$ and cannot be neglected. This raises the interesting question, whether CD-Bonn 2000, coming without an elaborate electromagnetic force, can also describe $`D`$.

To this aim we performed $`3N`$ BE calculations using the CD-Bonn 2000 interaction. The results are given in Table 5. Again, the $`NN`$ interaction underbinds the $`3N`$ nuclei. Therefore we augmented the Hamiltonian by the Tucson-Melbourne (TM) TNI S.A. Coon, M.D. Scadron, P.C. McNamee, B.R. Barrett, D.W.E. Blatt, and B.H.J. McKellar (1979); S.A. Coon and W. Glöckle (1981); S.A. Coon and H.K. Han (2001). The strength of the original model has been adjusted to reproduce the experimental 3H BE as described in A. Nogga, H. Kamada, W. Glöckle, B.R. Barrett . It results the $`\pi NN`$ cut-off value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=4.795`$ mπ. Again 3He is overbound. The mass difference $`D`$, of $`750`$ keV is slightly improved compared to our result for AV18 and UIX.

In Ref. R. Machleidt and H. Müther (2001) it has been observed that $`D`$ is only sensitive to CSB in the $`S`$-wave. Unfortunately, $`nn`$ scattering is only poorly known experimentally. There is only one datum for the scattering length, which is still controversal B. Gabioud et. al. (1979); D.E. González Trotter et. al. (1999); O. Schori et. al. (1987); I. Šlaus, Y. Akaishi, H. Tanaka (1989); C. R. Howell et al. (1998); V. Huhn, L. Wätzold, Ch. Weber ,A. Siepe,W. von Witsch, H. Witała, W. Glöckle (2000a, b); G.A. Miller, B.M.K. Nefkens, and I. Šlaus (1990). AV18 is adjusted to $`a_{nn}=18.82`$ fm, whereas for CD-Bonn 2000 $`a_{nn}`$ results in $`18.97`$ fm. Its charge-dependence is based on theoretical predictions of the full Bonn model R. Machleidt (2001). To pin down the origin of the difference of the predictions of both models, we modified the 1S0 $`nn`$ interaction of CD-Bonn 2000 by a factor $`\lambda `$ and calculated the resulting $`nn`$ scattering length $`a_{nn}`$, the 3H BE and $`D`$. We found a strong linear correlation of $`a_{nn}`$ and $`D`$ shown in Table 6 and Fig. 1. Moreover, the prediction of AV18+UIX perfectly fit into the results obtained from CD-Bonn 2000 and TM (see the dashed-dotted marks in the figure). This shows that the dependence of $`D`$ on the interaction can be traced back to different predictions for the $`nn`$ scattering length. The very different treatment of electromagnetic interactions and the differences of the CSB in higher partial waves do not affect appreciable $`D`$. The deviation of the $`NN`$+TNI force prediction of $`D`$ to the experimental value might be caused, as stated before, by CSB TNI terms not considered in the present description or by relativistic effects. As a consequence we cannot estimate $`a_{nn}`$ from our calculations of $`D`$. However, we would like to note that the $`a_{nn}16.3`$ fm found in Refs. V. Huhn, L. Wätzold, Ch. Weber ,A. Siepe,W. von Witsch, H. Witała, W. Glöckle (2000a, b) would worsen our description of the $`3N`$ BE difference significantly.

In summary we have calculated the 3H and 3He BE’s based on modern $`NN`$ interaction models including TNI terms using two different numerical methods. Our results showed the stability and reliablity of both schemes. Using only $`NN`$ forces the BE’s are too small, calling for TNI terms. These lead by construction to the experimental 3H BE. We found that the BE difference of 3H and 3He is predicted nearly model independently. We could trace back the remaining model sensitivity to the differences in the predictions for the $`nn`$ scattering length. However, uncertainties arising from CSB TNI terms and relativity do not allow us to extract the scattering length from the 3H and 3He BE difference. The model dependence arising from the different electromagnetic parts of the interactions is extremely small.

A.N. acknowledge partial support from NSF grant# PHY0070858. Parts of the numerical calculations have been performed on the Cray T3E of the NIC in Jülich, Germany.


text:
# The Poincaré series of the algebra of rational functions which are regular outside hyperplanes

## 1 Introduction and main results

Let $`V`$ be a vector space of dimension $`\mathrm{}`$ over a field $`𝐊`$ of characteristic zero. Let $`V^{}`$ be the dual space of $`V`$. Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a finite subset of nonzero elements of $`V^{}`$. We assume that no two vectors of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are proportional. Let $`S=S(V^{})`$ be the symmetric algebra of $`V^{}`$. Then $`S`$ may be regarded as the ring of polynomial functions on $`V`$.

###### Definition 1.1.

Let $`R(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ be the $`𝐊`$-algebra of rational functions on $`V`$ which are regular outside the set $`_{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }}\{\alpha =0\}`$. In other words, $`R(\mathrm{\Delta })=S\left[\mathrm{\Delta }^1\right]`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^1:=\{1/\alpha \alpha \mathrm{\Delta }\}`$.

Let $`f/g`$ be a homogeneous element of $`R(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, i.e., both $`f`$ and $`g`$ are homogeneous polynomials. Then the (total) degree of $`f/g`$ is defined by $`\mathrm{deg}(f/g)=\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{deg}g`$. Let $`R=R(\mathrm{\Delta }),p,q`$. Define a K-vector subspace

$$R_q^p:=\frac{f}{g}R\mathrm{deg}fp,\mathrm{deg}gq_𝐊$$

of $`R`$. Here the notation $`T_𝐊`$ stands for the $`𝐊`$-vector subspace of $`R`$ spanned by a subset $`T`$ of $`R`$. Agree that $`R_q^p=0`$ if either $`p<0`$ or $`q<0`$. Then we have a double filtration on $`R`$:

$$\mathrm{}R_q^pR_q^{p1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{}R_q^pR_{q1}^p\mathrm{}.$$

Define

$$\overline{R_q^p}:=R_q^p/(R_q^{p1}+R_{q1}^p)\mathrm{and}\overline{R}=\overline{R}(\mathrm{\Delta }):=\underset{p,q}{}\overline{R_q^p}.$$

The vector space $`\overline{R_q^p}`$ can be considered, roughly speaking, as the space of the homogeneous rational functions expressible as sums of fractions with numerators of degree $`p`$ and denominators of degree $`q`$ where $`p`$ and $`q`$ are the smallest possible. Since each $`\overline{R_q^p}`$ is finite-dimensional, one can define the Poincaré series

$$\mathrm{Poin}(\overline{R}(\mathrm{\Delta }),s,t):=\underset{p,q}{}dim(\overline{R_q^p})s^pt^q$$

of the bigraded vector space $`\overline{R}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. Let

$$𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta })=\{\mathrm{ker}(\alpha )\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }\}.$$

Then $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is a (central) arrangement of hyperplanes  in $`V`$. Let $`\mathrm{Poin}(𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta }),)`$ be the Poincaré polynomial \[3, Definition 2.48\] of the arrangement $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, which is combinatorially defined. (See Definition 4.1.) Our main theorem is the following

###### Theorem 1.2.

We have

$$\mathrm{Poin}(\overline{R}(\mathrm{\Delta }),s,t)=\frac{1}{(1s)^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{Poin}(𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta }),\frac{t(1s)}{(1t)}).$$

By combining Theorem 1.2 and a later result (Proposition 2.2), one has

###### Corollary 1.3.

$$\underset{p,q}{}dim(R_q^p)s^pt^q=(1s)^\mathrm{}1(1t)^1\mathrm{Poin}(𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta }),\frac{t(1s)}{(1t)}).$$

By Theorem 1.2 and the factorization theorem (Theorem 4.2) in , we may easily show the following

###### Corollary 1.4.

If $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is a free arrangement with exponents $`(d_1,\mathrm{},d_{\mathrm{}})`$  \[3, Definitions 4.15, 4.25\], then

$$\mathrm{Poin}(\overline{R}(\mathrm{\Delta }),t)=(1s)^{\mathrm{}}(1t)^{\mathrm{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\{1+(d_i1sd_i)t\}.$$

In particular, one has

###### Corollary 1.5.

When $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is the set of reflecting hyperplanes of any (real or complex) reflection group with exponents $`(d_1,\mathrm{},d_{\mathrm{}})`$, \[3, Definitions 6.22\], then

$$\mathrm{Poin}(\overline{R}(\mathrm{\Delta }),t)=(1s)^{\mathrm{}}(1t)^{\mathrm{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\{1+(d_i1sd_i)t\}.$$

###### Example 1.6.

Let $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_{\mathrm{}}`$ be a basis for $`V^{}`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\{x_ix_j1i<j\mathrm{}\}`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ gives the root system of type $`A_\mathrm{}1`$. The corresponding reflection arrangement $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is a braid arrangement with exponents $`(0,1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}1)`$ \[3, Example 4.32\]. So, by Corollary 1.5, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{Poin}(\overline{R}(\mathrm{\Delta }),s,t)=(1s)^{\mathrm{}}(1t)^{\mathrm{}+1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}1}{}}\{1+(i1)tist\}\hfill \\ \hfill =(1s)^{\mathrm{}}(1t)^{\mathrm{}+1}(1st)(1+t2st)\mathrm{}(1+(\mathrm{}2)t(\mathrm{}1)st).\end{array}$$

For instance, when $`\mathrm{}=3`$, we have

$$R(\mathrm{\Delta })=𝐊[x_1,x_2,x_3,\frac{1}{x_1x_2},\frac{1}{x_2x_3},\frac{1}{x_1x_3}]$$

and

$`\mathrm{Poin}(\overline{R}(\mathrm{\Delta }),s,t)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1st)(1+t2st)}{(1s)^3(1t)^2}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p0}{}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p+2}{2}}\right)s^p+{\displaystyle \underset{p0}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{q>0}{}}(3p+2q+1)s^pt^q`$
$`=`$ $`1+(3s+3t)+(6s^2+6st+5t^2)+(10s^3+9s^2t+8st^2+7t^3)`$
$`+(15s^4+12s^3t+11s^2t^2+10st^3+9t^4)+\mathrm{}.`$
Since the coefficient of $`st^2`$ is equal to 8, the space $`\overline{R_2^1}`$ is eight-dimensional. Actually we can easily verify by direct computation that the classes of

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{x_1}{(x_1x_2)(x_1x_3)},\frac{x_1}{(x_1x_2)(x_2x_3)},\frac{x_1}{(x_1x_2)^2},\frac{x_3}{(x_1x_2)^2},\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{x_1}{(x_2x_3)^2},\frac{x_2}{(x_2x_3)^2},\frac{x_1}{(x_1x_3)^2},\frac{x_2}{(x_1x_3)^2}\end{array}$$

form a basis for $`\overline{R_2^1}`$. This implies that an arbitrary element $`\phi `$ of $`R_2^1`$ can be uniquely expressed as a $`𝐊`$-linear combination of these eight rational functions modulo $`R_2^0+R_1^1`$. For example, when

$$\phi =\frac{x_1+2x_2x_3+3}{(x_1x_3)(x_2x_3)}$$

$`\phi `$ is decomposed into partial fractions as

$`\phi `$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{(x_1x_2)(x_1x_3)}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{(x_1x_2)(x_2x_3)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{(x_1x_3)(x_2x_3)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_2x_3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{x_1x_3}},`$
which implies

$$\phi 2\frac{x_1}{(x_1x_2)(x_1x_3)}+2\frac{x_1}{(x_1x_2)(x_2x_3)}modR_2^0+R_1^1.$$

###### Remark 1.7.

The specializations of $`\mathrm{Poin}(\overline{R}(\mathrm{\Delta }),s,t)`$ at $`s=0`$ and $`t=0`$ have been known:

(1) Suppose $`t=0`$. Since $`\overline{R_0^p}=R_0^p/R_0^{p1}`$ is isomorphic to the vector space of homogeneous polynomials of degree $`p`$ in $`\mathrm{}`$ variables, we have $`_p\overline{R_0^p}S`$ and thus

$$\mathrm{Poin}(\overline{R}(\mathrm{\Delta }),s,0)=\frac{1}{(1s)^{\mathrm{}}}.$$

(2) Suppose $`s=0`$. Note that $`\overline{R_q^0}=R_q^0/R_{q1}^0`$ is isomorphic to a $`𝐊`$-vector subspace

$$C(\mathrm{\Delta })_q:=\frac{1}{g}Rg\mathrm{is}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{product}\mathrm{of}q\mathrm{linear}\mathrm{forms}\mathrm{in}\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐊$$

of $`R(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. The $`𝐊`$-subalgebra

$$C(\mathrm{\Delta }):=\underset{q}{}C(\mathrm{\Delta })_q$$

of $`R(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ was studied and the formula

$$\mathrm{Poin}(C(\mathrm{\Delta }),t)=\underset{q0}{}(dimC(\mathrm{\Delta })_q)t^q=\mathrm{Poin}(𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta }),(1t)^1t)$$

was obtained in \[7, Theorem 1.4\]. (The proof of this formula in  heavily depends on  and .) So we have

$$\mathrm{Poin}(\overline{R}(\mathrm{\Delta }),0,t)=\mathrm{Poin}(𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta }),(1t)^1t).$$

## 2 The bigraded vector space $`\overline{R}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$

Let $`p,q`$. Let $`\pi _q^p:R_q^p\overline{R_q^p}`$ be the canonical projection. Fix a linear section

$$\iota _q^p:\overline{R_q^p}R_q^p$$

for each canonical projection $`\pi _q^p`$ such that

$$\mathrm{Image}(\iota _q^p)\frac{f}{g}Rf\mathrm{and}g\mathrm{are}\mathrm{homogeneous}\mathrm{with}\mathrm{deg}f=p\mathrm{and}\mathrm{deg}g=q_𝐊.$$

###### Proposition 2.1.

There exists a linear isomorphism

$$\kappa :=\underset{p,q}{}\iota _q^p:\overline{R}=\underset{p,q}{}\overline{R_q^p}\stackrel{}{}\underset{p,q}{}R_q^p=R.$$

Proof. At first, we prove the injectivity of $`\kappa `$. For every $`\varphi =_{p,q}\varphi _q^p\mathrm{ker}(\kappa )`$, where $`\varphi _q^p\overline{R_q^p}`$, one has

$$0=\kappa (\varphi )=\underset{p,q}{}\iota _q^p(\varphi _q^p)=\underset{a}{}\underset{pq=a}{}\iota _q^p(\varphi _q^p).$$

This implies that $`_{pq=a}\iota _q^p(\varphi _q^p)=0`$ for each $`a`$ because $`\mathrm{deg}\iota _q^p(\varphi _q^p)=pq`$. Suppose $`\varphi 0`$. Then there exists an integer $`b`$ such that $`_{pq=b}\varphi _q^p0.`$ Let $`p_b:=\mathrm{max}\{p\varphi _q^p0,pq=b\}`$ and $`q_b=p_bb.`$ Then $`\psi _{q_b}^{p_b}:=\iota _{q_b}^{p_b}(\varphi _{q_b}^{p_b})0`$, because $`\iota _{q_b}^{p_b}`$ is injective. Therefore one has

$$0=\underset{pq=b}{}\iota _q^p(\varphi _q^p)=\psi _{q_b}^{p_b}+\psi _{q_b1}^{p_b1}+\mathrm{}$$

and

$$\psi _{q_b}^{p_b}=\psi _{q_b1}^{p_b1}\psi _{q_b1}^{p_b1}\mathrm{}R_{q_b1}^{p_b1}R_{q_b1}^{p_b}+R_{q_b}^{p_b1}.$$

So we obtain

$$\varphi _{q_b}^{p_b}=\pi _{q_b}^{p_b}(\iota _{q_b}^{p_b}(\varphi _{q_b}^{p_b}))=\pi _{q_b}^{p_b}(\psi _{q_b}^{p_b})=0,$$

which contradicts the definition of $`p_b`$. Therefore we have $`\mathrm{ker}(\kappa )=\{\mathrm{𝟎}\}`$.

Next we prove the surjectivity of $`\kappa `$. Let $`p0`$ and $`q0`$. Define

$$\kappa _q^p:=\underset{ap,bq}{}\iota _b^a:\underset{ap,bq}{}\overline{R_b^a}R_q^p.$$

It is sufficient to show that $`\kappa _q^p`$ is surjective for $`p,q`$. If either $`p`$ or $`q`$ is negative, then $`R_q^p=0`$ and there is nothing to prove. We will prove $`R_q^p=\mathrm{Image}(\kappa _q^p)`$ for $`p+q0`$ by an induction on $`p+q`$. When $`p=q=0`$, $`\pi _0^0:𝐊=R_0^0\overline{R_0^0}=𝐊`$ is an isomorphism. So $`R_0^0=\mathrm{Image}(\iota _0^0)=\mathrm{Image}(\kappa _0^0)`$. Suppose $`p+q>0`$. For $`\psi R_q^p`$, let $`\eta :=\psi \iota _q^p\pi _q^p(\psi )`$. Then

$$\pi _q^p(\eta )=\pi _q^p(\psi )\pi _q^p\iota _q^p\pi _q^p(\psi )=0.$$

So $`\eta \mathrm{ker}\pi _q^p=R_q^{p1}+R_{q1}^p\mathrm{Image}(\kappa _q^p)`$ by the induction assumption. We thus have

$$\psi =\eta +\iota _q^p\pi _q^p(\psi )\mathrm{Image}(\kappa _q^p),$$

which implies that $`\kappa _q^p`$ is surjective. $`\mathrm{}`$

In the course of the proof of Proposition 2.1, we have already proved the following

###### Proposition 2.2.

Let $`p0`$ and $`q0`$. Then there exists a linear isomorphism

$$\kappa _q^p=\underset{ap,bq}{}\iota _b^a:\underset{ap,bq}{}\overline{R_b^a}\stackrel{}{}R_q^p.$$

## 3 A decomposition of $`\overline{R_q^p}`$

Let $`𝐄_p(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ be the set of all $`p`$-tuples composed of elements of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Let $`𝐄(\mathrm{\Delta }):=_{p0}𝐄_p(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. The union is disjoint. Write $`:=\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _pS`$ when $`=(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _p)𝐄_p(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. For $`\epsilon 𝐄(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, let $`V(\epsilon )`$ denote the set of common zeros of $`\epsilon `$ :

$$V(\epsilon )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\mathrm{ker}(\alpha _i)$$

when $`\epsilon =(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _p)`$. Define

$$L=L(\mathrm{\Delta })=\{V(\epsilon )\epsilon 𝐄(\mathrm{\Delta })\}.$$

Agree that $`V(\epsilon )=V`$ if $`\epsilon `$ is the empty tuple. Introduce a partial order $``$ into $`L`$ by reverse inclusion: $`XYXY`$. Then $`L`$ is equal to the intersection lattice of the arrangement $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ \[3, Definition 2.1\]. For $`XL`$, define

$$𝐄_X(\mathrm{\Delta }):=\{\epsilon 𝐄(\mathrm{\Delta })V(\epsilon )=X\}.$$

Then

$$𝐄(\mathrm{\Delta })=\underset{XL}{}𝐄_X(\mathrm{\Delta })\text{(disjoint)}.$$

Define

$$C_X(\mathrm{\Delta }):=\underset{\epsilon 𝐄_X(\mathrm{\Delta })}{}𝐊(\epsilon )^1.$$

The following proposition is in \[7, Proposition 2.1\]:

###### Proposition 3.1.

$$C(\mathrm{\Delta })=\underset{XL}{}C_X(\mathrm{\Delta }).$$

Let $`XL`$ and $`q_0`$. Define

$$C_{q,X}:=C_{q,X}(\mathrm{\Delta }):=C(\mathrm{\Delta })_qC_X(\mathrm{\Delta })=\underset{\epsilon 𝐄_q(\mathrm{\Delta })𝐄_X(\mathrm{\Delta })}{}𝐊(\epsilon )^1.$$

Then

$$C_X(\mathrm{\Delta })=\underset{q0}{}C_{q,X}.$$

###### Definition 3.2.

(\[3, 2.42\]) Let the Möbius function

$$\mu :L(\mathrm{\Delta })$$

be characterized by $`\mu (V)=1`$ and for $`X<V`$ by $`_{YX}\mu (Y)=0.`$

The following result is in \[7, Theorem 1.4\]:

###### Proposition 3.3.

$$\mathrm{Poin}(C_X(\mathrm{\Delta }),t):=\underset{q}{}\left(dimC_{q,X}\right)t^q=(1)^{\mathrm{codim}X}\mu (X)\left(\frac{t}{1t}\right)^{\mathrm{codim}X}.$$

Define $`I(X):=\{fSf|_X0\}`$, i.e., $`I(X)`$ is the prime ideal of $`S`$ generated by the polynomial functions vanishing on $`X`$. Let $`S_X:=S/I(X)`$. Let $`S^p`$ denote the degree $`p`$ homogeneous part of $`S`$. Then $`S=_{p0}S^p`$. Define

$$S_X^p:=S^p/S^pI(X).$$

Then

$$S_X:=\underset{p0}{}S_X^p.$$

###### Lemma 3.4.

For $`p0`$, $`q0`$, and $`XL`$, suppose that $`h_1,h_2,\mathrm{},h_mC_{q,X}`$ are linearly independent over $`𝐊`$ and $`f_1,f_2,\mathrm{},f_mS^p`$. Then the following three conditions are equivalent:

(1) Each $`f_i`$ belongs to the ideal $`I(X)`$,

(2) $`_{i=1}^mf_ih_iR_{q1}^{p1},`$

(3) $`_{i=1}^mf_ih_iR_{q1}^{p1}+_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{YL}{YX}}S^pC_{q,Y}.`$

Proof. (1) $``$ (2) : If $`f_iS^pI(X)`$, then one can easily see that $`f_ih_iR_{q1}^{p1}`$ for each $`i`$.

(2) $``$ (3) : Obvious.

(3) $``$ (1) : Let

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }}{}\alpha ,\mathrm{\Delta }_X=\mathrm{\Delta }I(X),\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Delta }_X=\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_X}{}\alpha .$$

Suppose that $`dimX=k`$. Choose a basis $`x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_{\mathrm{}}`$ for $`V^{}`$ such that $`X=V(x_{k+1},\mathrm{},x_{\mathrm{}})`$. Let

$$h_i^{}:=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_X\right)^qh_i𝐊[x_{k+1},\mathrm{},x_{\mathrm{}}],$$

which is a homogeneous polynomial of degree $`q|\mathrm{\Delta }_X|q`$. Multiply $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_X)^q`$ to $`_{i=1}^mf_ih_iR_{q1}^{p1}+_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{YL}{YX}}S^pC_{q,Y}`$ to get

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Delta }_X}\right)^q\underset{i}{}f_ih_i^{}=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\right)^q\underset{i}{}f_ih_iI(X)^{q|\mathrm{\Delta }_X|q+1}.$$

Since $`I(X)^{q|\mathrm{\Delta }_X|q+1}`$ is primary and $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{\Delta }_XI(X)`$, one has

$$\underset{i}{}f_ih_i^{}I(X)^{q|\mathrm{\Delta }_X|q+1}=(x_{k+1},\mathrm{},x_{\mathrm{}})^{q|\mathrm{\Delta }_X|q+1}.$$

Define $`f_i^{}:=f_i(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k,0,\mathrm{},0)𝐊[x_1,\mathrm{},x_k]`$. Since $`f_if_i^{}I(X)`$, one has

$$\underset{i}{}f_i^{}h_i^{}I(X)^{q|\mathrm{\Delta }_X|q+1}=(x_{k+1},\mathrm{},x_{\mathrm{}})^{q|\mathrm{\Delta }_X|q+1}.$$

Recalling that each $`f_i^{}`$ lies in $`𝐊[x_1,\mathrm{},x_k]`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}h_i^{}=q|\mathrm{\Delta }_X|q`$ with $`h_i^{}(x_{k+1},\mathrm{},x_{\mathrm{}})^{q|\mathrm{\Delta }_X|q}`$, we may conclude

$$\underset{i}{}f_i^{}h_i^{}=0.$$

We may deduce that $`f_1^{}=f_2^{}=\mathrm{}=f_m^{}=0`$ because $`h_1^{},\mathrm{}h_m^{}𝐊[x_{k+1},\mathrm{},x_{\mathrm{}}]`$ are linearly independent over $`𝐊`$ and thus over $`𝐊[x_1,\mathrm{},x_k]`$ also. Therefore $`f_iI(X)`$ for each $`i`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 3.5.

For $`p0`$, $`q0`$, and $`XL`$, let

$$\tau _{q,X}^p:S_X^pC_{q,X}\overline{R_q^p}$$

be the linear map characterized by

$$\tau _{q,X}^p\left([f](\epsilon )^1\right)=\left[\frac{f}{(\epsilon )}\right],$$

where $`fS^p`$ and $`\epsilon 𝐄_q(\mathrm{\Delta })𝐄_X(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. Then $`\tau _{q,X}^p`$ is injective for each $`XL`$.

Proof. Let $`\epsilon 𝐄_q(\mathrm{\Delta })𝐄_X(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. Note that $`\epsilon `$ generates the ideal $`I(X)`$. If $`f`$ belongs to $`S^pI(X)`$, then

$$\frac{f}{(\epsilon )}R_{q1}^{p1}R_q^{p1}+R_{q1}^p$$

by Lemma 3.4. This implies that the map $`\tau _{q,X}^p`$ is well-defined.

Choose a $`𝐊`$-basis $`h_1,h_2,\mathrm{}h_m`$ for $`C_{q,X}`$. Then an arbitrary element $`\phi S_X^pC_{q,X}`$ can be expressed as

$$\phi =\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\left[f_i\right]h_i$$

for some $`f_iS^p(i=1,\mathrm{},m)`$. Suppose $`\phi \mathrm{ker}(\tau _{q,X}^p)`$, i.e., $`_{i=1}^mf_ih_iR_q^{p1}+R_{q1}^p`$. This implies $`_{i=1}^mf_ih_iR_{q1}^{p1}.`$ By Lemma 3.4, one has $`f_iI(X)`$ for each $`i`$. Therefore $`\phi =0`$ and thus $`\tau _{q,X}^p`$ is injective. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 3.6.

Define $`\overline{R_{q,X}^p}:=\mathrm{Image}(\tau _{q,X}^p).`$ Then we have

$$\overline{R_q^p}=\underset{XL}{}\overline{R_{q,X}^p}.$$

Proof. An arbitrary element $`\phi \overline{R_q^p}`$ can be expressed as

$$\phi =\left[\underset{i}{}\frac{f_i}{g_i}\right]$$

with $`\mathrm{deg}(f_i)=p`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}(g_i)=q`$. Thus we have

$$\overline{R_q^p}\underset{XL}{}\overline{R_{q,X}^p}.$$

Suppose that $`_{XL}\varphi _X=0`$ in $`\overline{R_q^p}`$ where $`\varphi _X\overline{R_{q,X}^p}`$. We will prove $`\varphi _X=0`$ for each $`X`$. Fix $`XL`$. Choose a $`𝐊`$-basis $`h_1,h_2,\mathrm{},h_m`$ for $`C_{q,X}`$. Write

$$\varphi _X=\tau _{q,X}^p\left(\underset{i}{}[f_i]h_i\right)=\left[\underset{i}{}f_ih_i\right]$$

for some $`f_iS^p`$ for each $`i`$. Since

$$\left[\underset{i}{}f_ih_i\right]=\varphi _X=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{YL}{YX}}{}\varphi _Y,$$

we have

$$\underset{i}{}f_ih_iR_{q1}^{p1}+\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{YL}{YX}}{}S^pC_{q,Y}.$$

By Lemma 3.4, one has $`f_iI(X)`$ for each $`i`$. Thus

$$\varphi _X=\tau _{q,X}^p(\underset{i}{}[f_i]h_i)=0.\mathrm{}$$

## 4 Proofs

In this section we prove Theorem 1.2, Corollaries 1.4 and 1.5. First recall the Möbius function $`\mu :L`$ in Definition 3.2.

###### Definition 4.1.

The Poincaré polynomial of $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{Poin}(𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta }),t)=\underset{XL}{}\mu (X)(t)^{\mathrm{codim}X}.$$

The Poincaré polynomial is combinatorially defined and is known to be equal to the Poincaré polynomial of the topological space $`M(𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta })):=V_{H𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta })}H`$ when $`𝐊=`$  \[3, Theorem 5.93\].

Proof of Theorem 1.2. By Propositions 3.6 and 3.5, we have

$$\overline{R_q^p}=\underset{XL}{}\overline{R_{q,X}^p}\mathrm{and}\overline{R_{q,X}^p}S_X^pC_{q,X}.$$

Combining these with Proposition 3.3, we have

$`\mathrm{Poin}(\overline{R}(\mathrm{\Delta }),s,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p,q}{}}dim(\overline{R_q^p})s^pt^q={\displaystyle \underset{p,q}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{XL}{}}dim(\overline{R_{q,X}^p})\right)s^pt^q`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{XL}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{p0}{}}dim(S_X^p)s^p\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{q0}{}}dim(C_{q,X})t^q\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{XL}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1s}}\right)^{dimX}(1)^{\mathrm{codim}X}\mu (X)\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{1t}}\right)^{\mathrm{codim}X}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{XL}{}}(1)^{\mathrm{codim}X}\mu (X)\left({\displaystyle \frac{t(1s)}{1t}}\right)^{\mathrm{codim}X}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1s}}\right)^{\mathrm{}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1s)^{\mathrm{}}}}\mathrm{Poin}(𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta }),{\displaystyle \frac{t(1s)}{1t}}).\mathrm{}`$
Proof of Corollary 1.3. By Propostion 2.2, we obtain

$$dim(R_q^p)=\underset{ap,bq}{}dim(\overline{R_b^a}).$$

Thus

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{p,q}{}dim(R_q^p)s^pt^q=\left(\underset{c0}{}s^c\right)\left(\underset{d0}{}t^d\right)\underset{a,b}{}dim(\overline{R_b^a})s^at^b\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{1}{(1s)(1t)}\mathrm{Poin}(\overline{R}(\mathrm{\Delta }),s,t)=\frac{1}{(1s)^{\mathrm{}+1}(1t)}\mathrm{Poin}(𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta }),\frac{t(1s)}{1t}).\mathrm{}\end{array}$$

Let $`\mathrm{Der}`$ be the $`S`$-module of derivations :

$$\mathrm{Der}=\{\theta \theta :SS\text{ is a }𝐊\text{-linear derivations}\}.$$

Then $`\mathrm{Der}`$ is naturally isomorphic to $`S_𝐊V`$. Define

$$D(\mathrm{\Delta })=\{\theta \mathrm{Der}\theta (\alpha )\alpha S\text{ for any }\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }\},$$

which is naturally an $`S`$-submodule of $`\mathrm{Der}`$. We say that the arrangement $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is free if $`D(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is a free $`S`$-module \[3, Definition 4.15\]. An element $`\theta D(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is said to be homogeneous of degree $`p`$ if

$$\theta (x)S^p\text{ for all }xV^{}.$$

When $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is a free arrangement, let $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$ be a homogeneous basis for $`D(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. The $`\mathrm{}`$ nonnegative integers $`\mathrm{deg}\theta _1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{deg}\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$ are called the exponents of $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. Then one has

###### Proposition 4.2.

(Factorization Theorem , \[3, Theorem 4.137\]) If $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is a free arrangement with exponents $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_{\mathrm{}},`$ then

$$\mathrm{Poin}(𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta }),t)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1+d_it).$$

By Theorem 1.2 and Proposition 4.2, we immediately have Corollary 1.4. Corollary 1.5 is a special case of Corollary 1.4 because the set $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ of reflecting hyperplanes is known to be a free arrangement   \[3, Theorem 6.60\].


text:
# Indecomposable representations of Lie superalgebras

## Introduction

This is a version of the paper published in: In: Sissakian A. N. (ed.), Memorial volume dedicated to Misha Saveliev and Igor Luzenko, JINR, Dubna, 2000, 126–131.

Meanwhile Noam Shomron \[Sh\] rediscovered an unpublished A. Shapovalov’s results on modules over $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(0|m)`$, $`𝔰𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(0|m)`$, $`𝔭𝔢(m)`$, $`𝔰𝔭𝔢(m)`$ and $`𝔥(0|m)`$, $`𝔰𝔥(0|m)`$. Shomron formulated it only for $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(0|m)`$ but went further in formulation and his proof is impressive.

In what follows the ground field is $``$. This paper is an attempt to review the subject, in particular, formulate tame open problems.

### 0.0. Prehistory

The study of irreducible finite dimensional representations of simple finite dimensional Lie algebras over $``$ is a natural problem. It turns out that such representations are completely reducible and, therefore, it suffices to study irreducible modules. Situation changes when we consider infinite dimensional modules, even if the module is “semi-infinite” in a sence, e.g., possesses a highest or lowest weight vector. Among such representation and their “infinite in both ways” generalizations, Harish-Chandra modules, there is no complete reducibility but the problem of description of all indecomposable modules in these categories seem to be wild. (So we can describe either finite dimensional (hence, irreducible), or infinite dimensional and irreducible, or nothing.)

The study of invariant differential operators on manifolds is closely related with continuous in a natural topology infinite dimensional representations of simple infinite dimensional Lie algebras of vector fields $``$. Though the representations themselves are no longer completely reducible, the description of irreducible ones reduces, to an extent, to finite dimensional representations of simple finite dimensional Lie algebras $`L_0`$, the linear parts of $``$ (see \[R\] and an elucidation \[BL\]). This reduction to finite dimensional representation of simple Lie algebras was, perhaps, a motivation for I. Gelfand to consider the classification problem of indecomposable representations (say, in the class of modules with highest or lowest weight vectors) of such Lie algebras not hopeless (at least, in the particular and exceptional case of $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(1)=𝔡𝔢𝔯[x]`$). Observe that this problem is still open.

Passing to Lie superalgebras, we are forced to consider their indecomposable representations even in the above problems for several reasons:

(1) even finite dimensional representations of simple Lie superalgebras are never completely reducible (with the only exception of $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(1|2n)`$; the proof of this fact is similar to that for Lie algebras, cf. \[B\]);

(2) the description of irreducible and continuous in a natural topology infinite dimensional representations of simple infinite dimensional Lie superalgebras of vector fields $``$ does not reduce to finite dimensional representations of the corresponding finite dimensional Lie superalgebras $`L_0`$ but even if we confine ourselves to such representations we have to face problem (1). (This was the reason problem (1) was first tackled; G. Shmelev \[Sh1\], \[Sh2\] considered problem (1) only in conneciton with problem (2) in a particular case of the latter: for $`L_0=𝔬𝔰𝔭(m|2n)`$.)

One more reason is provided by the necessity to classify embeddings of $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(N|2)`$ into the simple Lie superalgebras; this classification is a part of the explicit solution of vector-valued generalizations of $`N`$-extended Leznov-Saveliev equations considered, so far, for $`N=1`$ only, see \[LSS\].

### 0.1. History. Main result

Unless otherwise stated, in what follows $`𝔤`$ is either $`𝔰𝔩(1|n)`$ or $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(2|2n)`$. For $`𝔤`$, the description of irreducible finite dimensional representations is complete, cf. \[BL\], \[L1\]. The next step — a description of indecomposable modules — was performed under the assumption of $`𝔥`$-diagonalizability in \[Sh1\], \[Sh2\], \[L2\] who used a key observation A. A. Kirillov made: he related the problem with a result of \[ZN\].

A draft of this paper was written in 1989; I delayed the publication because I wanted to compute the odd parameters. Regrettably, it is still an open problem. Meanwhile the problem considered in this paper was solved for $`𝔰𝔩(1|2)`$ by Su Yucai \[S2\] (with minor omissions). He also classifieded indecomposable infinite dimensional (Harish-Chandra) modules over $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(1|2)`$, see \[S1\].

Here we complete the description of indecomposable finite dimensional representations of $`𝔤`$ in full generality. Our results are based on the deep results of I. Gelfand and Ponomarev \[GP\]. Not only are they deep, they are obtained by elementary methods and I consider this as an advantage.

Meanwhile J. Germoni independently considered the case $`𝔰𝔩(1|n)`$ by much more sophisticated methods (which enabled him to relate the result with quivers, etc.), cf. \[G1\], and completely classified indecomposable representation. However, \[G1\] and its continuation \[G2\] do not mention either $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(2|2n)`$ considered in \[L2\] or odd parameters discussed here.

Observe that the description of indecomposable representations for $`𝔰𝔩(1|n)`$ and $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(2|2n)`$ are obtained by practically identical means, be they either elementary (as here) or more involved (as in \[G1\]).

### 0.2. A related problem

For $`𝔤𝔩(m|n)`$ or $`𝔰𝔩(m|n)`$, Sergeev proved \[Se\] that any finite dimensional representation realizable in the space of tensors $`T(V\mathrm{\Pi }(V))`$ is completely reducible. There is no complete reducibility for representations realizable in the general tensor algebra $`T(V\mathrm{\Pi }(V))V^{}\mathrm{\Pi }(V^{}))`$. To distinguish a subalgebra of the tensor algebra inside of which the complete reducibility takes place for $`𝔤𝔤𝔩`$ is an interesting open problem for various representations $`V`$, the identity representation of the matrix algebra, the representations of minimal dimention and the adjoint representation are most interesting to consider.

### 0.3. On tame and wild representations

The problem of description of indecomposable representations of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)`$ for $`n>2`$ is a wild one (this inference from \[GP\] is made in \[ZN\]). Similarly, one deduces that to describe indecomposable representations of the direct sum of several copies of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(2)`$ is a wild problem.

Germoni proved that the description of indecomposable representations of $`𝔤=𝔰𝔩(p|q)`$, where $`1<pq`$, is a wild problem \[G1\] by cohomology arguments. Roughly speaking, it seem to be related with the possibility to embed the direct sum of two copies of $`𝔰𝔩(1|1)`$ into $`𝔤`$ since this reduces to description of indecomposable representations of the direct sum of several copies of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(2)`$. The arguments are, however, subtler, and it is an open problem to consider the indecomposable representations of simple (and close to them) Lie superalgebras of other types.

For certain particular representation of any superalgebra one can always obtain the final result. For example, P. Grozman recently computed with the help of his package SuperLie, see \[GL\], the decomposition of $`𝔤𝔤`$ for certain particular Lie superalgebras $`𝔤`$. In \[G2\] Germoni considered indecomposable representations of two of the exceptional Lie superalgebras.

### 0.4. Miscellanea

Several such partial results obtained with P. Grozman constitute explicit decomposition of $`𝔤𝔤`$ for $`𝔤=𝔰𝔩(1|1)`$, $`𝔰𝔩(1|2)`$, $`𝔭𝔰𝔩(2|2)`$ and some other algebras. They are prompted by A. Vaintrob who hopes to relate them with the description of invariants of links and tangles à la \[BS\] and are presented elsewhere.

## §1. Representations of $`𝔰𝔩(1|1)`$

Thanks to the super analog of I. Schur lemma, to consider the irreducible representations of $`𝔰𝔩(1|1)`$ is the same as to consider same of the (associative) Clifford superalgebra $`Cl_{\mathrm{}}(2)=U(𝔰𝔩(1|1))/(E\mathrm{})`$ for $`\mathrm{}`$, where $`E`$ is the central element of $`𝔰𝔩(1|1)`$. General Algebra and Linear Algebra in Superspaces yield the following statement:

###### Proposition .

The irreducible representations of $`Cl_{\mathrm{}}(2)`$ are:

1) for $`\mathrm{}0`$: the $`1|1`$-dimensional modules $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ with even highest vector on which $`E`$ acts as the operator of multiplication by the scalar $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }(V^{\mathrm{}})`$;

2) for $`\mathrm{}=0`$: the $`1|0`$-dimensional trivial module $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{𝟏})`$.

Problem Describe representations of $`𝑈(𝔰𝔩(1|1))/(E^n\mathrm{})`$.

Observe that for $`\mathrm{}=0`$ the superalgebra $`Cl_{\mathrm{}}(2)`$ turns into the Grassmann superalgebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(2)`$ with two generators. In order to study indecomposable representations of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)`$, recall some general results on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)`$-modules.

Modules over Grassmann superalgebras are described in \[BG\]. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)`$ be Grassmann superalgebra with $`n`$ indeterminates, i.e., the free supercommutative superalgebra with $`n`$ odd indeterminates $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n`$. Setting $`\mathrm{deg}\theta _i=1`$ we define a $``$-gradation on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)`$. In this section we only consider left unitary $``$-graded modules with a compatible $`/2`$-grading, i.e., the parity of the elements is their degree modulo 2 and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)_iV_jV_{i+j}`$ for $`i,j`$. Given a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)`$-module $`V=V_i`$ and $`r`$, define $`V[r]`$ by setting $`V[r]_i=V_{ri}`$.

A $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)`$-module $`V`$ is called reduced if $`\mathrm{\Theta }V=0`$ for $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\theta _1\mathrm{}\theta _n`$ (the highest term in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)`$).

###### Lemma .

(\[BG\]) i) Any free $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)`$-module $`V`$ is of the form $`F=_r\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)[r]`$.

ii) Any $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)`$-module $`V`$ can be represented in the form $`FV^{rd}`$, where $`F`$ is free and $`V^{rd}`$ is reduced.

iii) Any indecomposable $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)`$-module is either isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)[r]`$ for some $`r`$ or is reduced.

Since we are only interested in compatibility of the action with parity, it suffices to consider shifts of grading modulo 2 in which case they coinside with the change of parity functor $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$.

### 1.3. Reduced modules over $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(2)`$

Let $`a`$ and $`b`$ be generators of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(2)`$. On a reduced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(2)`$-module $`V`$ the operators $`a`$ and $`b`$ satisfy

$$a^2=b^2=ab=ba=0$$

and, therefore, results from \[GP\] are applicable. Let us recall these results (and adjust them to supercase). We will depict $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(2)`$-modules by directed graphs whose nodes stand for subsuperspaces of $`V`$; the action of $`a`$ is depicted by a horisontal arrow, that of $`b`$ by a vertical one; up to changes of parity both actions are isomorphisms representable in a basis by the identity matrix. The curvy arrow may stand for either $`a`$ or $`b`$ and corresponds to the Jordan cell with eigenvalue $`\mu `$.

Type I modules $`V(p+q\epsilon ;dir)`$: are determined by their dimension $`p+q\epsilon `$, where $`q=p`$ or $`q=p\pm 1`$, and the direction ($`dir=in`$ or $`dir=out`$) indicating the submodule (each node is $`1`$-dimensional). Here is the diagram representing $`V(p+q\epsilon ;dir)`$ for $`(p,q)=(3,2)`$ and $`(2,3)`$, respectively:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & & & \\ & & & & \\ & & & & \\ & & & & \\ & & & & \end{array}\text{and}\begin{array}{ccccc}& & & & \\ & & & & \\ & & & & \\ & & & & \\ & & & & \end{array}$$

Type II modules $`V(p;m+n\epsilon ;dir;\mu )`$ are generalizations of Type I modules by means of the operator depicted by a curvy arrow (here depicted by the composition of arrows of two solid lines) from the space represented by the most left and upper node to the most right and low one or the other way round.

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}& & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \end{array}\text{and}\begin{array}{cccccc}& & & & & \\ & & & & & \\ & & & & & \\ & & & & & \\ & & & & & \end{array}$$

Modules $`V(p;m+n\epsilon ;dir;\mu )`$ are determined by three nonnegative integers: the superdimension $`m+n\epsilon `$ of the subsuperspace corresponding to each node and the total number of nodes, $`p`$; in either of the two slanted lines the graph “lies” on and the directions $`dir`$ of the first arrow (since we only consider graded modules, the odd operators $`a`$ and $`b`$ must change parity; hence, the direction of the last noncurvy arrow must coincide with that of the first one), and the parameter $`\mu `$ corresponds to the eigenvalue of the Jordan cell represented by the curvy arrow (not depicted).

The following result is an easy corollary of \[GP\], pp. 59–60 (compare with \[ZN\], where the description of type II modules contains an omission).

###### Lemma .

Let $`V`$ be a reduced indecomposable $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(2)`$-module. Up to the change of parity, $`V`$ is one of the above modules $`V(p+q\epsilon ;dir)`$ of type I or modules $`V(p;m+n\epsilon ;dir;\mu )`$ of type II.

### 1.4. Indecomposable representations of $`Cl_{\mathrm{}}(2)`$ for $`\mathrm{}0`$

Let $`X_\pm `$ be the generators of $`𝔰𝔩(1|1)`$. Denote by $`V^{\mathrm{}}(n)`$ for $`n>0`$ the $`𝔰𝔩(1|1)`$-module induced from the $`n`$-dimensional representation $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$ of the uppertriangular subalgebra $`𝔟=Span(E,X_+)`$:

$$\rho _{\mathrm{}}(E)=J_n(\mathrm{})\text{ for the Jordan cell }J_n(\mathrm{}),\rho _{\mathrm{}}(X_+)=0.$$

Clearly, $`V^{\mathrm{}}(1)=V^{\mathrm{}}`$ and on $`V^{\mathrm{}}(n)`$ we have:

$$\rho _{\mathrm{}}(X_{})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1_n& 0\end{array}\right),\rho _{\mathrm{}}(E)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}J_n(\mathrm{})& 0\\ 0& J_n(\mathrm{})\end{array}\right),\rho _{\mathrm{}}(X_+)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& J_n(\mathrm{})\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$

###### Lemma .

Up to the change of parity, all the indecomposable representations of $`Cl_{\mathrm{}}(2)`$ for $`\mathrm{}0`$ are realized in the modules $`V^{\mathrm{}}(n)`$.

###### Proof.

A representation from Lemma is, clearly, indecomposable. Such representatins realize the only way to glue two copies of $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$: indeed, $`dimH^1(𝔰𝔩(1|1);\mathrm{End}(V^{\mathrm{}}))=1`$. Since $`dimH^1(𝔰𝔩(1|1);V^{\mathrm{}}V^\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})=0`$ for $`\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$, it is impossible to glue modules $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ for different $`\mathrm{}`$’s. Similar argument applies to $`V^{\mathrm{}}(n)`$. ∎

Now, let us collect our results.

###### Theorem .

Indecomposable finite dimensional representations of $`𝔰𝔩(1|1)`$ are realized, up o the change of parity, in the modules

1) $`V^{\mathrm{}}(n)`$ of dimension $`n+n\epsilon `$;

2) $`V(p+q\epsilon ;dir)`$ of type I; its dimension is equal to $`p+q\epsilon `$ with $`q=p`$ or $`p\pm 1`$;

3) $`V(p;m+n\epsilon ;dir;\mu )`$ of type II; its dimension is equal to $`p(m+n)(1+\epsilon )`$;

4) $`𝔤𝔩(1|1)`$; this is a free $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(2)`$-module.

## §2. Irreducible representations of $`𝔤\simeq ̸𝔰𝔩(1|1)`$

The Lie superalgebras $`𝔤`$ of series $`𝔰𝔩`$ and $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(2|2n)`$ have a $``$-grading of the form $`𝔤=𝔤_1𝔤_0𝔤_1`$. Hence, (\[BL\]), any irreducible $`𝔤`$-module $`L^h`$ with highest weight $`h`$ and even highest vector is the quotient of the induced module $`I(V^h)=U(𝔤)_{U(𝔤_0𝔤_1)}V^h`$ for an irreducible $`𝔤_0`$-module $`V^h`$ with highest weight $`h`$.

V. Kac gave a description \[K\] of conditions under which the module $`I(V^h)`$ is irreducible, if $`dimV^h<\mathrm{}`$. A weight $`h`$ is typical if $`(h+\rho ,\phi _i)0`$ for the Killing form $`(,)`$ on $`𝔤`$ and every root $`\phi _i`$ of the odd space $`𝔤_1`$. (Here $`\rho `$ is a half sum of positive even roots and negative odd ones.)

For atypical weights the modules $`I(h)`$ constitute infinite in both directions acyclic complexes, first described in\[BL\] and \[L1\]. Recall this result.

### 2.1. The complex of integral and differential forms and its generalizations

For $`𝔰𝔩(1|2)𝔬𝔰𝔭(2|2)𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(0|2)`$ the interpretation of the modules in the realization by vector fields is the most graphic one. Every irreducible finite dimensional $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(0|2)`$-module is of the following form (up to $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$). Let $`(a,b)`$ be the weights with respect to $`\xi _1_1`$ and $`\xi _2_2`$, respectively. Then $`I(V^{(a,b)})`$ is irreducible if $`(a,b)(0,n)`$ or $`(n+1,1)`$. In the latter case, set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n=I(V^{(0,n)})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n=I(V^{(n+1,1)})`$. These spaces are called the superspaces of integral $`(n)`$-forms and differential $`n`$-forms, respectively. They constitute an acyclic complex

$$\mathrm{}\stackrel{d}{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_n\stackrel{d}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{d}{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\stackrel{d}{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\stackrel{{\scriptscriptstyle }}{}\mathrm{\Omega }^0\stackrel{d}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{d}{}\mathrm{\Omega }^n\stackrel{d}{}\mathrm{}$$

Denote by $`i(k)`$ the kernel of the outgoing arrow at the $`k`$-th place of the above complex. This is an irreducible module and two modules with neighboring numbers are glued in one indecomposable one, more exactly,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_ni(n+1)\mathrm{\Pi }(i(n))\text{ and }\mathrm{\Omega }^n\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^{}i(n)\mathrm{\Pi }(i(n+1)).$$

These arrows can be organized in graphs similar to the cases $`𝔤=𝔰𝔩(1|1)`$. Let us number the nodes in graphs corresponding to modules of type I downwards, starting with an integer $`k`$. Let the $`n`$-th node denote the module $`i(n)`$ or $`\mathrm{\Pi }(i(n))`$, and denote the corresponding module by $`V(p+q\epsilon ,dir;k)`$. The dimension of the module obtained is equal to $`2p(k+p1)(1+\epsilon )`$ if $`p=q`$ and to $`N+(N1)\epsilon `$, where $`N=k(2p+1)+2p^2`$, for $`p=q1`$, to $`N+(N+1)\epsilon `$, where $`N=k(2p+1)+2(p^2p+1)`$, for $`p=q+1`$ The following module $`Sq(k)`$ of dimension $`(4k2)(1+\epsilon )`$ is an analog of the representation of $`𝔰𝔩(1|1)`$ in $`𝔤𝔩(1|1)`$, i.e., the free $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(2)`$-module of rank 1:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}i(k)& & \mathrm{\Pi }(i(k+1))\\ & & \\ \mathrm{\Pi }(i(k1))& & i(k)\end{array}$$

###### Lemma .

(\[Sh1\]) For $`𝔤\simeq ̸𝔰𝔩(1|1)`$ we have $`\mathrm{Ext}^1(I(\phi ),I(\chi ))=0`$;

$$\mathrm{Ext}^1(i(\phi ),i(\chi ))=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & \text{if, up to }\mathrm{\Pi }\text{}(i(\phi ),i(\chi ))=(I(\phi ),I(\chi ))\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

This lemma shows that indecomposable modules over $`𝔤\simeq ̸𝔰𝔩(1|1)`$ are simpler than those over $`𝔰𝔩(1|1)`$.

## §3. Supervarieties of representations

So far we have described points of the variety that parametrizes $`𝔤`$-modules.

To consider the supervariety is not difficult: its points are the same as those of the underlying variety. The tangent space to the supervariety of parameters at its point corresponding to an indecomposiable module $`V`$ is, as follows from the cohomology theory (cf., e.g., \[F\]), isomorphic to $`H^1(𝔤;\mathrm{End}(V))`$.

###### Theorem .

(\[Sh1\]) $`H^1(𝔤;\mathrm{End}(V))_{\overline{1}}=0`$ for $`𝔤\cong ̸𝔰𝔩(1|1)`$ and any indecomposiable module $`V`$ or if $`𝔤𝔰𝔩(1|1)`$ and $`VV_{\mathrm{}}(n)`$.

Proof is straightforward, with the help of the Cazimir element. ∎

For $`V\cong ̸V_{\mathrm{}}(n)`$ there are odd parameters. Indeed, consider the simplest cases: $`V\mathrm{𝟏}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{𝟏})`$. In either case, $`\mathrm{End}(V)\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and, since $`H^1(𝔰𝔩(1|1))[\xi ,\eta ]/(\xi \eta )`$, where $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ are odd 1-cocycles, see \[FL\], $`dimH^1(𝔰𝔩(1|1))_{\overline{1}}=2`$. There are no obstructions to globalization of these deformations.

Computation of $`H^1(𝔤;\mathrm{End}(V))`$ for modules more complicated than the trivial one seems at the moment to be too difficult to handle by bare hands or even bare computers.

## §4. On indecomposable representations of vectorial Lie superalgebras

Consider any of the simple finite dimensional vectorial Lie superalgebras $``$ except $`\stackrel{~}{𝔰𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱}(0|n)`$ or $`𝔰𝔭𝔢(n)`$ in their standard $``$-grading: $`=\underset{1}{\overset{k}{}}L_i`$. Set

$$L_{}=\underset{i0}{}L_i;L_>=\underset{i>0}{}L_i;L_{}=\underset{i<0}{}L_i;L_{}=\underset{i0}{}L_i.$$

Let $`V`$ be an irreducible $`L_0`$-module. We will consider two types of $``$-modules:

1) let $`L_>V=0`$ and set $`I(V)=U()_{U(L_{}}V`$.

2) let $`L_<V=0`$ and set $`(V)=U()_{U(L_{}}V`$.

The Lie superalgebras with Cartan matrix and with a compatible grading are of the form $`=L_1L_0L_1`$, where $`L_1L_1^{}`$. Therefore, for them $`I(V)(V^{})`$.

Contrarywise for the vectorial Lie superalgebras the diference between modules $`I(V)`$ and $`(V)`$ is crucial. As is easy to see with the help of the Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt theorem, $`I(V)\mathrm{\Lambda }(L_{})V`$, as spaces. For vectorial Lie superalgebras distinct from $`𝔰𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(0|2)`$, $`𝔰𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(0|3)𝔰𝔭𝔢(3)`$ and $`𝔰𝔥(0|4)`$ the space $`(V)`$ is of infinite dimension.

For $`𝔰𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(0|3)`$ and $`𝔰𝔭𝔢(n)`$, though $`(V)`$ is of finite dimension, still $`I(V)\simeq ̸(V^{})`$. However, thanks to the existence of complete description of typical $`𝔰𝔭𝔢(n)`$-modules, see \[L3\] one may hope for a complete description of indecomposable $`𝔰𝔭𝔢(n)`$-modules, at least, for $`n=3`$. The limitations for this hope are set by Theorem 4.2.

###### Theorem .

(Shapovalov, 1985) Typical irreducible representaitons of $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(0|2)`$ and $`𝔰𝔥(0|4)`$ are direct summands.

###### Theorem .

(Shapovalov, 1985) Indecomposable representaitons of $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(0|n)`$ for $`n>2`$, $`𝔰𝔭𝔢(n)`$, $`𝔰𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(0|n)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝔰𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱}(0|n)`$ for $`n>3`$ and $`𝔰𝔥(0|n)`$ for $`n>4`$ may include any irreducible module as the composition factor.

No proof of these theorems was ever published. Recent result of Shomron (given with proof) \[Sh\] covers the $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(0|n)`$ case and indicates how to tackle the other cases.

## Appendix

### A.1. Linear algebra in superspaces. Generalities

A superspace is a $`/2`$-graded space; for a superspace $`V=V_{\overline{0}}V_{\overline{1}}`$ denote by $`\mathrm{\Pi }(V)`$ another copy of the same superspace: with the shifted parity, i.e., $`(\mathrm{\Pi }(V))_{\overline{i}}=V_{\overline{i}+\overline{1}}`$. The superdimension of $`V`$ is $`dimV=p+q\epsilon `$, where $`\epsilon ^2=1`$ and $`p=dimV_{\overline{0}}`$, $`q=dimV_{\overline{1}}`$. (Usually $`dimV`$ is expressed as a pair $`(p,q)`$ or $`p|q`$; this obscures the fact that $`dimVW=dimVdimW`$ which becomes manifest with the use of $`\epsilon `$.)

A superspace structure in $`V`$ induces the superspace structure in the space $`\mathrm{End}(V)`$. A basis of a superspace is always a basis consisting of homogeneous vectors; let $`Par=(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{dimV})`$ be an ordered collection of their parities. We call $`Par`$ the format of the basis of $`V`$. A square supermatrix of format (size) $`Par`$ is a $`dimV\times dimV`$ matrix whose $`i`$th row and $`i`$th column are of the same parity $`p_i`$. The matrix unit $`E_{ij}`$ is supposed to be of parity $`p_i+p_j`$ and the bracket of supermatrices (of the same format) is defined via Sign Rule:

if something of parity $`p`$ moves past something of parity $`q`$ the sign $`(1)^{pq}`$ accrues; the formulas defined on homogeneous elements are extended to arbitrary ones via linearity.

Examples of application of Sign Rule: setting $`[X,Y]=XY(1)^{p(X)p(Y)}YX`$ we get the notion of the supercommutator and the ensuing notions of the supercommutative superalgebra and the Lie superalgebra (that in addition to superskew-commutativity satisfies the super Jacobi identity, i.e., the Jacobi identity amended with the Sign Rule). The derivation of a superalgebra $`A`$ is a linear map $`D:AA`$ such that satisfies the Leibniz rule (and Sign rule)

$$D(ab)=D(a)b+(1)^{p(D)p(a)}aD(b).$$

In particular, let $`A=𝕂[x]`$ be the free supercommutative polynomial superalgebra in $`x=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$, where the superstructure is determined by the parities of the indeterminates: $`p(x_i)=p_i`$. Partial derivatives are defined (with the help of Leibniz and Sign Rules) by the formulas $`\frac{x_i}{x_j}=\delta _{i,j}`$.

Clearly, the collection $`𝔡𝔢𝔯A`$ of all superdifferentiations of $`A`$ is a Lie superalgebra $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(m|n)`$ on $`m`$ even and $`n`$ odd indeterminates whose elements are of the form

$$D=f_i(x)\frac{}{x_i}.$$

The divergence of such $`D`$ is defined to be

$$\mathrm{div}D=(1)^{p(f_i)}\frac{f_i}{x_i}.$$

Set $`𝔰𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(m|n)=\{D𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(m|n)\mathrm{div}D=0\}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝔰𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱}(m|n)=\{D𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(m|n)\mathrm{div}(1+t\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _n)D=0\}`$, where $`p(t)n(mod2)`$.

Define the superalgebra of differential forms as the supercommutative superalgebra of polynomials in the $`x_i`$ and $`dx_i`$ with $`p(dx_i)=p(x_i)+1`$. Define the exterior differential $`d`$ by the formula $`d(f)=dx_i\frac{f_i}{x_i}`$ and extend $`d`$ to forms of higher degrees (in $`dx`$) via Leibniz and Sign Rules. Define the Lie derivative $`L_D`$ along $`D𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(m|n)`$ by the formula $`L_Dd(f)=(1)^{p(D)}d(D(f))`$ extended to higher forms via Leibniz and Sign Rules.

Set $`\omega =(dx_i)^2`$ and $`𝔥(0|n)=\{D𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(0|n)L_D(\omega )=0\}`$.

The general linear Lie superalgebra of all supermatrices of size $`Par`$ is denoted by $`𝔤𝔩(Par)`$; usually, $`𝔤𝔩(\overline{0},\mathrm{},\overline{0},\overline{1},\mathrm{},\overline{1})`$ is abbreviated to $`𝔤𝔩(dimV_{\overline{0}}|dimV_{\overline{1}})`$. Usually, $`Par`$ is of the form $`(\overline{0},\mathrm{},\overline{0},\overline{1},\mathrm{},\overline{1})`$. Such a format is called standard. In this paper we can do without nonstandard formats but they are vital in the study of systems of simple roots that the reader might be interested in. Any matrix from $`𝔤𝔩(Par)`$ can be expressed as the sum of its even and odd parts; in the standard format this is the block expression:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& D\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& 0\\ 0& D\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& B\\ C& 0\end{array}\right),p\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& 0\\ 0& D\end{array}\right)\right)=\overline{0},p\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& B\\ C& 0\end{array}\right)\right)=\overline{1}.$$

The supertrace is the map $`𝔤𝔩(Par)`$, $`(A_{ij})(1)^{p_i}A_{ii}`$. Since $`\mathrm{str}[x,y]=0`$, the space of supertraceless matrices constitutes the special linear Lie subsuperalgebra $`𝔰𝔩(Par)`$.

Lie superalgebras that preserve bilinear forms: two types. To the linear map $`F`$ of superspaces there corresponds the dual map $`F^{}`$ between the dual superspaces; if $`A`$ is the supermatrix corresponding to $`F`$ in a basis of the format $`Par`$, then to $`F^{}`$ the supertransposed matrix $`A^{st}`$ corresponds:

$$(A^{st})_{ij}=(1)^{(p_i+p_j)(p_i+p(A))}A_{ji}.$$

The supermatrices $`X𝔤𝔩(Par)`$ such that

$$X^{st}B+(1)^{p(X)p(B)}BX=0\text{for an homogeneous matrix }B𝔤𝔩(Par)$$

constitute the Lie superalgebra $`𝔞𝔲𝔱(B)`$ that preserves the bilinear form on $`V`$ with matrix $`B`$.

Recall that the supersymmetry of the homogeneous form $`\omega `$ means that its matrix $`B`$ satisfies the condition $`B^u=B`$, where $`B^u=\left(\begin{array}{cc}R^t& (1)^{p(B)}T^t\\ (1)^{p(B)}S^t& U^t\end{array}\right)`$ for the matrix $`B=\left(\begin{array}{cc}R& S\\ T& U\end{array}\right)`$. Similarly, skew-supersymmetry of $`B`$ means that $`B^u=B`$. Thus, we see that the upsetting of bilinear forms $`u:\mathrm{Bil}(V,W)\mathrm{Bil}(W,V)`$, which for the spaces $`V=W`$ is expressed on matrices in terms of the transposition, is a new operation.

Most popular canonical forms of the nondegenerate supersymmetric form are the ones whose supermatrices in the standard format are the following canonical ones, $`B_{ev}`$ or $`B_{ev}^{}`$:

$$B_{ev}(m|2n)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1_m& 0\\ 0& J_{2n}\end{array}\right),\text{where }J_{2n}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1_n\\ 1_n& 0\end{array}\right)\text{,}$$

or

$$B_{ev}^{}(m|2n)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{antidiag}(1,\mathrm{},1)& 0\\ 0& J_{2n}\end{array}\right).$$

The usual notation for $`𝔞𝔲𝔱(B_{ev}(m|2n))`$ is $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(m|2n)`$ or $`𝔬𝔰𝔭^{sy}(m|2n)`$. (Observe that the passage from $`V`$ to $`\mathrm{\Pi }(V)`$ sends the supersymmetric forms to superskew-symmetric ones, preserved by the “symplectico-orthogonal” Lie superalgebra $`𝔰𝔭^{}𝔬(2n|m)`$ or $`𝔬𝔰𝔭^{sk}(m|2n)`$ which is isomorphic to $`𝔬𝔰𝔭^{sy}(m|2n)`$ but has a different matrix realization. We never use notation $`𝔰𝔭^{}𝔬(2n|m)`$ in order not to confuse with the special Poisson superalgebra.)

In the standard format the matrix realizations of these algebras are:

$$\begin{array}{c}𝔬𝔰𝔭(m|2n)=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{ccc}E& Y& X^t\\ X& A& B\\ Y^t& C& A^t\end{array}\right)\right\};𝔬𝔰𝔭^{sk}(m|2n)=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{ccc}A& B& X\\ C& A^t& Y^t\\ Y& X^t& E\end{array}\right)\right\},\\ \text{where}\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& A^t\end{array}\right)𝔰𝔭(2n),E𝔬(m)\text{and}{}_{}{}^{t}\text{is the usual transposition}.\end{array}$$

A nondegenerate supersymmetric odd bilinear form $`B_{odd}(n|n)`$ can be reduced to the canonical form whose matrix in the standard format is $`J_{2n}`$. A canonical form of the superskew odd nondegenerate form in the standard format is $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{2n}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1_n\\ 1_n& 0\end{array}\right)`$. The usual notation for $`𝔞𝔲𝔱(B_{odd}(Par))`$ is $`𝔭𝔢(Par)`$. The passage from $`V`$ to $`\mathrm{\Pi }(V)`$ sends the supersymmetric forms to superskew-symmetric ones and establishes an isomorphism $`𝔭𝔢^{sy}(Par)𝔭𝔢^{sk}(Par)`$. This Lie superalgebra is called, as A. Weil suggested, periplectic. In the standard format these superalgebras are shorthanded as in the following formula, where their matrix realizations is also given:

$$\begin{array}{c}𝔭𝔢^{sy}(n)=\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& A^t\end{array}\right),\text{where}B=B^t,C=C^t\};\\ 𝔭𝔢^{sk}(n)=\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& A^t\end{array}\right),\text{where}B=B^t,C=C^t\}.\end{array}$$

The special periplectic superalgebra is $`𝔰𝔭𝔢(n)=\{X𝔭𝔢(n):\mathrm{str}X=0\}`$.

Observe that though the Lie superalgebras $`𝔬𝔰𝔭^{sy}(m|2n)`$ and $`𝔭𝔢^{sk}(2n|m)`$, as well as $`𝔭𝔢^{sy}(n)`$ and $`𝔭𝔢^{sk}(n)`$, are isomorphic, the difference between them is sometimes crucial.