text:
# The Camassa-Holm hierarchy, related 𝑁-dimensional integrable systems, and algebro-geometric solution on a symplectic submanifold

## 1 Introduction

The shallow water equation derived by Camassa-Holm (CH) in 1993  is a new integrable system. This equation possesses the bi-Hamiltonian structure, Lax pair and peakon solutions, and retains higher order terms of derivatives in a small amplitude expansion of incompressible Euler’s equations for unidirectional motion of waves at the free surface under the influence of gravity. In 1995 Calogero  extended the class of mechanical system of this type. Later, Ragnisco and Bruschi  and Suris , showed that the CH equation yields the dynamics of the peakons in terms of an $`N`$-dimensional completely integrable Hamiltonian system. Such kind of dynamical system has Lax pair and an $`N\times N`$ $`r`$-matrix structure .

Recently, the algebro-geometric solution on the CH equation and the CH hierarchy arose much more attraction. This kind of solution for most classical integrable PDEs can be obtained by using the inverse spectral transform theory, see Dubrovin 1981 , Ablowitz and Segur 1981 , Novikov et al 1984 , Newell 1985 . This is done usually by adopting the sprectral technique associated with the corresponding PDE. Alber and Fedorov  studied the stationary and the time-dependent quasi-periodic solution for the CH equation and Dym type equation through using the method of trace formula  and Abel mapping and functional analysis on the Riemann surfaces. Later, Alber, Camassa, Fedorov, Holm and Marsden  considered the trace formula under the nonstandard Abel-Jacobi equations and by introducing new parameters presented the so-called weak finite-gap piecewise-smooth solutions of the integrable CH equation and Dym type equations. Very recently, Gesztesy and Holden  discussed the algebro-geometric solutions for the CH hierarchy using the polynomial recursion formalism and the trace formula, and connected a Riccati equation to the Lax pair of the CH equation.

The present paper is providing another approach to algebro-geometric solutions of the CH equation which is constrained to some symplectic submanifold. Our approach differs from the ones pursued in Refs.  and we will outline the differences next. Based on the nonlinearization technique , we constrain the CH hierarchy to some symplectic submanifold and use the constraint between the potentials and the eigenfunctions first to give the parametric solution and then to give the algebro-geometric solution of the CH equation on the symplectic submanifold.

The main results of this paper are twofolds.

* First, we extend the CH equation to the negative order CH hierarchy, which is a hierarchy of integrable integro-differetial equations, through constructing the inverse recursion operator. This hierarchy is proven to have Lax pair through solving a key matrix equation. The CH spectral problem associated with this hierarchy is constrained to a symplectic submanifold and naturally gives a constraint between the spectral function and the potential. Under this constraint, the CH spectral problem (linear problem) is nonlinearized as a new $`N`$-dimensional canonical Hamiltonian system of Neumann type. This $`N`$-dimensional Neumann-like system is not the peaked dynamical system of the CH equation because the peakons does not come from the CH spectral problem. The Neumann-like CH system is shown integrable by using the so-called Dirac-Poisson brackets on the symplectic submanifold in $`^{2N}`$ and $`r`$-matrix process. Here we present a $`4\times 4`$ $`r`$-matrix structure for the Neumann-like system, which is available to get the algebro-geometric solution of the CH equation on this symplectic submanifold. The negative order CH hierarchy is proven to have the parametric solution through employing the Neumann-like constraint relation. This parametric solution does not contain the peakons , and vice versa. Furthermore, solving the parametric representation of solution on the symplectic submanifold gives an algebro-geometric solution for the CH equation. We point out that our algebro-geometric solution (see Eq. (3.152) and Remarks 3 and 4) is different from the ones in Refs. , and more simpler in the form.
* Second, based on the negative case, we naturally give the positive order CH hierarchy by considering the recursion operator. This hierarchy is shown integrable also by solving the same key matrix equation. The CH spectral problem, related to this positive order CH hierarchy, yields a new integrable $`N`$-dimensional system of Bargmann type (instead of Neumann type) by using the standard Poisson bracket and $`r`$-matrix procedure in $`^{2N}`$. A $`4\times 4`$ $`r`$-matrix structure is also presented for the Bargmann-like system (not peaked CH system, either), which is available to get the parametric solution of a Dym type equation contained in the positive order CH hierarchy. This hierarchy also possesses the parametric solution through using the Bargmann constraint relation.

Roughly speaking, our method works in the following steps (also see ):

– Start from the spectral problem.

– Find some constraint condition between the potentials and the eigenfunctions. Here, for the negative CH hierarchy, we restrict it to a symplectic manifold in $`^{2N}`$, but for the positive CH hierarchy, we will have the constraint condition in the whole $`^{2N}`$.

– Prove the constrained SPECTRAL PROBLEM is finite-dimenaional integrable. Usually we use Lax matrix and $`r`$-matrix procedure.

– Verify the above constrained potential(s) is (are) a parametric solution of the hierarchy.

– Solve the parametric representation of solution in an explicit form, then give the algebro-geometric solutions of the equations on the symplectic manifold. In this process, we separate the variables of the Jacobi-Hamiltonian system , then construct the actional variables and angle-coordinates on the symplectic submanifold, and the residues at two infinity points for some composed Riemann-Theta functions give the algebro-geometric solutions.

The whole paper is organized as follows. Next section gives a general structure of the zero curvature representations of the all vector fields for a given isospectral problem. The key point is to construct a key matrix equation. In section 3, we present the negative order CH hierarchy based on the inverse recursion operator. The well-known CH equation is included in the negative order hierarchy, and the CH spectral problem yields a new Neumann-like system which is constrained to a symplectic manifold. This system has the canonical form and is integrable by using the Dirac-Poisson bracket and the $`r`$-matrix process. Here we obtain a $`4\times 4`$ $`r`$-matrix structure for the Neumann-like CH system. Furthermore, the whole negative order CH hierarchy constrained on the symplectic submanifold has the parametric solution. In particular, the CH equation has the parametric solution on this submanifold. Finally we give an algebro-geometric solution of the CH equation on this submanifold. In section 4, we deal with the positive order integrable CH hierarchy and give a new Bargmann-like integrable system. By the use of the similar process to section 3, the CH spectral problem is nonlinearized to be an integrable system under a Bargmann constraint. This integrable Bargmann system also has an $`r`$-matrix structure of $`4\times 4`$. Moreover, the positive order CH hierarchy is also shown to have the parametric solution which obeys the Bargmann constraint relation. In particular, the Dym type equation in the positive order CH hierarchy has the parametric solution.

Let us now give some symbols and convention in this paper as follows:

$`f^{(k)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{^k}{x^k}f=f_{kx},\hfill & k=0,1,2,\mathrm{},\hfill \\ \underset{k}{\underset{}{\mathrm{}}}f\mathrm{d}x,\hfill & k=1,2,\mathrm{},\hfill \end{array}`$
$`f_t=\frac{f}{t}`$, $`f_{kxt}=\frac{^{k+1}f}{tx^k}(k=0,1,2,\mathrm{})`$, $`=\frac{}{x}`$, $`^1`$ is the inverse of $``$, i.e. $`^1=^1=1`$, $`^kf`$ means the operator $`^kf`$ acts on some function $`g`$, i.e.

$`^kfg=^k(fg)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{^k}{x^k}(fg)=(fg)_{kx},\hfill & k=0,1,2\mathrm{},\hfill \\ \underset{k}{\underset{}{\mathrm{}}}fg\mathrm{d}x,\hfill & k=1,2,\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}`$
In the following the function $`m`$ stands for potential, $`\lambda `$ is assumed to be a spectral parameter, and the domain of the spatial variable $`x`$ is $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which becomes equal to $`(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})`$ or $`(0,T)`$, while the domain of the time variable $`t_k`$ is the positive time axis $`^+=\left\{t_k\right|t_k,t_k0,k=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}\}`$. In the case $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})`$, the decaying condition at infinity and in the case $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(0,T)`$, the periodicity condition for the potential function is imposed.

$`(^{2N},\mathrm{d}p\mathrm{d}q)`$ stands for the standard symplectic structure in Euclid space $`^{2N}=\left\{(p,q)\right|p=(p_1,\mathrm{},p_N),q=(q_1,\mathrm{},q_N)\}`$, $`p_j,q_j`$ $`(j=1,\mathrm{},N)`$ are $`N`$ pairs of canonical coordinates, $`,`$ is the standard inner product in $`^N`$; in $`(^{2N},\mathrm{d}p\mathrm{d}q)`$, the Poisson bracket of two Hamiltonian functions $`F,H`$ is defined by

$$\{F,H\}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\frac{F}{q_j}\frac{H}{p_j}\frac{F}{p_j}\frac{H}{q_j}\right)=\frac{F}{q},\frac{H}{p}\frac{F}{p},\frac{H}{q}.$$
(1.3)
$`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _N`$ are assumed to be $`N`$ distinct spectral parameters, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=diag(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _N)`$, and $`I_{2\times 2}=diag(1,1)`$. Denote all infinitely times differentiable functions on real field $``$ and all integers by $`C^{\mathrm{}}()`$ and by $``$, respectively.

## 2 The Camassa-Holm (CH) spectral problem and zero curvature representation

Let us consider the Camassa-Holm (CH) spectral problem :

$`\psi _{xx}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\lambda \psi `$ (2.1)
with the potential function $`m`$.

Eq. (2.1) is apparently equivalent to

$`y_x=Uy,U=U(m,\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ \frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{2}m\lambda & 0\end{array}\right),`$ (2.4)
where $`y=(y_1,y_2)^T=(\psi ,\psi _x)^T`$. Easy to see Eq. (2.4)’s spectral gradient

$$\lambda \frac{\delta \lambda }{\delta m}=\lambda y_1^2$$
(2.5)
satisfies the following Lenard eigenvalue problem

$$K\lambda =\lambda J\lambda $$
(2.6)
with the pair of Lenard’s operators

$`K=^3+,J=m+m.`$ (2.7)
They yield the recursion operator

$$=J^1K=(m+m)^1(^3).$$
(2.8)
which also has the product form $`=\frac{1}{2}m^{\frac{1}{2}}^1m^{\frac{1}{2}}(^3)`$.

Apparently, the Gateaux derivative matrix $`U_{}(\xi )`$ of the spectral matrix $`U`$ in the direction $`\xi C^{\mathrm{}}()`$ at point $`m`$ is

$$U_{}(\xi )\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{=}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}ϵ}|_{ϵ=0}U(m+ϵ\xi )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ \frac{1}{2}\lambda \xi & 0\end{array}\right)$$
(2.9)
which is obviously an injective homomorphism.

For any given $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-function $`G`$, we construct the following matrix equation with respect to $`V=V(G)`$

$`V_x[U,V]=U_{}(KG\lambda JG).`$ (2.10)
###### Theorem 1

For the CH spectral problem (2.4) and an arbitrary $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-function $`G`$, the matrix equation (2.10) has the following solution

$`V=V(G)=\lambda \left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}G_x& G\\ \frac{1}{2}G_{xx}\frac{1}{4}G+\frac{1}{2}m\lambda G& \frac{1}{2}G_x\end{array}\right).`$ (2.13)
Proof: Directly substituting Eqs. (2.13), (2.7) and (2.9) into Eq. (2.10), we can complete the proof of this theorem.

###### Theorem 2

Let $`G_0KerJ=\{GC^{\mathrm{}}()|JG=0\}`$ and $`G_1KerK=\{GC^{\mathrm{}}()|KG=0\}`$. We define the Lenard’s sequences as follows

$`G_j=^jG_0=^{j+1}G_1,j.`$ (2.14)
Then,

1. the all vector fields $`X_k=JG_k,k`$ satisfy the following commutator representation

$`V_{k,x}[U,V_k]=U_{}(X_k),k;`$ (2.15)
2. the following hierarchy of nonlinear evolution equations

$`m_{t_k}=X_k=JG_k,k,`$ (2.16)
possesses the zero curvature representation

$`U_{t_k}V_{k,x}+[U,V_k]=0,k,`$ (2.17)

where

$`V_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle V_j\lambda ^{kj1}},{\displaystyle }=\{\begin{array}{cc}_{j=0}^{k1},\hfill & k>0,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & k=0,\hfill \\ _{j=k}^1,\hfill & k<0,\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.21)
and $`V_j=V(G_j)`$ is given by Eq. (2.13) with $`G=G_j`$.

Proof:

1. For $`k=0`$, it is obvious. For $`k<0`$, we have

$`V_{k,x}[U,V_k]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=k}{\overset{1}{}}}\left(V_{j,x}[U,V_j]\right)\lambda ^{kj1}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=k}{\overset{1}{}}}U_{}\left(KG_j\lambda KG_{j1}\right)\lambda ^{kj1}`$
$`=`$ $`U_{}\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=k}{\overset{1}{}}}KG_{j1}\lambda ^{kj}KG_j\lambda ^{kj1}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`U_{}\left(KG_{k1}KG_1\lambda ^k\right)`$
$`=`$ $`U_{}(KG_{k1})`$
$`=`$ $`U_{}(X_k).`$
For the case of $`k>0`$, it is similar to prove.
2. Noticing $`U_{t_k}=U_{}(m_{t_k})`$, we obtain

$`U_{t_k}V_{k,x}+[U,V_k]=U_{}(m_{t_k}X_k).`$
The injectiveness of $`U_{}`$ implies item 2 holds.

## 3 Negative order CH hierarchy, integrable Neumann-like system and algebro-geometric solution

### 3.1 Negative order CH hierarchy

Let us first give the negative order hierarchy of the CH spectral problem (2.4) through considering the kernel element of Lenard’s operator $`K`$. The kernel of operator $`K`$ has the following three seed functions:

$`G_1^1`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (3.1)
$`G_1^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^x,`$ (3.2)
$`G_1^3`$ $`=`$ $`e^x,`$ (3.3)
whose all possible linear combinations form the whole kernel of $`K`$. Let $`G_1KerK`$, then

$$G_1=\underset{l=1}{\overset{3}{}}a_lG_1^l$$
(3.4)
where $`a_l=a_l(t_n),l=1,2,3,`$ are three arbitrarily given $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-functions with respect to the time variables $`t_n(n<0,n)`$, but independent of the spacial variable $`x`$. Therefore, $`G_1`$ directly generates an isospectral ($`\lambda _{t_k}=0,k<0,k`$) hierarchy of nonlinear evolution equations for the CH spectral problem (2.4)

$`m_{t_k}=J^{k+1}G_1,k<0,k,`$ (3.5)
which is called the negative order CH hierarchy because of $`k<0`$. In Eq. (3.5), the operator $`J`$ is defined by Eq. (2.7) and $`^1`$ is given by

$`^1=K^1J=^1e^x^1e^{2x}^1e^x(m+m).`$ (3.6)
Here,

$`K^1=^1e^x^1e^{2x}^1e^x.`$ (3.7)
With setting $`m=uu_{xx}`$, we obtain another form of $`^1`$:

$`^1`$ $`=`$ $`u+e^x^1e^{2x}^1e^x\left(u+2u_x+^1m\right).`$ (3.8)
By Theorem 2, the negative CH hierarchy (3.5) has the zero curvature representation

$`U_{t_k}V_{k,x}+[U,V_k]`$ $`=`$ $`0,k<0,k,`$ (3.9)
$`V_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=k}{\overset{1}{}}}V_j\lambda ^{kj1},`$ (3.10)
i.e.

$`\{\begin{array}{c}y_x=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ \frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{2}m\lambda & 0\end{array}\right)y,\hfill \\ y_{t_k}=_{j=k}^1\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}G_{j,x}& G_j\\ \frac{1}{2}G_{j,xx}\frac{1}{4}G_j+\frac{1}{2}m\lambda G_j& \frac{1}{2}G_{j,x}\end{array}\right)\lambda ^{kj}y,\hfill \\ k=1,2,\mathrm{},\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.18)
where $`G_j=^{j+1}G_1,j<0,j`$. Thus, all nonlinear equations in the negative CH hierarchy (3.5) are integrable.

Let us now give some special reductions of Eq. (3.5).

* In the case of $`a_1=1,a_2=a_3=0`$, i.e. $`G_1=G_1^1=1`$, because $`G_2=^1G_1=u`$, the second equation of Eq. (3.5) reads

$`m_{t_2}=(m+m)u,`$ (3.19)
i.e. (here noticing $`m=uu_{xx}`$)

$`u_{t_2}u_{xx,t_2}+3uu_x=2u_xu_{xx}+uu_{xxx}`$ (3.20)
which is exactly the Camassa-Holm equation . According to Eq. (3.18), the CH equation (3.20) possesses the following zero curvature representation

$`\{\begin{array}{c}y_x=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ \frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{2}m\lambda & 0\end{array}\right)y,\hfill \\ y_{t_2}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}u_x& u\lambda ^1\\ \frac{1}{2}mu\lambda +\frac{1}{4}u\frac{1}{4}\lambda ^1& \frac{1}{2}u_x\end{array}\right)y,\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.27)
which is equivalent to

$`\{\begin{array}{c}\psi _{xx}=\frac{1}{4}\psi \frac{1}{2}m\lambda \psi ,\hfill \\ \psi _{t_2}=\frac{1}{2}u_x\psi u\psi _x\lambda ^1\psi _x.\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.30)
Eq. (3.30) is coinciding with the one in Ref. .

* In the cases of $`a_1=0,a_2=1,a_3=0`$ and $`a_1=0,a_2=0,a_3=1`$, i.e. $`G_1=e^x,e^x`$, we can write them in a uniform expression:

$$G_1=e^{ϵx},ϵ=\pm 1.$$

The first equation of Eq. (3.5) reads

$`m_{t_1}=(m_x+2ϵm)e^{ϵx}`$ (3.31)
which is a linear PDE.

Because $`G_2=^1G_1=\left(u+ϵu^{(1)}\right)e^{ϵx}`$, the second equation of Eq. (3.5) reads

$`m_{t_2}=\left(m_x\left(u+ϵu^{(1)}\right)+2m\left(u_x+2ϵu+u^{(1)}\right)\right)e^{ϵx}`$ (3.32)
where $`m=uu_{xx}`$. This equation has the following zero curvature representation

$`\{\begin{array}{c}y_x=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ \frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{2}m\lambda & 0\end{array}\right)y,\hfill \\ y_{t_2}=V_2y,\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.37)
where

$`V_2`$ $`=`$ $`V\left(G_2\right)\lambda ^1V\left(G_1\right)\lambda ^2`$
$`=`$ $`e^{ϵx}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}\left(u_x+2ϵu+u^{\left(1\right)}\right)+ϵ\lambda ^1& u+ϵu^{\left(1\right)})+\lambda ^1\\ \frac{3}{2}ϵu_x+\frac{7}{4}u+\frac{3}{4}ϵu^{\left(1\right)}+\frac{1}{2}m\left(u+ϵu^{\left(1\right)}\right)\lambda +\frac{1}{4}\lambda ^1& \frac{1}{2}\left(u_x+2ϵu+u^{\left(1\right)}\right)+ϵ\lambda ^1\end{array}\right).`$
Eq. (3.37) can be changed to the following Lax form

$`\{\begin{array}{c}\psi _{xx}=\frac{1}{4}\psi \frac{1}{2}m\lambda \psi \hfill \\ \psi _{t_2}=\left(u+ϵu^{(1)}+\lambda ^1\right)e^{ϵx}\psi _x\frac{1}{2}\left(u_x+2ϵu+u^{(1)}+\lambda ^1\right)e^{ϵx}\psi .\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.41)
Both of the two cases: $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ for Eq. (3.32) are integrable.

### 3.2 $`r`$-matrix structure for the Neumann-like CH system

Consider the following matrix (called ‘negative’ Lax matrix)

$$L_{}\left(\lambda \right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A_{}\left(\lambda \right)\hfill & \hfill B_{}\left(\lambda \right)\\ C_{}\left(\lambda \right)\hfill & \hfill A_{}\left(\lambda \right)\end{array}\right)$$
(3.42)
where

$`A_{}\left(\lambda \right)`$ $`=`$ $`p,q\lambda ^1+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_jq_j}{\lambda \lambda _j}},`$ (3.43)
$`B_{}\left(\lambda \right)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2+q,q\lambda ^1{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{q_j^2}{\lambda \lambda _j}},`$ (3.44)
$`C_{}\left(\lambda \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\lambda ^2p,p\lambda ^1+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_j^2}{\lambda \lambda _j}}.`$ (3.45)
We calculate the determinant of $`L_{}(\lambda )`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda ^2detL_{}\left(\lambda \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\lambda ^2\mathrm{Tr}L_{}^2\left(\lambda \right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda ^2\left(A_{}^2\left(\lambda \right)+B_{}\left(\lambda \right)C_{}\left(\lambda \right)\right)`$ (3.46)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{1}{}}}H_j\lambda ^j+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_j^{}}{\lambda \lambda _j}}`$
where $`\mathrm{Tr}`$ stands for the trace of a matrix, and

$`H_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}},`$
$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p,p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}q,q,`$ (3.47)
$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`p,q\mathrm{\Lambda }p,qp,q^2,`$
$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`p,q\mathrm{\Lambda }^1p,q+p,q^2,`$
$`E_j^{}`$ $`=`$ $`p,q\lambda _jp_jq_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(q,q\lambda _j+1\right)p_j^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(p,p\lambda _j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right)q_j^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _j^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{},j=1,2,\mathrm{},N,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{}={\displaystyle \underset{lj,l=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(p_jq_lp_lq_j)^2}{\lambda _j\lambda _l}}.`$
Let

$`F_k={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _j^{k+1}E_j^{},k=1,2,\mathrm{},`$ (3.49)
then it reads

$`F_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k+1}p,p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k+1}q,q`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=k}{\overset{2}{}}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{j+2}q,q\mathrm{\Lambda }^{kj}p,p\mathrm{\Lambda }^{j+2}p,q\mathrm{\Lambda }^{kj}p,q\right),`$
$`k=1,2,3,\mathrm{}.`$
Obviously, $`F_1=H_1`$.

Now, we consider the following symplectic submanifold in $`^{2N}`$

$`𝕄=\left\{(q,p)^{2N}\right|F{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }q,q1\right)=0,G\mathrm{\Lambda }q,p=0\}`$ (3.51)
and introduce the Dirac bracket on $`𝕄`$

$$\{f,g\}_D=\{f,g\}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q}\left(\{f,F\}\{G,g\}\{f,G\}\{F,g\}\right)$$
(3.52)
which is easily proven to be bilinear, skew-symmetric and satisfy the Jacobi identity.

In particular, the Hamiltonian system $`(H_1)_D`$: $`q_x=\{q,H_1\}_D,p_x=\{p,H_1\}_D`$ on $`𝕄`$ reads

$`(H_1)_D:\{\begin{array}{c}q_x=p,\hfill \\ p_x=\frac{1}{4}q\frac{1+4\mathrm{\Lambda }p,p}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q}\mathrm{\Lambda }q,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }q,p=0,\mathrm{\Lambda }q,q=1.\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.56)
We call this a Neumann-like system on $`𝕄`$. Let

$`m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+4\mathrm{\Lambda }p,p}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q}},`$ (3.57)
$`y_1`$ $`=`$ $`q_j,y_2=p,\lambda =\lambda _j,j=1,\mathrm{},N.`$ (3.58)
Then, the Neumann-like flow $`(H_1)_D`$ on $`𝕄`$ exactly becomes

$`y_x=U(m,\lambda )y,y=(y_1,y_2)^T,`$ (3.59)
which is nothing else but the CH spectral problem (2.4) with the potential function $`m`$. Therefore, we can call the canonical Hamiltomnian system (3.56) the Neumann-like CH system on $`𝕄`$.

A long but direct computation leads to the following key equalities:

$`\{A_{}(\lambda ),A_{}(\mu )\}_D`$ $`=`$ $`\{B_{}(\lambda ),B_{}(\mu )\}_D=0,`$
$`\{C_{}(\lambda ),C_{}(\mu )\}_D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+4\mathrm{\Lambda }p,p}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\mu }}A_{}(\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\lambda }}A_{}(\mu )\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4\lambda \mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q}}\left(C_{}(\lambda )A_{}(\mu )C_{}(\mu )A_{}(\lambda )\right),`$
$`\{A_{}(\lambda ),B_{}(\mu )\}_D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mu \lambda }}(B_{}(\mu )B_{}(\lambda ))+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\lambda }}B_{}(\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mu }}B_{}(\lambda )`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda \mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q}}B_{}(\lambda )B_{}(\mu ),`$
$`\{A_{}(\lambda ),C_{}(\mu )\}_D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mu \lambda }}(C_{}(\lambda )C_{}(\mu )){\displaystyle \frac{2}{\lambda }}C_{}(\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mu }}C_{}(\lambda )`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda \mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q}}B_{}(\lambda )C_{}(\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{(1+4\mathrm{\Lambda }p,p)\lambda }{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q\mu }}B_{}(\lambda ),`$
$`\{B_{}(\lambda ),C_{}(\mu )\}_D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\mu \lambda }}(A_{}(\mu )A_{}(\lambda ))+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\lambda }}A_{}(\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\mu }}A_{}(\lambda )`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4\lambda \mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q}}B_{}(\lambda )A_{}(\mu ).`$
Let $`L_1^{}\left(\lambda \right)=L_{}\left(\lambda \right)I_{2\times 2}`$, $`L_2^{}\left(\mu \right)=I_{2\times 2}L_{}\left(\mu \right)`$, where $`L_{}\left(\lambda \right),L_{}\left(\mu \right)`$ are given through Eq. (3.42). In the following, we search for a general $`4\times 4`$ $`r`$-matrix structure $`r_{12}^{}(\lambda ,\mu )`$ such that the fundamental Dirac-Poisson bracket:

$$\left\{L_{}\left(\lambda \right)\stackrel{}{,}L_{}\left(\mu \right)\right\}_D=[r_{12}^{}(\lambda ,\mu ),L_1^{}\left(\lambda \right)][r_{21}^{}(\mu ,\lambda ),L_2^{}\left(\mu \right)]$$
(3.60)
holds, where the entries of the $`4\times 4`$ matrix $`\left\{L_{}\left(\lambda \right)\stackrel{}{,}L_{}\left(\mu \right)\right\}_D`$ are

$$\left\{L_{}\left(\lambda \right)\stackrel{}{,}L_{}\left(\mu \right)\right\}_{D_{kl,mn}}=\{L_{}\left(\lambda \right)_{km},L_{}\left(\mu \right)_{ln}\}_D,k,l,m,n=1,2,$$

and $`r_{21}^{}(\lambda ,\mu )=Pr_{12}^{}(\lambda ,\mu )P,`$ with

$`P`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(I_{2\times 2}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\sigma _j\sigma _j\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (3.65)
where $`\sigma _j^{}`$ are the Pauli matrices.

###### Theorem 3

$$r_{12}^{}(\lambda ,\mu )=\frac{2\lambda }{\mu (\mu \lambda )}P+S^{}$$
(3.66)
is an $`r`$-matrix structure satisfying Eq. (3.60), where

$`S^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \left(1+4\mathrm{\Lambda }p,p\right)}{2\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda \mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}B_{}(\lambda )& 0\\ 2A_{}(\mu )& B_{}(\lambda )\end{array}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{2\lambda \mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q}B_{}(\lambda )& 0\\ \frac{\lambda \left(1+4\mathrm{\Lambda }p,p\right)}{2\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q}& 0& \frac{4\lambda \mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q}A_{}(\mu )& \frac{2\lambda \mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q}B_{}(\lambda )\end{array}\right).`$
Apparently, our $`r`$-matrix structure (3.66) is of $`4\times 4`$ and is different from the one in Ref. .

### 3.3 Integrability

Because there is an $`r`$-matrix structure satisfying Eq. (3.60),

$$\left\{L_{}^2\left(\lambda \right)\stackrel{}{,}L_{}^2\left(\mu \right)\right\}_D=[\overline{r}_{12}^{}(\lambda ,\mu ),L_1^{}\left(\lambda \right)][\overline{r}_{21}^{}(\mu ,\lambda ),L_2^{}\left(\mu \right)]$$
(3.70)
where

$`\overline{r}_{ij}^{}(\lambda ,\mu )={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{1}{}}}(L_1^{})^{1k}\left(\lambda \right)(L_2^{})^{1l}\left(\mu \right)r_{ij}^{}(\lambda ,\mu )(L_1^{})^k\left(\lambda \right)(L_2^{})^l\left(\mu \right),`$
$`ij=12,21.`$
Thus,

$$4\{\mathrm{Tr}L_{}^2\left(\lambda \right),\mathrm{Tr}L_{}^2\left(\mu \right)\}_D=\mathrm{Tr}\left\{L_{}^2\left(\lambda \right)\stackrel{}{,}L_{}^2\left(\mu \right)\right\}_D=0.$$
(3.71)
So, by Eq. (3.46) we immediately obtain the following theorem.

###### Theorem 4

The following equalities

$`\{E_i^{},E_j^{}\}_D=0,\{H_l,E_j^{}\}_D=0,\{F_k,E_j^{}\}_D=0,`$ (3.72)
$`i,j=1,2,\mathrm{},N,l=2,1,0,1,k=1,2,\mathrm{},`$
hold. Hence, the Hamiltonian systems $`\left(H_l\right)_D`$ and $`\left(F_k\right)_D`$ on $`𝕄`$

$`\left(H_l\right)_D`$ $`:`$ $`q_x=\{q,H_l\}_D,p_x=\{p,H_l\}_D,l=2,1,0,1,`$ (3.73)
$`\left(F_k\right)_D`$ $`:`$ $`q_{t_k}=\{q,F_k\}_D,p_{t_k}=\{p,F_k\}_D,k=1,2,\mathrm{},`$ (3.74)
are completely integrable.

In particular, we obtain the following results.

###### Corollary 1

The Hamiltonian system $`(H_1)_D`$ defined by Eq. (3.56) is completely integrable.

###### Corollary 2

All composition functions $`f(H_l,F_k)`$, $`fC^{\mathrm{}}\left(\right)`$, $`k=1,2,\mathrm{},`$
are completely integrable Hamiltonians on $`𝕄`$.

### 3.4 Parametric solution of the negative order CH hierarchy restricted onto $`𝕄`$

In the following, we consider the relation between constraint and nonlinear equations in the negative order CH hierarchy (3.5). Let us start from the following setting

$`G_1^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _j,`$ (3.75)
where $`G_1^1=1`$, and $`\lambda _j=\lambda _jq_j^2`$ is the functional gradient of the CH spectral problem (2.4) corresponding to the spectral parameter $`\lambda _j`$ ($`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$).

Apparently Eq. (3.75) reads

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }q,q=1.`$ (3.76)
After we do one time derivative with respect to $`x`$, we get

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }p,q=0,p=q_x.`$ (3.77)
This equality together with Eq. (3.76) forms the symplectic submanifold $`𝕄`$ we need. Apparently, derivating Eq. (3.77) leads to the constraint relation (3.57).

###### Remark 1

Because $`𝕄`$ defined by Eq. (3.51) is not the usual tangent bundle, i.e. $`𝕄TS^{N1}=\left\{(q,p)^{2N}\right|\stackrel{~}{F}q,q1=0,\stackrel{~}{G}q,p=0\}`$ and Eq. (3.57) is not the usual Neumann constraint on $`TS^{N1}`$, Eq. (3.56) is therefore a new kind of Neumann system. In subsection 3.3 we have proven its integrability.

Since the Hamiltonian flows $`(H_1)_D`$ and $`(F_k)_D`$ on $`𝕄`$ are completely integrable and their Poisson brackets $`\{H_1,F_k\}_D=0`$ ($`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$), their phase flows $`g_{H_1}^x,g_{F_k}^{t_k}`$ commute . Thus, we can define their compatible solution as follows:

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}q(x,t_k)\hfill \\ p(x,t_k)\hfill \end{array}\right)=g_{H_1}^xg_{F_k}^{t_k}\left(\begin{array}{c}q(x^0,t_k^0)\hfill \\ p(x^0,t_k^0)\hfill \end{array}\right),k=1,2,\mathrm{},`$ (3.82)
where $`x^0,t_k^0`$ are the initial values of phase flows $`g_{H_1}^x,g_{F_k}^{t_k}`$.

###### Theorem 5

Let $`q(x,t_k),p(x,t_k)`$ be a solution of the compatible Hamiltonian systems $`(H_1)_D`$ and $`(F_k)_D`$ on $`𝕄`$. Then

$`m={\displaystyle \frac{1+4\mathrm{\Lambda }p(x,t_k),p(x,t_k)}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q(x,t_k),q(x,t_k)}}`$ (3.83)
satisfies the constrained negative order CH hierarchy (i.e. constrained to $`𝕄`$)

$`m_{t_k}`$ $`=`$ $`J^{k+1}1,k=1,2,\mathrm{},`$ (3.84)
where the operators $`J`$ and $`^1`$ are given by Eqs. (2.7) and (3.6), respectively.

Proof: On one hand, the recursion operator $``$ acts on Eq. (3.75) and results in the following

$`J^{k+1}G_1^1`$ $`=`$ $`J\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k+2}q,q`$
$`=`$ $`m_x\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k+2}q,q+4m\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k+2}q,p`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(1+4\mathrm{\Lambda }p,p)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q^2}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k+2}q,p\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,p\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k+2}q,q\right).`$
In this procedure, Eqs. (2.6) and (3.56) are used.

On the other hand, we directly make the derivative of Eq. (3.83) with respect to $`t_k`$. Then we obtain

$`m_{t_k}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q\mathrm{\Lambda }^2p,p_{t_k}(1+4\mathrm{\Lambda }p,p)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q_{t_k}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q^2}}`$ (3.86)
where $`q=q(x,t_k),p=p(x,t_k)`$. But,

$`q_{t_k}`$ $`=`$ $`\{q,F_k\}_D,p_{t_k}=\{p,F_k\}_D,k=1,2,\mathrm{},`$ (3.87)
where $`F_k`$ are defined by Eq. (3.2), i.e.

$`q_{t_k}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=k}{\overset{1}{}}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{j+2}q,q\mathrm{\Lambda }^{kj}p\mathrm{\Lambda }^{j+2}q,p\mathrm{\Lambda }^{kj}q\right),`$ (3.88)
$`p_{t_k}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+4\mathrm{\Lambda }p,p}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k+1}q\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k+2}q,q\mathrm{\Lambda }q\right)`$ (3.89)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j=k}{\overset{1}{}}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{j+2}q,p\mathrm{\Lambda }^{kj}p\mathrm{\Lambda }^{j+2}p,p\mathrm{\Lambda }^{kj}q\right).`$
Therefore after substituting them into Eq. (3.86) and calculating it, we have

$`m_{t_k}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(1+4\mathrm{\Lambda }p,p)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q^2}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k+2}q,p\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,p\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k+2}q,q\right)`$
which completes the proof.

###### Lemma 1

Let $`q,p`$ satisfy the integrable Hamiltonian system $`(H_1)_D`$. Then on the symplectic submanifold $`𝕄`$, we have

1. $`q,q4p,p=0.`$ (3.90)
2. $`u=q(x,t_k),q(x,t_k),k,=1,2,..,`$ (3.91)
satisfies the equation $`m=uu_{xx}`$, where $`m`$ is given by Eq. (3.83), and $`q(x,t_k),p(x,t_k)`$ be a solution of the compatible integrable Hamiltonian systems $`(H_1)_D`$ and $`(F_k)_D`$ on $`𝕄`$.

Proof:

$`(q,q4p,p)_x`$ $`=`$ $`2q,p8p,p_x`$
$`=`$ $`0`$
completes the proof of the first equality.

As for the second one, we have

$`uu_{xx}`$ $`=`$ $`q,q2p,p2q,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\mathrm{\Lambda }q`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}q,q2p,p+m`$
$`=`$ $`m.`$
In particular, with $`k=2`$, we obtain the following corollary.

###### Corollary 3

Let $`q(x,t_2),p(x,t_2)`$ be a solution of the compatible integrable Hamiltonian systems $`(H_1)_D`$ and $`(F_2)_D`$ on $`𝕄`$. Then

$`m`$ $`=`$ $`m(x,t_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1+4\mathrm{\Lambda }p(x,t_2),p(x,t_2)}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q(x,t_2),q(x,t_2)}},`$ (3.92)
$`u`$ $`=`$ $`u(x,t_2)=q(x,t_2),q(x,t_2),`$ (3.93)
satisfy the CH equation (3.19) on $`𝕄`$. Therefore, $`u=q(x,t_2),q(x,t_2),`$ is a solution of the CH equation (3.20) on $`𝕄`$. Here $`H_1`$ and $`F_2`$ are given by

$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p,p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}q,q,`$
$`F_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^1p,p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^1q,q+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(q,qp,pq,p^2\right).`$
Proof: Via some direct calculations, we obtain

$`m_{t_2}={\displaystyle \frac{2(1+4\mathrm{\Lambda }p,p)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q^2}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,qq,p\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,pq,q\right).`$
And lemma 1 gives

$`Ju`$ $`=`$ $`J^1G_1^1`$
$`=`$ $`J<q,q>`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(1+4\mathrm{\Lambda }p,p)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q^2}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,qq,p\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,pq,q\right)`$
$`=`$ $`m_{t_2}`$
which completes the proof.

By Theorem 5, the constraint relation given by Eq. (3.57) is actually a solution of the constrained negative order CH hierarchy (3.5) on $`𝕄`$. Thus, we also call the system $`(H_1)_D`$ (i.e. Eq. (3.56)) a negative order restricted CH flow (Neumann-like) of the spectral problem (2.4) on the symplectic submanifold $`𝕄`$. All Hamiltonian systems $`(F_k)_D,k<0,k`$ are therefore called the negative order integrable restricted flows (Neumann-type) on $`𝕄`$.

###### Remark 2

Of course, we can also consider the integrable Bargmann-like CH system associated with the positive order CH hierarchy (4.1). Please see this in section 4. A systematic approach to generate new integrable negative order hierarchies can be seen in Ref. .

### 3.5 Comparing parametric solution with peakons

Let us now compare the Neumann-like CH system $`(H_1)_D`$ with the peakons dynamical system.

Let $`P_j,Q_j(j=1,2,\mathrm{},N)`$ be peakons dynamical variables of the CH equation (3.20), then with

$`u(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}P_j(t)e^{|xQ_j(t)|},`$ (3.94)
$`m(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}P_j(t)\delta (xQ_j(t)),`$ (3.95)
where $`t=t_2`$ and $`\delta (x)`$ is the $`\delta `$-function, the CH equation (3.20) yields a canonical peaked Hamiltonian system

$`\begin{array}{c}\dot{Q}_j(t)=\frac{H}{P_j}=_{k=1}^NP_k(t)e^{|Q_k(t)Q_j(t)|}\hfill \\ \dot{P}_j(t)=\frac{H}{Q_j}=P_j_{k=1}^NP_k(t)sgn\left(Q_k(t)Q_j(t)\right)e^{|Q_k(t)Q_j(t)|}\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.98)
with

$`H(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}P_i(t)P_j(t)e^{|Q_i(t)Q_j(t)|}.`$ (3.99)
In Eq. (3.98), “sgn” means the signal function. The same meaning happens in the following.

A natual question is: what is the relationship between the peaked Hamiltonian system (3.98) and the Neumann-like systems (3.56) and ($`F_2`$)? Apparently, the peaked system (3.98) does not include the systems (3.56) and ($`F_2`$) because the system (3.98) is only concerned about the time part.

By Corollary 3, we know that

$$u=u(x,t)=q(x,t),q(x,t)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}q_j^2(x,t),$$
(3.100)
is a solution of the CH equation (3.20) on $`𝕄`$, where we set $`t_2=t`$, and $`q_j(x,t),p_j=\frac{q_j(x,t)}{x}`$ satisfies the two integrable commuted systems $`(H_1)_D,(F_2)_D`$ on the symplectic submanifold $`𝕄`$.

Assume $`P_j(t),Q_j(t)`$ are the solutions of the peaked system (3.98), we make the following transformation (when $`P_j(t)<0`$, we use $`\sqrt{P_j(t)}=i\sqrt{P_j(t)}`$)

$`q_j(x,t)=\sqrt{P_j(t)}e^{\frac{1}{2}|xQ_j(t)|},`$ (3.101)
which implies

$`p_j(x,t)={\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}q_j(x,t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}sgn(xQ_j(t))q_j.`$ (3.102)
Hence, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}p_j(x,t)={\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dx^2}}q_j(x,t)=\delta (xQ_j(t))q_j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}q_j.`$ (3.103)
However, on $`𝕄`$ we have the constraints $`<\mathrm{\Lambda }q,q>=1,<\mathrm{\Lambda }q,p>=0`$ which implies

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _jq_j^2\delta (xQ_j)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},x.`$ (3.104)
This equality is obviously not true! So, the CH peakon system (3.98) does not coincide with the nonlinearized CH spectral problem (3.56).

Let us now furthermore compute the derivative with respect to $`t`$. Inserting the peakon system (3.98), we get

$`\dot{q}_j(x,t)={\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}q_j(x,t)`$ (3.105)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}q_j{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}P_k(t)\left[sgn(xQ_j(t))sgn\left(Q_k(t)Q_j(t)\right)\right]e^{|Q_k(t)Q_j(t)|}.`$
On the other hand, from the Neumann-like system $`(F_2)_D`$ we have

$`\dot{q}_j(x,t)=\{q_j,F_2\}_D`$ (3.106)
$`=`$ $`\lambda _j^1p_jq,pq_j`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}q_j\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}P_k(t)sgn(xQ_k(t))e^{|xQ_k(t)|}\lambda _j^1sgn(xQ_j(t))\right).`$
Apparently, (3.105) = (3.106) iff when $`x=Q_j(x,t)`$, i.e. for other $`x`$, they do not equal. Thus, the peakon system (3.98) is not the Neumann-like Hamiltonian system $`(F_2)_D`$, either.

So, by the above analysis, we conclude: the two solutions (3.94) and (3.100) of the CH equation (3.20) are not gauge equivalent. In the next subsection we will concretely solve Eq. (3.100) on $`𝕄`$ in the form of Riemann-Theta functions.

### 3.6 Algebro-geometric solution of the CH equation on $`𝕄`$

Now, let us re-consider the Hamiltonian system $`(H_1)_D`$ on $`𝕄`$ under the substitution of $`\lambda \lambda ^1,\lambda _j\lambda _j^1`$ (here we choose non-zero $`\lambda ,\lambda _j`$). Then, the Lax matrix (3.42) has the following simple form:

$`L_{}(\lambda )=\lambda ^3L_{\mathrm{CH}}(\lambda ),`$ (3.107)
where

$`L_{\mathrm{CH}}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \lambda ^1\\ \frac{1}{4}\lambda ^1& 0\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^1}{\lambda \lambda _j}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}p_jq_j& q_j^2\\ p_j^2& p_jq_j\end{array}\right)`$ (3.112)
$``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}A_{\mathrm{CH}}(\lambda )& B_{\mathrm{CH}}(\lambda )\\ C_{\mathrm{CH}}(\lambda )& A_{\mathrm{CH}}(\lambda )\end{array}\right),`$ (3.115)
and the symplectic submanifold $`𝕄`$ becomes

$`M=\left\{(q,p)^{2N}\right|F{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1q,q1\right)=0,G\mathrm{\Lambda }^1q,p=0\},`$
(3.116)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1=diag(\lambda _1^1,\mathrm{},\lambda _N^1)`$.

A direct calculation yields to the following theorem.

###### Theorem 6

On the symplectic submanifold $`M`$ the Hamiltonian system $`(H_1)_D`$ defined by Eq. (3.56) has the Lax representation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}L_{\mathrm{CH}}=[M_{\mathrm{CH}},L_{\mathrm{CH}}],`$ (3.117)
where

$`M_{\mathrm{CH}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ \frac{1}{4}\frac{1+4\mathrm{\Lambda }p,p}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q}\lambda ^1& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (3.120)
Notice: On $`M`$ the Hamiltonian system $`(H_1)_D`$ is $`2N2`$-dimensional, that is, only there exist $`2N2`$ independent dynamical variables in all $`2N`$ variables $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_N;p_1,\mathrm{}p_N`$. Without loss of generality, we assume the Hamiltonian system $`(H_1)_D`$ has the independent dynamical variables $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_{N1};p_1,\mathrm{},p_{N1}(N>1)`$ on $`M`$. Then, on $`M`$ we have

$`q_N^2`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _N{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _N}{\lambda _j}}q_j^2,`$ (3.121)
$`p_N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _N}{\lambda _jq_N}}q_jp_j,`$ (3.122)
where $`q_N`$ in the latter is given by the former in terms of $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_{N1}`$.

We will concretely give the expression $`u=q(x,t),q(x,t),t=t_2`$ in an explicit form. By Eq. (3.121), We rewrite the entry $`B_{\mathrm{CH}}\left(\lambda \right)`$ in the Lax matrix (3.115) as

$`B_{\mathrm{CH}}\left(\lambda \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda \lambda _N}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda _j\lambda _N)\lambda _j^1}{\lambda \lambda _j}}q_j^2\right)`$ (3.123)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q\left(\lambda \right)}{K\left(\lambda \right)}},`$
where

$`Q(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left(\lambda \lambda _j\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _j\lambda _N}{\lambda _j}}q_j^2{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,kj}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left(\lambda \lambda _k\right),`$ (3.124)
$`K\left(\lambda \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left(\lambda \lambda _\alpha \right).`$ (3.125)
Apparently, $`Q(\lambda )`$ is a $`N1(N>1)`$ order polynomial of $`\lambda `$. Choosing its $`N1`$ distinct zero points $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _{N1}`$, we have

$`Q\left(\lambda \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left(\lambda \mu _j\right),`$ (3.126)
$`q,q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\mu _j.`$ (3.127)
Additionally, choosing $`\lambda =\lambda _j`$ in Eqs. (3.124) and (3.126) leads to an explicit form of $`q_j`$ in terms of $`\mu _l`$:

$`q_j^2=\alpha _{jN}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}(\lambda _j\mu _l),\alpha _{jN}={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _j}{_{k=1}^N(\lambda _j\lambda _k)}},`$ (3.128)
which is similar to the result in Ref. . By Eq. (3.127), we get an identity about $`\mu _l`$:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\alpha _{jN}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}(\lambda _j\mu _l)={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\mu _j.`$
###### Remark 3

The dynamical variable $`p_j`$ corresponding to $`q_j`$ is

$`p_j={\displaystyle \frac{dq_j}{dx}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{jN}}{2q_j}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mu _k}{dx}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1,lk}{\overset{N1}{}}}(\lambda _j\mu _l),`$ (3.129)
therefore,

$`p_j^2={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{jN}}{4_{l=1}^{N1}(\lambda _j\mu _l)}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mu _k}{dx}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1,lk}{\overset{N1}{}}}(\lambda _j\mu _l)\right)^2.`$ (3.130)
Substituting Eqs. (3.127) and (3.130) into the Hamiltonian $`H_1=\frac{1}{2}p,p\frac{1}{8}q,q`$ directly gives an expression in terms of $`\mu _l`$:

$`H_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{jN}}{_{l=1}^{N1}(\lambda _j\mu _l)}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mu _k}{dx}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1,lk}{\overset{N1}{}}}(\lambda _j\mu _l)\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\mu _j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _k.`$
This is evidently different from the Hamiltonian function in Ref.  (see there section 3). Here our $`H_1`$ comes from the nonlinearized CH spectral problemn, i.e. it is composing of a Neumann-like system on $`M`$, which is shown integrable in subsection 3.3 by $`r`$-matrix process. It is because of this difference that our parametric solution does not include the peakons (also see last subsection) and we will in the following procedure present a class of new algebro-geometric solution for the CH equation constrained on the symplectic submanifold $`M`$.

Let

$$\pi _j=A_{\mathrm{CH}}\left(\mu _j\right),j=1,\mathrm{},N1,$$
(3.132)
then it is easy to prove the following proposition.

###### Proposition 1

$$\{\mu _i,\mu _j\}_D=\{\pi _i,\pi _j\}_D=0,\{\pi _j,\mu _i\}_D=\delta _{ij},i,j=1,2,\mathrm{},N1,$$
(3.133)
i.e. $`\pi _j,\mu _j`$ are conjugated, and thus they are the variables which can be separated .

Write

$`detL_{\mathrm{CH}}\left(\lambda \right)`$ $`=`$ $`A_{\mathrm{CH}}^2\left(\lambda \right)+B_{\mathrm{CH}}\left(\lambda \right)C_{\mathrm{CH}}\left(\lambda \right)`$ (3.134)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_\alpha }{\lambda \lambda _\alpha }}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda (\lambda \lambda _N)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda _\alpha \lambda _N)\lambda _\alpha ^1}{\lambda \lambda _\alpha }}E_\alpha \right)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P\left(\lambda \right)}{\lambda K\left(\lambda \right)}},`$
where $`E_\alpha `$ is defined by

$`E_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`p_\alpha ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}q_\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ={\displaystyle \underset{k=1,k\alpha }{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(p_\alpha q_kq_\alpha p_k)^2}{\lambda _\alpha \lambda _k}},`$ (3.135)
$`P(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left(\lambda \lambda _j\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _j\lambda _N}{\lambda _j}}q_j^2{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,kj}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left(\lambda \lambda _k\right),`$ (3.136)
and obviously $`P\left(\lambda \right)`$ is an $`N1`$ order polynomial of $`\lambda `$ whose first term’s coefficient is $`\frac{1}{4}`$. Then we have

$`\pi _j^2={\displaystyle \frac{P\left(\mu _j\right)}{\mu _jK\left(\mu _j\right)}},j=1,\mathrm{},N1.`$ (3.137)
Notice: On $`M`$ we always have $`_{\alpha =1}^N\lambda _\alpha ^1E_\alpha =\frac{1}{4}`$. Therefore, we assume $`E_1,\mathrm{},E_{N1}`$ are independent. Then,

$$E_N=\frac{1}{4}\lambda _N\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{\lambda _N}{\lambda _\alpha }E_\alpha .$$

Actually in Eq. (3.134) we used this fact.

Now, we choose the generating function

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}W_j(\mu _j,\{E_\alpha \}_{\alpha =1}^{N1})`$ (3.138)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mu _0}^{\mu _j}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{P\left(\lambda \right)}{\lambda K\left(\lambda \right)}}}d\lambda ,`$
where $`\mu _0`$ is an arbitrarily given constant. Let us view $`E_\alpha \left(\alpha =1,\mathrm{},N1\right)`$ as actional variables, then angle-coordinates $`Q_\alpha `$ are chosen as

$$Q_\alpha =\frac{W}{E_\alpha },\alpha =1,\mathrm{},N1,$$

i.e.

$`Q_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mu _0}^{\mu _k}}{\displaystyle \frac{K(\lambda )}{2\sqrt{\lambda K\left(\lambda \right)P\left(\lambda \right)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\alpha \lambda _N}{\lambda _\alpha (\lambda \lambda _\alpha )(\lambda \lambda _N)}}d\lambda `$ (3.139)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\alpha \lambda _N}{\lambda _\alpha }}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mu _0}^{\mu _k}}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\alpha ,`$
where

$`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{_{k\alpha ,k=1}^{N1}\left(\lambda \lambda _k\right)}{2\sqrt{\lambda K\left(\lambda \right)P\left(\lambda \right)}}}\mathrm{d}\lambda ,\alpha =1,\mathrm{},N1.`$
Therefore, on the symplectic submanifold $`(M^{2N2},dE_\alpha dQ_\alpha )`$ the Hamiltonian function

$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p,p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}q,q={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N}{}}}E_\alpha `$ (3.140)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\lambda _N{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\alpha \lambda _N}{\lambda _\alpha }}E_\alpha `$
produces a linearized $`x`$-flow of the CH equation

$$\{\begin{array}{c}Q_{\alpha ,x}=\frac{H_1}{E_\alpha }=\frac{\lambda _\alpha \lambda _N}{2\lambda _\alpha },\hfill \\ E_{\alpha ,x}=0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.141)
as well as the Hamiltonian function

$`F_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }p,p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{\Lambda }q,q+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(q,qp,pq,p^2\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _\alpha E_\alpha `$ (3.142)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\lambda _N^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\alpha ^2\lambda _N^2}{\lambda _\alpha }}E_\alpha `$
yields a linearized $`t`$-flow of the CH equation

$$\{\begin{array}{c}Q_{\alpha ,t}=\frac{F_2}{E_\alpha }=\frac{\lambda _\alpha ^2\lambda _N^2}{2\lambda _\alpha },\hfill \\ E_{\alpha ,t}=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.143)
The above two flows imply

$`Q_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _N\lambda _\alpha }{2\lambda _\alpha }}\left[x+(\lambda _N+\lambda _\alpha )t2Q_\alpha ^0\right],`$ (3.144)
$`E_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{constant},\alpha =1,\mathrm{},N1,`$ (3.145)
where $`Q_\alpha ^0`$ is an arbitrarily chosen constant. Therefore we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mu _0}^{\mu _k}}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[x+(\lambda _N+\lambda _\alpha )t\right]+Q_\alpha ^0.`$ (3.146)
Choose a basic system of closed paths $`\alpha _i,\beta _i\left(i=1,\mathrm{},N1\right)`$ of Riemann surface $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$$`\mu ^2=\lambda P\left(\lambda \right)K\left(\lambda \right)`$ with $`N1`$ handles. $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_j`$ ($`j=1,\mathrm{},N1`$) are exactly $`N1`$ linearly independent holomorphic differentials of the first kind on the Riemann surface $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_j`$ be normalized as $`\omega _j=_{l=1}^{N1}r_{j,l}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_l`$, i.e. $`\omega _j`$ satisfy

$$_{\alpha _i}\omega _j=\delta _{ij},_{\beta _i}\omega _j=B_{ij},$$

where $`B=\left(B_{ij}\right)_{(N1)\times (N1)}`$ is symmetric and the imaginary part $`\mathrm{Im}B`$ of $`B`$ is a positive definite matrix.

By Riemann Theorem  we know: $`\mu _k`$ satisfy

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mu _0}^{\mu _k}}\omega _j`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _j,`$
$`\varphi _j`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _j(x,t)\stackrel{\mathrm{d}}{=}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}r_{j,l}\left(Q_l^0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[x+(\lambda _N+\lambda _l)t\right]\right),`$
$`j=1,\mathrm{},N1,`$
iff $`\mu _k`$ are the zero points of the Riemann-Theta function $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left(P\right)=\mathrm{\Theta }\left(A\left(P\right)\varphi 𝕂\right)`$ which has exactly $`N1`$ zero points, where

$`A\left(P\right)`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle _{P_0}^P}\omega _1,\mathrm{},{\displaystyle _{P_0}^P}\omega _{N1})^T,`$
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\varphi (x,t)=(\varphi _1(x,t),\mathrm{},\varphi _{N1}(x,t))^T,`$
$`𝕂=(K_1,\mathrm{},K_{N1})^T^{N1}`$ is the Riemann constant vector, $`P_0`$ is an arbitrarily given point on Riemann surface $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-function and the related properties are seen in Appendix).

Because of

$$\frac{1}{2\pi i}_\gamma \lambda d\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left(P\right)=C_1\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right),$$
(3.147)
where the constant $`C_1\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)`$ has none thing to do with $`\varphi `$; $`\gamma `$ is the boundary of simple connected domain obtained through cutting the Riemann surface $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ along closed paths $`\alpha _i,\beta _i`$. Thus, we have a key equality

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\mu _k=C_1\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)\mathrm{Res}_{\lambda =\mathrm{}_1}\lambda d\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left(P\right)\mathrm{Res}_{\lambda =\mathrm{}_2}\lambda d\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left(P\right),$$
(3.148)
where $`\mathrm{Res}_{\lambda =\mathrm{}_k}`$ $`\left(k=1,2\right)`$ mean the residue at points $`\mathrm{}_k`$:

$`\mathrm{}_1\stackrel{\mathrm{d}}{=}(0,\sqrt{z^1P\left(z^1\right)K\left(z^1\right)}|_{z=0}),`$
$`\mathrm{}_2\stackrel{\mathrm{d}}{=}(0,\sqrt{z^1P\left(z^1\right)K\left(z^1\right)}|_{z=0}).`$
Now, we need to calculate the above two residues.

###### Lemma 2

$`\mathrm{Res}_{\lambda =\mathrm{}_1}\lambda d\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left(P\right)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\varphi +𝕂+\eta _1\right),`$ (3.149)
$`\mathrm{Res}_{\lambda =\mathrm{}_2}\lambda d\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left(P\right)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\varphi +𝕂+\eta _2\right),`$ (3.150)
where $`\eta _1,\eta _2`$ are two different $`N1`$ dimensional constant vectors.

Proof  Consider the following smooth superelliptic curve $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$: $`\mu ^2=\lambda P\left(\lambda \right)K\left(\lambda \right)`$. Because $`\lambda P\left(\lambda \right)K\left(\lambda \right)`$ is a $`2N`$-th order polynomials with respect to $`\lambda `$, $`\mathrm{}`$ is not a branch point, i.e. on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ there are two infinity points $`\mathrm{}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{}_2`$. All points $`P`$ on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ are denoted by $`(\lambda ,\pm \mu )`$. On $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ we choose a group of basis of normalized closed paths $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{N1};\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{N1}`$. They are mutually independent, and their intersection number are

$$\alpha _i\alpha _j=\beta _i\beta _j=0,\alpha _i\beta _j=\delta _{ij}.$$

It is easy to see that $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_j`$ $`\left(j=1,\mathrm{},N1\right)`$ are $`N1`$ linearly independent holomorphic differential forms on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$.

Let us now come to calculate the residus of $`\lambda d\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left(P\right)`$ at the two infinity points: $`\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2`$. At $`\mathrm{}_1`$, the $`j`$-th variable $`I_j`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left(z\right)`$ produces the following result through multiplying by $`1`$ (please note that the local coordinate at $`\mathrm{}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{}_2`$ is $`z=\lambda ^1`$):

$`I_j`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _j+K_j+\eta _{1,j}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}r_{j,l}{\displaystyle _0^z}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_l`$
$`=`$ $`\varphi _j+K_j+\eta _{1,j}+{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}r_{j,l}{\displaystyle _0^z}{\displaystyle \frac{_{\alpha l,\alpha =1}^{N1}\left(\lambda \lambda _\alpha \right)}{2\sqrt{\lambda P\left(\lambda \right)K\left(\lambda \right)}}}|_{\lambda =z^1}z^2\mathrm{d}z`$
$`=`$ $`\varphi _j+K_j+\eta _{1,j}+{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}r_{j,l}{\displaystyle _0^z}{\displaystyle \frac{z^N(_{j=1}^{N1}\lambda _j\lambda _l)z^{N+1}+\mathrm{}}{\sqrt{z^{2N}+\mathrm{}}}}dz`$
$`=`$ $`\varphi _j+K_j+\eta _{1,j}+{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}r_{j,l}{\displaystyle _0^z}{\displaystyle \frac{1+O\left(z\right)}{\sqrt{1+O\left(z\right)}}}dz`$
$`=`$ $`\varphi _j+K_j+\eta _{1,j}+{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}r_{j,l}z+O\left(z^2\right),`$
where $`\eta _{1,j}=_\mathrm{}_1^{P_0}\omega _j,j=1,\mathrm{}N1`$.

Because

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{x}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{I_j}}r_{j,l}`$
and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left(z\right)`$ has the expansion formula

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left(z\right)=\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\varphi +𝕂+\eta _1\right)\underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{I_j}r_{j,l}z+O\left(z^2\right),$$

where $`\eta _1=(\eta _{1,1},\mathrm{},\eta _{1,N1})^T`$. Therefore,

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left(z\right)=\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\varphi +𝕂+\eta _1\right)2\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{x}z+O\left(z^2\right).$$

So, we obtain the following residue

$`\mathrm{Res}_{\lambda =\mathrm{}_1}\lambda d\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left(P\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Res}_{z=0}z^1d\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left(z\right)=\mathrm{Res}_{z=0}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_z\left(z\right)}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left(z\right)}}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{Res}_{z=0}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Theta }_x+O\left(z\right)}{\mathrm{\Theta }2\mathrm{\Theta }_xz+O\left(z^2\right)}}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{Res}_{z=0}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Theta }_x+O\left(z\right)}{\mathrm{\Theta }\left(12\mathrm{\Theta }^1\mathrm{\Theta }_xz+O\left(z^2\right)\right)}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Theta }_x}{\mathrm{\Theta }}}=2{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\varphi +𝕂+\eta _1\right).`$
In a similar way, we can obtain the second residue formula.

So, by Eq. (3.127) and this Lemma, we immediately have

$$q(x,t),q(x,t)=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N}{}}\lambda _\alpha C_1\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)+2\frac{}{x}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\varphi +𝕂+\eta _2\right)}{\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\varphi +𝕂+\eta _1\right)}\right),$$
(3.151)
where the $`j`$-th component of $`\eta _i\left(i=1,2\right)`$ is $`\eta _{i,j}=_\mathrm{}_i^{P_0}\omega _j`$.

So, the CH equation (3.20) on $`M`$ has the following explicit solution, called the algebro-geometric solution

$`u(x,t)=R+2{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\varphi +𝕂+\eta _2\right)}{\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\varphi +𝕂+\eta _1\right)}}\right),`$ (3.152)
where $`R=_{\alpha =1}^N\lambda _\alpha C_1\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)`$ is a constant.

###### Theorem 7

The algebro-geometric solution of the CH equation (3.20) on $`M`$ can be given through Eq. (3.152).

###### Remark 4

Here the algebro-geometric solution (3.152) is smooth and occurs in the $`x`$-direction (spacial variable) derivative, and apparently differs from the piecewise smooth algebro-geometric solution in the $`t`$-direction derivatives given in Ref. . It is also different from the results in Ref. , becasue we are studying the CH equation constrained on $`M`$. In the paper, we do not need to calculate each $`q_j(j=1,\mathrm{},N1)`$ but the sum $`_{j=1}^{N1}q_j^2`$, which we know from Eqs. (3.127) and (3.93). From the above subsection’s comparison and these comments, therefore we think Eq. (3.152) is a class of new solution of the CH equation (3.20) on $`M`$. Apparently, Eq. (3.152) is more simpler in the form than in Ref. .

## 4 Positive order CH hierarchy, integrable Bargmann system, and parametric solution

### 4.1 Positive order CH hierarchy

Let us now give the positive order hierarchy of Eq. (2.4) through employing the kernel element of the Lenard’s operator $`J`$.

Obviously, $`G_0=cm^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ form all kernal elements of $`J`$, where $`c=c(t_n)C^{\mathrm{}}()`$ is an arbitrarily given fuctions with respect to the time variables $`t_n(n0,n)`$, but independent of the spacial variable $`x`$. $`G_0`$ and the recursion operator (2.8) yield the following hierarchy of the CH spectral problem (2.4)

$$m_{t_k}=cJ^km^{\frac{1}{2}},k=0,1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(4.1)
where the operators $`J`$ and $``$ are defined by Eqs. (2.7) and (2.8), respectively, and $``$ and $`J`$ have a further product form

$``$ $`=`$ $`J^1K={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^{\frac{1}{2}}^1m^{\frac{1}{2}}(^3)`$ (4.2)
$`J^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^{\frac{1}{2}}^1m^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (4.3)
Because Eq. (4.1) is related to the Camassa-Holm spectral problem (2.4) for the case of $`k0,k`$, it is called the positive order Camassa-Holm (CH) hierarchy. Eq. (4.1) has the following representative equations

$`m_{t_0}`$ $`=`$ $`0,\mathrm{trivial}\mathrm{case},`$ (4.4)
$`m_{t_1}`$ $`=`$ $`c\left(m^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_{xxx}+c\left(m^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_x.`$ (4.5)
Apparently, with $`c=1`$ Eq. (4.5) becomes a Dym type equation

$`m_{t_1}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(m^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_{xxx}\left(m^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_x,`$ (4.6)
which has more an extra term $`\left(m^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_x`$ than the usual Harry-Dym equation $`m_{t_1}=\left(m^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_{xxx}`$. Therefore, Eq. (4.1) gives an extended Dym hierarchy corresponding to the isospectral case: $`\lambda _{t_k}=0`$.

By Theorem 2, the whole positive order CH hierarchy (4.1) has the zero curvature representation

$`U_{t_k}V_{k,x}+[U,V_k]`$ $`=`$ $`0,k>0,k`$ (4.7)
$`V_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{k1}{}}}V_j\lambda ^{kj1},`$ (4.8)
where $`U`$ is given by Eq. (2.4), and $`V_j=V(G_j)`$ is given by Eq. (2.13) with $`G=G_j=^jG_0=c^jm^{\frac{1}{2}},j>0,j`$. Thus, all nonlinear equations in the positive CH hierarchy (4.1) are integrable. Therefore we obtain the following theorem.

###### Theorem 8

The positive order CH hierarchy (4.1) possesses the Lax pair

$`\{\begin{array}{c}y_x=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ \frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{2}m\lambda & 0\end{array}\right)y,\hfill \\ y_{t_k}=_{j=0}^{k1}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}G_{j,x}& G_j\\ \frac{1}{2}G_{j,xx}\frac{1}{4}G_j+\frac{1}{2}m\lambda G_j& \frac{1}{2}G_{j,x}\end{array}\right)\lambda ^{kj}y\hfill \\ k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (4.16)
Eq. (4.16) can be reduced to the following Lax pair

$`\{\begin{array}{c}\psi _{xx}=\frac{1}{4}\psi \frac{1}{2}m\lambda \psi \hfill \\ \psi _{t_k}=_{j=0}^{k1}\left(\frac{1}{2}G_{j,x}\lambda ^{kj}\psi G_j\lambda ^{kj}\psi _x\right),k=0,1,\mathrm{},\hfill \end{array}`$ (4.19)
In particular, the Dym type equation (4.6) has the Lax pair

$`\{\begin{array}{c}\psi _{xx}=\frac{1}{4}\psi \frac{1}{2}m\lambda \psi \hfill \\ \psi _{t_1}=\frac{1}{2}\left(m^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_x\lambda \psi +m^{\frac{1}{2}}\lambda \psi _x.\hfill \end{array}`$ (4.22)
###### Remark 5

This Lax pair coincides with the one by the usual method of finite power expansion with respect to spectral parameter $`\lambda `$. However, we here present the positive hierarchy (4.1) mainly by the Lenard’s operators pair satisfying Eq. (2.6). Due to containing the spectral gradient $`\lambda `$ in Eq. (2.6), this procedure of generating evolution equations from a given spectral problem is called the spectral gradient method.

In this method, how to determine a pair of Lenard’s operators associated with the given spectral problem mainly depends on the concrete forms of spectral problems and spectral gradients, and some computational techniques. From this method, we have already derived the negative order CH hierarchy and the positive order CH hierarchy.

### 4.2 $`r`$-matrix structure and integrability for the Bargmann CH system

Consider the following matrix (called ‘positive’ Lax matrix)

$$L_+\left(\lambda \right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A_+\left(\lambda \right)\hfill & \hfill B_+\left(\lambda \right)\\ C_+\left(\lambda \right)\hfill & \hfill A_+\left(\lambda \right)\end{array}\right)$$
(4.23)
where

$`A_+\left(\lambda \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _jp_jq_j}{\lambda \lambda _j}},`$ (4.24)
$`B_+\left(\lambda \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _jq_j^2}{\lambda \lambda _j}},`$ (4.25)
$`C_+\left(\lambda \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }q,q}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _jp_j^2}{\lambda \lambda _j}}.`$ (4.26)
We calculate the determinant of $`L_+(\lambda )`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}detL_+(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}L_+^2(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(A_+^2\left(\lambda \right)+B_+\left(\lambda \right)C_+\left(\lambda \right)\right)`$ (4.27)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_j^+}{\lambda \lambda _j}}`$
where $`\mathrm{Tr}`$ stands for the trace of a matrix, and

$`E_j^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }q,q}}\lambda _jq_j^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^+,j=1,2,\mathrm{},N,`$ (4.29)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^+={\displaystyle \underset{lj,l=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _j\lambda _l(p_jq_lp_lq_j)^2}{\lambda _j\lambda _l}}.`$
Let

$`F_k={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _j^kE_j^+,k=0,1,2,\mathrm{},`$ (4.30)
then it reads

$`F_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k+1}q,q}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }q,q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{k1}{}}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{j+1}q,p\mathrm{\Lambda }^{kj}q,p\mathrm{\Lambda }^{j+1}q,q\mathrm{\Lambda }^{kj}p,p\right),`$
where $`k=0,1,2\mathrm{}.`$ A long but direct computation leads to the following key equalities:

$`\{A_+(\lambda ),A_+(\mu )\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{B_+(\lambda ),B_+(\mu )\}=0,`$
$`\{C_+(\lambda ),C_+(\mu )\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }q,q^2}}\left(\lambda A_+(\lambda )\mu A_+(\mu )\right),`$
$`\{A_+(\lambda ),B_+(\mu )\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mu \lambda }}(\mu B_+(\mu )\lambda B_+(\lambda )),`$
$`\{A_+(\lambda ),C_+(\mu )\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mu \lambda }}(\lambda C_+(\lambda )\mu C_+(\mu )){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }q,q^2}}\lambda B_+(\lambda ),`$
$`\{B_+(\lambda ),C_+(\mu )\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\mu \lambda }}(\mu A_+(\mu )\lambda A_+(\lambda )).`$
Let $`L_1^+\left(\lambda \right)=L_+\left(\lambda \right)I_{2\times 2}`$, $`L_2^+\left(\mu \right)=I_{2\times 2}L_+\left(\mu \right)`$, where $`L_+\left(\lambda \right),L_+\left(\mu \right)`$ are given through Eq. (4.23). In the following, we search for a $`4\times 4`$ $`r`$-matrix structure $`r_{12}^+(\lambda ,\mu )`$ such that the fundamental Poisson bracket :

$$\left\{L_+\left(\lambda \right)\stackrel{}{,}L_+\left(\mu \right)\right\}=[r_{12}^+(\lambda ,\mu ),L_1^+\left(\lambda \right)][r_{21}^+(\mu ,\lambda ),L_2^+\left(\mu \right)]$$
(4.32)
holds, where the entries of the $`4\times 4`$ matrix $`\left\{L_+\left(\lambda \right)\stackrel{}{,}L_+\left(\mu \right)\right\}`$ are

$$\left\{L_+\left(\lambda \right)\stackrel{}{,}L_+\left(\mu \right)\right\}_{kl,mn}=\{L_+\left(\lambda \right)_{km},L_+\left(\mu \right)_{ln}\},k,l,m,n=1,2,$$

and $`r_{21}(\lambda ,\mu )=Pr_{12}(\lambda ,\mu )P,`$ with

$`P`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(I_{2\times 2}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\sigma _j\sigma _j\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (4.37)
where $`\sigma _j^{}`$ are the Pauli matrices.

###### Theorem 9

$$r_{12}^+(\lambda ,\mu )=\frac{2\lambda }{\mu (\mu \lambda )}P+\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{\Lambda }q,q^2}S^+$$
(4.38)
is an $`r`$-matrix structure satisfying Eq. (4.32), where

$`S^+=\sigma _{}\sigma _{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).`$
In fact, the $`r`$-matrix satisfying Eq. (4.32) is not unique . Obviously, this $`r`$-matrix structure is also of $`4\times 4`$ and different from the one in Ref. .

Because there is an $`r`$-matrix structure satisfying Eq. (4.32),

$`\left\{L_+^2\left(\lambda \right)\stackrel{}{,}L_+^2\left(\mu \right)\right\}=[\overline{r}_{12}^+(\lambda ,\mu ),L_1^+\left(\lambda \right)][\overline{r}_{21}^+(\mu ,\lambda ),L_2^+\left(\mu \right)]`$ (4.40)
where

$`\overline{r}_{ij}^+(\lambda ,\mu )={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{1}{}}}(L_1^+)^{1k}\left(\lambda \right)(L_2^+)^{1l}\left(\mu \right)r_{ij}(\lambda ,\mu )(L_1^+)^k\left(\lambda \right)(L_2^+)^l\left(\mu \right),`$
$`ij=12,21.`$
Thus,

$$4\{\mathrm{Tr}L_+^2\left(\lambda \right),\mathrm{Tr}L_+^2\left(\mu \right)\}=\mathrm{Tr}\left\{L_+^2\left(\lambda \right)\stackrel{}{,}L_+^2\left(\mu \right)\right\}=0.$$
(4.41)
So, by Eq. (4.27) we immediately obtain the following theorem.

###### Theorem 10

The following equalities

$`\{E_i^+,E_j^+\}=0,\{F_k,E_j^+\}=0,`$ (4.42)
$`i,j=1,2,\mathrm{},N,k=0,1,2,\mathrm{},`$
hold. Hence, all Hamiltonian systems $`\left(F_k\right)`$

$`\left(F_k\right):q_{t_k}=\{q,F_k\}={\displaystyle \frac{F_k}{p}},p_{t_k}=\{p,F_k\}={\displaystyle \frac{F_k}{q}},`$ (4.43)
$`k=0,1,2,\mathrm{},`$
are completely integrable.

Furthermore, we find the following Hamiltonian function

$`H^+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p,p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}q,q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }q,q}}`$ (4.44)
is involutive with $`E_j^+,F_k`$, i.e.

$`\{H^+,E_j^+\}=0,\{H^+,F_k\}=0,`$ (4.45)
$`j=1,2,\mathrm{},N,k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.`$
Here, $`E_j^+`$ are $`N`$ independent functions.

Therefore, we obtain the following results.

###### Corollary 4

The canonical Hamiltonian system $`(H^+)`$:

$`(H^+):\{\begin{array}{c}q_x=\frac{H^+}{p}=p,\hfill \\ p_x=\frac{H^+}{q}=\frac{1}{4}q\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }q,q^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }q.\hfill \end{array}`$ (4.48)
is completely integrable.

###### Corollary 5

All composition functions $`f(H^+,F_k^+)`$, $`fC^{\mathrm{}}\left(\right)`$, $`k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, are completely integrable Hamiltonians.

Let

$`m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }q,q^2}},`$ (4.49)
$`\psi `$ $`=`$ $`q_j,\lambda =\lambda _j,j=1,\mathrm{},N.`$ (4.50)
Then, the integrable flow $`(H^+)`$ defined by Eq. (4.48) also exactly becomes the CH spectral problem (2.1) with the potential function $`m`$.

###### Remark 6

Eq. (4.49) is a Bargmann constraint in the whole space $`^{2N}`$. Therefore, the Hamiltonian system $`(H^+)`$ is of integrable Bargmann type.

### 4.3 Parametric solution of the positive order CH hierarchy

In the following, we shall consider the relation between constraint and nonlinear equations in the positive order CH hierarchy (4.1). Let us start from the following setting

$`G_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _j,`$ (4.51)
where $`G_0=m^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, and $`\lambda _j=\lambda _jq_j^2`$ is the functional gradient of the CH spectral problem (2.4) corresponding to the spectral parameter $`\lambda _j`$ ($`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$).

Apparently Eq. (4.51) reads

$`m={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }q,q^2}}`$ (4.52)
which coincides with the constraint relation (4.49).

Since the Hamiltonian flows $`(H^+)`$ and $`(F_k)`$ are completely integrable and their Poisson brackets $`\{H^+,F_k\}=0`$ ($`k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$), their phase flows $`g_{H^+}^x,g_{F_k}^{t_k}`$ commute . Thus, we can define their compatible solution as follows:

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}q(x,t_k)\hfill \\ p(x,t_k)\hfill \end{array}\right)=g_{H^+}^xg_{F_k}^{t_k}\left(\begin{array}{c}q(x^0,t_k^0)\hfill \\ p(x^0,t_k^0)\hfill \end{array}\right),k=0,1,2,\mathrm{},`$ (4.57)
where $`x^0,t_k^0`$ are the initial values of phase flows $`g_{H^+}^x,g_{F_k}^{t_k}`$.

###### Theorem 11

Let $`q(x,t_k),p(x,t_k)`$ be a solution of the compatible Hamiltonian systems $`(H^+)`$ and $`(F_k)`$. Then

$`m={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }q(x,t_k),q(x,t_k)^2}}`$ (4.58)
satisfies the positive order CH equation

$`m_{t_k}`$ $`=`$ $`J^km^{\frac{1}{2}},k=0,1,2,\mathrm{},`$ (4.59)
where the operators $`J`$ and $``$ are given by Eqs. (2.7) and (2.8), respectively.

Proof: This proof is similar to the negative case.

In particular, with $`k=1`$, we obtain the following corollary.

###### Corollary 6

Let $`q(x,t_1),p(x,t_1)`$ be a solution of the compatible integrable Hamiltonian systems $`(H^+)`$ and $`(F_1)`$. Then

$`m=m(x,t_1)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }q(x,t_1),q(x,t_1)^2}},`$ (4.60)
is a solution of the Dym type equation (4.6). Here $`H^+`$ and $`F_1`$ are given by

$`H^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p,p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}q,q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }q,q}},`$
$`F_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q,q}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }q,q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }q,p^2\mathrm{\Lambda }q,q\mathrm{\Lambda }p,p\right).`$
By Theorem 11, the Bargmann constraint given by Eq. (4.49) is actually a solution of the positive order CH hierarchy (4.1). Thus, we also call the system $`(H^+)`$ (i.e. Eq. (4.48)) a positive order constrained CH flow (i.e. Bargmann type) of the spectral problem (2.4). All Hamiltonian systems $`(F_k),k0,k`$ are therefore called the positive order integrable Bargmann flows in the whole $`^{2N}`$.

In a further procedure, we can get the algebro-geometric solutions for the positive order CH hierarchy.

## Acknowledgments

Z. Qiao would like to express his sincere thanks to Dr. Camassa for his fruitful discussions and also to Dr. Gesztesy for his good suggestions.

This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under contracts W-7405-ENG-36 and the Applied Mathematical Sciences Program KC-07-01-01; the Special Grant of National Excellent Doctorial Dissertation of China; and also the Doctoral Programme Foundation of the Insitution of High Education of China.

## Appendix

Abel mapping and the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-function

1 If the genus of a Riemann surface is $`g`$, this surface is homomorphic to a sphere with $`g`$ handles. Such a basic system of closed paths (or contours) $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _g,\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _g`$ can be chosen such that the only intersections among them are those of $`\alpha _i`$ and $`\beta _i`$ with the same number $`i`$.

Let the Riemann surface be covered with charts $`(U_i,z_i)`$, where $`z_i`$ are local parameters in open domains $`U_i`$, the transition from $`z_i`$ to $`z_j`$ in intersections $`U_iU_j`$ being holomorphic. If in any $`U_i`$ a differential $`\phi _i\left(z_i\right)dz_i`$ with meromorphic $`\phi _i\left(z_i\right)`$ is given and in the common parts $`U_iU_j,\phi _i\left(z_i\right)dz_i=\phi _j\left(z_j\right)dz_j`$, then we say that there is an Abel differential $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on the whole surface with restrictions $`\mathrm{\Omega }|_{v_i}=\phi _i\left(z_i\right)dz_i`$. The Abel differential is of the first kind if all the $`\phi _i\left(z_i\right)`$ are holomorphic. There are exactly $`g`$ linearly independent differentials of the first kind $`\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _g`$. They are normed if $`_{\alpha _i}\omega _j=\delta _{ij}`$, which condition determines them uniquely. We shall always assume them normed. The numbers $`_{\beta _i}\omega _j=B_{ij}`$ are called $`\beta `$-periods. The matrix $`B=\left(B_{ij}\right)`$ has the following properties: 1) $`B_{ij}=B_{ji}`$, 2) $`\tau `$= Im $`B`$ is a positive definite matrix.

We consider a $`g`$-dimensional vector $`𝒜\left(P\right)=\left\{_{P_0}^P\omega _j\right\}`$, where $`P_0`$ is a fixed point of the Riemann surface and $`P`$ is an arbitrary point. This vector is not uniquely determined, but depends on the path of integration. If the latter is changed then a linear combination of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$-periods with integer coefficients can be added: $`\left(𝒜\left(P\right)\right)_j\left(𝒜\left(P\right)\right)_j+_1^gn_i\delta _{ij}+_1^gm_iB_{ij}`$, i.e. $`𝒜\left(P\right)𝒜\left(P\right)+n_i\delta _i+m_iB_i`$, where $`\delta _i`$ is the vector with coordinates $`\delta _{ij},B_i`$ is the vector with coordinates $`B_{ij}`$. Thus $`𝒜\left(P\right)`$ determines a mapping of the Riemann surface on the torus $`𝕁=^g/𝕋`$, where $`𝕋`$ is the lattice generated by $`2g`$ vectors $`\{\delta _i,B_i\}`$ (which are linearly independent over $``$). This mapping is called the Abel mapping, and the torus $`𝕁`$ is the Jacobi manifold or the Jacobian or the Riemann surface.

The Abel mapping extends by linearity to the divisors:

$$𝒜\left(n_kP_k\right)=n_k𝒜\left(P_k\right).$$

2 $`AbelTheorem`$. Those and only those divisors go to zero of the Jacobian by the Abel mapping which are principal. The latter means that they are divisors of zeros and poles of meromorphic functions on the surface. If $`P_k`$ is a zero of the function, then $`n_k>0`$ and $`n_k`$ is the degree of this zero. If $`P_k`$ is a pole, then $`n_k<0`$ and $`|n_k|`$ is the degree of this pole.

Of special interest is the case of divisors of degree $`g`$ with all $`n_k=1`$, i.e. of non-ordered sets of $`g`$ points $`P_1,\mathrm{},P_g`$ of the Riemann surface. All the sets of such kind form the symmetrical $`g`$-th power of the Riemann surface. The Abel mapping has the form

$`𝒜(P_1,\mathrm{},P_g)=\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{g}{}}}{\displaystyle _{P_0}^P}\omega _j\right\},j=1,\mathrm{},g.`$
The symmetrical $`g`$-th power is a complex manifold of the complex dimension $`g`$ and it is mapped on the Jacobian which is a manifold of the same dimension. A problem of conversion arises (the Jacobi inverse problem). It can be solved with the help of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-function.

3 For arbitrary $`P^g`$, let

$`\mathrm{\Theta }\left(P\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{Z^g}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\pi i(BZ,Z)+2\pi i(P,Z)\right\},`$
$`(BZ,Z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{g}{}}}B_{ij}z_iz_j,Z=(z_1,\mathrm{},z_g)^T`$
$`(P,Z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{g}{}}}p_iz_i,P=(p_1,\mathrm{},p_g)^T.`$
The series converges owing to the properties of the matrix $`B`$. The $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-function has the properties

$`\mathrm{\Theta }\left(P\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }\left(P\right);`$
$`\mathrm{\Theta }\left(P+\delta _k\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }\left(P\right);`$
$`\mathrm{\Theta }\left(P+B_k\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }\left(P\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\pi i\left(B_{kk}+2p_k\right)\right\}.`$
Note that the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-function is not defined on the Jacobian because of the latter property.

4 $`RiemannTheorem`$. There are constants $`𝕂=\{k_i\},i=1,\mathrm{},g`$ (Riemann constants) determined by the Riemann surface such that the set of points $`P_1,\mathrm{},P_g`$ is a solution of the system of equations

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{g}{}}}{\displaystyle _{P_0}^{P_i}}\omega _j=l_j,𝕃=\left\{l_j\right\}𝕁,j=1,\mathrm{},g,`$
if and only if $`P_1,\mathrm{},P_g`$ are the zeros of the function $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left(P\right)=\mathrm{\Theta }\left(𝒜\left(P\right)𝕃𝕂\right)`$ (which has exactly $`g`$ zeros). Note that while the function $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left(P\right)`$ is not uniquely determined on the Riemann surface (it is multivalued) its zeros are multivalued, since distinct branches of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left(P\right)`$ differs by exponents.

5 We define now Abel differentials of the second and of the third kind. The Abel differential of the second kind, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_P^{\left(k\right)},k=1,2,\mathrm{},`$ has the only singularity at the point $`P`$ which is a pole of the order $`k+1`$. The differential can be represented at this point as $`dz_+^k`$ (holomorphic differential), $`z`$ being the local parameter at this point. Such a differential is uniquely determined if it normed: $`_{\alpha _i}\mathrm{\Omega }_P^{\left(k\right)}=0,i.`$

The Abel differential of the third kind $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{PQ}`$ has only singularities which are simple poles at the points $`P`$ and $`Q`$ with the residues $`+1`$ and $`1`$, respectively. It is uniquely determined by the same condition.

6 $`Proposition`$. If $`z`$ is a local parameter in a neighbourhood of the point $`P`$ and $`\omega _i=\phi _i\left(z\right)dz`$ is the Abel differential of the first kind, then

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{\beta _i}}\mathrm{\Omega }_P^{\left(k\right)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(k1\right)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^{k1}}{dz^{k1}}}\phi _i\left(z\right)|_{z=0},i=1,\mathrm{},g,`$
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{\beta _i}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{PQ}={\displaystyle _Q^P}\omega _i,i=1,\mathrm{}g,`$
which is also seen in Ref. .


format: text

text:
# Baryogenesis in Fresh inflation

## Abstract

I study the possibility of baryogenesis can take place in fresh inflation. I find that it is possible that violation of baryon number conservation can occur during the period out-of-equilibrium in this scenario. Indeed, baryogenesis could be possible in the range of times ($`10^910^{12}`$) $`\mathrm{G}^{1/2}`$, before the thermal equilibrium is restored at the end of fresh inflation.

Pacs: 98.80.Cq

Introduction:  The idea of inflation is one of the most reliable concepts in modern cosmology. It can solve the horizon and flatness problem in standard big bang cosmology and also provide us with the seeds of the large scale structure. The standard inflationary period proceeds while a scalar field called an inflaton slowly evolves along a sufficiently flat potential. The standard slow - roll inflation model separates expansion and reheating into two distinguished time periods. It is first assumed that exponential expansion from inflation places the universe in a supercooled second order phase transition. Subsequently thereafter the universe is reheated. Two outcomes arise from such a scenario. First, the required density perturbations in this cold universe are left to be created by the quantum fluctuations of the inflaton. Second, the scalar field oscillates near the minimum of its effective potential and produces elementary particles. Inflation has improved upon the scenario for generating a baryon excess in two ways. First, it has imposed the condition that the initial baryon asymmetry vanishes as a prediction of just as a convenient assumption. Second, has provided a maximum temperature below which the baryon generation process must take place. For standard inflation baryon number violation must take place at temperatures below the reheating temperature after inflation if our present universe is to end up with a non-zero baryon density. The picture of baryon generation which inflation give us is the following. When inflation ends, a scalar field which had been storing the energy density which drove inflation in the form of a cosmological constant is suddenly released from a meta-stable configuration and it rapidly proceeds to the minimum of its potential energy. As it approaches the minimum the potential energy of the meta-stable state is transferred to kinetic energy and the field value oscillates around the minimum of the potential. These field oscillations are completely equivalent to a coherent state of the particles corresponding to the scalar field. The next step is that these particles decay, or equivalently, that field oscillations are damped by the production of other particles which are coupled to the oscillating field. This accomplishes the reheating of the universe. Baryon number is generated when the temperature of the universe dips below the mass of some suitable particle. There is a temporary loss of equilibrium when that particle cannot decay quickly enough to reduce its density in response to the rapidly cooling universe. The particle being discussed must have decay modes which violate both CP and baryon number conservation. There are very good reasons to suspect that GUT baryogenesis does not occur if this is the way reheating happens. The main reason is that density and temperature fluctuations observed in the present universe require the inflaton potential to be extremely flat. This means that the couplings of the inflaton field to the other degrees of freedom cannot be too large, since large couplings would induce large loop corrections to the inflaton potential, spoiling its flatness. As a result, the radiation temperature is expected to be smaller than $`10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}`$ by several orders of magnitude.

An interesting idea called preheating was introduced more recently. When the inflaton field oscillates around the minimum of the potential the Klein-Gordon equation for the modes can be cast in the form of a Mathieu equation. A crucial observation for baryogenesis is that particles with mass larger than that of the inflaton may be produced during preheating.

Recently a new model of inflation called fresh inflation was proposed. This one has the following characteristics:

(a) The universe begins from an unstable primordial matter field perturbation with energy density nearly $`M_p^4`$ and chaotic initial conditions. Initially the universe there is no thermalized \[$`\rho _r(t=t_0)=0`$\]. Later, the universe describes a second order phase transition, and the inflaton rolls down towards its minimum energetic configuration. (b) Particles production and heating occur together during the rapid expansion of the universe, so that the radiation energy density grows during fresh inflation ($`\dot{\rho }_r>0`$). The Yukawa interaction between the inflaton field and other fields in a thermal bath lead to dissipation which is responsible for the slow rolling of the inflaton field. So, the slow-roll conditions are physically justified and there are not a requirement of a nearly flat potential in fresh inflation. (c) There is no oscillation of the inflaton field around the minimum of the effective potential due to the strong dissipation produced by the Yukawa interaction ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }H`$). This fact also provides thermal equilibrium in the last phase of fresh inflation.

In this work I study baryogenesis in fresh inflation. During the early period of fresh inflation (when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }H`$) there is not thermal equilibrium, but after $`t>t_E`$ the thermal equilibrium es restored (once the condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }H`$ is fullfiled). The main subject of this paper is to study the possibility that baryon asymmetry can take place during the period before thermal equilibrium is restored in fresh inflation.

Review of Fresh Inflation: I consider a Lagrangian for a $`\varphi `$-scalar field minimally coupled to gravity, which also interacts with another $`\psi `$-scalar field by means of a Yukawa interaction,

$$=\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{R}{16\pi G}+\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }\varphi _{,\mu }\varphi _{,\nu }+V(\varphi )+_{int}\right],$$
(1)
where $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ is the metric tensor, $`g`$ is its determinant and $`R`$ is the scalar curvature. The interaction Lagrangian is given by $`_{int}\mathrm{g}^2\varphi ^2\psi ^2`$, where $`\psi `$ is a scalar field in the thermal bath. Furthermore, the indices $`\mu ,\nu `$ take the values $`0,..,3`$ and the gravitational constant is $`G=M_p^2`$ (where $`M_p=1.2\times 10^{19}GeV`$ is the Planckian mass). The Einstein equations for a globally flat, isotropic, and homogeneous universe described by a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric $`ds^2=dt^2+a^2(t)dr^2`$ are given by

$`3H^2`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi G\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{2}}+V(\varphi )+\rho _r\right],`$ (2)
$`3H^2+2\dot{H}`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi G\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{2}}V(\varphi )+\rho _r\right],`$ (3)
where $`H=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}`$ is the Hubble parameter and $`a`$ is the scale factor of the universe. The overdot denotes the derivative with respect to the time. On the other hand, if $`\delta =\dot{\rho }_r+4H\rho _r`$ describes the interaction between the inflaton and the bath, the equations of motion for $`\varphi `$ and $`\rho _r`$ are

$`\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }+V^{}(\varphi )+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\dot{\varphi }}}=0,`$ (4)
$`\dot{\rho }_r+4H\rho _r\delta =0.`$ (5)
As in a previous paper, I will consider a Yukawa interaction $`\delta =\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta )\dot{\varphi }^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta )=\frac{g_{eff}^4}{192\pi }\theta `$ and $`\theta \rho _r^{1/4}`$ is the temperature of the bath. If $`p_t=\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{2}+\frac{\rho _r}{3}V(\varphi )`$ is the total pressure and $`\rho _t=\rho _r+\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{2}+V(\varphi )`$ is the total energy density, the parameter $`F=\frac{p_t+\rho _t}{\rho _t}`$ which describes the evolution of the universe during inflation is

$$F=\frac{2\dot{H}}{3H^2}=\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2+\frac{4}{3}\rho _r}{\rho _r+\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{2}+V}>0.$$
(6)
When fresh inflation starts (at $`t=G^{1/2}`$), the radiation energy density is zero, so that $`F1`$.

I will consider the parameter $`F`$ as a constant. From the two equalities in eq. (6), one obtains the following equations:

$`\dot{\varphi }^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{F}{2}}\right)+\rho _r\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}F\right)FV(\varphi )=0,`$ (7)
$`H={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3F𝑑t}}.`$ (8)
Furthermore, because of $`\dot{H}=H^{}\dot{\varphi }`$ (here the prime denotes the derivative with respect to the field), from the first equality in eq. (6) we obtain the equation that describes the evolution for $`\varphi `$,

$$\dot{\varphi }=\frac{3H^2}{2H^{}}F,$$
(9)
and replacing eq. (9) in eq. (7), the radiation energy density can be described as functions of $`V`$, $`H`$ and $`F`$

$$\rho _r=\left(\frac{3F}{43F}\right)V\frac{27}{8}\left(\frac{H^2}{H^{}}\right)^2\frac{F^2(2F)}{(43F)}.$$
(10)
Finally, replacing eqs. (9) and (10) in eq. (2), the potential can be written as a function of the Hubble parameter and $`F`$ (which is a constant)

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{3}{8\pi G}\left[\left(\frac{43F}{4}\right)H^2+\frac{3\pi G}{2}F^2\left(\frac{H^2}{H^{}}\right)^2\right].$$
(11)
Fresh inflation was proposed for a global group $`O(n)`$ involving a single $`n`$-vector multiplet of scalar fields $`\varphi _i`$, such that making $`(\varphi _i\varphi _i)^{1/2}\varphi `$, the effective potential $`V_{eff}(\varphi ,\theta )=V(\varphi )+\rho _r(\varphi ,\theta )`$ can be written as

$$V_{eff}(\varphi ,\theta )=\frac{^2(\theta )}{2}\varphi ^2+\frac{\lambda ^2}{4}\varphi ^4,$$
(12)
where $`^2(\theta )=^2(0)+\frac{(n+2)}{12}\lambda ^2\theta ^2`$ and $`V(\varphi )=\frac{^2(0)}{2}\varphi ^2+\frac{\lambda ^2}{4}\varphi ^4`$. Furthermore, $`^2(0)>0`$ is the squared mass at zero temperature, which is given by $`_0^2`$ plus renormalization counterterms in the potential $`\frac{1}{2}_0^2(\varphi _i\varphi _i)+\frac{1}{4}\lambda ^2(\varphi _i\varphi _i)^2`$. I will take into account the case without symmetry breaking, $`^2(\theta )>0`$ for any temperature $`\theta `$, so that the excitation spectrum consists of $`n`$ bosons with mass $`(\theta )`$. The effective potential (12) is invariant under $`\varphi \varphi `$ reflections and $`n`$ is the number of created particles due to the interaction of $`\varphi `$ with the particles in the thermal bath, such that

$$(n+2)=\frac{2\pi ^2}{5\lambda ^2}g_{eff}\frac{\theta ^2}{\varphi ^2},$$
(13)
because the radiation energy density is given by $`\rho _r=\frac{\pi ^2}{30},g_{eff}\theta ^4`$, where $`g_{eff}`$ denotes the effective degrees of freedom of the particles and it is assumed that $`\psi `$ has no self-interaction. A particular solution of eq. (11) is

$$H(\varphi )=4\sqrt{\frac{\pi G}{3(43F)}}(0)\varphi ,$$
(14)
where the consistence relationship implies: $`\lambda ^2=\frac{12\pi GF^2}{(43F)}^2(0)`$. From eq. (8), and due to $`H=\dot{a}/a`$, one obtains the scale factor as a function of time

$$a(t)t^{\frac{2}{3F}}.$$
(15)
The number of $`e`$ folds $`N=_{t_s}^{t_e}H(t)𝑑t`$ ($`t_s`$ and $`t_e`$ are the time when inflation start and ends) is given by $`N=\frac{2}{3F}\mathrm{ln}(t)|_{t_s}^{t_e}`$. With Planckian unities ($`G^{1/2}M_p=1`$) inflation starts when $`t_s=G^{1/2}=1`$. Hence, for $`t_e10^{13}G^{1/2}`$, one obtains $`N>60`$ for $`F<1/3`$. So, the condition $`F<1/3`$ assures the slow-rolling of the inflaton field during fresh inflation. So, fresh inflation solve the problem of warm inflationary scenarios considered in. Taking $`g_{eff}10^2`$, $`^2(0)=10^{12}\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{p}^2`$, and $`t_e10^{13}G^{1/2}`$ one obtains the number of created particles at the end of fresh inflation $`n_e10^{13}`$. Furthermore, the time evolution of the inflaton is given by $`\varphi (t)=\lambda ^1t^1`$.

Baryogenesis in Fresh inflation: If the reheat temperature is sufficiently high, then baryogenesis can proceed as it does in the standard cosmology, through the out-of-equilibrium decays of superheavy bosons whose interactions violate $`B`$, $`C`$ and $`CP`$ conservation. As usual, $`ϵ`$ is related to the branching ration of $`\varphi `$ into channels which have net baryon number, and the $`C`$, $`CP`$ violation in the $`B`$-nonconserving decay modes. For simplicity suppose that only two decay channels have net baryon number equal to $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$, then $`ϵ(B_1B_2)(r_1\overline{r}_1)(r_1+\overline{r}_2)`$, where $`r_i`$ ($`\overline{r}_i`$) is the branching ration into channel $`i`$ ($`\overline{i}`$). The $`C`$, $`CP`$-violating effects involve higher - order loop corrections $`(r_1\overline{r}_1)O(\alpha )10^2`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the coupling strength of the particle exchanged in the loop.

For the values of the parameters here adopted the thermal equilibrium holds for $`t>t_E10^{12}\mathrm{G}^{1/2}`$, so that baryogenesis must take place before it. If baryon number is not conserved there is no reason for the proton to be stable and in fact, most theories which can produce a baryon asymmetry also predict a finite lifetime for the proton. Experiments now constrain this lifetime to be longer than $`10^{32}`$ years. This suggests that the energy scale associated with baryon number violating processes is greater than $`10^{11}`$ GeV but remains below of the $`10^{16}`$ GeV. Indeed, if the temperature of the universe grows until values of temperature greater than $`\theta _B`$ before the thermal equilibrium is restored, fresh inflation could give violation of baryon number conservation. During fresh inflation the entropy density is $`s\frac{2\pi ^2}{45}g_{eff}\theta ^3`$. If the decay of each $`\varphi `$-boson on average a net baryon number density $`ϵ`$, then the net baryon number density produced by the $`\varphi `$-decay in unstable bosons is $`n_Bϵn_\varphi `$, where $`n_\varphi \frac{\rho _r}{(\theta )}`$, such that

$$n_Bϵ\frac{(n+2)\lambda ^2\theta ^2\varphi ^2}{12\sqrt{^2(0)+\frac{(n+2)}{12}\lambda ^2\theta ^2}}.$$
(16)
But the important relationship here is $`n_B/s`$, which takes the form

$$\frac{n_B}{s}\frac{45ϵ(n+2)\lambda ^2\varphi ^2}{24\pi ^2g_{eff}\theta \sqrt{^2(0)+\frac{(n+2)}{12}\lambda ^2\theta ^2}}.$$
(17)
If the temperature is given by

$$\theta (t)\frac{192\pi }{g_{eff}^4}^2(0)t,$$
(18)
the time for which the condition to baryogenesis take place $`n_B/s10^{10}`$ (I call it $`t_B`$), will be

$$t_B\frac{22}{ϵ},$$
(19)
where we have taken $`^2(0)=10^{12}\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{p}^2`$ and $`g_{eff}=10^2`$. Notice that $`t_B`$ is smaller than the time when the thermal equilibrium is restored $`t_E10^{12}\mathrm{G}^{1/2}`$, for

$$ϵ<10^{11},$$
(20)
which agree with the expected values. Finally, the minimum radiation temperature needed to baryogenesis take place (of the order of $`10^8\mathrm{G}^{1/2}`$) is obtained for $`t_B10^9\mathrm{G}^{1/2}`$, which is smaller than the equilibrium temperature $`t_E`$. This implies the possibility of violation of baryon number conservation during the out-of-equilibrium period of fresh inflation. Notice that when the thermal equilibrium is restored the temperature of the universe is of the order of $`\theta _E10^6\mathrm{G}^{1/2}`$, which is in the permited range of temperatures \[$`(10^810^3)\mathrm{G}^{1/2}`$\] for baryogenesis can take place. In other words, with the choice of parameters here worked ($`^2(0)=10^{12}\mathrm{G}^1`$ and $`g_{eff}=10^2`$), the fresh inflationary model predicts the possiblity of violation for baryon number conservation in the range of times $`(10^910^{12})\mathrm{G}^{1/2}`$.

To summarize, the conditions needed to give rise to a baryon asymmetry have long been recognized. They are (i) violation of baryon number conservation (ii) violation of $`CP`$ invariance and (iii) temporary loss of thermal equilibrium. Inflation requires violation of baryon number conservation, which suggests that the proton is unstable. This provides us with a bleak picture of a future universe devoid of matter an ever decreasing photon density. In this paper I have showed that baryogenesis can take place during fresh inflation before the thermal equilibrium is restored. This is a very attractive prediction of fresh inflation which shows an important difference with respect to another models of inflation where baryogenesis is produced at the end of the inflationary phase. In the framework of fresh inflation, other interesting variants such preheating or the Afflek-Dine mechanism cannot occur due to there are no oscillation of the inflaton field at the end of fresh inflation. Finally, baryogenesis appears to be very difficult in low-energy unification scenarios and in supersymmetric unified models with dimension-$`5`$ operators that violate $`B`$ conservation. However, while it is difficult to generate a baryon asymmetry at low temperature, it is not impossible. A scenario based on $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_RU(1)_{BL}`$ where the $`X`$-bosons are the right-handed neutrino and $`M=10^4\mathrm{GeV}`$ has been discussed in.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge CONACYT (México) and CIC of Universidad Michoacana for financial support in the form of a research grant.