format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction-Summary

## 1 Introduction-Summary

Let $`G`$ be a Lie group whose Lie algebra is denoted by $`𝒢:=T_ϵG`$, where $`ϵ`$ stands for the unit of $`G`$.

Since the end of $`60`$s-the early $`70`$s (see e.g. ), it’s well known that if $`w^+`$ is a left invariant symplectic form on $`G`$, the formula

$$\omega ^+(_{x^+}y^+,z^+):=\omega ^+(y^+,[x^+,z^+])$$
(1)
defines a (locally) flat and torsion free connection $``$ (i.e an affine structure) in $`G`$ which is left invariant. Here $`x^+`$ is the left invariant vector field satisfying $`x_ϵ^+=x`$. Such a formula plays a crucial role in the study of symplectic and kählerian Lie groups developed in , , , , , .

The problem of finding those Lie groups (necessary solvable) which admit a geodesically complete, left invariant flat torsion free connection, is an open problem (see Milnor ), and few such Lie groups are known.

Left invariant affine structures on $`G`$ bijectively correspond to left symmetric algebra (LSA, also called Koszul-Vinberg algebra) structures on the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ of $`G`$, compatible with bracket of $`𝒢`$ ( J.L. Koszul , ). Such structures first arised in the works of J.L. Koszul , , E.B. Vinberg , Y. Matsushima. Left symmetric algebras has been studied in Helmstetter, Medina, Dardié, Chu in , , , ,  … etc.

Later, M. Bordemann () shows that a solution of the Classical Yang Baxter Equation (CYBE) $`r^2𝒢`$ always determines a left invariant affine structure on any Lie group $`G^{}`$ whose Lie algebra is the dual $`𝒢^{}`$ (relative to $`r`$) of $`𝒢`$. The corresponding left invariant connection on $`G^{}`$, is given by the formula

$$_{\alpha ^+}\beta ^+:=(ad_{r(\alpha )}^{}\beta )^+.$$
(2)
Let’s identify the cotangent bundle $`T^{}G`$ of $`G`$ and the trivial bundle $`𝒢^{}\times G`$, by means of left translations. And let’s endow this latter with a structure of semi-direct product group $`𝒢^{}G`$ of $`G`$ and the abelian Lie group $`𝒢^{}`$, where $`G`$ acts in $`𝒢^{}`$ by the coadjoint action.

Denote $`\pi :=r^+r^{}`$ the Poisson Lie tensor associated to $`r`$, and $`𝒟(𝒢)`$ the double Lie algebra of $`(G,\pi )`$. Here are some of the results we prove in this work:
\- there is a bijective correspondance between the skew-symmetric solutions of the Classical Yang Baxter Equation (CYBE) on $`𝒢:=Lie(G)`$ and the connected Lie subgroups of $`T^{}G`$ equipped with left invariant affine structures whose Lie algebras are lagrangian graphs of a $`𝒢`$-valued skew-symmetric linear mapping of $`𝒢^{}`$. Here the Lie algebra $`t^{}𝒢:=𝒢^{}𝒢`$ of $`T^{}G`$, is endowed with its canonical hyperbolic orthogonal structure ie its canonical dual pairing (theorem 2.0.1 ).
\- let $`r^2𝒢`$ be a solution of the CYBE, then the affine structure defined by (2) in any dual Lie group $`G^{}`$, is geodesically complete if and only if the symplectic leaf through $`ϵ`$, of the left invariant Poisson structure $`r^+`$, is a unimodular (symplectic) Lie group (theorem 2.0.2). Thus, the geodesic completness of $`G^{}`$ implies the solvability of $`G^{}`$, thanks to a result due to Lichnerowicz-Medina .
In the case where $`r`$ is an invertible solution of the CYBE, we prove:
- the existence of left invariant affine structure, defined by $`r`$, on every connected Lie group $`D(G)`$ whose Lie algebra is the double Lie algebra $`𝒟(𝒢)`$ (theorem 3.0.1). Such a structure is geodesically complete if and only if $`G`$ is unimodular (and solvable) ( see theorem 3.0.2).;
- the existence on $`D(G)`$ of a left invariant complex structure given by $`r`$ (proposition 3.0.1);
- that the Poisson Lie tensor $`\pi =r^+r^{}`$ is polynomial of degree $`2`$ (theorem 4.0.1).

Moreover, if the differential 2-form $`\omega ^+`$ is exact, we prove that the symplectic leaves of $`\pi `$ are coverings over coadjoint orbits of $`G`$ (Corollary 4.2.1 ).

We would like to thank prof. D. V. Alekseevsky for various hepful discussions and comments.
Reminders and notations.

An affine structure on a manifold $`M`$, is given by a maximal atlas of charts (affine atlas) to an affine space with transition functions extending to affine transformations. Equivalently, an affine stucture on $`M`$ is given by an immersion, a so called developing map, from the universal cover $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ of $`M`$ to an affine space (e.g $`^n`$ ), equivariant with respect to the so called holonomy representation $`h:\pi _1(M)Aff(^n)`$, where $`\pi _1(M)`$ is the group of deck transformations of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$.

A morphism of affine manifolds is a map whose expression in affine atlas extends to an affine map. An affine stucture in a Lie group $`G`$ is said to be left invariant if left translations are morphisms of the affine manifold $`G`$.

A Poisson manifold $`M`$ is a manifold whose ring of functions $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ carries a Lie algebra bracket $`\{,\}`$ which is a first order linear differential operator, in each of its arguments. The Hamiltonian vector field associated to an $`f𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ is $`X_f:=\{f,.\}=:\mathrm{\Lambda }(df,.)=:\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{}}(df)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the associated bivector field. The tensor $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ must satisfy $`[\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }]=0`$, here $`[,]`$ is the so-called Schouten bracket ( see e.g ).

Every Poisson manifold foliates into symplectic manifolds (its symplectic leaves), which are the maximal integrals of the involutive distribution spanned by all the Hamiltonian vector fields. In general, it’s a difficult problem to describe symplectic leaves of a Poisson manifold. One of the most important families of Poisson manifolds is the one of Poisson Lie groups.

A Poisson Lie group $`(G,\pi )`$ is a Lie group $`G`$ together with a Poisson structure $`\pi `$ such that the multiplication is a Poisson morphism. Set $`[\alpha ,\beta ]_{}:=d_ϵ\{f,g\}`$, where $`\alpha :=d_ϵf`$ and $`\beta :=d_ϵg𝒢^{}`$ are the respective differentials of $`f,g𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$ at the unit $`ϵ`$. Thus $`(𝒢^{},[,]_{})`$ is a Lie algebra called the dual of $`(G,\pi )`$ (or the dual of $`𝒢`$). While the double of $`(G,\pi )`$ is the vector space $`𝒢𝒢^{}`$ equipped with the Lie bracket $`[(x,\alpha ),(y,\beta )]:=([x,y]_𝒢+ad_\alpha ^{}yad_\beta ^{}x,[\alpha ,\beta ]_{}+ad_x^{}\beta ad_y^{}\alpha )`$. Here both coadjoint actions of $`𝒢`$ on $`𝒢^{}`$ and $`(𝒢^{},[,]_{})`$ on $`𝒢`$, are considered (see ).

Denoting $`r^+`$ a left invariant bivector field in $`G`$, whose value at the unit is $`r_ϵ^+=:r`$ and $`[r^+,r^+]`$ the Schouten bracket of $`r^+`$ and itself, the equation

$$r^2𝒢,[r,r]:=[r^+,r^+]_ϵ=0$$
(3)
is called the Classical Yang Baxter Equation (CYBE) in $`Lie(G)=:𝒢`$, (see ). For a solution $`r`$ of the CYBE, the tensor $`\pi :=r^+r^{}`$ defines a Poisson Lie structure in $`G`$ (see also  ,  , …).

We’ll identify $`^2𝒢`$ and the space of linear maps $`𝒢^{}𝒢`$ and will denote an element $`r`$ of $`^2𝒢`$ and the corresponding linear map $`\alpha r^{\mathrm{}}(\alpha ):=r(\alpha ,.)`$ by the same symbol. With such identifications, the 3-vector $`[r,r]`$ above is given by $`[r,r](\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ):=<[r(\alpha ),r(\beta )],\gamma >+<[r(\beta ),r(\gamma )],\alpha >+<[r(\gamma ),r(\alpha )],\beta >`$ for every $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma 𝒢^{}`$, where $`[,]`$ is the Lie bracket in $`𝒢`$ and $`<X,\alpha >:=\alpha (X)`$ is the usual canonical dual pairing between vectors and linear forms on $`𝒢`$.

###### Definition 1.0.1.

A Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ will be termed a Manin algebra if it has a (non definite) scalar product $`<,>`$ such that the following conditions hold.
(i) $`<[x,y],z>+<y,[x,z]>=0`$, $`x,y,z𝒢`$, where $`[,]`$ is the Lie bracket. The pair $`(𝒢,<,>)`$ is also said to be an orthogonal Lie algebra.
(ii) $`𝒢=AB`$ possesses two supplementary totally isotropic subalgebras $`A`$ and $`B`$ of same dimension $`dim(A)=dim(B)`$. Vector spaces with this property are sometimes called hyperbolic.

###### Definition 1.0.2.

A Left Symmetric Algebra (LSA) structure on a vector space $`V`$ is a product $`V\times VV`$, $`(x,y)xy`$ whose associator $`a(x,y,z):=(xy)zx(yz)`$ is left symmetric i.e $`a(x,y,z)=a(y,x,z)`$, $`x,y,zV`$.

A symplectic Lie group ($`G,\omega ^+`$), in the sense of Lichnerowicz-Medina , is a Lie group $`G`$ together with a left invariant symplectic form $`\omega ^+`$. If $`𝒢:=Lie(G)`$ and $`\omega _ϵ^+=:\omega `$, then $`(𝒢,\omega )`$ is called a symplectic Lie algebra.

An LSA gives rise to a Lie bracket $`[,]`$ on $`V`$ by $`[x,y]:=xyyx`$. The Lie backet $`[,]`$ is also said to be underlying the LSA structure. Any connected Lie group with Lie algebra $`V_{}:=(V,[,])`$ possesses a left invariant affine structure with associated connection $`_{x^+}y^+:=(xy)^+`$. The formula $`_{x^+}y_ϵ^+=:xy`$ gives the converse way to get LSAs on Lie algebras from left invariant affine structures on Lie groups.

In the case of symplectic Lie groups, the connection defined by (1) induces a Left Symmetric Algebra (LSA) structure $`(x,y)xy`$ in $`𝒢`$, which is compatible with the Lie bracket of $`𝒢`$, ie $`xyyx=[x,y]`$, $`x,y𝒢`$. The formula (1) above, equips $`G`$ with a left invariant affine structure. In the Lie algebra level, $`\omega ^+`$ being closed reads

$$\omega ([x,y],z)+\omega ([y,z],x)+\omega ([z,x],y)=0,x,y,z𝒢$$
(4)
On this work, a solution of the CYBE is always supposed to be skew-symmetric. A left invariant affine structure will always mean a (locally) flat (and torsion free) left invariant affine structure.

From now on, the scalar product $`<,>`$ stands for the duality scalar product (dual pairing) between the considered vector spaces and their duals.

## 2 The CYBE and Affine Geometry

Here is a simple remark about the Classical Yang Baxter Equation (CYBE), with several interesting consequences. Denote $`Z(𝒢)`$ the center of a Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ .

###### Lemma 2.0.1.

Let $`(G,\pi )`$ be an exact Poisson Lie group, i.e $`\pi :=r^+r^{}`$, where $`r^2𝒢`$. Denote $`(𝒢^{},[,]_{})`$ the dual Lie algebra of $`(G,\pi )`$. If for every $`\alpha ,\beta `$ in $`𝒢^{}`$ the following assumption holds

$`r([\alpha ,\beta ]_{})[r(\alpha ),r(\beta )]Z(𝒢)`$ $`()`$,

then any Lie group $`G^{}`$ with Lie algebra $`(𝒢^{},[,]_{})`$, is endowed with a left invariant affine connection given by $`_{\alpha ^+}\beta ^+:=(ad_{r(\alpha )}^{}\beta )^+.`$

The corresponding LSA structure on $`(𝒢^{},[,]_{})`$ is given by $`\alpha ,\beta `$ in $`𝒢^{}`$

$$\alpha \beta :=ad_{r(\alpha )}^{}\beta .$$
(5)
Proof. It suffices to check that the map

$$\eta :𝒢^{}aff(𝒢^{}),\alpha (\alpha ,ad_{r(\alpha )}^{})$$
(6)
is a Lie algebra homomorphism, or equivalently to check the identity

$$([\alpha ,\beta ]_{},ad_{r([\alpha ,\beta ]_{})}^{})=(ad_{r(\alpha )}^{}\beta ad_{r(\beta )}^{}\alpha ,ad_{[r(\alpha ),r(\beta )]}^{}).$$
(7)
But thanks to $`()`$ and the fact that one has

$$[\alpha ,\beta ]_{}=[\alpha ,\beta ]_r:=ad_{r(\alpha )}^{}\beta ad_{r(\beta )}^{}\alpha ,$$
(8)
by definition of the Lie bracket on the dual of $`(G,\pi )`$, formula (7) is immediate. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 2.0.1.

Every Lie group is endowed with a left invariant affine structure, if it is dual to a Poisson Lie-group $`(G,\pi )`$, where $`\pi =r^+r^{}`$ is given by a solution $`r`$ of the CYBE .

###### Corollary 2.0.2.

If $`G^{}`$ is a dual Lie group of a Poisson Lie group $`(G,\pi )`$, where $`\pi =r^+r^{}`$ is given by a solution $`r`$ of the CYBE , then the derived Lie group $`[G^{},G^{}]`$ of $`G^{}`$ is not dense in $`G^{}`$.

We can now state the following result.

###### Theorem 2.0.1.

Let $`G`$ be a Lie group with (trivialized) cotangent bundle $`T^{}G=𝒢^{}G`$, considered as a Lie group (semi-direct product of $`G`$ and the abelian Lie group $`𝒢^{}`$, where $`G`$ acts on $`𝒢^{}`$ by the coadjoint action). Then the solutions of the CYBE in $`𝒢:=Lie(G)`$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the connected Lie subgroups of $`T^{}G`$ equipped with left invariant affine structures whose Lie algebras are lagrangian graphs of a $`𝒢`$-valued skew-symmetric linear mapping of $`𝒢^{}`$. Here the Lie algebra $`t^{}𝒢:=𝒢^{}𝒢`$ of $`T^{}G`$, is endowed with its canonical dual pairing $`<(\alpha ,x),(\beta ,y)>:=\alpha (y)+\beta (x)`$ for all $`x,y𝒢`$, $`\alpha ,\beta 𝒢^{}`$.

Proof. Let $`r`$ be a solution of the CYBE on $`𝒢`$. Let’s consider the bi-invariant metric (i.e canonical orthogonal structure) on $`T^{}G`$

$`<(\alpha ,x)^+,(\beta ,y)^+>:=\alpha (y)+\beta (x)`$.

One realizes that the map $`\theta :𝒟(r)t^{}𝒢:=Lie(T^{}G)`$; $`\theta (\alpha ,x):=(\alpha ,r(\alpha )+x)`$ is a Manin Lie algebras isomorphism (where $`𝒟(r)`$ is the double Lie algebra of $`(G,r^+r^{})`$), see proposition 3.0.1. On the other hand, the Lie subalgebra $`𝒢^{}`$ of $`𝒟(r)`$, dual to $`𝒢`$, is equipped with an LSA structure compatible with the Lie bracket of $`(𝒢^{},[,]_r)=:𝒢^{}(r)`$ and defined by $`\alpha \beta =ad_{r(\alpha )}^{}\beta `$. Furthermore, the image of $`𝒢^{}(r)`$ by $`\theta `$ is the graph of $`r`$. Thus, the connected Lie subgroup of $`T^{}G`$, whose Lie algebra is $`\theta (𝒢^{}(r))=graph(r)`$, is indeed endowed with a left invariant affine structure.

Conversely, let $`K`$ be a connected Lie subgroup of $`T^{}G`$ satisfying the conditions of our statement, in particular $`Lie(K)=graph(r)`$, where $`r:𝒢^{}𝒢`$ is skew symmetric. The Lie bracket in $`graph(r)`$ is of the form

$$[(\alpha ,r(\alpha ),(\beta ,r(\beta ))]=([\alpha ,\beta ]_r,[r(\alpha ),r(\beta )])$$

where $`[\alpha ,\beta ]_r=[\alpha ,\beta ]_{}=ad_{r(\alpha )}^{}\beta ad_{r(\beta )}^{}\alpha `$ .

The fact that $`graph(r)`$ is a subalgebra of $`t^{}𝒢`$ is equivalent to the following

$`r([\alpha ,\beta ]_r)=[r(\alpha ),r(\beta )]_𝒢`$ for all $`\alpha ,\beta 𝒢^{}`$.

But such an identity (with $`r`$ skew symmetric, $`graph(r)`$ being totally isotropic) means that one has $`[r,r]=0`$. In fact, we have $`[r,r](\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )=<[r(\alpha ),r(\beta )]r([\alpha ,\beta ]_r),\gamma >`$, for all $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma 𝒢^{}.`$ $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`G`$ be a connected Lie group with Lie algebra $`𝒢`$, and $`r^2𝒢`$ a solution of the CYBE on $`𝒢`$. Now, we would like to study the geodesic completness of the left invariant affine structure induced by $`r`$ on every Lie group $`G^{}`$ whose Lie algebra is the dual Lie algebra $`(𝒢^{},[,]_r)`$ of $`(G,r^+r^{})`$. Such a completness occurs if and only if the universal cover $`\stackrel{~}{G}^{}`$ of $`G^{}`$ is affinely diffeomorphic to the affine space $`^n`$, via a developping map. Equivalently, this means that in the LSA $`𝒢^{}`$, all the right multiplications have a null trace.

Consider the left invariant Poisson tensor $`r^+`$ on $`G`$ satisfying $`r_ϵ^+=r`$. It’s well known that the leaf through $`ϵ`$, of the symplectic foliation of $`r^+`$, is a symplectic Lie group, whose Lie algebra is the image $`Im(r)`$ of $`r:𝒢^{}𝒢`$. The natural projection $`p:𝒢^{}𝒢^{}/ker(r)Im(r)`$ is a morphism of LSAs.

The symplectic form $`\overline{\omega }`$ in $`Im(r)`$ is given by

$`\overline{\omega }(r(\alpha ),r(\beta )):=<\alpha ,r(\beta )>`$, $`\alpha ,\beta 𝒢^{}`$,

while the LSA structure in $`Im(r)`$ is defined as follows

$`\overline{\omega }(r(\alpha )r(\beta ),r(\gamma )):=<ad_{r(\alpha )}^{}\beta ,r(\gamma )>`$ or equivalently $`r(\alpha )r(\beta ):=r(ad_{r(\alpha )}^{}\beta )`$.

Denoting by $`R_\alpha `$ (resp. $`R_\alpha ^{im}`$) the right multiplication by $`\alpha `$ (resp. $`r(\alpha )`$) in $`𝒢^{}`$ (resp. in $`Im(r)`$), one can show that $`R_\alpha `$ and $`R_{r(\alpha )}^{im}`$ have the same trace. We then deduce the following important result.

###### Theorem 2.0.2.

(Geodesic completness of the affine structure) Let $`G^{}`$ be a Lie group, with Lie algebra $`(𝒢^{},[,]_r)`$. The left invariant affine stucture on $`G^{}`$, induced by $`r`$, is complete if and only if the leaf $`_ϵ`$ through $`ϵ`$, of the symplectic foliation of $`r^+`$ is a unimodular Lie group. So completness implies the solvability of $`G^{}`$. Here $`r^+`$ stands for the left invariant Poisson tensor whose value at $`ϵ`$ is $`r`$.

Equivalently, we also have
Theorem 2.0.2 bis.

The left invariant affine stucture on $`G^{}`$, induced by $`r`$, is complete if and only if the quotient $`𝒢^{}/Ker(r)`$, is a unimodular and solvable Lie algebra. In this case $`G^{}`$ is solvable, as $`Ker(r)`$ and $`𝒢^{}/Ker(r)`$ are. Here $`Ker(r)`$ is the kernel of the skew symmetric linear map $`r:𝒢^{}𝒢`$; $`\alpha r(\alpha ,.)=:i_\alpha r`$.
Remark that $`Ker(r)`$ is an abelian two-sided ideal of the LSA $`𝒢^{}`$.

## 3 The double of a symplectic Lie group is affine and complex

Denote $`𝒟(𝒢)`$ the double Lie algebra of a Poisson Lie group $`(G,\pi )`$, where $`\pi :=r^+r^{}`$ is given by a solution $`r`$ of the CYBE on $`𝒢:=Lie(G)`$. Let’s point out the following interesting result, whose proof is immediate.

###### Proposition 3.0.1.

The mapping $`\mathrm{\Xi }:(x,\alpha )(x+r(\alpha ),\alpha )`$ is a Lie algebra isomorphism and an isometry between the Manin algebras $`𝒟(𝒢)`$ and $`𝒢_{ad^{}}𝒢^{}`$.

Now, let $`(𝒢,w)`$ be a symplectic Lie algebra. Consider the vector space isomorphism

$$\begin{array}{c}q:𝒢𝒢^{}\\ xq(x)\end{array}$$

where $`<q(x),y>=w(x,y)`$ for all $`x,y`$ in $`𝒢`$ and $`<,>`$ is the duality scalar product.

Recall that $`r:=q^1`$ regarded as an element of $`^2𝒢`$, is a solution of the CYBE on $`𝒢`$. Conversely associated to an invertible solution $`r`$ of the CYBE on $`𝒢`$, is a symplectic Lie algebra $`(𝒢,\omega )`$ by setting $`\omega (x,y):=<r^1(x),y>`$.

Now using $`q`$, let’s transport the LSA and the Lie algebra structures of $`𝒢`$ to the vector space $`𝒢^{}`$, in such a way as $`q`$ becomes an isomorphism of LSAs. One then obtains compatible Lie algebra and LSA structures on $`𝒢^{}`$. They are respectively given by

$$[\alpha ,\beta ]_q:=q([r(\alpha ),r(\beta )])$$
(9)
$$\alpha \beta :=q(r(\alpha )r(\beta ))$$
(10)
for all $`\alpha ,\beta 𝒢^{}`$, where $`r(\alpha )r(\beta )`$ is the product of $`r(\alpha )`$ and $`r(\beta )`$ in $`𝒢`$, induced by (1).

The following can be proved by some direct computations.

###### Lemma 3.0.1.

For every $`x,y𝒢`$ and $`\alpha ,\beta 𝒢^{}`$ one has

$$\begin{array}{c}(a)ad_x^{}q(y)=q(xy)=:q(x)q(y)\text{or equivalently }\text{ }ql_x=ad_x^{}q\\ (a^{})r(ad_x^{}\beta )=xr(\beta )=(l_xr)(\beta ),rad_x^{}=(l_xr)\\ (b)r(ad_x^{}\beta )=ad_{q(x)}^{}r(\beta )\\ (c)[\alpha ,\beta ]_q=ad_{r(\alpha )}^{}\beta ad_{r(\beta )}^{}\alpha \\ (d)q(x)\beta =ad_x^{}\beta \\ (e)r(\beta )x=ad_\beta ^{}x\end{array}$$

###### Remarks 3.0.1.

The formula (d) means that the LSA structure on $`𝒢^{}`$ defined by the formula (5) coincides with the one given in (10), which is the image by $`q`$ of (1).

Thanks to (c), the Lie bracket $`[,]_q`$ is the one underlying the LSA structure on $`𝒢^{}`$ given by (5), and coincides with the one (namely $`[,]_r`$ ) defined by (8). Let’s consider the coadjoint representations of $`𝒢`$ and $`(𝒢^{},[,]_q)`$ respectively on $`𝒢^{}`$ and $`𝒢`$. On the vector space $`𝒟:=𝒢𝒢^{}`$, one defines the product: $`x,y𝒢`$ and $`\alpha ,\beta 𝒢^{}`$

$$(x,\alpha )(y,\beta ):=(xy+ad_\alpha ^{}y,\alpha \beta +ad_x^{}\beta )$$
(11)
We can now state the main result of this paragraph, whose proof is given later.

###### Theorem 3.0.1.

Let $`r^2𝒢`$ be an invertible solution of the CYBE on a Lie group $`G`$ with Lie algebra $`𝒢`$. Then every Lie group is endowed with a left invariant affine structure if its Lie algebra is isomorphic to the double Lie algebra $`𝒟=𝒢𝒢^{}`$ of the Poisson Lie group $`(G,\pi :=r^+r^{})`$. The associated LSA in $`𝒟`$ is given by the formula (11).

Let $`(G,\omega ^+)`$ be a symplectic Lie group. Consider the left invariant affine connection $``$ in $`G`$ and the corresponding LSA structure on $`𝒢`$.

From theorem 3.0.1 and proposition 3.0.1  one deduces the

###### Corollary 3.0.1.

Let $`(G,\omega ^+)`$ be a symplectic Lie group, with symplectic Lie algebra $`(𝒢,\omega )`$.

The map $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ of proposition 3.0.1 gives rise to a left invariant affine (i.e flat and torsion free) connection $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ on the cotangent bundle $`T^{}G`$ of $`G`$, in such a way that the natural fiber map (projection) is a morphism between the affine manifolds $`(T^{}G,\stackrel{~}{})`$ and $`(G,)`$. The LSA structure induced by $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ on $`Lie(T^{}G)=𝒢_{ad^{}}𝒢^{}`$ is given by $`(x,\alpha )(y,\beta ):=(xy,ad_x^{}\beta )`$, where $`xy`$ is the product of $`x`$ and $`y`$ on $`𝒢`$, induced by (1): $`\omega (xy,z):=\omega (y,[x,z])`$, $`z𝒢`$.

Below, we give a method to build algebras with LSA structure, that generalizes the theorem 3.0.1.

Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be two LSAs, denote $`A_{}`$ et $`B_{}`$ the respective underlying Lie algebras.

###### Definition 3.0.1.

$`A`$ and $`B`$ are $`(\theta _1,\theta _2)`$-linked if there exist two Lie algebra representations

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\theta _1:A_{}& & 𝒢l(B)and\theta _2:B_{}& & 𝒢l(A)\end{array}$$

such that

$$(\theta _1(a)b)b^{}+b(\theta _1(a)b^{})\theta _1(a)(bb^{})=\theta _1(\theta _2(b)a)b^{}and$$
(12)
$$(\theta _2(b)a)a^{}+a(\theta _2(b)a^{})\theta _2(b)(aa^{})=\theta _2(\theta _1(a)b)a^{}$$
(13)
for all elements $`a,a^{}`$ in $`A`$ and $`b,b^{}`$ in $`B`$.

###### Lemma 3.0.2.

I. Let A and B be two $`(\theta _1,\theta _2)`$-linked LSAs , then the vector space $`V=A\times B`$ is endowed with an LSA structure given by the product of every two elements $`(a,b)`$ and $`(a^{},b^{})`$ of $`A\times B`$:

$$(a,b)(a^{},b^{})=(aa^{}+\theta _2(b)a^{},bb^{}+\theta _1(a)b^{})$$
(14)
with underlying Lie bracket:

$$[(a,b),(a^{},b^{})]=([a,a^{}]+\theta _2(b)a^{}\theta _2(b^{})a,[b,b^{}]+\theta _1(a)b^{}\theta _1(a^{})b)$$
(15)
II. Conversely every LSA with two supplementary left ideals, is built with the above method.

Before giving the proof of this lemma, let’s remark an interesting example of LSA that can be obtained by such a construction. The LSA corresponding to the so-called flat left-invariant connections adapted to the automorphism structure of a Lie group, are obtained in this way, as they arise in  to be a direct sum of two ideals (see  for more details).

Proof of lemma 3.0.2. The bilinearity is obvious. To prove that (14) defines an LSA structure on $`V`$, it suffices, identifying an element $`a`$ of $`A`$ (resp. $`b`$ of $`B`$) with the element $`(a,0)`$ (resp.$`(0,b)`$) of $`A\times B`$; to check that:

$$\begin{array}{c}(i)(ab)b^{}a(bb^{})=(ba)b^{}b(ab^{})\\ (ii)(ba)a^{}b(aa^{})=(ab)a^{}a(ba^{})\\ (iii)(bb^{})ab(b^{}a)=(b^{}b)ab^{}(ba)\\ (iv)(aa^{})ba(a^{}b)=(a^{}a)ba^{}(ab)\end{array}$$

Then, one checks that

(i) is equivalent to the hypothesis (12)

(ii) is equivalent to the hypothesis (13)

(iii) expresses the fact $`\theta _2`$ is a representation of the Lie algebra $`B_{}`$ and

(iv) expresses the fact $`\theta _1`$ is a representation of the Lie algebra $`A_{}`$.
Conversely, let’s suppose that $`A`$ and $`B`$ are two left (sided) ideals of an LSA $`𝒢=AB`$. The maps defined by $`\theta _1(a)b:=ab`$ and $`\theta _2(b)a:=ba`$ for all $`aA`$ and all $`bB`$ satisfy the conditions I of this lemma and then enable us to construct an LSA structure on $`𝒢`$ which coincides with the initial one. $`\mathrm{}`$

#### 3.0.1 Proof of theorem 3.0.1

$``$ Proof of the first assertion.

In the lemma 3.0.2, put $`A=𝒢`$, $`B=𝒢^{}`$ and denote the coadjoint representations of $`𝒢`$ and $`𝒢^{}`$ respectively by $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$.

For $`x𝒢`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ in $`𝒢^{}`$ let’s consider the following

$`\mathrm{\Theta }=(\theta _1(x)\alpha )\beta +\alpha (\theta _1(x)\beta )\theta _1(x)(\alpha \beta )`$
Using the formulas (a)-(e) and the fact that the product defines an LSA structure, one has

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Theta }& =(ad_x^{}\alpha )\beta +\alpha (ad_x^{}\beta )ad_x^{}(\alpha \beta )\\ & =q(xr(\alpha ))q(r(\beta ))+q(r(\alpha ))q(xr(\beta ))q(x(r(\alpha )r(\beta )))\\ & =q((xr(\alpha ))r(\beta )+r(\alpha )(xr(\beta ))x(r(\alpha )r(\beta )))\\ & =q(((xr(\alpha ))r(\beta )x(r(\alpha )r(\beta )))+r(\alpha )(xr(\beta )))\\ & =q((r(\alpha )x)r(\beta )r(\alpha )(xr(\beta ))+r(\alpha )(xr(\beta )))\\ & =q((r(\alpha )x)r(\beta ))\\ & =q(ad_\alpha ^{}x)\beta =ad_{ad_\alpha ^{}x}^{}\beta \\ & =\theta _1(\theta _2(\alpha )x)\beta \end{array}$$

The first hypothesis of lemma 3.0.2 is then satisfied. The second one is exactly checked in the same way.
Then, lemma 3.0.2 allows us to make a conclusion to the first statement of this theorem.
$``$The second statement is directly deduced from both remarks 3.0.1 and lemma 3.0.2. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`x`$ and $`\beta `$ respectively be elements of the left sided ideals $`𝒢`$ and $`𝒢^{}`$ of $`𝒟(𝒢)`$. We can show that the trace of the right multiplication by $`x`$ in $`𝒟(𝒢)`$ is exactly equal to the one of the right multiplication by $`x`$ in $`𝒢`$, while the trace of the right multiplication by $`\alpha `$ in $`𝒟(𝒢)`$ is exactly equal to the one of the right multiplication by $`r(\alpha )`$ in $`𝒢`$. Finally we claim

###### Theorem 3.0.2.

(Geodesic completness of the double)

Let $`G`$ be connected a Lie group with Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ and $`r^2𝒢`$ an invertible solution of the CYBE. Consider the LSA structure in the double Lie algebra $`𝒟(𝒢)`$ of $`(G,r^+r^{})`$ as described in the theorem 3.0.1. The following are equivalent:

1. on every connected Lie group $`D(𝒢)`$ whose Lie algebra is $`𝒟(𝒢)`$; the left invariant affine structure corresponding to the LSA, is geodesically complete.

2. the Lie group $`G`$ is unimodular (and solvable).

Let’s denote again by $`𝒟(𝒢)`$ the double Lie algebra of a symplectic Lie group $`(G,\omega ^+)`$, and by $`q`$ as above. One has

###### Proposition 3.0.2.

Every Lie group, whose Lie algebra is the double Lie algebra $`𝒟(𝒢)`$ of $`(G,w)`$, is endowed with left invariant complex structure defined by the endomorphism

$$J(x,\alpha )(q^1(\alpha ),q(x))$$

of $`𝒟(𝒢)`$; where $`q(x):=\omega (x,.)`$.

To prove the above proposition, one just checks that the Nijenhuis tensor

$`N_J(v_1,v_2)=[Jv_1,Jv_2][v_1,v_2]J[v_1,Jv_2]J[Jv_1,v_2]`$
of $`J`$, vanishes for all $`v_1=(x,\alpha ),v_2=(y,\beta )𝒟(𝒢)`$.

## 4 The Poisson-Lie structure associated to <br>a symplectic Lie-group ($`G,\omega ^+`$) is polynomial of degree 2

Let $`(G,\omega ^+)`$ be a symplectic Lie group, $`ϵ`$ its unit and $`(𝒢,\omega )`$ its symplectic Lie algebra, where $`\omega =\omega _ϵ^+`$.

Consider, as in section 3 the vector spaces (skew-symmetric) isomorphism

$$\begin{array}{cc}q:𝒢& 𝒢^{}\\ x& q(x):=i_x\omega =\omega (x,.)\end{array}$$

Due to the relation $`\omega =0`$, ie $`\omega ^+`$ is closed, $`q`$ is actually a 1-cocycle for the coadjoint representation of $`𝒢`$. Again, denote $`r=q^1`$ the inverse of $`q`$, considered when needed, as an element of $`^2𝒢`$ as well. Let $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ be the connected and simply connected Lie group with Lie algebra $`𝒢`$. The invertible 1-cocycle $`q`$ can be integrated into a 1-cocycle $`Q:\stackrel{~}{G}𝒢^{}`$ for the coadjoint representation of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$. Such a 1-cocycle $`Q`$ is a cover over the open subset $`ImQ`$ of $`𝒢^{}`$, and is equivariant relative to the actions of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ on itself by left multiplications, and on $`𝒢^{}`$ by the affine representation

$$\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{G}& \stackrel{\rho }{}Aff(𝒢^{})=𝒢^{}GL(𝒢^{})\\ \sigma & \rho (\sigma )=(Q(\sigma ),Ad_\sigma ^{})\end{array}$$

Namely, $`Q`$ is given by the expression

$$\begin{array}{cc}Q(\tau )& =\underset{k=1}{\overset{k=+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(ad_a^{})^{k1}}{k!}q(a)(a)\end{array}$$

where $`\tau =exp(a)`$ and $`a`$ is in $`𝒢`$.

The affine representation $`\rho `$ then has an open orbit $`Orbit(0)=ImQ`$, here $`0`$ stands for the origine of the vector space $`𝒢^{}`$. Pulling back (using $`Q`$) the usual affine structure on the open subset $`Orbit(0)`$ of $`𝒢^{}`$, one obtains a left invariant affine structure on $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$. Actually, $`Q`$ is a developping map of such a structure on $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$.

###### Lemma 4.0.1.

There exists a left invariant affine structure on $`G`$ such that the “universal covering map” $`\stackrel{~}{G}\stackrel{p}{}G`$ is a morphism of affine manifolds. Such an affine structure coincides with the one given by $`\omega ^+`$ on $`G`$. Furthermore $`p`$ is Poisson morphism between the Poisson Lie-groups $`(\stackrel{~}{G},r^+r^+)`$ and $`(G,r^+r^+)`$.

Proof.

As the group of deck transformations $`\pi _1(G)`$ is a central and discrete subgroup of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$, it properly and freely acts on $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ by left translations which are affine transformations. Consequently, $`G=\stackrel{~}{G}/\pi _1(G)`$ is equipped with a left invariant affine structure relative to which, $`p`$ is a morphism of affine manifolds.
Realizing that $`q`$ is the orbital map (for the infinitesimal action) at $`0`$, we deduce the coincidence between such an affine structure on $`G`$ and the one given by $`\omega ^+`$.
Let’s denote $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ (resp. $`\pi `$), the tensor on $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ (resp. $`G`$) given by $`r`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ be the unit of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}_\sigma `$ (resp. $`\stackrel{~}{R}_\sigma `$) be the left (resp. right) translation in $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ by $`\sigma \stackrel{~}{G}`$. Then, for every $`\sigma \stackrel{~}{G}`$, one has
$`T_\sigma p\stackrel{~}{\pi }_\sigma =T_\sigma p(T_{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}\stackrel{~}{L}_\sigma r)T_\sigma p(T_{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}\stackrel{~}{R}_\sigma r)=T_{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}(p\stackrel{~}{L}_\sigma )rT_{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}(p\stackrel{~}{R}_\sigma )r=(T_ϵL_{p(\sigma )})r(T_ϵR_{p(\sigma )})r=:\pi _{p(\sigma )}`$.

Then, $`p`$ is a Poisson morphism between $`(\stackrel{~}{G},\stackrel{~}{\pi })`$ and $`(G,\pi )`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remarks 4.0.1.

1. As the covering map $`p`$ is a morphism of both affine and Poisson manifolds, to proof that $`\pi `$ is polynomial, it suffices to prove that $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ is polynomial.

2. It’s convenient to point out that for every $`\gamma \pi _1(G)`$, the following diagram commutates

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{G}& \stackrel{Q}{}& 𝒢^{}\\ \gamma & & h(\gamma )\\ \stackrel{~}{G}& \stackrel{Q}{}& 𝒢^{}\end{array}$$

Here $`h:\pi _1(G)Aff(𝒢^{})`$ is the Lie groups homomorphism, the so called holonomy representation of the affine manifold $`G`$.

3. One easily verifies that $`Q`$ is a moment map for the action of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ on itself, via left multiplications.

Here is our main result of this section. It states that for every invertible solution $`r`$ of the CYBE, the corresponding Poisson Lie structure $`\pi :=r^+r^{}`$ is polynomial, of degree smaller or equal to $`2`$.

###### Theorem 4.0.1.

Let $`(G,\omega ^+)`$ be a connected symplectic Lie group. Denote $`r`$ the associated solution of CYBE and $`r^+`$ (resp.$`r^{}`$) the corresponding left (resp. right) invariant Poisson tensor.

Then, the Poisson Lie tensor $`\pi =r^+r^{}`$ is polynomial, of degree smaller or equal to $`2`$, relative to the left invariant affine structure on G defined by $`\omega ^+`$. That is, at the neighborhood of every point of $`G`$, there exists local affine coordinates $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{2n})`$ satisfying

$`\{x_i,x_j\}_\pi ={\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}b_sx_s+{\displaystyle \underset{l,k}{}}b_{lk}x_lx_k`$ where the $`b_s,b_{lk}`$’s are in $``$.

### 4.1 Proof of theorem 4.0.1

To prove that $`\pi `$ is polynomial, thanks to remarks 4.0.1, it suffices to prove that $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ is polynomial. We can then suppose, without any lost of generalities, that $`G`$ is connected and simply connected.

We will then prove that $`\pi `$ can be projected by $`Q`$ to a Poisson tensor on $`ImQ`$ which is polynomial, of degree smaller or equal to $`2`$.

The following very useful two lemmas will be proved later.

###### Lemma 4.1.1.

Let $`\sigma `$ be in $`G`$ and $`T_\sigma Q`$ be the differential of $`Q`$ at $`\sigma `$, the tensor $`T_\sigma Q`$ $`\pi _\sigma `$ only depends on $`Q(\sigma )`$.

This means that if two elements $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$ of $`G`$ have the same image $`Q(\sigma )=Q(\sigma ^{})`$ by $`Q`$, then one has $`T_\sigma Q`$ $`\pi _\sigma =T_\sigma ^{}Q`$ $`\pi _\sigma ^{}`$.

The lemma 4.1.1 solves the main problem and then proves that the tensor $`\pi `$ can be projected, by $`Q`$, to a Poisson tensor $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=Q_{}\pi `$ on $`ImQ`$.

###### Lemma 4.1.2.

Let $`f`$ and $`g`$ be two elements of $`(𝒢^{})^{}=𝒢`$, denote $`\{f,g\}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ their Poisson brackets relative to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Then one has

$$\begin{array}{cc}\{f,g\}_\mathrm{\Lambda }(Q(\sigma ))& =<Q(\sigma ),[f,g]>r(ad_f^{}Q(\sigma ),ad_g^{}Q(\sigma ))\\ & =<Q(\sigma ),[f,g]><(ad_fad_g)r,Q(\sigma )Q(\sigma )>\end{array}$$

Then, the bracket of the restriction to $`ImQ`$ of two linear functions on $`𝒢^{}`$, is a polynomial function of degree $`2`$, on $`ImQ`$. Being understood that $`[f,g]`$ is a linear form on $`𝒢^{}`$, the function

$$\begin{array}{c}u:ImQ\\ Q(\sigma )u(Q(\sigma )):=r(ad_f^{}Q(\sigma ),ad_g^{}Q(\sigma ))=<(ad_fad_g)r,Q(\sigma )Q(\sigma )>\end{array}$$

is polynomial (with respect to the coordinates of $`Q(\sigma ))`$ homogeneous of degree $`2`$, and the element $`(ad_fad_g)r`$ of $`^2𝒢`$ is a bilinear form on $`𝒢^{}`$.

This ends the proof of the theorem. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 4.2  Proof of lemmas 4.1.1 et 4.1.2

a. Proof of lemma 4.1.1

Let $`f`$ and $`g`$ be in $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(ImQ)`$; one has

$$\begin{array}{cc}T_\sigma Q\pi _\sigma (df(Q(\sigma )),dg(Q(\sigma )))& =\pi _\sigma (df(Q(\sigma ))T_\sigma Q,dg(Q(\sigma ))T_\sigma Q)\\ & =<\pi _\sigma ^{\mathrm{}}(df(Q(\sigma ))T_\sigma Q),dg(Q(\sigma ))T_\sigma Q>\\ & =<(T_\sigma Q\pi _\sigma ^{\mathrm{}}(T_\sigma Q)^t)(df(Q(\sigma )),dg(Q(\sigma ))>(a)\end{array}$$

Let’s then prove that the expression $`T_\sigma Q\pi _\sigma ^{\mathrm{}}(T_\sigma Q)^t`$ only depends on $`Q(\sigma )`$. To do this, we will need the following formulas. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the differential 2-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega ^+\omega ^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^b`$ the corresponding morphism of vector bundles:

$$\begin{array}{c}T_\sigma G\stackrel{\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma ^b}{}T_\sigma ^{}G\\ X_\sigma \mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma ^b(X_\sigma )\end{array}$$

where $`<\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma ^b(X_\sigma ),Y_\sigma >:=\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma (X_\sigma ,Y_\sigma )`$ for all $`X_\sigma ,Y_\sigma T_\sigma G`$.

Then for all $`\sigma G`$, the equality

$$\begin{array}{c}{}_{}{}^{t}(T_ϵL_\sigma )\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma ^bT_ϵL_\sigma =qAd^{}(\sigma ^1)qAd(\sigma )(b)\end{array}$$

is due to the following, satisfied by every $`x`$ and $`y`$ in $`𝒢`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}<(qAd_{\sigma ^1}^{}qAd_\sigma )(x),y>& =w(x,y)w(Ad_\sigma x,Ad_\sigma y)\\ & =\omega _\sigma ^+(x_\sigma ^+,y_\sigma ^+)\omega _\sigma ^{}(x_\sigma ^+,y_\sigma ^+)\\ & =\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma (x_\sigma ^+,y_\sigma ^+)=<\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma ^b(x_\sigma ^+),y_\sigma ^+>\\ & =<^t(T_ϵL_\sigma )(\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma ^bT_ϵL_\sigma )(x),y>.\end{array}$$

For $`\sigma G`$ the map $`q^\sigma =Ad_{\sigma ^1}^{}qAd_\sigma `$ is a 1-cocycle of $`𝒢`$. This is due to the fact that $`Ad_\sigma `$ is a Lie algebra homomorphism and $`q`$ is a 1-cocycle of $`𝒢`$.

Let’s integrate $`q^\sigma `$ into a 1-cocyle $`Q^\sigma :G𝒢^{}`$, for the coadjoint action of $`G`$. Set $`\tau =exp(a)`$, where $`a`$ is in $`𝒢`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{cc}Q^\sigma (\tau )& =\underset{k=1}{\overset{k=+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(ad_a^{})^{k1}}{k!}(Ad_{\sigma ^1}^{}qAd_\sigma )(a)\\ & =Ad_{\sigma ^1}^{}\underset{k=1}{\overset{k=+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(ad_{(Ad_\sigma a)}^{})^{k1}}{k!}(q(Ad_\sigma a))(c)\end{array}$$

as $`ad_a^{}Ad_{\sigma 1}^{}`$ is equal to $`Ad_{\sigma ^1}^{}ad_{Ad_\sigma a}^{}`$, for every $`a`$ in $`𝒢`$ and $`\sigma `$ in $`G`$. The last assertion is due to the following

$$\begin{array}{cc}<ad_a^{}Ad_{\sigma 1}^{}\alpha ,x>& =<\alpha ,Ad_\sigma [a,x]>=<\alpha ,[Ad_\sigma a,Ad_\sigma x]>\\ & =<Ad_{\sigma ^1}^{}ad_{Ad_\sigma a}^{}\alpha ,x>\end{array}$$

for all $`x`$ in $`𝒢`$ and $`\alpha `$ in $`𝒢^{}`$.

$$\begin{array}{cc}Q^\sigma (\tau )& =Ad_{\sigma ^1}^{}(Q(exp(Ad_\sigma a)))=Ad_{\sigma ^1}^{}Q(\sigma \tau \sigma ^1)\\ & =Ad_{\sigma ^1}^{}(Q(\sigma )+Ad_\sigma ^{}Q(\tau \sigma ^1))\\ & =Ad_{\sigma ^1}^{}Q(\sigma )+Q(\tau )+Ad_\tau ^{}Q(\sigma ^1))\\ & =Q(\sigma ^1)+Q(\tau )+Ad_\tau ^{}Q(\sigma ^1))\end{array}$$

Because, one has
$`exp(Ad_\sigma a)=\sigma exp(a)\sigma ^1`$ = $`\sigma \tau \sigma ^1`$ and $`Q(\sigma ^1)=Ad_{\sigma ^1}^{}Q(\sigma )`$.
We then obtain the equality
$`(QQ^\sigma )(\tau )=Q(\sigma ^1)Ad_\tau ^{}Q(\sigma ^1))=d(Q(\sigma ^1))(\tau ).`$ (d)
Here $`d`$ is the (Chevalley-Eilenberg) differential associated to the coadjoint representation of $`G`$ by $`d\alpha (\sigma ):=Ad_\sigma ^{}\alpha \alpha `$, if $`\alpha 𝒢^{}`$ and $`\sigma G`$.

In other words, $`Q`$ and $`Q^\sigma `$ are cohomologous and their difference is the 1-coboundary $`QQ^\sigma =d(Q(\sigma ^1))`$. Differentiating at $`ϵ`$ the relation (d), one establishes that $`q`$ and $`q^\sigma `$ are also cohomologous, and
$`qq^\sigma =\delta (Q(\sigma ^1))`$ (e)
Here, $`\delta `$ is the differential associated to (infinitesimal) coadjoint action of $`𝒢`$: if $`x𝒢`$ and $`\alpha 𝒢^{}`$ we have $`\delta \alpha (x):=ad_x^{}\alpha `$.
The relation (b) above, then reads
$`\mathrm{\Omega }^b=(T_\sigma L_{\sigma 1})^t\delta (Q(\sigma ^1))T_\sigma L_{\sigma 1}`$ (b’)
It is easy to check that one has

($`r^+)^{\mathrm{}}=T_ϵL_\sigma r(T_ϵL_\sigma )^t`$ ; $`(r^{})^{\mathrm{}}=T_ϵR_\sigma r(T_ϵR_\sigma )^t`$ (f) $`q_\sigma ^+:=(\omega ^+)_\sigma ^b=(T_\sigma L_{\sigma ^1})^tq(T_\sigma L_\sigma ^1)`$;

$`q_\sigma ^{}:=(\omega ^{})_\sigma ^b=(T_\sigma R_\sigma ^1)^tq(T_\sigma R_\sigma ^1)`$ (g)
We also have $`T_\sigma Q=Ad_\sigma ^{}qT_\sigma L_{\sigma 1},`$ (h)
as the following equalities are true, for every $`x`$ in $`𝒢`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}T_\sigma Q(x_\sigma ^+)& =\frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0}Q(\sigma exptx)=\frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0}(Q(\sigma )+Ad_\sigma ^{}Q(exptx))\\ & =Ad_\sigma ^{}q(x)=Ad_\sigma ^{}qT_\sigma L_{\sigma ^1}(x_\sigma ^+).\end{array}$$

In such a way that we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}{}_{}{}^{t}(T_\sigma Q)& =(T_\sigma L_{\sigma ^1})^tq^tAd_{\sigma 1}=(T_\sigma R_{\sigma ^1})^tAd_\sigma ^{}qAd_{\sigma 1}\\ & =(T_\sigma R_{\sigma ^1})^tq^{\sigma ^1}=(T_\sigma R_{\sigma ^1})^t(q+\delta (Q(\sigma )))(i)\end{array}$$

From equality $`\mathrm{\Omega }^b=q^+q^{}`$ and, from the fact that the morphism $`(\stackrel{~}{r}^+)^{\mathrm{}}q^+`$ (resp. $`q^{}(\stackrel{~}{r}^{})^{\mathrm{}}`$ ) is nothing but the identity map of $`T_\sigma G`$ (resp. $`T_\sigma ^{}G`$), at each point $`\sigma `$ of $`G`$, we get

$`\pi ^{\mathrm{}}=(\stackrel{~}{r}^+)^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Omega }^b(\stackrel{~}{r}^{})^{\mathrm{}}`$ (j)
Noticing the relation $`Q(\sigma )=Ad_\sigma ^{}Q(\sigma ^1)`$ first we have for each $`x𝒢`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\delta (Q(\sigma ))(x):=ad_x^{}Q(\sigma )& =(ad_x^{}Ad_\sigma ^{})Q(\sigma ^1)\\ & =(Ad_\sigma ^{}ad_{(Ad_{\sigma ^1}x)}^{})Q(\sigma ^1).\end{array}$$

Second, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}(Ad_\sigma ^{}\delta (Q(\sigma ^1))Ad_{\sigma ^1})(x)& =Ad_\sigma ^{}(\delta (Q(\sigma ^1))(Ad_{\sigma ^1}x))\\ & =Ad_\sigma ^{}ad_{(Ad_{\sigma ^1x)}}^{}(Q(\sigma ^1)).\end{array}$$

This proves the following

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta (Q(\sigma ))=Ad_\sigma ^{}\delta (Q(\sigma ^1))Ad_{\sigma ^1}(k)\end{array}$$

Now, let’s prove, using formulas above, that

$`T_\sigma Q\pi _\sigma ^{\mathrm{}}(T_\sigma Q)^t`$
only depends on $`Q(\sigma )`$. Formulas (h), (i) and (j) enable to write

$$\begin{array}{cc}T_\sigma Q\pi _\sigma ^{\mathrm{}}(T_\sigma Q)^t& =Ad_\sigma ^{}qT_\sigma L_{\sigma 1}(\stackrel{~}{r}^+)^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Omega }^b(\stackrel{~}{r}^{})^{\mathrm{}}\\ & (T_\sigma R_{\sigma ^1})^t(q+\delta (Q(\sigma )))\end{array}$$

Apply now (b’) and (f) to get

$$\begin{array}{cc}T_\sigma Q\pi _\sigma ^{\mathrm{}}(T_\sigma Q)^t& =Ad_\sigma ^{}qT_\sigma L_{\sigma 1}(T_ϵL_\sigma r(T_ϵL_\sigma )^t)\\ & ^t(T_\sigma L_{\sigma 1})\delta (Q(\sigma ^1))T_\sigma L_{\sigma 1}\\ & (T_ϵR_\sigma r(T_ϵR_\sigma )^t)(T_\sigma R_{\sigma ^1})^t(q+\delta (Q(\sigma )))\end{array}$$

Simplifying this, one obtains

$$\begin{array}{c}T_\sigma Q\pi _\sigma ^{\mathrm{}}(T_\sigma Q)^t=Ad_\sigma ^{}\delta (Q(\sigma ^1))Ad_{\sigma 1}r(q+\delta (Q(\sigma )))\end{array}$$

Last, the equality (k) allows us to conclude that the wanted expression (a) reads

$`T_\sigma Q\pi _\sigma ^{\mathrm{}}(T_\sigma Q)^t=\delta (Q(\sigma ))r(q+\delta (Q(\sigma )))`$ (l)
and then only depends on $`Q(\sigma )`$. This proves lemma 4.1.1 . $`\mathrm{}`$ b. Proof of lemma 4.1.2

From lemma 4.1.1 , the tensor $`\pi `$ can be projected by $`Q`$, into a Poisson tensor $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=Q_{}\pi `$ on $`ImQ`$, whose associated vector bundles morphism is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{Q(\sigma )}^{\mathrm{}}=T_\sigma Q\pi _\sigma ^{\mathrm{}}(T_\sigma Q)^t`$ on the tangent fiber over any point $`Q(\sigma )`$ of $`ImQ`$. Let $`f`$ and $`g`$ be in $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(ImQ)`$, if $`\{f,g\}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the Poisson bracket of $`f`$ and $`g`$; using expression (l) and the definition of $`\delta `$, we establish the following.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\{f,g\}_\mathrm{\Lambda }(Q(\sigma ))& =<(\mathrm{\Lambda })^{\mathrm{}}(df(Q(\sigma ))),dg(Q(\sigma ))>\\ & =<\delta (Q(\sigma ))(r(q+\delta (Q(\sigma )))(df(Q(\sigma ))),dg(Q(\sigma ))>\\ & =<\delta (Q(\sigma ))(df(Q(\sigma ))),dg(Q(\sigma ))>\\ & +<\delta (Q(\sigma ))(r\delta (Q(\sigma )))(df(Q(\sigma ))),dg(Q(\sigma ))>\\ & =<Q(\sigma ),[x,y]>+<\delta (Q(\sigma ))(r(ad_x^{}Q(\sigma )),y>\\ & =<Q(\sigma ),[x,y]><\delta (Q(\sigma ))(y),r(ad_x^{}Q(\sigma ))>\\ & =<Q(\sigma ),[x,y]>r(ad_x^{}Q(\sigma ),ad_y^{}Q(\sigma )\\ & =<Q(\sigma ),[x,y]>r(ad_f^{}Q(\sigma ),ad_g^{}Q(\sigma )\\ & =<Q(\sigma ),[x,y]><(ad_xad_y)r,Q(\sigma )Q(\sigma )>.\end{array}$$

Here $`df(Q(\sigma ))=:x`$ and $`dg(Q(\sigma ))=:y`$ are seen as elements of the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$.

If $`f`$ and $`g`$ are the restrictions to $`ImQ`$ of some linear functions (also denoted $`f`$ and $`g`$ respectively) on $`𝒢^{}`$, we have $`df(Q(\sigma )=f=:x`$, $`dg(Q(\sigma )=g=:y`$ and the two last equalities above then read

$$\begin{array}{cc}\{f,g\}_{Q_{}(\pi )}(Q(\sigma ))& =<Q(\sigma ),[f,g]>r(ad_f^{}Q(\sigma ),ad_g^{}Q(\sigma )\\ & =<Q(\sigma ),[f,g]><(ad_fad_g)r,Q(\sigma )Q(\sigma )>.\end{array}$$

This proves lemma 4.1.2. $`\mathrm{}`$

To end this section, let’s point out a consequence of the above theorem 4.0.1. We will use the same notations as in theorem 4.0.1. Let $`F_\sigma `$ be the symplectic leaf, through $`\sigma G`$, of the Poisson Lie group $`(G,\pi :=r^+r^{})`$. The vector space $`T_\sigma F_\sigma `$ tangent to $`F_\sigma `$, at the point $`\sigma `$, is given by $`T_\sigma F_\sigma =T_ϵR_\sigma \{\eta (\sigma )(Ad_\sigma ^{}\alpha ,.),\alpha 𝒢^{}\}`$. Here we have $`\eta (\sigma ):=Ad_\sigma \stackrel{~}{r}\stackrel{~}{r}`$ and $`R_\sigma `$ is the right multiplication by $`\sigma `$ in $`G`$.

Notice the following relation $`\eta (\sigma )(Ad_\sigma ^{}\alpha ,.)=Ad_\sigma (r(Ad_\sigma ^{}\alpha ))`$. Due to formula (h), one has $`T_\sigma Q(T_\sigma F_\sigma )=\{ad_{(rAd_\sigma ^{})\alpha }^{}Q(\sigma ),\alpha 𝒢^{}\}`$.

As $`rAd_\sigma ^{}:𝒢^{}𝒢`$ is a vector spaces isomorphism, $`T_\sigma Q`$ bijectively maps $`T_\sigma F_\sigma `$ onto the orbit of $`Q(\sigma )`$ for the $`𝒢`$-coadjoint action.

Namely, we have

###### Corollary 4.2.1.

Let $`(G,\omega ^+)`$ be a connected and simply connected symplectic Lie group. Put $`q(x):=i_x\omega `$, $`x𝒢:=Lie(G)`$ and $`r=q^1`$, define $`Q`$ as above.

The leaves of (the symplectic foliation of) the Poisson Lie group $`(G,\pi =r^+r^{})`$ are coverings over the traces on $`ImQ`$ of the coadjoint orbits of $`G`$. In particular, if $`\omega ^+`$ is exact, those symplectic leaves are coverings over coadjoint orbits of $`G`$.

There is a bijection between the Lie subgroup $`G_\pi =\{\sigma G,\pi _\sigma =0\}`$ of $`G`$, and the intersection of $`ImQ`$ and the vector subspace $`\{\alpha 𝒢^{}`$ s.t. $`\alpha `$ is invariant relative to the coadjoint representation$`\}`$ of $`G`$.

Departement of mathematics. National University of Ireland, Maynooth. Co. Kildare, Ireland.
UMR 5030 du CNRS. Département de Mathématiques.
Université Montpellier 2, 34095 Montpellier cedex 5.
e.mail adresses: adiatta@maths.may.ie; or andrediatta@hotmail.com;
medina@darboux.math.univ-montp2.fr


text:
# A Note on Shelling

## 1. Introduction

One characteristic geometric feature of a discrete point set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^d`$, which might be thought of as the set of atomic positions of a solid, say, is the number of points of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ on shells of radius $`r`$ around an arbitrary, but fixed centre in $`^d`$. Of particular interest are special centres, such as points of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ itself, or other points that are fixed under non-trivial symmetries of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This leads to the so-called shelling structure of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Here, we consider infinite point sets only. In general, one obtains different answers for different centres, and one is then also interested in the average over all points of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as centres, called the averaged shelling.

The spherical shelling of lattices and crystallographic point sets (i.e., periodic point sets whose periods span ambient space) is well studied, and many results are known in terms of generating functions. If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a lattice, the number of points on spheres of radius $`r`$ centre $`0`$ (central shelling) is usually encapsulated in terms of the lattice theta function \[16, Ch. 2.2.3\]

(1)
$$\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)=\underset{x\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}q^{xx}=\underset{k}{}c(k)q^k$$

where $`q=e^{\pi iz}`$ and $`c(k)`$ is the number of lattice points of Euclidean square norm ($`=`$ square length) $`k`$. A closed expression for the latter can be given in many cases, see \[16, Ch. 4\] for details on root and weight lattices and various related packings, and  for an explicit example. There are many related lattice point problems, see  and references therein for recent developments.

One special feature of a lattice is that the shelling generating function is independent of the lattice point which is chosen as the centre – and, consequently, central and averaged shelling give the same result. Similarly, for uniformly discrete point sets that are crystallographic, the average is only over finitely many points in a fundamental domain and can often be calculated explicitly. For general uniformly discrete point sets, however, the situation is more complicated in that no two centres might give the same shelling function, or that the average may not be well defined. But there is one important class of point sets, the so-called model sets (also called cut-and-project sets, see  and references therein), which provide a high degree of order and coherence so that an extension of the shelling problem to these cases is possible, and has indeed been pursued. The original motivation for the investigation of model sets came from applications in physics. Meanwhile, due to interesting connections with several branches of mathematics, they are also studied in their own right, see  and  for details and further references. Below, we shall summarise the key properties of model sets needed for this article.

One of the earliest attempts to the shelling of model sets, to our knowledge, is that of Sadoc and Mosseri  who investigated the 4D Elser-Sloane quasicrystal  and then conjectured a formula for the central shelling of a close relative of it which was obtained by replacing the highly symmetric 4D polytype used in  by a 4D ball as a window. The conjecture was put right and proved in  by means of algebraic number theory revolving around the arithmetic of the icosian ring $`𝕀`$, a maximal order in the quaternion algebra $`((\sqrt{5}))`$. Recently, the central shelling was extended to the much more involved 3D case of icosahedral symmetry . Also, some results exist on planar cases, e.g., for special eightfold and twelvefold symmetric cases with circular windows .

The common aspect of all these extensions to model sets (or mathematical quasicrystals) is that only the central shelling of a highly symmetric representative has been considered, with a ball as window in internal space. This is a rather special situation which appears slightly artificial in view of the fact that the most relevant and best studied model sets usually have polytopes rather than balls as window, or, more generally, even compact sets with fractal boundary, cf. . Also mathematically, the classical examples such as the rhombic Penrose or the Ammann-Beenker tiling are very attractive due to their rather intricate and unexpected topological nature .

A more natural approach to model sets seems to be the averaged shelling, and it is the aim of this article to start to develop this idea. As we shall see, the topological structure will be manifest in the examples discussed below. On the other hand, the central shelling does have a universal meaning, too, if one considers it first for modules rather than for model sets. The window condition can then be imposed afterwards, see  for some examples. This approach is implicit in , but does not seem to have attracted much notice. It is important, though, because it leads to a separation of universal and non-universal aspects.

## 2. Central shelling

Many of the well studied planar tilings with non-crystallographic symmetries share the property that their vertices (or other typical point set representatives) form a discrete subset of rings of cyclotomic integers. This gives a nice and powerful link to results of algebraic number theory, which has, in fact, been used to construct model sets , and which also appeared before in a different context . Let us thus first explain the situation of central shelling for these underlying dense point sets.

Let $`\xi _n`$ be a primitive $`n`$-th root of unity (with $`n3`$), e.g., $`\xi _n=e^{2\pi i/n}`$, and $`(\xi _n)`$ the corresponding cyclotomic field. Then, $`(\xi _n+\overline{\xi }_n)`$ is its maximal real subfield. From now on, we will use the following notation

(2)
$$𝕂=(\xi _n),\mathrm{𝕜}=(\xi _n+\overline{\xi }_n),𝒪=[\xi _n],𝒪=[\xi _n+\overline{\xi }_n],$$

where $`𝒪`$ is the ring of cyclotomic integers, which is the maximal order of $`𝕂`$, and $`𝒪`$ is the ring of algebraic integers of $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$, see .

Note that $`𝒪`$ is a $``$-module of rank $`\phi (n)`$, where $`\phi `$ denotes Euler’s totient function. The set $`𝒪`$, seen as a (generally dense) point set in $`^2`$, has $`N`$-fold rotational symmetry, where

(3)
$$N=N(n)=\{\begin{array}{cc}n\hfill & \text{if }n\text{ is even,}\hfill \\ 2n\hfill & \text{if }n\text{ is odd.}\hfill \end{array}$$

This also means that $`𝒪`$ has precisely $`N`$ units on the unit circle, which are actually all roots of unity of $`𝕂`$. Also, $`𝕂`$ is a totally complex field extension of $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$ of degree 2. It is known that, in this cyclotomic situation, the unique prime factorisation property of $`𝒪`$ (i.e., class number one) implies that of $`𝒪`$, and this happens in precisely 29 cases, compare \[45, Thm. 11.1\], namely for

(4)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill n\{& 3,4,5,7,8,9,11,12,13,15,16,17,19,20,21,\hfill \\ & 24,25,27,28,32,33,35,36,40,44,45,48,60,84\},\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`n2mod4`$ to avoid double counting. Note that $`n=1`$ ($`N=2`$) is excluded here because it corresponds to $`𝕂=`$ with $`𝒪=`$, which is only one-dimensional.

Now, let $`p`$ be a prime of $`𝒪`$. Then, in going from $`𝒪`$ to $`𝒪`$, precisely one of the following cases applies, see \[36, Ch. I\] and \[45, Ch. 4\]:

* $`p`$ ramifies, i.e., $`p=P\overline{P}`$ with $`P`$ a prime and $`\overline{P}/P`$ a root of unity in $`𝒪`$.
* $`p`$ is inert, i.e., $`p`$ is also prime in $`𝒪`$.
* $`p`$ is a splitting prime of $`𝒪/𝒪`$, i.e., $`p=P\overline{P}`$ with $`\overline{P}/P`$ not a unit in $`𝒪`$.

Up to units, all primes of $`𝒪`$ appear this way.

Prime factorisation in $`𝒪`$ versus $`𝒪`$ can now be employed to find the combinatorial structure of the shells. We encode this into the central shelling function $`c(r^2)`$ which counts the number of points on shells (circles) of radius $`r`$. By convention, $`c(0)=1`$.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`𝒪=[\xi _n]`$ be any of the $`29`$ planar $``$-modules that consist of the integers of a cyclotomic field with class number one. Then, for $`r^2>0`$, the function $`c(r^2)`$ vanishes unless $`r^2𝒪`$ and all inert prime factors of $`r^2`$ occur with even powers only. In this case,

(5)
$$c(r^2)=N\underset{\stackrel{pr^2}{p\mathrm{splits}}}{}\left(t(p)+1\right),$$

where $`p`$ runs through a representative set of the primes of $`𝒪`$. Here, $`t(p)`$ is the maximal power $`t`$ such that $`p^t`$ divides $`r^2`$. The prefactor, $`N=N(n)`$ of Eq. $`(\text{3})`$, reflects the point symmetry of the module. Furthermore, $`r^2`$ is then a totally positive number in $`𝒪`$, i.e., all its algebraic conjugates are positive as well.

###### Proof.

Since $`c(0)=1`$ by convention, consider $`r^2>0`$. If there exists a number $`x𝒪`$ on the shell of radius $`r`$ around $`0`$, we must have $`r^2=x\overline{x}`$, hence $`r^2𝒪`$. In this case, any inert prime factor $`p`$ of $`r^2`$ (in $`𝒪`$) necessarily divides both $`x`$ and $`\overline{x}`$ (in $`𝒪`$). Consequently, the maximal power $`t=t(p)`$ such that $`p^t`$ divides $`r^2`$ must be even.

Conversely, assume $`r^2>0`$ and $`t(p)`$ even for all inert primes of $`𝒪`$. If a ramified or a splitting prime $`p=P\overline{P}`$ divides $`r^2`$, we know that equal powers of $`P`$ and $`\overline{P}`$ occur in the prime factorisation of $`r^2`$ in $`𝒪`$. Consequently, we can group the prime factors of $`r^2`$ in $`𝒪`$ into two complex conjugate numbers, i.e., we have at least one solution of the equation $`r^2=x\overline{x}`$ with $`x𝒪`$, so $`c(r^2)>0`$.

Consider a non-empty shell with $`r^2>0`$, i.e., $`r^2=x\overline{x}`$ for some $`0x𝒪`$. Consider the prime factorisation $`r^2=ep_1^{t_1}\mathrm{}p_s^{t_s}`$ in $`𝒪`$, with $`e`$ a unit. If $`p_i`$ is not a splitting prime, the distribution of the corresponding primes in $`𝒪`$ to $`x`$ and $`\overline{x}`$ is unique, up to units of $`𝒪`$.

If, however, $`p_j=P_j\overline{P}_j`$ is a splitting prime, we have to distribute $`(P_j\overline{P}_j)^{t_j}`$ over $`x`$ and $`\overline{x}`$. In view of $`\overline{P}_j`$ being the complex conjugate of $`P_j`$, but not an algebraic conjugate, we have the options of $`(P_j)^s(\overline{P}_j)^{t_js}`$ as factor of $`x`$ and $`(\overline{P}_j)^s(P_j)^{t_js}`$ as factor of $`\overline{x}`$, for any $`0st_j`$. This amounts to $`t_j+1`$ different possibilities, which gives the corresponding factor in (5).

As mentioned above, there are $`N`$ units of $`𝒪`$ on the unit circle. This means that, as soon as $`r^2>0`$, points on the shells come in sets of $`N`$, which gives the prefactor in (5). Together with the previous arguments, this explains the multiplicative structure of $`c/N`$.

Finally, assume $`r^2=x\overline{x}`$ for some $`0x𝒪`$ and let $`\sigma `$ be any Galois automorphism of $`𝕂`$ over $``$. Then we have

$$0<\sigma (x)\overline{\sigma (x)}=\sigma (x)\sigma (\overline{x})=\sigma (x\overline{x})=\sigma (r^2)$$

so also all algebraic conjugates of $`r^2`$ are positive. This shows that $`r^2`$ is totally positive. ∎

Remark: It is clear that Theorem 1 can be generalised to the situation that $`𝕂`$ is a totally complex field extension of a totally real field $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$ whenever $`𝕂`$ has class number one, with sets of integers $`𝒪`$ and $`𝒪`$ as above, compare \[45, Thm. 4.10\]. In this case, the prefactor in Eq. (5) has to be replaced by the number of elements in the unit group of $`𝒪`$ that lie on the unit circle.

Let us consider the cyclotomic case in more detail. If $`V(r^2)=\{x𝒪x\overline{x}=r^2\}`$, and $`\sigma `$ is any Galois automorphism of $`𝕂/`$, then $`\sigma (𝒪)=𝒪`$ and $`V(r^2)`$ is mapped bijectively to $`V(\sigma (r^2))`$. This means that $`c(r^2)=c(\sigma (r^2))`$.

Moreover, consider the situation that two totally positive numbers of $`𝒪`$, $`r^2`$ and $`R^2`$, are related by $`R^2=er^2`$, with $`e`$ a unit in $`𝒪`$. Clearly, $`e`$ is then also totally positive. If $`e`$ is of the form $`e=u\overline{u}`$, with $`u`$ a unit in $`𝒪`$, the mapping $`xux`$ gives a bijection between $`V(r^2)`$ and $`V(R^2)`$, hence $`c(r^2)=c(R^2)`$. If all totally positive units of $`𝒪`$ are of this form, which includes the case that $`e`$ is the square of a unit in $`𝒪`$, we may conclude that the central shelling function $`c`$ only depends on the principal ideal of $`𝒪`$ generated by $`r^2`$.

In general cyclotomic fields, this factorisation property of totally positive units need not be satisfied (e.g., it fails for $`n=29`$). However, it is true for all class number one cases. More precisely, if $`n`$ is a power of $`2`$, all totally positive units of $`𝒪`$ are squares of units of $`𝒪`$, which is known as Weber’s theorem, compare \[21, Cor. 1 and Rem. 2\]. The same statement holds if $`n`$ is an odd prime below 100, except for $`n=29`$, see \[21, Ex. 2\]. We checked explicitly, using the KANT program package , that this remains true for all $`n`$ from our list (4) that are prime powers. All remaining cases of (4) are composite integers. Here, not all totally positive units of $`𝒪`$ are squares in $`𝒪`$, but they are of the form $`e=u\overline{u}`$, with $`u`$ a unit in $`𝒪`$. This was again checked using KANT. The difference to the other cases comes from the additional unit $`u=1\xi _n`$, compare \[45, Cor. 4.13\].

We may conclude as follows.

###### Fact 1.

Let $`𝒪=[\xi _n]`$ be any of the $`29`$ planar $``$-modules that consist of the integers of a cyclotomic field with class number one, and $`𝒪=[\xi _n+\overline{\xi }_n]`$. Then, the central shelling function $`c`$ for $`𝒪`$ depends on $`r^2𝒪`$ only via the principal ideal $`r^2𝒪`$ generated by it. ∎

This allows us to reformulate the result of Theorem 1 by means of ideals and characters of the field extension $`𝕂/\mathrm{𝕜}`$. By a character $`\chi 0`$, we here mean a totally multiplicative real function of the ideals of $`𝒪`$, i.e., $`\chi (𝔞𝔟)=\chi (𝔞)\chi (𝔟)`$ for all ideals $`𝔞`$ and $`𝔟`$ of $`𝒪`$, see \[36, Ch. VII.6\] for background material. In particular, $`\chi (𝒪)=1`$. It suffices to specify the values of $`\chi `$ for all prime ideals $`𝔭`$ of $`𝒪`$. We define

(6)
$$\chi (𝔭)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }𝔭\text{ ramifies}\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{if }𝔭\text{ is inert}\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{if }𝔭\text{ splits}\hfill \end{array}$$

where the property of the prime ideal $`𝔭`$ refers to the behaviour under the field extension from $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$ to $`𝕂`$. This leads to the following result.

###### Corollary 1.

Under the assumptions of Theorem 1, the central shelling function $`c`$ is proportional to the summatory function of the character $`\chi `$ of Eq. $`(\text{6})`$, i.e.,

(7)
$$c(r^2𝒪)=N\underset{𝔞(r^2𝒪)}{}\chi (𝔞),$$

with $`N`$ given by Eq. $`(\text{3})`$.

###### Proof.

Due to unique prime factorisation in $`𝒪`$ and the multiplicative structure of $`c/N`$ according to Eq. (5), it is sufficient to verify the claim for prime powers, i.e., for $`r^2𝒪=𝔭^{\mathrm{}}`$. Clearly, if $`𝔭`$ ramifies, the sum in Eq. (7) gives $`c(𝔭^{\mathrm{}})=1`$ for all $`\mathrm{}0`$. The alternating sign of $`\chi (𝔭^{\mathrm{}})`$ for inert $`𝔭`$ implies $`c(𝔭^{\mathrm{}})=0`$ for odd $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`c(𝔭^{\mathrm{}})=1`$ otherwise. If $`𝔭`$ splits, the right hand side of Eq. (7) adds up to $`\mathrm{}+1`$. Invoking Fact 1 and a comparison with Eq. (5) completes the proof. ∎

The explicit use of Theorem 1 and Corollary 1 requires the knowledge of the splitting structure of the primes. Examples can be found in , see also . If one is interested in the central shelling of a model set rather than that of the underlying (dense) module, one has to take the window into account as a second step. A model set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ in “physical space” $`^d`$ is defined within the following cut-and-project scheme

(8)
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}^d& \underset{}{\overset{𝜋}{}}& ^d\times H& \underset{}{\overset{\pi _H}{}}& H\\ & & & & \text{ dense}\\ L& \underset{}{\overset{11}{}}& \mathrm{\Gamma }& \underset{}{\overset{}{}}& L^{}\end{array}$$

where the “internal space” $`H`$ is a locally compact Abelian group, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d\times H`$ is a lattice, i.e., a co-compact discrete subgroup. The projection $`L^{}=\pi _H(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is assumed to be dense in internal space, and the projection into physical space has to be one-to-one on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Consequently, the mapping $`^{}`$: $`LL^{}H`$, with $`^{}=\pi _H\left(\pi |_\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)^1`$, is well defined. It is called the $``$-map of the cut-and-project formalism, compare . Note that the $``$-map need not be injective, i.e., its kernel can be a nontrivial subgroup of $`L`$.

A model set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is now defined as

(9)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Omega })=\{xLx^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\}=\{\pi (y)y\mathrm{\Gamma },\pi _H(y)\mathrm{\Omega }\}^d,$$

where the window $`\mathrm{\Omega }H`$ is a relatively compact set with non-empty interior. Usually, one either takes an open set or a compact set that is the closure of its interior. Note that the $``$-map is well defined on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, with $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Omega })\right)^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. More generally, also sets of the form $`t+\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ with $`t^d`$ are called model sets. If $`tL`$, one has $`t+\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Omega })=\mathrm{\Lambda }(t^{}+\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and is back to the case of Eq. (9), which is sufficient for our discussion. For the above example of a cyclotomic field $`𝕂=(\xi _n)`$, we need $`d=\phi (n)`$ to construct model sets with $`n`$-fold symmetry, compare \[10, App. A\].

In order to compute the central shelling for a model set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, one first determines all points of the module $`L=\pi (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ on the shell of a given radius $`r`$. Then, the window $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ decides, according to the filtering process of Eq. (9), which of these points actually appear in the model set, and the shelling formula is modified accordingly. As long as we are dealing with a one-component model set (i.e., as long as all points are in one translation class), the formula of Theorem 1 thus gives an upper bound on the shelling number in the model set. As mentioned above, the central shelling of a few model sets with spherical windows  has been considered in detail.

## 3. Averaged shelling

A moment’s reflection reveals that the averaged shelling is considerably more involved. In order to determine the averages, one would need to know all possible local configurations up to a given diameter together with their frequencies, provided the latter are well defined. In general, this is not the case, as cluster or patch frequencies in general Delone sets need not exist. However, regular model sets are particularly nice in this respect because all patch frequencies exist uniformly , which is equivalent to unique ergodicity of the corresponding dynamical system  (under the translation action of $`^d`$). Moreover, due to existence of the cut-and-project scheme (8) and Weyl’s theorem, compare , it is possible to transfer the averaging part of the combinatorial problem to one of analysis.

Let us also point out that Eq. (1) for a model set does not make much sense as it would depend on the representative chosen, rather than being a quantity attached to an entire local indistinguishability (LI) class, compare . If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a lattice, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and we could equally well sum over the difference set in (1). Using this for model sets would give $`_{x\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}q^{xx}`$ which is constant on the LI class. However, this still does not reflect the statistical aspects of the (local) shells, because each $`x\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is counted with weight one. Let us thus introduce the averaged shelling function $`a(r^2)`$ as the number of points on a shell of radius $`r`$, averaged over all points of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as possible centres of the shells.

Now, let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ be a regular, generic model set, in the terminology of , with window $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a relatively compact set in $`H`$ with non-empty interior, boundary of measure $`0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }\pi _H(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\mathrm{}`$. For simplicity, we also assume that $`H=^m`$, though a generalisation of what we say below to the case of general locally compact Abelian groups is possible. In analogy to Eq. (1), a generalised theta series could be defined ad hoc as

(10)
$$\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(z):=\underset{r}{}a(r^2)q^{r^2}$$

where $`q=e^{\pi iz}`$ and $`=\{r_0|y|=r\text{ for some }y\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$ is the set of possible radii as obtained from the set of difference vectors between points of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The coefficient $`a(r^2)`$ is now meant as the averaged quantity defined above, which we will now calculate.

Let $`\nu (y)`$ denote the relative frequency of the difference $`y`$ between two points of the model set (hence $`y\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$). Up to the overall density of the model set, $`\nu (y)`$ is an autocorrelation coefficient of the point set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This quantity exists uniformly for all $`y`$ as a consequence of the model set structure . But then, we obviously obtain

(11)
$$a(r^2)=\underset{\stackrel{y\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{|y|=r}}{}\nu (y).$$

On the other hand, if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s=\{x\mathrm{\Lambda }|x|<s\}`$, one has

(12) $`\nu (y)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{s\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\mathrm{\Lambda }_s|}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{x\mathrm{\Lambda }_s}{x+y\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{}}1=\underset{s\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|(\mathrm{\Lambda }_s)^{}|}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{x^{}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_s\right)^{}}{(x+y)^{}\mathrm{\Omega }}}{}}1`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{vol}(\mathrm{\Omega })}}{\displaystyle _^m}\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Omega }(z)\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}_\mathrm{\Omega }(z+y^{})dz`$
where $`\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the characteristic function of the window. Note that, as the $``$-map need not be injective, the second equality may only hold in the limit $`s\mathrm{}`$ (this step is implicit in the proof of \[41, Thm. 1\]). We add it here because it shows how the counting is transfered to internal space, in particular in the cases where the $``$-map is one-to-one, which is the situation we will meet in the examples.

The last step in (12) is now a direct application of Weyl’s theorem on uniform distribution. This is justified here because $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_s)^{}`$, for increasing $`s`$, gives a sequence of points in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that are uniformly distributed, see  and \[41, Thm. 1\], and because $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has measure $`0`$ by assumption. In this situation, the averaged quantities are the same for generic and singular members of the LI class . Moreover, it also does not change if $`\mathrm{\Omega }L^{}\mathrm{}`$, so that the corresponding assumption can be dropped. Consequently, the averaged shelling function is constant on LI classes of regular model sets. We combine Eqs. (11) and (12) to obtain

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a regular model set in the sense of Moody , obtained from a cut-and-project scheme $`(\text{8})`$ with internal space $`H=^m`$ and window $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then, the averaged shelling function $`a(r^2)`$ exists, and is given by

(13)
$$a(r^2)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{vol}(\mathrm{\Omega })}\underset{\stackrel{y\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{|y|=r}}{}\mathrm{vol}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega }y^{})\right).$$

In particular, $`a(r^2)`$ vanishes if there is no $`y\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with $`yy=r^2`$.∎

Remark: This result allows the calculation of the shelling function, for any possible radius $`r`$, by evaluating finitely many volumes in internal space. This is so because a model set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has the additional property that also its difference set, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, is uniformly discrete, so that there are only finitely many different solutions of $`|y|=r`$ with $`y\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

## 4. Examples

Let us first consider a well-known model set in one dimension, the Fibonacci chain, which can be described as

(14)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{F}=\{x[\tau ]x^{}[1,\tau 1]\}=\mathrm{\Lambda }\left([1,\tau 1]\right),$$

where $`[\tau ]=\{m+n\tau m,n\}`$ is the ring of integers in the quadratic field $`(\tau )`$ and $`\tau =(1+\sqrt{5})/2`$ is the golden ratio. The $``$-map in this setting is algebraic conjugation in $`(\tau )`$, defined by $`\sqrt{5}\sqrt{5}`$. The 2D lattice behind this formulation is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{(x,x^{})x[\tau ]\}`$. A short calculation results in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{F}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{F}=\mathrm{\Lambda }\left([\tau ,\tau ]\right)`$, and

(15)
$$\nu (y)=\nu (y)=f_\text{F}(y^{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }|y^{}|>\tau \hfill \\ 1|y^{}|/\tau \hfill & \text{if }|y^{}|\tau \hfill \end{array}$$

so that the averaged shelling function for the Fibonacci chain (and thus also for its entire LI class) is $`a(0)=1`$ and $`a(r^2)=2f_\text{F}(y^{})`$ for any non-zero distance $`r`$ that is the absolute value of a number $`y\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{F}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{F}[\tau ]`$. Also, all shelling numbers $`a(r^2)`$ are elements of $`[\tau ]`$, as can easily be seen from formula (15). This has a topological interpretation, as we will briefly explain below for a more significant example.

In internal space, the function $`f_\text{F}`$ has a piecewise linear continuation, but the function $`a(r^2)`$ looks rather erratic, compare  for a similar example. This is a consequence of the properties of the $``$-map, being algebraic conjugation in this case. As a mapping, it is totally discontinuous on $`L^{}`$ (and also on its rational span) when the latter is given the induced topology of the ambient space $`H`$. In a different topology, however, this map becomes uniformly continuous, and it is this alternative setting, compare , which explains the appearance of the internal space from intrinsic data of a model set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

As another example, let us once more look at the circular shelling in the plane, i.e., at a 2D model set with an open disk (radius $`R`$, centre $`0`$) as window in 2D internal space. So, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=B_R(0)`$ and, consequently, $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }=B_{2R}(0)`$. We have $`\nu (y)=f_2(y^{})`$, where, due to rotational symmetry of the window, the function $`f_2`$ only depends on $`s=|y^{}|`$. Explicitly, it is given by

(16)
$$f_2(s)=\frac{\mathrm{vol}\left(B_R(0)B_R(s)\right)}{\mathrm{vol}\left(B_R(0)\right)}=\frac{2}{\pi }\mathrm{arccos}\left(\frac{s}{2R}\right)\frac{s}{\pi R}\sqrt{1\left(\frac{s}{2R}\right)^2}$$

for $`0s<2R`$ and $`f_2(s)=0`$ otherwise. Fig. 1 contains a graph of $`f_2(s)`$. This function, often called the covariogram of the disk, is a radially symmetric positive definite function known as Euclid’s hat, see \[22, p. 100\].

To calculate $`a(r^2)`$, one has to sum finitely many terms of this kind, according to Eq. (11). This situation of a 2D internal space shows up for planar model sets with $`n\{5,8,12\}`$, because these are the cases with $`\phi (n)=4`$. Here, one simply obtains

(17)
$$a(r^2)=c(r^2)f_2(s)$$

where $`c(r^2)`$ is the central shelling function of Eq. (5) and $`s=|y^{}|`$ for any $`y`$ on the shell of radius $`r`$. This is so because the window is a disk and the $``$-map sends all cyclotomic integers on a circle to a single circle in internal space. Consequently, the central shelling provides an upper bound for the average shelling in this case.

Part of this result can be extended to arbitrary dimension. For two intersecting $`m`$-dimensional balls of radius $`R`$, the overlap consists of two congruent ball segments. The corresponding volume can be calculated by integrating slices (which are balls of dimension $`m1`$). Dividing by the volume of the $`m`$-ball, the covariogram becomes

(18)
$$f_m(s)=\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{m}{2}+1)}{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{m+1}{2})}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{arccos}(\frac{s}{2R})}{}}\mathrm{sin}^m(\alpha )d\alpha .$$

The integral can be expanded in terms of Chebyshev polynomials. For even $`m=2\mathrm{}`$, this yields

(19)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f_2\mathrm{}(s)=& \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+1)}{2^{2\mathrm{}1}\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2})}[\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}}\right)\mathrm{arccos}\left(\frac{s}{2R}\right)\hfill \\ & +\sqrt{1\left(\frac{s}{2R}\right)^2}\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^k}{k}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}k}\right)U_{2k1}\left(\frac{s}{2R}\right)]\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`U_k(x)=\mathrm{sin}\left((k+1)\mathrm{arccos}(x)\right)/\mathrm{sin}\left(\mathrm{arccos}(x)\right)`$ are the Chebyshev polynomials of the second kind \[1, Ch. 22\]. For odd dimension, $`m=2\mathrm{}+1`$, one obtains the following expression

(20)
$$f_{2\mathrm{}+1}(s)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+\frac{3}{2})}{2^{2\mathrm{}1}\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+1)}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^k}{2k+1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2\mathrm{}+1}{\mathrm{}k}\right)T_{2k+1}\left(\frac{s}{2R}\right)$$

in terms of the Chebyshev polynomials $`T_k(x)=\mathrm{cos}\left(k\mathrm{arccos}(x)\right)`$ of the first kind \[1, Ch. 22\]. Eqs. (18)–(20) are valid for $`0s<2R`$; for distances larger than the diameter, the overlap vanishes, hence $`f_m(s)=0`$ for $`s2R`$. Eq. (16) is recovered from (19) for $`\mathrm{}=1`$. The functions $`f_m(s)`$ for various dimensions $`m`$ are shown in Fig. 1. Unfortunately, for $`m>2`$, there is no simple generalisation of Eq. (17), because the $``$-map is then more complicated.

Let us finally consider an eightfold symmetric model set in the plane, based on the classical Ammann-Beenker or octagonal tiling, compare  and references therein. It is usually described by projection from four dimensions, where we use the lattice $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\sqrt{2}^4`$. The projections $`\pi `$ and $`\pi _H`$ of (8) are essentially determined by compatibility with eightfold symmetry. In a convenient coordinatisation , the images $`𝒂_j`$, $`j\{1,2,3,4\}`$, of the standard basis vectors of the lattice have unit length in physical space, and the same is true of the corresponding projections $`𝒂_j^{}`$ in internal space. Observing that $`𝒂_1+𝒂_2+𝒂_3+𝒂_4=[\xi _8]`$, we can continue with a formulation based on the cyclotomic integers, compare . For the Ammann-Beenker tiling, the window is then a regular octagon $`O`$ of unit edge length, see Fig. 2. Note that the window is invariant under the symmetry group $`D_8`$ of order $`16`$.

Explicitly, the corresponding point set in the plane is given by

(21)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{AB}}=\{z[\xi _8]z^{}O\},$$

where $`^{}`$ is the Galois automorphism defined by $`\xi _8\xi _8^3`$. If we choose $`\xi _8=\xi =e^{2\pi i/8}`$ and identify $`^2`$ with $``$, this gives $`𝒂_j=\xi ^{j1}`$, $`1j4`$, while the $``$-images satisfy $`𝒂_j^{}=\xi ^{3(j1)}`$, compare Fig. 3.

A somewhat tedious, but elementary calculation on the basis of Fig. 4 gives

###### Fact 2.

The covariogram of the regular octagon of edge length one is

(22)
$$f_{\mathrm{AB}}(s,\alpha )=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }\lambda x\hfill \\ \frac{(\lambda 2)(x+y)x}{2}+\frac{\lambda (1x)}{2}+\frac{(1y)}{2}\hfill & \text{if }\lambda yx\lambda \hfill \\ \frac{(\lambda 2)(x^2y^2)}{4}\frac{(\lambda 1)x}{2}+\frac{\lambda +2}{4}\hfill & \text{if }1+yx\lambda y\hfill \\ \frac{(\lambda 2)(xy1)y}{2}\frac{x}{2}+1\hfill & \text{if }0x1+y\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\lambda =1+\sqrt{2}`$,

$$x=s\mathrm{cos}\alpha ^{}[\frac{s}{2}\sqrt{2+\sqrt{2}},s],y=s\mathrm{sin}\alpha ^{}[0,\frac{s}{2}\sqrt{2\sqrt{2}}],$$

and where $`\alpha ^{}`$ is the unique angle in the interval $`[0,\frac{\pi }{8}]`$ that is related to $`\alpha `$ by the $`D_8`$ symmetry of the octagon. ∎

A contour map of $`f_{\text{AB}}(s,\alpha )`$ is shown in Fig. 5. It demonstrates that the previous consideration of a circular window is actually a reasonable approximation to this case. It is sufficient for most applications concerning (powder) diffraction, compare \[25, Ch. 3\].

We can now calculate the averaged shelling coefficient $`a(r^2)`$ of (11) explicitly for any distance $`r`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{AB}}`$. The results for all distances with $`0<r^25`$ are summarised in Table 1. They confirm the results of  which had been obtained numerically.

As an explicit example, let us consider the shortest distance in the model set. This is $`r=\sqrt{2\sqrt{2}}=2\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi }{8})`$ which is realised by the short diagonal of the rhomb. In this case, there are eight numbers $`z\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{AB}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{AB}}`$ that contribute to Eq. (11). They form a single $`D_8`$ orbit; one representative is listed in Table 1. Due to the symmetry of the window, the contribution of each member of the orbit is the same, so it suffices to consider a representative and to multiply the result by the corresponding orbit length. Choosing $`z=1\xi `$, we find $`z^{}=1\xi ^3`$, hence $`|z^{}|=\sqrt{2+\sqrt{2}}=2\mathrm{cos}(\frac{\pi }{8})`$; the corresponding angle is $`\alpha =\frac{\pi }{8}`$, hence $`\alpha ^{}=\frac{\pi }{8}`$. The distance in internal space is rather large and the overlap area correspondingly small. Fact 2 yields $`x=1+y=\left(2+\sqrt{2}\right)/2`$; hence the coefficient is given by

(23)
$$a\left(2\sqrt{2}\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}8}f_{\mathrm{AB}}(2\mathrm{cos}(\frac{\pi }{8}),\frac{\pi }{8})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}8}\left(1\frac{x}{2}\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}2\sqrt{2},$$

compare Table 1.

The other entries in Table 1 are calculated along the same lines. Note that $`s`$ can be calculated from $`r`$ directly via $`s^2=(r^2)^{}`$, where  coincides with algebraic conjugation in $`(\sqrt{2})`$, defined by $`\sqrt{2}\sqrt{2}`$. Continuing the calculations, one faces increasing complication with growing distance $`r`$, and, in general, one has to expect contributions from several $`D_8`$ orbits. For $`r=\sqrt{3}`$, there is still only a single orbit, this time of length $`16`$. Hence it again suffices to consider a single representative, for instance $`z=1\xi \xi ^2`$ whose $``$-image is $`z^{}=\frac{1}{2}\left((2+\sqrt{2})+i(2\sqrt{2})\right)`$. More generally, the standard orbit analysis reduces the sum in (11) to a formula with one contribution per $`D_8`$-orbit, weighted with the corresponding orbit length. The latter is $`8`$ whenever the corresponding angle $`\alpha `$ of Fact 2 is an integer multiple of $`\frac{\pi }{8}`$ (which corresponds to symmetry directions of the octagon), and $`16`$ otherwise.

The averaged shelling numbers $`a(r^2)`$ of Table 1, as well as the numerically determined values in \[8, Tab. 2\], are always elements of $`2[\sqrt{2}]`$, i.e., numbers of the form $`2k+2\mathrm{}\sqrt{2}`$ with $`k,\mathrm{}`$. The formula (13) for the covariogram of the regular octagon only implies $`a(r^2)`$ to be in $`(\sqrt{2})`$. However, Eqs. (11) and (12) show that the averaged shelling number $`a(r^2)`$ is expressed as a finite sum of cluster frequencies. The latter are elements of the so-called frequency module $`F_{\mathrm{AB}}`$ of the Ammann-Beenker model set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{AB}}`$, i.e., the integer span of the frequencies of finite clusters of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{AB}}`$ (i.e., of all intersections $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{AB}}C`$ with $`C^2`$ compact). Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{AB}}`$ is a Delone set of finite local complexity , there are only countably many different clusters up to translations, and only finitely many up to a given diameter.

The frequency module has originally been calculated by means of $`C^{}`$-algebraic $`K`$-theory , but can also be obtained from simpler cohomological considerations . For our case, the result can be simplified, by a short calculation, as follows.

###### Fact 3.

 The frequency module of the Ammann-Beenker vertex set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{AB}}`$ is

$$F_{\mathrm{AB}}=\left\{\frac{k+\mathrm{}\sqrt{2}}{8}\right|k,\mathrm{},k+\mathrm{}\text{ even}\}.$$

Thus, $`8F_{\mathrm{AB}}`$ is an index $`2`$ submodule of $`[\sqrt{2}]`$. ∎

Since the window of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{AB}}`$ is a regular octagon, each cluster that contributes to the sum in Eq. (11) occurs in either $`8`$ or $`16`$ orientations with the same frequency. Consequently, the averaged shelling numbers $`a(r^2)`$ are elements of $`8F_{\mathrm{AB}}`$, though we presently do not know whether they generate the full frequency module or a subset thereof. This is consistent with the findings of Table 1 and \[8, Tab. 2\], and establishes an interesting link between geometric and topological properties of model sets .

A similar treatment is possible for other examples, such as the tenfold symmetric rhombic Penrose  and Tübingen triangle  tilings, or the twelvefold symmetric shield tiling . However, it is clear that, for the standard model sets, the calculation becomes rather involved, and we presently do not know how to determine the averaged shelling function via a generating function such as (10) in closed form, or even whether that is the most promising way to proceed. For physical applications, however, often the first few terms are sufficient, and they can be calculated exactly from the projection method, see  for some tables and further results.

## Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank Robert V. Moody and Alfred Weiss for helpful discussions and suggestions. This work was partially supported by the German Research Council (DFG). We also thank two anonymous referees for constructive and helpful comments, and the Erwin Schrödinger International Institute for Mathematical Physics in Vienna for support during a stay in winter 2002/2003 where the revised version was prepared.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Leptogenesis  has been widely considered as an attractive mechanism to account for the baryon asymmetry in the present universe, especially after the Super-Kamiokande Collaboration reported the evidence of the atmospheric neutrino oscillation . In particular, the leptogenesis via the $`LH_u`$ flat direction , based on the Affleck-Dine mechanism , seems to work naturally in the supersymmetric (SUSY) standard model. Recently, we have performed detailed analyses on this leptogenesis mechanism via the $`LH_u`$ flat direction, taking into account the relevant thermal effects ,111The thermal effects can be avoided if we assume a gauged U$`(1)_{BL}`$  or a low scale inflation . and have shown that the generated baryon asymmetry is determined almost only by the mass of the lightest neutrino $`m_\nu `$ . In order to explain the empirical baryon asymmetry in the present universe, the mass of the lightest neutrino should be much smaller than the mass scale of the atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillations. This fact leads to a high predictability on the rate of the neutrinoless double beta ($`0\nu \beta \beta `$) decay .

In the previous work, we have assumed the normal hierarchy in the neutrino mass spectrum. In this letter, we investigate predictions on the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay in the more general cases including the inverted hierarchy in neutrino masses. As we will see, it is quite interesting that the predicted value of the mass parameter $`m_{\nu _e\nu _e}`$ is in the accessible range of future experiments  of the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay.

## 2 Leptogenesis via the $`LH_u`$ flat direction

In this section we briefly review the leptogenesis via the $`LH_u`$ flat direction . Let us start by writing down the effective dimension-five operator in the superpotential,

$`W={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M_i}}\left(L_iH_u\right)\left(L_iH_u\right),`$ (1)
which induces small neutrino masses $`m_{\nu _i}`$  after the neutral component of the Higgs field $`H_u`$ obtains its vacuum expectation value $`H_u=174\text{GeV}\times \mathrm{sin}\beta `$,222 $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is defined as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta H_u/H_d`$, where $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ are the Higgs fields which provide masses for the up- and down-type quarks, respectively.

$$m_{\nu _i}=\frac{H_u^2}{M_i},$$
(2)
where we have taken a basis in which the neutrino mass matrix is diagonal. We adopt the following supersymmetric D-flat direction :

$`\stackrel{~}{L}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi \\ 0\end{array}\right),H_u={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \varphi \end{array}\right).`$ (7)
Here and hereafter, we suppress the family index $`i`$. As we will see below, the flat direction which generates the lepton asymmetry most effectively corresponds to the lightest neutrino.

The total scalar potential for the flat direction field $`\varphi `$ is given by

$`V(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`m_\varphi ^2|\varphi |^2+{\displaystyle \frac{m_{3/2}}{8M}}(a_m\varphi ^4+H.c.)`$ (8)
$`c_HH^2|\varphi |^2+{\displaystyle \frac{H}{8M}}(a_H\varphi ^4+H.c.)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{f_k|\varphi |<T}{}}c_kf_k^2T^2|\varphi |^2+a_g\alpha _S(T)^2T^4\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\varphi |^2}{T^2}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4M^2}}|\varphi |^6.`$
Here, the potential terms in the first line comes from the SUSY breaking at the zero temperature $`T=0`$, which are mediated by supergravity, and we take $`m_\varphi m_{3/2}|a_m|1\text{TeV}`$, hereafter.333We assume gravity mediated SUSY breaking models. The terms in the second line, depending on the Hubble parameter $`H`$, reflects the additional SUSY breaking effects caused by the finite energy density of the inflaton . Hereafter, we take $`c_H1(>0)`$ and $`|a_H|1`$. The terms in the third line represent the effects of the finite temperature . Here, $`f_k`$ represent Yukawa and gauge coupling constants of the field $`\varphi `$, $`\alpha _S`$ is the gauge coupling constant of the SU$`(3)_C`$, and $`c_k`$ and $`a_g`$ are coefficients of order unity.444The list of $`c_k`$ and $`f_k`$ is given in Ref. . In the case of $`LH_u`$ flat direction, $`a_g`$ is given by $`a_g=9/8`$. Finally, the last term directly comes from the superpotential in Eq. (1).

During the inflation, the negative Hubble mass term $`c_HH^2|\varphi |^2`$ causes an instability of the flat direction field $`\varphi `$ around the origin ($`\varphi 0`$), and $`\varphi `$ field runs to one of the following four minima of the potential:

$`|\varphi |`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{MH},`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{arg}(\varphi )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{arg}(a_H)+(2n+1)\pi }{4}},n=0\mathrm{}3,`$ (10)
which are the balance points between the Hubble-induced terms and the $`|\varphi |^6`$ term.

After the inflation, the amplitude of the $`\varphi `$ field starts to be reduced following the gradual decrease of the Hubble parameter $`H`$ \[see Eq. (9)\], and eventually, either thermal terms $`T^2|\varphi |^2`$ or $`T^4\mathrm{ln}(|\varphi |^2)`$, or the soft mass term $`m_\varphi ^2|\varphi |^2`$ dominate the scalar potential, which causes a coherent oscillation of the $`\varphi `$ around the origin. At this stage, the difference between the phases of the complex couplings $`a_m`$ and $`a_H`$ leads to a phase rotational motion of $`\varphi `$, which results in generation of the lepton asymmetry, $`n_L=(1/2)i(\dot{\varphi }^{}\varphi \varphi ^{}\dot{\varphi })`$. Decay of $`\varphi `$ produces the lepton asymmetry in the thermal bath and a part of the produced lepton asymmetry is then converted into the baryon asymmetry  via the sphaleron effects .

We show the result of detailed calculation  in Fig. 2, which presents the contour plot of the baryon asymmetry in the neutrino mass ($`m_\nu `$) – reheating temperature ($`T_R`$) plane. As can be seen in Fig. 2, the baryon asymmetry is almost independent of the reheating temperature $`T_R`$, and is determined only by the mass of the lightest neutrino $`m_\nu `$ for $`T_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}10^5\text{GeV}`$. Thus, the baryon asymmetry in the present universe $`n_B/s(0.4`$$`1)\times 10^{10}`$ indicates the mass of the lightest neutrino to be

$`m_\nu (0.13)\times 10^9\text{eV}`$ (11)
in a wide range of the reheating temperature $`10^5\text{GeV}_{}^<T_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}10^{12}\text{GeV}`$.555If the U(1)B-L symmetry is gauged in high energy scale, the resultant baryon asymmetry is enhanced in the “D-term stopping case” . However, even in this case, the required mass of the lightest neutrino must satisfy $`m_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{<}10^5\text{eV}`$ to avoid the cosmological gravitino problem, and the prediction on the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay is almost the same as that presented in this letter.

## 3 Prediction on the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay

The neutrinoless double beta $`(0\nu \beta \beta )`$ decay, if observed, is the strongest evidence for lepton number violation. In other words, it suggests the Majorana character of the neutrinos and thus the existence of the nonrenormalizable operator given in Eq.(1), which is a crucial ingredient for our leptogenesis to work.

In the present scenario, as explained in the previous section, the observed baryon asymmetry in the universe is mainly determined by the mass of the lightest neutrino, $`m_\nu 10^9\text{eV}`$, regardless of the reheating temperature of inflation. This small neutrino mass predicted from the leptogenesis, combined with the atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillation experiments, allows us to have definite predictions on the rate of the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay. This is a clear contrast to the other baryo/leptogenesis scenarios which heavily rely on various unknown parameters in high energy physics.

In our previous publication , we have assumed the normal mass hierarchy for the light neutrinos. In this letter, we investigate general predictions on the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay taking into account of the case of inverted mass hierarchy for neutrinos.

The most important ingredient to determine the rate of the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay is the effective mass of the electron-type neutrino, which is given by

$$|m_{\nu _e\nu _e}|=|U_{e1}^2m_{\nu _1}+U_{e2}^2m_{\nu _2}+U_{e3}^2m_{\nu _3}|,$$
(12)
where $`m_{\nu _i}`$’s are the mass eigenvalues of the neutrinos. $`U_{\alpha i}`$ is the mixing matrix which diagonalizes the neutrino mass matrix, where $`\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau `$ represent the weak eigenstates. Here, we take a basis in which the mass matrix of the charged lepton is diagonal.

In general, the mass pattern for the neutrinos can be classified into the two cases; the normal mass hierarchy and the inverted mass hierarchy, which are presented in Fig. 1. In this letter, we label the each mass eigenstates in the following way; $`m_{\nu _1}<m_{\nu _2}<m_{\nu _3}`$ for the case of the normal mass hierarchy, and $`m_{\nu _3}<m_{\nu _1}<m_{\nu _2}`$ for the case of the inverted mass hierarchy. Then, the observed mass squared differences are given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2=|m_{\nu _3}^2m_{\nu _2}^2|,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2=m_{\nu _2}^2m_{\nu _1}^2,$$
(13)
for the atmospheric and the solar neutrino oscillations, respectively. By taking this convention, we can treat the mixing angles of the neutrinos in a similar way for both cases of the neutrino mass hierarchies. The mixing matrix $`U_{\alpha i}`$ is parameterized as

$`U_{\alpha i}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}& s_{12}c_{13}& s_{13}e^{i\delta }\\ s_{12}c_{23}c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{12}c_{23}s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& s_{23}c_{13}\\ s_{12}s_{23}c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{12}s_{23}s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{23}c_{13}\end{array}\right)P,`$ (17)
where $`c_{ij}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}`$, $`s_{ij}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}`$ and $`P=\mathrm{diag}(1,e^{i\beta },e^{i\gamma })`$. $`\delta `$ is a Dirac-type phase and $`\beta ,\gamma `$ are two phases associated with the Majorana character of the neutrinos. By virtue of our convention, the $`\theta _{23}`$ and $`\theta _{12}`$ always correspond to the mixing angles for the atmospheric and the solar neutrino oscillations, respectively, regardless of the type of mass hierarchy for the neutrinos. In addition, the element of the mixing matrix $`U`$ constrained by the CHOOZ experiment is always correspond to $`(e,3)`$ element as $`|U_{e3}|_{}^<0.15`$ .

The requirement for our leptogenesis to explain the observed baryon asymmetry is that the mass of the lightest neutrino is to be $`m_\nu 10^9\text{eV}`$, which is negligibly small compared with the other two mass eigenvalues of the neutrinos. This immediately leads to the following upper and lower bounds on the electron-type neutrino mass:

$`\left||U_{e2}|^2m_{\nu _2}|U_{e3}|^2m_{\nu _3}\right||m_{\nu _e\nu _e}||U_{e2}|^2m_{\nu _2}+|U_{e3}|^2m_{\nu _3},`$ (18)
$`\left||U_{e1}|^2m_{\nu _1}|U_{e2}|^2m_{\nu _2}\right||m_{\nu _e\nu _e}||U_{e1}|^2m_{\nu _1}+|U_{e2}|^2m_{\nu _2}`$ (19)
for the normal and the inverted mass hierarchies, respectively.

The predictions on the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay in the case of the normal mass hierarchy have been investigated in detail in Ref. . The upper and lower bounds on the electron-type neutrino mass in Eq. (18) can be written as

$$|m_{\nu _e\nu _e}|_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{max}}s_{12}^2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2}\pm |U_{e3}|^2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}.$$
(20)
In Fig. 3, we present the numerical result for the case of the large mixing angle (LMA) solution. The red (solid) and blue (dashed) lines correspond to the cases where $`|U_{e3}|=0.15`$ and $`|U_{e3}|=0.05`$, respectively. As for the mass squared differences, we have adopted the following best fit values :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2=3.2\times 10^3\text{eV}^2,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2=4.9\times 10^5\text{eV}^2.$$
(21)
The green (vertical) line denotes the best fit values of the mixing angle $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}=0.37`$. The behavior of the bounds when we vary the mass squared differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$ is easily seen from the Eq. (20). We see that the overall scale of the $`|m_{\nu _e\nu _e}|`$ is almost proportional to the $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2}`$. For example, when we vary the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$ within the $`95\%`$ C.L. allowed region of the LMA solution, $`|m_{\nu _e\nu _e}|`$ changes within about $`\times /÷1.7`$ of the value presented in Fig. 3. As clearly shown in this figure, the $`|m_{\nu _e\nu _e}|`$ is predicted in a narrow range when the $`|U_{e3}|`$ is much smaller than the present bound.

Now, let us consider the case of the inverted mass hierarchy for the neutrinos. The Eq. (19) can be written in terms of the observables in neutrino oscillation experiments as

$`|m_{\nu _e\nu _e}|_{\mathrm{max}}(1|U_{e3}|^2)\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2}{2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}}c_{12}^2\right),`$ (22)
$`|m_{\nu _e\nu _e}|_{\mathrm{min}}(1|U_{e3}|^2)\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}c_{12}^2\left|\left((1\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2}{2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}}\right)\right|,`$ (23)
for the upper and lower bounds, respectively. As seen from these relations, the mass squared differences for the solar neutrino oscillations $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$ gives negligible effects on the upper bound of $`|m_{\nu _e\nu _e}|`$. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$ affects the lower bound of the $`|m_{\nu _e\nu _e}|`$ only when the following relation is satisfied:

$$|(1\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12})|_{}^<\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}.$$
(24)
In Fig. 4, we present the upper and the lower bounds on the $`|m_{\nu _e\nu _e}|`$ in the case of the inverted mass hierarchy. Here, we have used the $`|U_{e3}|=0.15`$. As for the mass squared differences, we have adopted the best fit values for the LMA solution as before. However, this result is applicable to the other solutions for the solar neutrino oscillations except for the case of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}1`$, because of the reason mentioned above. The two green (vertical) lines correspond to the best fit values of the mixing angles for the LMA and the LOW solutions $`(\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}=0.37,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.68})`$  from left to right, respectively. As seen from the figure, the $`|m_{\nu _e\nu _e}|`$ is restricted in a very small range such as $`0.01\text{eV}_{}^<|m_{\nu _e\nu _e}|_{}^<0.06\text{eV}`$ when $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}0.7`$, which is clearly in the reach of the future $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay experiments. Even if we change the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$ within the $`99\%`$ C.L. allowed region, the overall scale of the $`|m_{\nu _e\nu _e}|`$ varies within only $`\times /÷1.5`$ of the value presented in Fig. 4.

## 4 Conclusions

Leptogenesis via the $`LH_u`$ flat direction is one of the most interesting scenarios to explain the observed baryon asymmetry, in which the observed baryon asymmetry has a direct connection to the mass of the lightest neutrino regardless of the details of high energy physics. In this letter, we have derived predictions on the rate of the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay, which is regarded as a low energy consequence of the present leptogenesis; the mass of the lightest neutrino must be $`m_\nu 10^9\text{eV}`$.

Both in the cases of the normal and the inverted mass hierarchies for the neutrinos, the region of $`|m_{\nu _e\nu _e}|`$ is strongly restricted and it is accessible in the future $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay experiments . Furthermore, predictions on the $`|m_{\nu _e\nu _e}|`$ become much more definite when the $`|U_{e3}|`$ is severely constrained (for the case of the normal hierarchy) or the mixing angle for the solar neutrino oscillation is restricted as $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}<1`$ (for the case of the inverted hierarchy) in the future experiments. The predictions on the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay derived in this letter will play a crucial role on testing the leptogenesis via the $`LH_u`$ flat direction.