text:
# On symplectic leaves and integrable systems in standard complex semisimple Poisson-Lie groups

## 1. Introduction

Let $`G`$ be a simply connected connected semisimple complex Lie group supplied with the standard Poisson-Lie structure. It is well known (see e.g., ) that the symplectic leaves in $`G`$ are closely related to *double Bruhat cells*, the intersections of double cosets of two opposite Borel subgroups in $`G`$. Double Bruhat cells were studied in ; one of the main tools developed there was a family of regular functions on them called *twisted (generalized) minors*. In the present paper, we provide some applications of these functions to the study of symplectic leaves in $`G`$ and integrable systems on them (some results in this direction were obtained in ). One of our main goals is to bring the machinery of twisted minors to the attention of the experts in the field. We believe these functions should have further applications to the study of symplectic leaves and integrable systems.

It was shown in  that twisted minors give rise to a family of toric charts in every double Bruhat cell. These charts were used in  for determining the connected components of real double Bruhat cells. In a similar spirit, we obtain here an explicit description of symplectic leaves in $`G`$ (Theorem 2.3); furthermore, using twisted minors we produce toric charts in every symplectic leaf. This sharpens the results in , where the symplectic leaves were characterized as connected components of some subvarieties of the double Bruhat cells.

Our second main result (Theorem 2.6) asserts that certain twisted minors quasi-commute with each other (that is, their Poisson bracket is a scalar multiple of their product), and gives an explicit expression for their Poisson bracket. (In a different context, this calculation will also appear in a forthcoming paper by A. Berenstein and one of the authors (A.Z.) devoted to the study of *quantum* double cells.)

As an application of Theorem 2.6, we show in Corollary 2.7 that the twisted minors can be used to construct integrable systems on some special symplectic leaves. We are unable to match these integrable systems with any known ones; we call for experts to try to recognize them. It should be possible to extend the method of Corollary 2.7 to produce more examples of integrable systems; we believe that this method deserves further study.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we provide necessary background and state our main results. Their proofs are given in Sections 3 and 4.

Acknowledgments. We thank Kolya Reshetikhin for patiently explaining to one of us (A.Z.) the basics of symplectic leaves, and Arkady Berenstein whose comments and suggestions helped us to simplify our original proof of Theorem 2.6. We also thank Misha Gekhtman and Misha Shapiro for helpful discussions and for informing us about some of their yet unpublished results obtained jointly with Alek Vainshtein.

## 2. Main results

### 2.1. Poisson manifolds and symplectic leaves

We start by recalling some basic definitions. Let $`M`$ be a smooth manifold. Denote by $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ the set of smooth complex valued functions on $`M`$. Recall that $`M`$ is a *Poisson manifold* if it is equipped with a bilinear map $`\{,\}:C^{\mathrm{}}(M)\times C^{\mathrm{}}(M)C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ called Poisson bracket, which makes $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ into a Lie algebra and satisfies the Leibniz identity $`\{fg,h\}=f\{g,h\}+\{f,h\}g`$ for $`f,g,hC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$. In all the cases we consider $`M`$ will be a complex algebraic variety; then a Poisson bracket extends uniquely to a Poisson bracket on the space of rational functions on $`M`$.

A smooth map $`\phi :MN`$ between two Poisson manifolds is called *Poisson* if $`\phi ^{}\{f,g\}_N=\{\phi ^{}(f),\phi ^{}(g)\}_M`$ for every $`f,gC^{\mathrm{}}(N)`$; here $`\{.,.\}_M`$ and $`\{.,.\}_N`$ are the Poisson brackets on $`M`$ and $`N`$, respectively. The Poisson structure on the product $`M\times N`$ of two Poisson manifolds is defined by

$$\{f,g\}(x,y)=\{f(.,y),g(.,y)\}_M(x)+\{f(x,.),g(x,.)\}_N(y)$$

for $`f,gC^{\mathrm{}}(M\times N)`$.

For a function $`f`$ on a Poisson manifold $`M`$, the *Hamiltonian vector field* $`X_f`$ is the vector field associated to the derivation $`\{f,\}`$. For a point $`pM`$, the restrictions of Hamiltonian vector fields to $`p`$ form a vector subspace $`V_p`$ inside the tangent vector space $`T_pM`$. This defines a distribution $`V`$ on $`M`$. This distribution is known to be integrable (see e.g. ). Thus, every Poisson manifold $`M`$ is a disjoint union of connected symplectic manifolds $`S_\alpha `$, such that $`T_pS_\alpha =V_p`$ for every $`pS_\alpha `$ and the symplectic form $`\omega _\alpha `$ on $`S_\alpha `$ is given by

$$\omega _\alpha (X_f,X_g)(p)=\{f,g\}(p)\mathrm{for}pS_\alpha ,f,gC^{\mathrm{}}(M).$$

The manifolds $`S_\alpha `$ are called the *symplectic leaves* of $`M`$. Clearly, every inclusion $`S_\alpha M`$ is Poisson.

### 2.2. Standard Poisson-Lie structure on a semisimple Lie group

Recall that a *Poisson-Lie group* is a Lie group $`G`$ equipped with a Poisson bracket such that the multiplication map $`G\times GG`$ is Poisson.

###### Example 2.1.

Let $`G=SL_2=\{(\begin{array}{cc}x_{11}& x_{12}\\ x_{21}& x_{22}\end{array}):x_{11}x_{22}x_{12}x_{21}=1\}`$; then we can define (see e.g. ) a family of Poisson structures on $`G`$ parameterized by $`d`$ by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\{x_{12},x_{11}\}=dx_{11}x_{12},& \{x_{21},x_{11}\}=dx_{11}x_{21},& \{x_{22},x_{11}\}=2dx_{12}x_{21},\\ \{x_{12},x_{21}\}=0,& \{x_{22},x_{12}\}=dx_{12}x_{22},& \{x_{22},x_{21}\}=dx_{21}x_{22}.\end{array}$$

We will indicate that $`SL_2`$ is equipped with the above Poisson structure by writing $`SL_2^{(d)}`$.

Let $`G`$ be a simply-connected connected semisimple complex Lie group with the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$. Let $`f_i,\alpha _i^{},e_i(i=1,\mathrm{},r)`$ be the Chevalley generators of $`𝔤`$, and $`𝔤=𝔫_{}𝔥𝔫`$ be the corresponding triangular decomposition. Let $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _r𝔥^{}`$ be the simple roots of $`𝔤`$. The Cartan matrix $`A=(a_{ij})`$ is given by $`a_{ij}=\alpha _i^{},\alpha _j`$. We fix a diagonal matrix $`D`$ with positive diagonal entries $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_r`$, which symmetrizes $`A`$, i.e., $`d_ia_{ij}=d_ja_{ji}`$ for all $`i`$ and $`j`$. For $`t`$, define

$$x_i(t)=\mathrm{exp}(te_i),x_{\overline{i}}(t)=\mathrm{exp}(tf_i).$$

The canonical inclusions $`\phi _i:SL_2G`$ are defined by

$$\phi _i(\begin{array}{cc}1& t\\ 0& 1\end{array})=x_i(t),\phi _i(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ t& 1\end{array})=x_{\overline{i}}(t).$$

The *standard Poisson-Lie structure* on $`G`$ is uniquely determined by the requirement that every map $`\phi _i:SL_2^{(d_i)}G`$ is Poisson. (The uniqueness is easy to see; an explicit construction using Manin triples can be found in  or .)

### 2.3. Generalized minors and their twists

To state our main results we need to introduce more notation and recall some results of . Let $`N_{},H,N`$ be the subgroups of $`G`$, which correspond to $`𝔫_{},𝔥`$ and $`𝔫`$. We set $`B_{}=HN_{}`$ and $`B=HN`$ to be the pair of opposite Borel subgroups. The set $`G_0=N_{}HN`$ is a Zariski open subset of $`G`$ consisting of the elements $`xG`$, which have (a unique) Gaussian decomposition $`x=[x]_{}[x]_0[x]_+`$, with $`[x]_{}N_{},[x]_0H`$, and $`[x]_+N`$.

The *weight lattice* $`P`$ consists of elements $`\gamma 𝔥^{}`$ such that $`\alpha _i^{},\gamma `$ for all $`i`$. Every weight $`\gamma P`$ defines a multiplicative character $`aa^\gamma `$ of $`H`$, defined by $`\mathrm{exp}(h)^\gamma =e^{h,\gamma }`$ for $`h𝔥`$. The basis of *fundamental weights* $`\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _r`$ in $`P`$ is defined by $`\alpha _i^{},\omega _j=\delta _{ij}`$.

The Weyl group $`W`$ is defined by $`W=\text{Norm}_G(H)/H`$. It acts on $`H`$ by $`a^w=w^1aw`$, and the following formula defines the action of $`W`$ on $`P`$:

$$a^{w(\gamma )}=(w^1aw)^\gamma ,\mathrm{for}aH,wW,\gamma P.$$

The Weyl group is generated by simple reflections $`s_1,\mathrm{},s_r`$ acting on weights by $`s_i(\gamma )=\gamma \alpha _i^{},\gamma \alpha _i`$. If $`w=s_{i_1}\mathrm{}s_{i_m}`$ is a shortest possible expression of $`w`$ as a product of simple reflections, then $`(i_1,\mathrm{},i_m)`$ is called a *reduced word* of $`w`$, and $`m`$ is called the length of $`w`$ and denoted by $`\mathrm{}(w)`$.

For every $`wW`$, we define a special representative $`\overline{w}`$ of $`w`$ in $`\text{Norm}_G(H)`$ as follows. Let

$$\overline{s}_i=\phi _i(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}).$$

Then, if we also require $`\overline{w}_1\overline{w}_2=\overline{w_1w_2}`$ as long as $`\mathrm{}(w_1)+\mathrm{}(w_2)=\mathrm{}(w_1w_2)`$, it is not difficult to see that $`\overline{w}`$ is well defined for every $`wW`$ (see ).

For $`u,vW`$, define the double Bruhat cell $`G^{u,v}`$ to be

$$G^{u,v}=BuBB_{}vB_{}.$$

By \[2, Theorem 1.1\], $`G^{u,v}`$ is a smooth algebraic variety of dimension $`\mathrm{}(u)+\mathrm{}(v)+r`$ (recall that $`r`$ is the rank of $`𝔤`$).

For $`xG_0`$ and a fundamental weight $`\omega _i`$, define

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_i(x)=[x]_0^{\omega _i}.$$

It is shown in  that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ extends to a regular function on $`G`$. For type $`A_r`$ (when $`G=SL_{r+1}`$), this is just the principal $`i\times i`$ minor of a matrix $`x`$.

For any pair $`u,vW`$, the corresponding *generalized minor* is a regular function on $`G`$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{u\omega _i,v\omega _i}(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }_i(\overline{u}^1x\overline{v}).$$

It is shown in  that these functions are well defined, that is they depend only on the weights $`u\omega _i`$ and $`v\omega _i`$ and do not depend on the particular choice of $`u`$ and $`v`$.

Define an involutive automorphism $`xx^\theta `$ on $`G`$ by

$$a^\theta =a^1(aH),x_i(t)^\theta =x_{\overline{i}}(t),x_{\overline{i}}(t)^\theta =x_i(t).$$

The *twist map* for $`u,vW`$ is a biregular isomorphism $`xx^{}`$ between $`G^{u,v}`$ and $`G^{u^1,v^1}`$ given by (see \[2, Theorem 1.6\])

(2.1)
$$x^{}=([\overline{u}^1x]_{}^1\overline{u}^1x\overline{v^1}[x\overline{v^1}]_+^1)^\theta .$$

A *double reduced word* of $`(u,v)`$ is a word $`𝐢=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_m)`$ of length $`m=\mathrm{}(u)+\mathrm{}(v)`$ in the alphabet $`[1,\mathrm{},r][\overline{1},\mathrm{},\overline{r}]`$ such that the subword of $`𝐢`$ consisting of all letters from $`[\overline{1},\mathrm{},\overline{r}]`$ is a reduced word of $`u`$, and the subword consisting of all letters from $`[1,\mathrm{},r]`$ is a reduced word of $`v`$. For $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$, we denote $`\epsilon (i)=+1`$ and $`\epsilon (\overline{i})=1`$, and set $`|i|=|\overline{i}|=i`$.

In what follows, we fix $`u,vW`$ and a double reduced word $`𝐢`$ of $`(u,v)`$. We append $`r`$ entries $`i_{m+1},\mathrm{},i_{m+r}`$ to $`𝐢`$ by setting $`i_{m+j}=\overline{j}`$. For $`k=1,\mathrm{},m`$, we set

$$u_k=\underset{\mathrm{}=m,\mathrm{},k}{}_{\epsilon (i_{\mathrm{}})=1}s_{|i_{\mathrm{}}|},v_{<k}=\underset{\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},k1}{}_{\epsilon (i_{\mathrm{}})=+1}s_{|i_{\mathrm{}}|},$$

where the notation implies that the index $`\mathrm{}`$ in the first (resp. second) product is decreasing (resp. increasing). We also set $`u_k=e`$, $`v_{<k}=v`$ for $`k=m+1,\mathrm{},m+r`$. For example, if $`𝐢=(1,\overline{2},2,\overline{3},3,2,\overline{1})`$ then $`u_4=s_1s_3`$, $`v_{<4}=s_1s_2`$.

For every $`k=1,\mathrm{},m+r`$, we set

$$\gamma ^k=u_k\omega _{|i_k|},\delta ^k=v_{<k}\omega _{|i_k|}$$

and introduce a regular function $`M_k`$ on $`G^{u,v}`$ by setting

(2.2)
$$M_k(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma ^k,\delta ^k}(x^{}),$$

where $`x^{}`$ is given by (2.1). We refer to the family $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_{m+r}`$ as *twisted minors* associated with a reduced word $`𝐢`$. Their significance stems from the following result (see \[2, Theorems 1.2, 1.9, 1.10 and formula (1.21)\]).

###### Theorem 2.2.

The map $`x_𝐢:H\times ^mG`$ given by

$$x_𝐢(a;t_1,\mathrm{},t_m)=ax_{i_1}(t_1)\mathrm{}x_{i_m}(t_m)$$

restricts to a biregular isomorphism between a complex torus $`H\times (\{0\})^m`$ and a Zariski open subset $`U_𝐢=\{xG^{u,v}:M_k(x)0\text{ for }1km+r\}`$ of the double Bruhat cell $`G^{u,v}`$. Furthermore, for $`k=1,\mathrm{},m+r`$ and $`x=x_𝐢(a;t_1,\mathrm{},t_m)U_𝐢`$, we have

(2.3)
$$M_k(x)=a^{u\gamma ^k}\underset{1\mathrm{}<k}{}_{\epsilon (i_{\mathrm{}})=1}t_{\mathrm{}}^{\alpha _{|i_{\mathrm{}}|}^{},u_{\mathrm{}}^1\gamma ^k}\underset{k\mathrm{}m}{}_{\epsilon (i_{\mathrm{}})=+1}t_{\mathrm{}}^{\alpha _{|i_{\mathrm{}}|}^{},v_{<\mathrm{}+1}^1\delta ^k}.$$

### 2.4. Symplectic leaves of the standard Poisson-Lie structure

We are now ready to describe symplectic leaves of the standard Poisson-Lie structure on $`G`$. We retain the above terminology and notation.

Given $`u,vW`$, let $`H^{u,v}`$ denote the subtorus of $`H`$ formed by elements $`(a^u)^1a^v`$ for $`aH`$. We also denote by $`I(u,v)`$ the set of all indices $`i`$ such that $`u\omega _i=v\omega _i=\omega _i`$.

###### Theorem 2.3.

For every $`u,vW`$, the set

$$S^{u,v}=\{xG^{u,v}:[\overline{u}^1x]_0([x\overline{v^1}]_0)^vH^{u,v},[\overline{u}^1x]_0^{\omega _i}=1\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}iI(u,v)\}$$

is a symplectic leaf in $`G`$. Every symplectic leaf in $`G`$ is of the form $`S^{u,v}a`$ for some $`u,vW`$ and $`aH`$.

In the process of the proof of Theorem 2.3, we show that every double reduced word of $`(u,v)`$ gives rise to a toric chart in $`S^{u,v}`$. More precisely, we prove the following.

###### Proposition 2.4.

For every double reduced word $`𝐢=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_m)`$ of $`(u,v)`$, the intersection $`S^{u,v}U_𝐢`$ is a dense Zariski open subset of $`S^{u,v}`$, and the mapping

$$x(M_1(x),\mathrm{},M_m(x),[\overline{u}^1x]_0([x\overline{v^1}]_0)^v)$$

is a biregular isomorphism between $`S^{u,v}U_𝐢`$ and the complex torus $`(\{0\})^m\times H^{u,v}`$. In particular, the symplectic leaf $`S^{u,v}`$ has (complex) dimension $`m+dimH^{u,v}`$, where $`m=\mathrm{}(u)+\mathrm{}(v)`$.

Note that the set

(2.4)
$$\stackrel{~}{S}^{u,v}=\{xG^{u,v}:[\overline{u}^1x]_0([x\overline{v^1}]_0)^vH^{u,v}\}$$

has been known to be a union of finite number of symplectic leaves (see  and Proposition 3.1 below). The new result in Theorem 2.3 is an explicit description of the connected components of $`\stackrel{~}{S}^{u,v}`$. As a consequence of Theorem 2.3, we obtain the following corollary.

###### Corollary 2.5.

The number of connected components of $`\stackrel{~}{S}^{u,v}`$ is equal to $`2^{|I(u,v)|}`$.

### 2.5. Poisson brackets of twisted minors and integrable systems on special symplectic leaves

Let $`(\gamma ,\gamma ^{})`$ denote the $`W`$-invariant scalar product on $`𝔥^{}`$ such that $`(\alpha _i,\gamma )=d_i\alpha _i^{},\gamma `$ for all $`i`$ and $`\gamma `$. Assume we are given $`u,vW`$ and a double reduced word $`𝐢`$ of $`(u,v)`$, and let $`M_1,\mathrm{}M_{m+r}`$ be twisted minors associated with $`𝐢`$. Here is our next main result.

###### Theorem 2.6.

On every symplectic leaf in a double Bruhat cell $`G^{u,v}`$, the standard Poisson bracket between twisted minors is given by

(2.5)
$$\{M_k,M_k^{}\}=((\gamma ^k,\gamma ^k^{})(\delta ^k,\delta ^k^{}))M_kM_k^{}$$

for $`1kk^{}m+r`$.

Let $`u`$ be an arbitrary element of the Weyl group $`W`$. Using Theorem 2.6, we shall construct a family of completely integrable systems on the symplectic leaf $`S^{u,u}`$, one for each reduced word $`𝐣=(j_1,\mathrm{},j_{\mathrm{}(u)})`$ of $`u`$. To do this, we first associate with $`𝐣`$ a double reduced word $`𝐢=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_m)`$ of $`(u,u)`$ (where $`m=2\mathrm{}(u)`$) by $`i_{2k1}=j_k`$ and $`i_{2k}=\overline{j_k}`$ for $`1k\mathrm{}(u)`$. Let $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_{m+r}`$ be twisted minors associated with $`𝐢`$.

###### Corollary 2.7.

The twisted minors $`M_{2k1}`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}(u)`$ form a completely integrable system on the symplectic leaf $`S^{u,u}`$, i.e. they are independent on $`S^{u,u}`$, Poisson commute with each other, and the cardinality $`\mathrm{}(u)`$ of this family is equal to $`\frac{1}{2}dimS^{u,u}`$.

###### Remark 2.8.

M. Gekhtman and M. Shapiro informed us that they have proved (in an ongoing joint work with A. Vainshtein) that the twist isomorphism (2.1) between double cells $`G^{u,v}`$ and $`G^{u^1,v^1}`$ is an anti-isomorphism of Poisson manifolds (this means that it becomes Poisson if we change the sign of the Poisson bracket on $`G^{u^1,v^1}`$). Thus, Corollary 2.7 also gives rise to a family of integrable systems on symplectic leaves $`S^{u,u}`$ formed by (non-twisted) generalized minors.

###### Example 2.9.

Let $`u=v=w_0`$ be the longest element in $`W`$. The corresponding double Bruhat cell $`G^{w_0,w_0}`$ is an open set in $`G`$ given by

$$G^{w_0,w_0}=\{xG:\mathrm{\Delta }_{w_0\omega _i,\omega _i}(x)0,\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,w_0\omega _i}(x)0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}i\}.$$

Let $`ii^{}`$ be an involution on the index set $`\{1,\mathrm{},r\}`$ induced by the action of $`(w_0)`$ on fundamental weights: that is, we have $`w_0(\omega _i)=\omega _i^{}`$. As an easy consequence of Theorem 2.3, the symplectic leaf $`S^{w_0,w_0}`$ is given by

$$S^{w_0,w_0}=\{xG^{w_0,w_0}:\mathrm{\Delta }_{w_0\omega _i,\omega _i}(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i^{},w_0\omega _i^{}}(x)\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}i\}.$$

In particular, for $`G=SL_n`$, we have

$$G^{w_0,w_0}=\{xG:\mathrm{\Delta }_{[n+1i,n],[1,i]}(x)0,\mathrm{\Delta }_{[1,i],[n+1i,n]}(x)0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}i\},$$

and

$$S^{w_0,w_0}=\{xG:\mathrm{\Delta }_{[n+1i,n],[1,i]}(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{[1,ni],[i+1,n]}(x)0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}i\},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{I,J}(x)`$ is the minor of a matrix $`x`$ with the row set $`I`$ and the column set $`J`$, and $`[a,b]`$ stands for the set $`\{a,a+1,\mathrm{},b\}`$. The dimension of $`S^{w_0,w_0}`$ is equal to $`2\mathrm{}(w_0)`$; for $`SL_n`$, this amounts to $`n(n1)`$.

To illustrate Corollary 2.7, consider the symplectic leaf $`S^{w_0,w_0}`$ in $`G=SL_3`$. Its dimension is $`6`$, and it is given in $`G`$ by the conditions

$$x_{31}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{[1,2],[2,3]}(x)0,x_{13}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{[2,3],[1,2]}(x)0,$$

where $`x_{ij}`$ denotes the $`(i,j)`$-entry of the matrix $`x`$. Choose the reduced word $`𝐣=(1,2,1)`$ of $`w_0`$. Using an explicit description of the twist map $`xx^{}`$ given in \[2, Example 4.6\], the restrictions to $`S^{w_0,w_0}`$ of the corresponding twisted minors $`M_1,M_3`$ and $`M_5`$ can be calculated as follows:

$`M_1(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{3,1}(x^{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_{13}}},`$
$`M_3(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{[2,3],[1,2]}(x^{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_{31}}},`$
$`M_5(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,2}(x^{})={\displaystyle \frac{x_{23}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\{1,3\},[1,2]}(x)x_{13}\mathrm{\Delta }_{[2,3],[1,2]}(x)}{x_{13}x_{31}}}.`$
By Corollary 2.7, these functions form a completely integrable system on $`S^{w_0,w_0}`$. In view of Remark 2.8, the matrix entries $`x_{31},x_{13}`$, and $`x_{22}`$ also form a completely integrable system on $`S^{w_0,w_0}`$.

## 3. Proofs of the results on symplectic leaves

We retain the terminology and notation of Section 2. In particular, $`G`$ is a simply-connected connected semisimple complex Lie group with the standard Poisson-Lie structure. In this section, we prove Theorem 2.3, Proposition 2.4 and Corollary 2.5. Our starting point is the following description of symplectic leaves in $`G`$.

###### Proposition 3.1.

The symplectic leaves in $`G`$ are the connected components of the sets $`\stackrel{~}{S}^{u,v}a`$ for some $`u,vW`$ and $`aH`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{S}^{u,v}`$ is given by (2.4).

Proposition 3.1 appeared in . We still would like to outline a proof in order to make the presentation more self-contained, and also since this gives us a convenient occasion to introduce some notation needed later.

###### Proof.

We deduce Proposition 3.1 from the following description of symplectic leaves which is essentially due to M. Semenov-Tyan-Shanskiĭ . Let us identify $`G`$ with the diagonal of $`G\times G`$, and let $`G^{}`$ be the subgroup of $`G\times G`$ given by

$$G^{}=\{(b,b_{})B\times B_{}:[b]_0=[b_{}]_0^1\}.$$

Then the symplectic leaves of $`G`$ are the connected components of the intersections of $`G`$ with the double cosets of $`G^{}`$ in $`G\times G`$.

It remains to show that the intersections of $`G`$ with the double cosets of $`G^{}`$ in $`G\times G`$ are precisely the sets $`\stackrel{~}{S}^{u,v}a`$ for $`u,vW`$ and $`aH`$. By the definition, two elements $`x`$ and $`y`$ of $`G`$ belong to the same double coset in $`G^{}\backslash (G\times G)/G^{}`$ if and only if

(3.1)
$$y=bxb^{}=b_{}xb_{}^{}$$

for some $`b,b^{}B`$ and $`b_{},b_{}^{}B_{}`$ such that $`[b]_0=[b_{}]_0^1`$ and $`[b^{}]_0=[b_{}^{}]_0^1`$. In particular, $`x`$ and $`y`$ must belong to the same double Bruhat cell $`G^{u,v}`$.

To shorten the notation, let us define for $`xG^{u,v}`$

(3.2)
$$h(x)=[\overline{u}^1x]_0,h^{}(x)=([x\overline{v^1}]_0)^v.$$

One easily checks that

(3.3)
$$h(xa)=h(x)a,h^{}(xa)=h^{}(x)a,h(ax)=a^uh(x),h^{}(ax)=a^vh^{}(x)$$

for every $`aH`$.

Now suppose that $`x,yG^{u,v}`$ satisfy (3.1). Using (3.3), we obtain

$$h(y)=h([b]_0x[b^{}]_0)=[b]_0^uh(x)[b^{}]_0,$$

and

$$h^{}(y)=h^{}([b_{}]_0x[b_{}^{}]_0)=[b_{}]_0^vh^{}(x)[b_{}^{}]_0.$$

Therefore, $`h(y)h^{}(y)`$ and $`h(x)h^{}(x)`$ belong to the same coset in $`H/H^{u,v}`$.

Conversely, suppose $`h(y)h^{}(y)`$ and $`h(x)h^{}(x)`$ belong to the same coset in $`H/H^{u,v}`$, i.e. we have $`a^vh(y)h^{}(y)=a^uh(x)h^{}(x)`$ for some $`aH`$. Setting

$$a^{}=a^vh^{}(y)h^{}(x)^1=a^uh(x)h(y)^1,$$

we obtain

$`(x,x)`$ $`G^{}(\overline{u}h(x),\overline{v^1}^1h^{}(x))G^{}=G^{}(a\overline{u}h(x)(a^{})^1,a^1\overline{v^1}^1h^{}(x)a^{})G^{}`$
$`=G^{}(\overline{u}h(y),\overline{v^1}^1h^{}(y))G^{}=G^{}(y,y)G^{}.`$
Thus $`x,yG^{u,v}`$ satisfy (3.1) if and only if

(3.4) $`h(x)h^{}(x)`$ and $`h(y)h^{}(y)`$ belong to the same coset in $`H/H^{u,v}`$.
At the same time, (2.4), (3.2) and (3.3) imply that $`x,yG^{u,v}`$ belong to the same set $`\stackrel{~}{S}^{u,v}a`$ if and only if (3.4) holds. This completes the proof of Proposition 3.1. ∎

Recall that $`I(u,v)`$ is the set of indices $`i`$ for which $`u\omega _i=v\omega _i=\omega _i`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{H}^{u,v}`$ denote the subtorus of $`H`$ given by

$$\stackrel{~}{H}^{u,v}=\{hH:h^{\omega _i}=1\text{ for }iI(u,v)\}.$$

Clearly, $`H^{u,v}`$ is a subtorus of $`\stackrel{~}{H}^{u,v}`$. In view of (3.2), we have

(3.5) $`\stackrel{~}{S}^{u,v}=\{xG^{u,v}:h(x)h^{}(x)H^{u,v}\},`$
(3.6) $`S^{u,v}=\{x\stackrel{~}{S}^{u,v}:h(x)\stackrel{~}{H}^{u,v}\}.`$
###### Lemma 3.2.

For every $`xG^{u,v}`$, we have $`h(x)h^{}(x)^1\stackrel{~}{H}^{u,v}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`iI(u,v)`$. Then we have

$$h(x)^{\omega _i}=([\overline{u}^1x]_0)^{\omega _i}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{u\omega _i,\omega _i}(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,\omega _i}(x),$$

and

$$h^{}(x)^{\omega _i}=([x\overline{v^1}]_0)^{v\omega _i}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,v^1\omega _i}(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,\omega _i}(x)=h(x)^{\omega _i},$$

implying our statement. ∎

Let us denote

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{aH:a^2=e\}=\{aH:a^{\omega _i}=\pm 1\text{ for  all }i\},$$

and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{u,v}=\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{~}{H}^{u,v}`$. Thus, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a finite Abelian group isomorphic to $`(/2)^r`$, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{u,v}`$ is a subgroup of index $`2^{|I(u,v)|}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. By (3.3) and (3.5), $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ acts on $`\stackrel{~}{S}^{u,v}`$ by right translations. Using (3.6), we see that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{u,v}`$ takes $`S^{u,v}`$ into itself; furthermore, if $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ belong to different cosets in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Sigma }^{u,v}`$ then $`S^{u,v}aS^{u,v}a^{}=\mathrm{}`$. On the other hand, Lemma 3.2 and (3.5) imply that $`h(x)^2\stackrel{~}{H}^{u,v}`$ for every $`x\stackrel{~}{S}^{u,v}`$. It follows that every $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-orbit in $`\stackrel{~}{S}^{u,v}`$ has non-empty intersection with $`S^{u,v}`$. We conclude that $`\stackrel{~}{S}^{u,v}`$ is the disjoint union of $`2^{|I(u,v)|}`$ right translates of $`S^{u,v}`$ by a set of representatives of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Sigma }^{u,v}`$. Since $`S^{u,v}`$ is closed in $`\stackrel{~}{S}^{u,v}`$, it is also open, hence is a union of connected components of $`\stackrel{~}{S}^{u,v}`$.

To complete the proofs of Theorem 2.3 and Corollary 2.5, it remains to show that $`S^{u,v}`$ is connected. This in turn is a consequence of Proposition 2.4, since the connectedness property of a complex algebraic variety is preserved by passing to a dense Zariski open subset. So it remains to prove Proposition 2.4.

In what follows, we fix $`u,vW`$ and a double reduced word $`𝐢=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_m)`$ of $`(u,v)`$. Recall that we append $`r`$ entries $`i_{m+1},\mathrm{},i_{m+r}`$ to $`𝐢`$ by setting $`i_{m+j}=\overline{j}`$. For any $`j`$, let $`k(j)`$ denote the smallest index $`k`$ with $`|i_k|=j`$; thus, $`1k(j)m`$ for $`jI(u,v)`$, and $`k(j)=m+j`$ for $`jI(u,v)`$.

###### Lemma 3.3.

The variety $`S^{u,v}`$ can be identified with the subvariety of pairs $`(x,a)G^{u,v}\times H^{u,v}`$ satisfying

(3.7)
$$M_{m+j}(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }jI(u,v)\text{;}\hfill \\ a^{\omega _j}_{iI(u,v)}M_{k(i)}(x)^{\alpha _i^{},v\omega _j}\hfill & \text{if }jI(u,v)\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

By (3.5) and (3.6), $`S^{u,v}`$ can be identified with the subvariety of pairs $`(x,a)G^{u,v}\times H^{u,v}`$ such that

$$h(x)\stackrel{~}{H}^{u,v},h(x)h^{}(x)=a,$$

or, equivalently,

(3.8)
$$h(x)^{\omega _j}=1(jI(u,v)),h(x)^{\omega _j}h^{}(x)^{\omega _j}=a^{\omega _j}(j=1,\mathrm{},r).$$

It remains to show the equivalence of (3.8) and (3.7).

We claim that

(3.9)
$$h(x)^{\omega _j}=M_{m+j}(x)^1,h^{}(x)^{v^1\omega _j}=M_{k(j)}(x)^1$$

for any $`xG^{u,v}`$ and $`j=1,\mathrm{},r`$. Indeed, the definition (2.1) of the twist isomorphism $`xx^{}`$ between $`G^{u,v}`$ and $`G^{u^1,v^1}`$ implies at once that

(3.10)
$$[x^{}\overline{v}]_0=([\overline{u}^1x]_0)^1,[\overline{u^1}^1x^{}]_0=([x\overline{v^1}]_0)^1.$$

The equality (3.9) is then a direct consequence of definitions (3.2) and (2.2).

Since every fundamental weight $`\omega _j`$ can be written as $`_i\alpha _i^{},v\omega _jv^1\omega _i`$, the equality (3.9) implies that

$$h^{}(x)^{\omega _j}=\underset{i}{}M_{k(i)}(x)^{\alpha _i^{},v\omega _j}.$$

Substituting this and the first equality in (3.9) into (3.8), we conclude (after a slight simplification) that it is indeed equivalent to (3.7). ∎

Lemma 3.3 together with Theorem 2.2 immediately prove that the map $`x(M_1(x),\mathrm{},M_m(x),h(x)h^{}(x))`$ provides an isomorphism between $`S^{u,v}U_𝐢`$ and $`(\{0\})^m\times H^{u,v}`$. To prove Proposition 2.4, it remains to show that $`S^{u,v}U_𝐢`$ is dense in $`S^{u,v}`$. Since $`S^{u,v}`$ is smooth, it suffices to show that the complement of this set is of (complex) codimension at least one. In other words, we claim that $`S^{u,v}\{M_k=0\}`$ is of codimension at least one in $`S^{u,v}`$ for any $`k=1,\mathrm{},m+r`$. But this is clear from the defining equations (3.7): the twisted minors $`M_{m+j}`$ and $`M_{k(i)}`$ vanish nowhere on $`S^{u,v}`$, while the remaining $`M_k`$ just do not appear in (3.7). Proposition 2.4, Theorem 2.3 and Corollary 2.5 are proved.

## 4. Proofs of Theorem 2.6 and Corollary 2.7

In this section, we again fix two elements $`u,vW`$ and a double reduced word $`𝐢=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_m)`$ of $`(u,v)`$. By Theorem 2.2, a generic element $`xG^{u,v}`$ has a unique factorization $`x=x_𝐢(a;t_1,\mathrm{},t_m)`$, so each $`t_k`$ as well as $`a^\gamma `$ for any weight $`\gamma `$, can be viewed as a rational function on $`G^{u,v}`$. The Poisson brackets between these functions are given as follows.

###### Lemma 4.1.

We have

(4.1) $`\{t_k,t_k^{}\}=\epsilon (i_k)(\alpha _{|i_k|},\alpha _{|i_k^{}|})t_kt_k^{},\text{ for }k<k^{}`$
(4.2) $`\{t_k,a^\gamma \}=(\alpha _{|i_k|},\gamma )t_ka^\gamma ,\text{ for any weight }\gamma `$
(4.3) $`\{a^\gamma ,a^\gamma ^{}\}=0,\text{ for any weights }\gamma ,\gamma ^{}.`$
A slight modification of this lemma can be found in . To make the exposition more self-contained, we outline the proof.

###### Proof.

Consider the Poisson-Lie group $`SL_2^{(d)}`$ (see Example 2.1), and two symplectic leaves in it given by

$$S_+=\{(\begin{array}{cc}p& q\\ 0& p^1\end{array}):p,q0\},S_{}=\{(\begin{array}{cc}p& 0\\ q& p^1\end{array}):p,q0\};$$

in the notation of Theorem 2.3, we have $`S_+=S^{e,w_0}`$ and $`S_{}=S^{w_0,e}`$. In both these leaves, the Poisson structure is given by $`\{q,p\}=dpq`$; to indicate the dependence on $`d`$, we will write $`S_\pm =S_\pm ^{(d)}`$.

By the definition of the standard Poisson structure on $`G`$, a double reduced word $`𝐢`$ of $`(u,v)`$ gives rise to a Poisson map

$$\phi _𝐢:S_{\mathrm{sign}(\epsilon (i_1))}^{(d_{|i_1|})}\times \mathrm{}\times S_{\mathrm{sign}(\epsilon (i_m))}^{(d_{|i_m|})}G^{u,v}$$

given by

$$\phi _𝐢(g_1,\mathrm{},g_m)=\phi _{|i_1|}(g_1)\mathrm{}\phi _{|i_m|}(g_m).$$

We use the standard coordinates $`(p_k,q_k)`$ in each factor $`S_{\mathrm{sign}(\epsilon (i_k))}^{(d_{|i_k|})}`$. An easy calculation using commutation relations \[2, (2.5)\] shows that

$$\phi _𝐢^{}(a^\gamma )=\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{m}{}}p_{\mathrm{}}^{\alpha _{|i_{\mathrm{}}|}^{},\gamma },\phi _𝐢^{}(t_k)=q_kp_k^{\epsilon (i_k)}\underset{\mathrm{}=k+1}{\overset{m}{}}p_{\mathrm{}}^{\epsilon (i_k)a_{|i_{\mathrm{}}|,|i_k|}}.$$

On the other hand, the only nonzero Poisson brackets between the coordinates $`p_1,q_1,\mathrm{},p_m,q_m`$ are $`\{q_k,p_k\}=d_{|i_k|}p_kq_k`$. Recalling that $`(\alpha _i,\gamma )=d_i\alpha _i^{},\gamma `$, we obtain our statement. ∎

We will say that two functions $`f,g`$ on a Poisson manifold *quasi-commute* if $`\{f,g\}=cfg`$ for some constant $`c`$. In this situation, we denote $`c=f,g`$.

Lemma 4.1 asserts in particular that all functions $`t_k`$ and $`a^\gamma `$ on $`G^{u,v}`$ quasi-commute with each other. Clearly, any two monomials in quasi-commuting variables quasi-commute, and the pairing $`f,g`$ is skew-symmetric and bilinear in the following sense: $`f_1f_2,g=f_1,g+f_2,g`$. Taking into account (2.3), we conclude that all twisted minors $`M_k`$ quasi-commute with each other. To prove Theorem 2.6, we only need to show that

(4.4)
$$M_k,M_k^{}=(\gamma ^k,\gamma ^k^{})(\delta ^k,\delta ^k^{})\text{ for }k<k^{}.$$

We set

$$\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^k=u_{\mathrm{}}^1\gamma ^k,\delta _{\mathrm{}}^k=v_{<\mathrm{}+1}^1\delta ^k;$$

in particular, we have

$`\gamma _1^k=u\gamma ^k,\gamma _k^k=\omega _{|i_k|},\delta _{k1}^k=\omega _{|i_k|},\delta _m^k=v^1\delta ^k.`$
An easy inspection shows that we can rewrite (2.3) as

(4.5)
$$M_k=a^{u\gamma ^k}\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k1}{}}t_{\mathrm{}}^{c_{\mathrm{}}^k}\underset{\mathrm{}=k}{\overset{m}{}}t_{\mathrm{}}^{d_{\mathrm{}}^k},$$

where the exponents $`c_{\mathrm{}}^k`$ and $`d_{\mathrm{}}^k`$ are determined from

(4.6)
$$c_{\mathrm{}}^k\alpha _{|i_{\mathrm{}}|}=\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^k\gamma _{\mathrm{}+1}^k,d_{\mathrm{}}^k\alpha _{|i_{\mathrm{}}|}=\delta _{\mathrm{}}^k\delta _\mathrm{}1^k.$$

To simplify calculations, we perform the following monomial change of variables: replace each $`t_k`$ by

(4.7)
$$y_k=\{\begin{array}{cc}t_k\hfill & \text{if }\epsilon (i_k)=+1\text{;}\hfill \\ a^{\alpha _{|i_k|}}t_k\hfill & \text{if }\epsilon (i_k)=1\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

As an immediate consequence of Lemma 4.1, we get

(4.8) $`y_k,y_k^{}=\epsilon (i_k)(\alpha _{|i_k|},\alpha _{|i_k^{}|})\text{ for }k<k^{}\text{ and }\epsilon (i_k)=\epsilon (i_k^{}),`$
(4.9) $`y_k,y_k^{}=0\text{ for }\epsilon (i_k)\epsilon (i_k^{}),`$
(4.10) $`y_k,a^\gamma =(\alpha _{|i_k|},\gamma )\text{ for any weight }\gamma ,`$
(4.11) $`a^\gamma ,a^\gamma ^{}=0\text{ for any weights }\gamma ,\gamma ^{}.`$
Rewriting $`M_k`$ in these new variables, we get

$$M_k=a^{\omega _{|i_k|}}\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k1}{}}y_{\mathrm{}}^{c_{\mathrm{}}^k}\underset{\mathrm{}=k}{\overset{m}{}}y_{\mathrm{}}^{d_{\mathrm{}}^k};$$

the only thing to check here is that the weight $`(u\gamma ^k)`$ in (4.5) transforms into

$$u\gamma ^k+\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k1}{}}c_{\mathrm{}}^k\alpha _{|i_{\mathrm{}}|}=u\gamma ^k+\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k1}{}}(\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^k\gamma _{\mathrm{}+1}^k)=u\gamma ^k+\gamma _1^k\gamma _k^k=\omega _{|i_k|}.$$

Now everything is ready for the proof of (4.4). We have

$`M_k,M_k^{}`$ $`=a^{\omega _{|i_k|}},M_k^{}+M_k,a^{\omega _{|i_k^{}|}}+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k1}{}}}y_{\mathrm{}}^{c_{\mathrm{}}^k},{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}^{}=1}{\overset{k^{}1}{}}}y_{\mathrm{}^{}}^{c_{\mathrm{}^{}}^k^{}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=k}{\overset{m}{}}}y_{\mathrm{}}^{d_{\mathrm{}}^k},{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}^{}=k^{}}{\overset{m}{}}}y_{\mathrm{}^{}}^{d_{\mathrm{}^{}}^k^{}}+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k1}{}}}y_{\mathrm{}}^{c_{\mathrm{}}^k},{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}^{}=k^{}}{\overset{m}{}}}y_{\mathrm{}^{}}^{d_{\mathrm{}^{}}^k^{}}+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=k}{\overset{m}{}}}y_{\mathrm{}}^{d_{\mathrm{}}^k},{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}^{}=1}{\overset{k^{}1}{}}}y_{\mathrm{}^{}}^{c_{\mathrm{}^{}}^k^{}}`$
The last two terms vanish by (4.9). Let us calculate the remaining terms. First of all, we have

$`a^{\omega _{|i_k|}},M_k^{}`$ $`=a^{\omega _{|i_k|}},{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k^{}1}{}}}y_{\mathrm{}}^{c_{\mathrm{}}^k^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=k^{}}{\overset{m}{}}}y_{\mathrm{}}^{d_{\mathrm{}}^k^{}}=(\omega _{|i_k|},{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k^{}1}{}}}c_{\mathrm{}}^k^{}\alpha _{|i_{\mathrm{}}|}+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=k^{}}{\overset{m}{}}}d_{\mathrm{}}^k^{}\alpha _{|i_{\mathrm{}}|})`$
$`=(\omega _{|i_k|},{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k^{}1}{}}}(\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^k^{}\gamma _{\mathrm{}+1}^k^{})+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=k^{}}{\overset{m}{}}}(\delta _{\mathrm{}}^k^{}\delta _\mathrm{}1^k^{}))`$
$`=(\omega _{|i_k|},\gamma _1^k^{}\gamma _k^{}^k^{}+\delta _m^k^{}\delta _{k^{}1}^k^{})=(\omega _{|i_k|},u\gamma ^k^{}+v^1\delta ^k^{}2\omega _{|i_k^{}|}).`$
Similarly,

$$M_k,a^{\omega _{|i_k^{}|}}=(u\gamma ^k+v^1\delta ^k2\omega _{|i_k|},\omega _{|i_k^{}|}).$$

The third term can be calculated as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k1}{}}}y_{\mathrm{}}^{c_{\mathrm{}}^k},{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}^{}=1}{\overset{k^{}1}{}}}y_{\mathrm{}^{}}^{c_{\mathrm{}^{}}^k^{}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k1}{}}}(c_{\mathrm{}}^k\alpha _{|i_{\mathrm{}}|},{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}^{}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}1}{}}}c_{\mathrm{}^{}}^k^{}\alpha _{|i_{\mathrm{}^{}}|}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}^{}=\mathrm{}+1}{\overset{k^{}1}{}}}c_{\mathrm{}^{}}^k^{}\alpha _{|i_{\mathrm{}^{}}|})`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k1}{}}}(\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^k\gamma _{\mathrm{}+1}^k,{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}^{}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}1}{}}}(\gamma _{\mathrm{}^{}}^k^{}\gamma _{\mathrm{}^{}+1}^k^{}){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}^{}=\mathrm{}+1}{\overset{k^{}1}{}}}(\gamma _{\mathrm{}^{}}^k^{}\gamma _{\mathrm{}^{}+1}^k^{}))`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k1}{}}}(\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^k\gamma _{\mathrm{}+1}^k,\gamma _1^k^{}+\gamma _k^{}^k^{}\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^k^{}\gamma _{\mathrm{}+1}^k^{})`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k1}{}}}(\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^k\gamma _{\mathrm{}+1}^k,u\gamma ^k^{}+\omega _{|i_k^{}|}){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k1}{}}}(\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^k\gamma _{\mathrm{}+1}^k,\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^k^{}+\gamma _{\mathrm{}+1}^k^{})`$
$`=(\gamma _1^k\gamma _k^k,u\gamma ^k^{}+\omega _{|i_k^{}|}){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k1}{}}}((\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^k,\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^k^{})(\gamma _{\mathrm{}+1}^k,\gamma _{\mathrm{}+1}^k^{}))`$
$`=(u\gamma ^k\omega _{|i_k|},u\gamma ^k^{}+\omega _{|i_k^{}|})(u\gamma ^k,u\gamma ^k^{})+(\omega _{|i_k|},\gamma _k^k^{})`$
$`=(\omega _{|i_k|},u\gamma ^k^{})+(u\gamma ^k,\omega _{|i_k^{}|})(\omega _{|i_k|},\omega _{|i_k^{}|})+(\omega _{|i_k|},\gamma _k^k^{}).`$
Here we used the fact that, for $`\mathrm{}<k`$ and $`\epsilon (i_{\mathrm{}})=1`$, we have $`(\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^k,\gamma _{\mathrm{}+1}^k^{})=(s_{|i_{\mathrm{}}|}\gamma _{\mathrm{}+1}^k,\gamma _{\mathrm{}+1}^k^{})=(\gamma _{\mathrm{}+1}^k,\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^k^{})`$.

The last remaining term is calculated in the same way. We leave the details to the reader and only give the answer:

$$\underset{\mathrm{}=k}{\overset{m}{}}y_{\mathrm{}}^{d_{\mathrm{}}^k},\underset{\mathrm{}^{}=k^{}}{\overset{m}{}}y_{\mathrm{}^{}}^{d_{\mathrm{}^{}}^k^{}}=(\omega _{|i_k|},v^1\delta ^k^{})+(v^1\delta ^k,\omega _{|i_k^{}|})+(\omega _{|i_k|},\omega _{|i_k^{}|})(\delta _{k^{}1}^k,\omega _{|i_k^{}|}).$$

Combining all the terms together and performing numerous cancellations, we obtain:

$$M_k,M_k^{}=(\omega _{|i_k|},\gamma _k^k^{})(\delta _{k^{}1}^k,\omega _{|i_k^{}|}).$$

Since $`(\omega _{|i_k|},\gamma _k^k^{})=(\gamma ^k,\gamma ^k^{})`$ and $`(\delta _{k^{}1}^k,\omega _{|i_k^{}|})=(\delta ^k,\delta ^k^{})`$, this completes the proof of Theorem 2.6. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Corollary 2.7. Since the torus $`H^{u,u}`$ is trivial, Proposition 2.4 implies that the twisted minors $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_m`$ form a system of local coordinates on $`S^{u,u}`$; in particular, the functions $`M_{2k1}`$ are algebraically independent on $`S^{u,u}`$. Moreover, there are exactly $`\frac{1}{2}dimS^{u,u}`$ of them.

It remains to show that the functions $`M_{2k1}`$ pairwise Poisson commute on $`S^{u,u}`$. This follows at once from Theorem 2.6 and the following computation for $`k<k^{}`$:

$`(\gamma ^{2k1},\gamma ^{2k^{}1})=(s_{j_{\mathrm{}(u)}}\mathrm{}s_{j_k}\omega _{j_k},s_{j_{\mathrm{}(u)}}\mathrm{}s_{j_k^{}}\omega _{j_k^{}})`$
$`=(s_{j_{k^{}1}}\mathrm{}s_{j_k}\omega _{j_k},\omega _{j_k^{}})=(\omega _{j_k},s_{j_k}\mathrm{}s_{j_{k^{}1}}\omega _{j_k^{}})`$
$`=(s_{j_1}\mathrm{}s_{j_{k1}}\omega _{j_k},s_{j_1}\mathrm{}s_{j_{k^{}1}}\omega _{j_k^{}})=(\delta ^{2k1},\delta ^{2k^{}1}).`$
Corollary 2.7 is proved. $`\mathrm{}`$


format: text

text:
# EFFECTS OF THREE-BODY INTERACTIONS ON THE STRUCTURE AND THERMODYNAMICS OF LIQUID KRYPTON

## Captions

Figure 1. Structure factor $`S(q)`$ for $`T=130`$ K, at $`n=16.83`$ nm-3, for $`T=169`$ K, at $`n=14.57`$ nm-3 and for $`T=199`$ K, at $`n=12.10`$ nm-3 from the top to the bottom (the curves for $`T=169`$ K and $`T=130`$ K are shifted upwards by an amount of $`1`$ and $`2`$, respectively), calculated by molecular dynamics with $`\nu =0`$ (dashed lines) $`\nu =\nu _{ddd}`$ (solid lines) and $`\nu =\nu _{eff}`$ (dotted lines) as described in the text. Open circles correspond to the experimental data of Ref. References, while full circles stand for the $`PVT`$ data of Ref. References.

Figure 2. Structure factor $`S(q)`$ at small scattering angle for isotherm (a) $`T=199`$ K, at $`n=12.10`$ nm-3, $`n=11.66`$ nm-3 and $`n=11.31`$ nm-3, and (b) $`T=169`$ K, at $`n=14.57`$ nm-3.and $`14.22`$ nm-3. The curves for $`n=11.66`$ nm-3 and $`n=11.31`$ nm-3 are shifted upwards by an amount of $`0.5`$ and $`1`$, respectively, and that of $`14.22`$ nm-3 by an amount of $`0.2`$. Molecular dynamics results are carried out with $`\nu =0`$ (dashed lines), $`\nu =\nu _{ddd}`$ (solid lines) and $`\nu =\nu _{eff}`$ (dotted lines) as described in the text. The chain curve corresponds to MD results with $`\nu =0`$ and a cutoff radius of $`4r_m`$. Open circles correspond to the experimental data of Ref. References, open triangles correspond to the experimental data of Ref. References and full circles stand for the $`PVT`$ data of Ref. References.

Figure 3. Structure factor $`S(q)`$ at small scattering angle for $`T=130`$ K, at $`n=16.83`$ nm-3. Same captions as in Fig.1.

Table 1. Excess internal energy, $`E^{\text{ex}}/N\epsilon `$, and pressure, $`P\left(r_m\right)^3/\epsilon `$, calculated by molecular dynamics for the different thermodynamic states considered in this work. Subscripts 2 and 3 stand respectively for the two- and two- plus three-body parts of the internal energy. $`P_{\text{exp}}`$ corresponds to the experimental values of Ref. References. The numbers in brackets represent the standard deviations that affect the last decimal of the temperature, energy and pressure extracted from the simulation.

## Table

| $`T`$ (K) | $`\rho `$ (nm-3) | $`\nu /\nu _{ddd}`$ | $`E_2^{\text{ex}}/N\epsilon `$ | $`E_3^{\text{ex}}/N\epsilon `$ | $`Pr_m^3/\epsilon `$ | $`P`$ (bar) | $`P_{\text{exp}}`$ (bar) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 130 (1) | 16.83 | $`0`$ | $`4.962`$ (6) | $``$ | $`0.87`$ (4) | $`375.4`$ |  |
|  |  | 1 | $`4.953`$ (6) | $`4.689`$ (6) | $`0.12`$ (4) | $`51.8`$ | 0 |
|  |  | 1.65 | $`4.958`$ (6) | $`4.522`$ (6) | $`0.33`$ (4) | $`142.4`$ |  |
| 169 (1) | 14.57 | 0 | $`4.151`$ (7) | $``$ | $`0.37`$ (5) | $`159.6`$ |  |
|  |  | 1 | $`4.127`$ (7) | $`3.938`$ (7) | $`0.06`$ (4) | $`25.9`$ | $`61.7`$ |
|  |  | 1.65 | $`4.126`$ (7) | $`3.818`$ (7) | $`0.30`$ (4) | $`129.4`$ |  |
| 169 (1) | 14.22 | 1 | $`4.034`$ (7) | $`3.855`$ (7) | $`0.05`$ (4) | $`21.5`$ | $`20.1`$ |
| 199 (1) | 12.10 | 0 | $`3.392`$ (8) | $``$ | $`0.06`$ (4) | $`25.9`$ |  |
|  |  | 1 | $`3.358`$ (9) | $`3.232`$ (9) | $`0.11`$ (4) | $`49.6`$ | $`73.1`$ |
|  |  | 1.65 | $`3.344`$ (8) | $`3.138`$ (8) | $`0.27`$ (4) | $`116.5`$ |  |
| 199 (1) | 11.66 | 1 | $`3.245`$ (8) | $`3.127`$ (8) | $`0.09`$ (4) | $`38.8`$ | $`55.7`$ |
| 199 (1) | 11.31 | 1 | $`3.165`$ (8) | $`3.053`$ (8) | $`0.06`$ (4) | $`25.9`$ | $`46.3`$ |

Table 1


text:
# Nuclear absorption and 𝐽/𝜓 suppression in Pb+Pb collisions

## Abstract

We have analyzed the NA58 data on $`J/\psi `$ suppression in Pb+Pb collisions. $`J/\psi `$ production is assumed to be a two step process, (i) formation of $`c\overline{c}`$ pair, which is accurately calculable in QCD and (ii) formation of $`J/\psi `$ meson from the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair, which can be conveniently parameterized. In a pA/AA collision, a $`c\overline{c}`$ pair gain relative square momentum as it passes through the nuclear medium and some of the $`c\overline{c}`$ pairs can gain enough momentum to cross the threshold to become an open charm meson, leading to suppression in pA/AA collisions. A new prescription is proposed for the gain in momentum square, consistent with Krammer process. The model without any free parameter could explain the $`E_T`$ dependence of $`J/\psi `$ over Drell-Yan ratio.

In relativistic heavy ion collisions $`J/\psi `$ suppression has been recognized as an important tool to identify the possible phase transition to quark-gluon plasma. Because of the large mass of the charm quarks, $`c\overline{c}`$ pairs are produced on a short time scale. Their tight binding also makes them immune to final state interactions. Their evolution probes the state of matter in the early stage of the collisions. Matsui and Satz  predicted that in presence of quark-gluon plasma (QGP), binding of $`c\overline{c}`$ pairs into a $`J/\psi `$ meson will be hindered, leading to the so called $`J/\psi `$ suppression in heavy ion collisions . Over the years several groups have measured the $`J/\psi `$ yield in heavy ion collisions (for a review of the data and the interpretations see Refs. ). In brief, experimental data do show suppression, which could be attributed to the conventional nuclear absorption, also present in $`pA`$ collisions.

The latest data obtained by the NA50 collaboration  on J/$`\psi `$ production in Pb+Pb collisions at 158 A GeV is the first indication of the anomalous mechanism of charmonium suppression, which goes beyond the conventional suppression in a nuclear environment. The ratio of J/$`\psi `$ yield to that of Drell-Yan pairs decreases faster with $`E_T`$ in the most central collisions than in the less central ones. It has been suggested that the resulting pattern can be understood in a deconfinement scenario in terms of successive melting of charmonium bound states . Essentially in a QGP like scenari, assuming all the $`J/\psi `$ melts above a threshold density, NA50 data could be explained as an effect of transverse energy fluctuations . The data could be also be explained in the comover approach without invoking QGP like scenario . Recently we have shown  that the NA50 data could be well explained extending the model of Qiu et al . In this model suppression is due to gain in relative square momentum of $`c\overline{c}`$ pair, as it pass through the nuclear medium. Some of the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair might gain enough momentum to cross the open charm threshold.

In the present paper, we further analyze the problem and alter the prescription used by Qiu et al  to calculate the gain in the relative square momentum of the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair to be consistent with theoretical understanding. We argue that square of relative momentum gained by $`c\overline{c}`$ pair for traversing a length $`L`$ in nuclear medium goes as $`L^2`$ rather than $`L`$, as was proposed by Qiu et al .

We briefly describe the model of Qiu et al . Production of $`J/\psi `$ meson is assumed to be a two step process, (i) production of $`c\overline{c}`$ pairs with relative momentum square $`q^2`$, and (ii) formation of $`J/\psi `$ mesons from the $`c\overline{c}`$ pairs. Step (i) can be accurately calculated in QCD . The second step, formation of $`J/\psi `$ mesons from initially compact $`c\overline{c}`$ pairs is non-perturbative. They used a parametric form for the step (ii), formation of $`J/\psi `$ from $`c\overline{c}`$ pairs. The $`J/\psi `$ cross section in AB collisions, at centre of mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ was then written as,

$$\sigma _{A+BJ/\psi +X}(s)=K\underset{a,b}{}𝑑q^2\left(\frac{\widehat{\sigma }_{abcc}}{Q^2}\right)𝑑x_F\varphi _{a/A}(x_a,Q^2)\varphi _{b/B}(x_b,Q^2)\frac{x_ax_b}{x_a+x_b}\times F_{c\overline{c}J/\psi }(q^2),$$
(1)
where $`_{a,b}`$ runs over all parton flavors, and $`Q^2=q^2+4m_c^2`$. The $`K`$ factor takes into account the higher order corrections. The incoming parton momentum fractions are fixed by kinematics and are $`x_a=(\sqrt{x_F^2+4Q^2/s}+x_F)/2`$ and $`x_b=(\sqrt{x_F^2+4Q^2/s}x_F)/2`$. Subprocess cross sections can be found in

In a nucleon-nucleus/nucleus-nucleus collision, the produced $`c\overline{c}`$ pairs interact with nuclear medium before they exit. Observed anomalous nuclear enhancement of the momentum imbalance in dijet production led Qiu, Vary and Zhang  to argue that the interaction of a $`c\overline{c}`$ pair with nuclear environment, increases the square of the relative momentum between the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair. They prescribed that if the pair traverses a length $`L`$ in nuclear medium, then the relative square momentum $`q^2`$ in the transition probability $`F_{c\overline{c}J/\psi }(q^2)`$ should be changed to,

$$q^2q^2+\epsilon ^2L$$
(2)
with $`\epsilon ^2`$ being the square of relative momentum gained by the pair per unit length of nuclear medium. However, if we treat momentum gain as a random walk, then for a Krammer like process, one easily obtain,

$$<(p_fp_i)^2><(x_fx_i)^2>$$
(3)
In other words, for a Krammer like process, square of momentum gain goes as $`L^2`$ rather than $`L`$ as in Eq.2. Accordingly, we suggest that for traversing a length $`L`$ in nuclear medium, the relative momentum $`q^2`$ in the transition probability $`F_{c\overline{c}J/\psi }(q^2)`$ should be changed to

$$q^2q^2+\epsilon ^2L^2$$
(4)
The parameter $`\epsilon ^2`$ was obtained by fitting NA50 data  on $`J/\psi `$ production in pA and AA collisions. For the transition probability, we use the following form ,

$$F_{c\overline{c}J/\psi }(q^2)=N_{J/\psi }\theta (q^2)\theta (4m_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}4m_c^2q^2)(1\frac{q^2}{4m_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}4m_c^2})^{\alpha _F},$$
(5)
and we have used CTEQ5M parton distribution function  in the calculation. In Fig.1, we have compared NA50 experimental data  with the best fitted curve. Except for the pd reaction, all the data points are correctly reproduced. Cross section for pd reaction is underpredicted. For a Krammer process, Eq.3 ($`\mathrm{\Delta }p^2\mathrm{\Delta }x^2`$) is obtained with the assumption of long interval of time i.e. for large interval of length. For pd collisions, effective length is small for the equation to be valid.

We now apply the model to obtain transverse energy dependence of the $`J/\psi `$ over Drell-Yan ratio. The Drell-Yan pairs do not suffer final state interactions and the cross section at an impact parameter $`𝐛`$ as a function of $`E_T`$ can be written as,

$$d^2\sigma ^{DY}/dE_Td^2b=\sigma _{NN}^{DY}d^2sT_A(𝐬)T_B(𝐬𝐛)P(b,E_T),$$
(6)
where $`\sigma _{NN}^{DY}`$ is the Drell-Yan cross section in $`NN`$ collisions. All the nuclear information is contained in the nuclear thickness function, $`T_{A,B}(𝐬)(=dz\rho _{A,B}(𝐬,z)`$. Presently we have used the following parametric form for $`\rho _A(r)`$ ,

$$\rho _A(r)=\frac{\rho _0}{1+exp(\frac{rr_0}{a})}$$
(7)
with $`a=0.53fm`$, $`r_0=1.1A^{1/3}`$. The central density is obtained from $`\rho _A(r)d^3r=A`$. In Eq.6, $`P(b,E_T)`$ is the probability to obtain $`E_T`$ at an impact parameter $`b`$. Geometric model has been quite successful in explaining the transverse energy as well as multiplicity distributions in $`AA`$ collisions . Transverse energy distribution in Pb+Pb collisions also could be described in this model . In this model, $`E_T`$ distribution is written in terms of $`E_T`$ distribution in NN collisions. One also assume that the Gamma distribution, with parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ describe the $`E_T`$ distributions in NN collisions. Pb+Pb data on $`E_T`$ distribution could be fitted with $`\alpha =3.46\pm 0.19`$ and $`\beta =0.379\pm 0.021`$ .

While Drell-Yan pairs do not suffer interactions with nuclear matter, the $`J/\psi `$ mesons do. In the model suppression factor depend on the length traversed by the $`c\overline{c}`$ mesons in nuclear medium. Consequently, we write the $`J/\psi `$ cross section at an impact parameter $`𝐛`$ as,

$$d^2\sigma ^{J/\psi }/dE_Td^2b=\sigma _{NN}^{J/\psi }d^2sT_A(𝐬)T_B(𝐬𝐛)S(L(𝐛,𝐬))P(b,E_T),$$
(8)
where $`\sigma _{NN}^{J/\psi }`$ is the $`J/\psi `$ cross section in $`NN`$ collisions and $`S(L(𝐛,𝐬))`$ is the suppression factor due to passage through a length L in nuclear environment. At an impact parameter $`𝐛`$ and at point $`𝐬`$, the transverse density can be calculated as,

$$n(𝐛,𝐬)=T_A(𝐬)[1e^{\sigma _{NN}T_B(𝐛𝐬)}]+T_B(𝐛𝐬)[1e^{\sigma _{NN}T_A(𝐬)}],$$
(9)
and the length $`L(𝐛,𝐬)`$ that the $`J/\psi `$ meson will traverse can be obtained as,

$$L(𝐛,𝐬)=n(𝐛,𝐬)/2\rho _0$$
(10)
Suppression factor $`S(L(𝐛,𝐬)`$ is then easily calculated using Eq.1.

Fluctuations of $`E_T`$, at a fixed impact parameter plays an important role in the explanation of NA50 data. Following Blaizot et al , we take into account $`E_T`$ fluctuations by the following replacement,

$$L(𝐛,𝐬)L(𝐛,𝐬)E_T/E_T(b)$$
(11)
In Fig.2, we have compared the model prediction with the NA50 experimental data on $`J/\psi `$ over DY ratio. The solid line is the ratio obtained with out any $`E_T`$ fluctuations. The data are reproduced upto the knee of the $`E_T`$ distribution. Beyond the knee of the $`E_T`$ distribution, model prediction saturates, while the data shows rapid fall of the ratio. The dashes line is the model prediction obtained including the $`E_T`$ fluctuations. The model without any free parameter give excellent description of the data, throughout the $`E_T`$ range. The results clearly shows that the rapid fall of the $`J/\psi `$ over Drell-Yan ratio beyond the knee of the $`E_T`$ distribution is due to $`E_T`$ fluctuation only. Present calculation also establishes that it is not essential to assumed a deconfined scenario to explain the NA50 data on $`J/\psi `$ to Drell-Yan ratio. Nuclear absorption alone is capable of explaining it.

To summarize, we have analyzed the NA50 data on transverse energy distribution of $`J/\psi `$ in Pb+Pb collisions at CERN SPS. In the model, $`c\overline{c}`$ pairs gain relative square momentum $`\epsilon ^2`$ as it travel a square of length $`L^2`$ through the nuclear environment. Suppression occurs as some of the pairs can gain enough momentum to cross the threshold to become an open charm meson. The parameters of the model were fixed by fitting experimental $`J/\psi `$ cross section in pA and AA collisions. The model could very well describe the transverse energy dependence of $`J/\psi `$ over Drell-Yan ratio upto the knee of the $`E_T`$ distribution. It explains the data, throughout the $`E_T`$ range if $`E_T`$ fluctuations are included.

The author would like to thank the Lady Davis Fellowship trust for supporting his visit to Technion.


text:
# Selective Spin-State Switch and Metal-Insulator Transition in 𝐆𝐝𝐁𝐚𝐂𝐨_𝟐𝐎_5.5.

## Abstract

Ultra-high resolution synchrotron diffraction data for $`\mathrm{GdBaCo}_2\mathrm{O}_{5.5}`$ throw new light on the metal-insulator transition of Co3+ Ba-cobaltites. An anomalous expansion of CoO6 octahedra is observed at the phase transition on heating, while CoO5 pyramids show the normal shrinking at the closing of the gap. The insulator-to-metal transition is attributed to a sudden excitation of some electrons in the octahedra ($`t_{2g}^6`$ state) into the Co $`e_g`$ band (final $`t_{2g}^4e_g^2`$ state). The $`t_{2g}^5e_g^1`$ state in the pyramids does not change and the structural study also rules out a $`d_{3x^2r^2}/d_{3y^2r^2}`$ orbital ordering at $`T_{MI}`$.

Transition metal oxides with perovskite structure have demonstrated to present a wide variety of challenging phenomena. Superconductivity and colossal magnetoresistance of Cu and Mn oxides are spectacular phenomena related with the strong spin-charge-lattice correlations occurring in these materials. Cobaltites are also very challenging since, in addition, the spin state degree of freedom of Co ions introduces new effects in these narrow band oxides Thornton86 ; Asai98 . The competition between crystal field (CF), on-site Coulomb correlations and the intra-atomic exchange energies leads to the existence of three possible spin states of $`\mathrm{Co}^{3+}`$ ions: the low spin state (LS, $`t_{2g}^6e_g^0`$), the intermediate spin state (IS, $`t_{2g}^5e_g^1`$), and the high spin state (HS, $`t_{2g}^4e_g^2`$). HS (LS) is associated with small (high) values of CF (when compared with the intra-atomic exchange energy). The IS state appears when similar values of these two energies are combined with the electron-phonon coupling and the Jahn-Teller distortion that lifts the degeneracy of $`e_g`$ and $`t_{2g}`$ orbitals. In many cobaltites the energy differences between spin states are small and can be easily overcome by thermal fluctuations and/or changed by the lattice thermal evolution Asai98  leading to spin state transitions.

More recently, a great interest on $`\mathrm{LnBaCo}_2\mathrm{O}_{5+\delta }`$ (Ln $``$ Rare earth) cobaltites has appeared Zhoug94 ; Troyanchuk98 ; Maignan99 ; Suard00a ; Vogt00 ; Suard00b ; Moritomo00 ; Respaud01 . This family of compounds presents very interesting phenomena like spin state transitions Suard00a ; Moritomo00 ; Respaud01 , charge ordering Vogt00 ; Suard00b , and giant magnetoresistance Troyanchuk98 ; Respaud01 . The oxygen content $`\delta `$ ($`0\delta 1`$) controls the nominal valence of Co ions that varies from 3.5+ (50% of Co3+ and 50% of Co4+) for $`\delta =1`$ to 2.5+ (50% of Co3+ and 50% of Co2+) for $`\delta =0`$ passing through 100% of Co3+ for $`\delta `$ = 0.5. The oxygen vacancies introduced when $`\delta <1`$ are found to be placed in layers together with the rare earth ions. Thus, these compounds are formed by the stacking sequence $`[\mathrm{CoO}_2][\mathrm{BaO}][\mathrm{CoO}_2][\mathrm{LnO}_\delta ]`$ along the $`c`$ direction, and Co presents coexistence of two types of coordination environments: pyramidal CoO5 and octahedral CoO6. Moreover, oxygen vacancies, within the \[LnOδ\] layers, present a remarkably strong tendency to order. This tendency prevents the appearance of disorder in the magnetic superexchange interactions, which causes spin glass behavior in oxygen deficient La1-xSrxCoO3-ϵ compounds. For $`\delta =0.5`$ the oxygen atoms and vacancies are located in alternating rows Maignan99 ; Moritomo00 . A HS state has been attributed to Co3+ in pyramidal environment (a rather unusual coordination) from neutron data in $`\mathrm{HoBaCo}_2\mathrm{O}_5`$ (exclusively pyramidal $`Pmma`$ structure) Suard00b . In contrast, for pseudocubic $`\mathrm{LaCoO}_3`$, a large cubic-CF splitting stabilizes, at low temperature, the LS configuration Wu00  while at high temperature the coexistence of HS and IS state has been reported Asai98 . LS has been proposed for $`\mathrm{LaBaCo}_2\mathrm{O}_6`$ (octahedral environment) at low temperature Suard00a . Here we should note that the deformation of the pyramid in $`\delta =0`$ $`Pmma`$ cobaltites with small lanthanides Suard00b ; Vogt00  is meaningfully different to that observed in $`\delta =0.5`$ cobaltites and intermediate Ln3+ size Moritomo00 , so that the differences in the CF splitting may give rise to different electronic configurations. Namely, the same type of coordination environment may hold different spin states depending on the lattice deformation and/or orbital occupancy Wu00 .

Several LnBaCo2O5.5 compounds present a metal-insulator (MI) transition at a temperature ($`T_{MI}`$) ranging between 280 and 400 K (depending on Ln). Susceptibility measurements reveal that coinciding with this transition there is a large change in the effective paramagnetic moment of the samples. This is understood as a sudden increase, on heating, in the spin state of Co ions Maignan99 ; Moritomo00 ; Respaud01 . From magnetic measurements on several samples with different lanthanides, all displaying the MI transition, Maignan et al. Maignan99  suggested a coexistence of IS (pyramids) and LS (octahedra) for $`T<T_{MI}`$ and HS Co3+ at high enough temperatures. Nevertheless, the spin state at both sides of the MI transition is still unclear. A study of the structural changes was carried out for $`\mathrm{TbBaCo}_2\mathrm{O}_{5.5}`$ by Moritomo et al. Moritomo00 . Based on these structural data, they proposed a spin state transition from a full IS state scheme to the HS state (for Ln=Tb) in both pyramidal and octahedral sites Moritomo00 . For $`T>T_{MI}`$ a HS state Maignan99 ; Moritomo00  and a coexistence of HS/IS states have been proposed Respaud01  by different groups. The main conclusion of Moritomo et al. is that the orbital degree of freedom of the IS state ($`t_{2g}^5e_g^1`$) and the electron-phonon coupling results in a Jahn-Teller cooperative distortion and a $`d_{3x^2r^2}/d_{3y^2r^2}`$ type orbital order (OO) below $`T_{MI}`$. As the origin of the transition they proposed a sudden distortion of the basal planes, on cooling, that accommodate the $`d_{3x^2r^2}`$ (pyramid) and $`d_{3y^2r^2}`$ (octahedron) orbital occupancy Moritomo00 . However, the sample studied in Ref. Moritomo00,  had impurities and the reported errors in the Co-O distances were anomalously large.

In this paper, we describe striking structural features for $`\mathrm{GdBaCo}_2\mathrm{O}_{5.5}`$ across $`T_{MI}`$. Interatomic Co-O distances exhibit a very different evolution in octahedra and pyramids. Analysis of diffraction and magnetic data through the insulator-to-metal transition provide evidence for a low-to-high spin transition only in octahedra. The $`Q_2`$-type distortion of the basal plane of octahedra and pyramids do not increase below $`T_{MI}`$ ruling out a $`d_{3x^2r^2}/d_{3y^2r^2}`$ orbital ordering as the driving force for the phase transition. The metallic phase is caused by excitation of electrons, from Co atoms placed at the CoO6 octahedra, into the $`e_g`$ band.

$`\mathrm{GdBaCo}_2\mathrm{O}_{5+\delta }`$ was prepared by standard solid-state reaction in air at $`T=1125^\mathrm{o}C`$ during $`24\mathrm{h}`$. After regrinding of the pellet, the compression and annealing processes were repeated several times. As Gd has a very high neutron absorption coefficient, we have characterized the structural evolution across the MI transition using X-ray thermodiffractometry. Ultra-high resolution synchrotron X-ray powder diffraction (SXRPD) patterns were collected at BM16 diffractometer of ESRF (Grenoble) in the standard Debye-Scherrer configuration. The polycrystalline sample was loaded in a borosilicate glass capillary ($`\varphi =0.5\mathrm{mm}`$) and rotated during data collection. A short wavelength, $`\lambda =0.450294(6)\mathrm{\AA }`$ ($`27.54\mathrm{keV}`$), selected with a double-crystal Si $`(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}1\hspace{0.17em}1})`$ monochromator, and calibrated with Si NIST ($`a=5.43094\mathrm{\AA }`$), was chosen to reduce the sample absorption. Measurements have been done at T= 300, 320, 340, 360, 380 and $`400\mathrm{K}`$. Each SXRPD run took about $`\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{h}`$ to have good statistics over the angular range $`4^\mathrm{o}2\theta 25^\mathrm{o}`$ with $`0.005^\mathrm{o}`$ step size. The powder patterns were analyzed by the Rietveld method using the GSAS suite of programs Larson94 . No impurities peaks have been detected and the diffraction peaks were remarkably sharp for a three metal-containing perovskite. The oxygen stoichiometry was determined to be 5.53(1) from SXRPD data, an usual oxygen content found for air-synthesis Maignan99 ; Moritomo00 . Moreover, according to Ref. Maignan99,  the MI transition in absent in Gd samples with $`\delta 0.6`$. Characterization of the sample included magnetic measurements (SQUID) in the temperature range $`10\mathrm{K}T650\mathrm{K}`$. Magnetotransport, magnetic and optical transmission measurements under pulsed fields up to $`35\mathrm{T}`$ have been also carried out Respaud01 .

First, we want to focus on the crystal structure and the ordering of the oxygen vacancies. The structure of $`\mathrm{TbBaCo}_2\mathrm{O}_{5.5}`$ reported in Ref. Moritomo00,  was used as starting model for the Rietveld refinements. We will use the same atomic labelling scheme for the sake of comparison. In the crystal structure ($`Pmmm`$) the simple perovskite cell is doubled along the $`b`$-axis in order to account for alternating oxygen rich and oxygen deficient $`ac`$ layers. The oxygen vacancies were checked in our $`\mathrm{GdBaCo}_2\mathrm{O}_{5.5}`$ sample and found to be located at the lanthanide layers. O3’ at (0,0,$`\frac{1}{2}`$) is almost empty with a refined occupation factor of 0.08(2). O3 at (0,$`\frac{1}{2}`$,$`\frac{1}{2}`$) is fully occupied with a refined occupation factor of 0.99(2). So, there are octahedra chains along the $`c`$-axis alternated along the $`b`$-axis with the corner-sharing square pyramids in both cobaltites. Figure 1 shows the SXRPD Rietveld plot at 340 K as an example. Refined atomic coordinates and agreement factors are given in Tab. 1. The crystal structure of $`\mathrm{GdBaCo}_2\mathrm{O}_{5.5}`$ is shown in the inset of Fig. 1. From this structure it is apparent that the metallic phase should be highly anisotropic. Oxygen vacancies preclude the existence of highly conducting paths along $`c`$ within the $`ac`$ layers of pyramids.

On cooling through the transition, $`b`$ and $`c`$ lattice parameters exhibit a sudden shrink (0.28% and 0.27%, respectively) while $`a`$ lengthens at $`T_{MI}`$ (0.35%), see Fig. 2(a). The values found, and their thermal evolution, strongly contrast with those reported in Ref. Moritomo00,  for $`\mathrm{TbBaCo}_2\mathrm{O}_{5.5}`$, where $`a>b/2`$, $`a`$ shrinks (on cooling) at $`T_{MI}`$ and $`b/2`$ lengthens. Figures 2(b) and 2(c) show the Co-O bond distances, for Co1O6 octahedron and Co2O5 pyramid respectively, along the three crystallographic axes (Co-Oi stands for the lengths along i=$`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ axes) derived from the refined atomic coordinates given in Tab. 1. Again, there are important differences with the case of $`\mathrm{TbBaCo}_2\mathrm{O}_{5.5}`$. We have found that pyramids and octahedra are deformed in both the insulating and metallic states. The longest Co-O distance is Co-Oa for the former (Co2O5) and Co-Ob for the latter (Co1O6). Long and short bonds alternate along the $`b`$ axis at both sides of the transition. A pattern well different to the evolution proposed in Ref. Moritomo00,  for $`\mathrm{TbBaCo}_2\mathrm{O}_{5.5}`$, where that alternation was only clearly observed below $`T_{MI}`$, proposing that the basal plane deformation in pyramids and octahedra vanishes above $`T_{MI}`$. Hence, conversely with Ref. Moritomo00, , our data discard the stabilization of a $`d_{3x^2r^2}/d_{3y^2r^2}`$-type orbital ordering below $`T_{MI}`$ as the physical mechanism for the MI transition in $`\mathrm{GdBaCo}_2\mathrm{O}_{5.5}`$. Furthermore, we show in Figs. 2(b) and 2(c) that the difference between long and short Co-O bonds in the basal plane (the $`Q_2`$-type antiferrodistorsive distortion) remains practically unchanged in the pyramid ($`0.06\mathrm{\AA }`$) but increases strongly in the octahedron when heating above $`T_{MI}`$. This evolution clearly rules out the aforementioned orbital order transition.

Fig. 2(d) shows the temperature dependence of the inverse susceptibility (measured in a field of $`1\mathrm{T}`$ after a zero field cooling process) in the paramagnetic region up to $`625\mathrm{K}`$. The paramagnetic contribution from Gd atoms (estimated between 10-$`625\mathrm{K}`$, $`\chi _{\mathrm{Gd}}={\displaystyle \frac{1.9210^2}{T+0.4}}{\displaystyle \frac{emu}{gOe}}`$) was subtracted in order to extract the contribution coming only from Co ions \[$`\chi _{\mathrm{Co}}=1/2(\chi \chi _{\mathrm{Gd}})`$\]. A drastic change in the effective moment $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and the sign of the Curie temperature takes place coinciding with the electronic localization. According to the Curie-Weiss fitting shown in Fig. 2(d) $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{Co}}`$ per Co atom changes from $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{Co}}=1.8(1)\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ ($`T<T_{MI}`$) to $`4.3(2)\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ ($`T>T_{MI}`$). The expected values for Co3+ full IS, 1:1 mixture LS/IS, IS/HS or full HS are respectively 2.83, 2.00, 4.00 and 4.90 $`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$. The possibility of a non-negligible orbital contribution to the moment in this compound is uncertain Kwon00 . However, below $`T_{MI}`$ (in the paramagnetic insulating phase) the effective moment found per Co atom agrees with a 1:1 mixture of Co3+ in LS and IS, ruling out the full Co3+ IS scheme. Since IS Co3+ is most probable in the pyramids Maignan99 ; Kwon00 , the results indicate that, below $`T_{MI}`$, the octahedron contains LS Co3+ and the pyramid IS Co3+. Interestingly, the moment per Co atom deduced in the metallic phase below $`625\mathrm{K}`$ agrees with a half of Co3+ ions in IS and the other half in HS states.

Before discussing the most probable scenario for the metal-insulator transition, let us analyze in more detail the Co-O bond length variation. Does that structural evolution corroborate the picture deduced from magnetic data? The answer is positive. As shown in Fig. 2(c), Co-Oa and Co-Ob basal distances of the pyramid both lengthen on cooling, in a so similar way that the basal plane deformation remains practically unchanged at both sides of $`T_{MI}`$. Moreover, the apical Co-Oc distance of the pyramid changes little across the transition. We want to emphasize that these changes are very different to those observed in the octahedron. They are shown in Fig. 2(b) and Fig. 3(a): the Co-Ob distance in the octahedra displays a pronounced shrinking on cooling, which is accompanied by a moderate increase of the Co-Oa distance (again the Co-Oc apical distances change little). As a result, in contrast with the pyramid, the difference between the two diagonal distances of the octahedra increases notably when enters the metallic phase. At this point it is important to recall that a transition to a higher spin-state in Co3+ (as deduced from magnetic data) implies a bigger effective ionic radius which should lengthen the average $`d_{\mathrm{Co}\mathrm{O}}`$ bond length. Hence, a very significant finding is the different evolution of the average $`d_{\mathrm{Co}\mathrm{O}}`$ distance in the octahedron and the pyramid \[Fig. 3(a)\]. So, a central result is that the average $`d_{\mathrm{Co}\mathrm{O}}`$ distance of the octahedron increases substantially at $`T_{MI}`$ on heating. This finding constitutes the first experimental result establishing that the spin-state transition in $`\mathrm{LnBaCo}_2\mathrm{O}_{5.5}`$ occurs solely in the octahedra. Thus, in the pyramids we observe, on heating, the metal-oxygen bond-length contraction normally found when the gap closes and enters the metallic phase, indicating again that the transition to a higher spin-state detected in the susceptibility takes place in the octahedron, but not in the pyramid. This transition is also responsible for the anomalous volume expansion at $`T_{MI}`$ plotted in Fig. 3(b). Normally, the cell volume contracts in an electron delocalization process. The volume expansion observed here is another confirmation of the transition to a higher spin-state.

Recapitulating, the analysis of the structural changes and susceptibility data for $`\mathrm{GdBaCo}_2\mathrm{O}_{5.5}`$ has permitted to draw a detailed picture of the metal-insulator transition in the $`\mathrm{LnBaCo}_2\mathrm{O}_{5.5}`$ family of compounds. Our results reveal that: (i) There is a sudden expansion of the average $`d_{\mathrm{Co}\mathrm{O}}^{\mathrm{octa}}`$ distance at TMI, concomitant with a spin-state transition from LS (insulating) to HS (metallic) state in the Co3+ ions of the octahedra. (ii) Co atoms in the pyramids hold the same spin-state (Co3+ IS) before and after the electronic delocalization. Hence, the pyramid simply shrinks as commonly observed in Mott oxides when enters the metallic phase. (iii) These findings imply the existence of spin state ordering below and above $`T_{MI}`$. (iv) The alternation of short and long Co-O bonds along the $`b`$ axis is present in the insulating and the metallic phases (and not only in the former, as reported in Ref. Moritomo00,  for $`\mathrm{TbBaCo}_2\mathrm{O}_{5.5}`$). The $`Q_2`$-type distortion (antiferrodistorsive) of the basal planes does not increase in the insulating phase, ruling out a $`d_{3x^2r^2}/d_{3y^2r2}`$ type orbital ordering as the origin of the transition. To conclude, the driving force for the MI transition is a spin-state switch in the Co3+ ions located at the octahedra. They suddenly switch from LS ($`t_{2g}^6e_g^0`$) to HS ($`t_{2g}^4e_g^2`$) state at $`T_{MI}`$. Thereby, the metallic conductivity in this family of oxides (full Co3+) seems related with the injection of electrons in the conduction band that accompanies the stabilization of a HS ($`t_{2g}^4e_g^2`$) state in the CoO6 octahedra.

Financial support by the MEC (PB97-1175), CICyT (MAT97-0699, MAT97-326-C4-4, and MAT99-0984-C03-01) and Generalitat de Catalunya (GRQ95-8029) projects is thanked. ESRF is acknowledged for the provision of X-ray synchrotron facilities and Dr. E. Dooryee for his assistance during data collection.