text:
# On generalisations of Calogero-Moser-Sutherland quantum problem and WDVV equations

## Introduction.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a finite set of vectors $`\alpha `$ in the Euclidean space $`𝐑^n`$ which generates the space and is invariant under the symmetry $`xx.`$ We assume that $`\alpha `$ is the only vector from $`𝒜`$ which is proportional to $`\alpha `$. Let $`𝒜_+`$ be its half positive with respect to some linear form. Let us prescribe to each vector $`\alpha 𝒜`$ a real number (”multiplicity”) $`m_\alpha `$ such that $`m_\alpha =m_\alpha .`$

Consider the following Schrödinger operator

$$L=\mathrm{\Delta }+\underset{\alpha 𝒜_+}{}\frac{m_\alpha (m_\alpha +1)(\alpha ,\alpha )}{\mathrm{sin}^2(\alpha ,x)}.$$
(1)
When $`𝒜`$ is a root system with the multiplicities invariant under the corresponding Weyl group $`W`$ this is an integrable generalisation of the Calogero-Moser-Sutherland (CMS) operator  suggested by Olshanetsky and Perelomov . As it has been shown in  there are also non-symmetric integrable generalisations of this problem. This discovery led to the notion of the locus configurations which play a crucial role in the theory of the Huygens’ principle .

It turned out  that the locus configurations discovered in  can be used also to construct new solutions of the generalised WDVV (Witten-Dijgraaf-Verlinde-Verlinde) equations:

$$F_iF_k^1F_j=F_jF_k^1F_i,i,j,k=1,\mathrm{},n.$$
(2)
Here $`F_m`$ is the $`n\times n`$ matrix constructed from the third partial derivatives of the unknown function $`F=F(x^1,\mathrm{},x^n)`$:

$$(F_m)_{pq}=\frac{^3F}{x^mx^px^q},$$
(3)
In this form these equations have been written by Marshakov, Mironov and Morozov, who showed that the Seiberg-Witten prepotential in $`N=2`$ four-dimensional supersymmetric gauge theories satisfies this system . Originally these equations have been introduced first in topological field theory as some associativity conditions  and have been later investigated in this context by Dubrovin .

However in  we have shown that the relation discovered in  between the locus configurations and WDVV equations does not always work, which raised the question what exactly is the property behind this relation.

The aim of this paper is to present the answer to this question. The main result is the following

Theorem. If the Schrödinger equation $`L\psi =\lambda \psi `$ of Calogero-Moser-Sutherland type (1) has a solution of the product form

$$\psi _0=\underset{\alpha 𝒜_+}{}\mathrm{sin}^{m_\alpha }(\alpha ,x),$$

then the function

$$F(x)=\underset{\alpha 𝒜_+}{}m_\alpha (\alpha ,x)^2\mathrm{log}(\alpha ,x)^2$$

satisfies the generalised WDVV equations.

We should mention that the eigenfunctions of the product form play a special role in the theory of the original CMS problem giving the ground states of the system . For the deformed CMS problem this becomes more complicated because these solutions become singular on some hyperplanes, so we can consider these solutions as the eigenfunctions only in the formal sense.

## Special class of solutions to generalised WDVV equations

In this section we essentially follow the analysis of the special solutions to WDVV equations from .

It is known  that WDVV equations (2), (3) are equivalent to the equations

$$F_iG^1F_j=F_jG^1F_i,i,j=1,\mathrm{},n,$$
(4)
where $`G=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\eta ^kF_k`$ is any particular invertible linear combination of $`F_i`$ with the coefficients, which may depend on $`x`$. Introducing the matrices $`\stackrel{ˇ}{F}_i=G^1F_i`$ one can rewrite (4) as the commutativity relations

$$[\stackrel{ˇ}{F}_i,\stackrel{ˇ}{F}_j]=0,i,j=1,\mathrm{},n,$$
(5)
We will consider the following particular class of the solutions to these equations.

Let $`V`$ be a real vector space of dimension $`n`$, $`V^{}`$ be its dual space consisting of the linear functions on $`V`$ (covectors), $`𝔄`$ be a finite set of noncollinear covectors $`\alpha V^{}`$ generating $`V^{}`$.

Consider the following function on $`V`$:

$$F^𝔄=\underset{\alpha 𝔄}{}(\alpha ,x)^2\mathrm{log}(\alpha ,x)^2,$$
(6)
where $`(\alpha ,x)=\alpha (x)`$ is the value of covector $`\alpha V^{}`$ on a vector $`xV`$. For any basis $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_n`$ we have the corresponding coordinates $`x^1,\mathrm{},x^n`$ in $`V`$ and the matrices $`F_i`$ defined according to (3). In a more invariant form for any vector $`aV`$ one can define the matrix

$$F_a=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a^iF_i.$$

One can easily check that $`F_a`$ is the matrix of the following bilinear form on $`V`$

$$F_a^𝔄=\underset{\alpha 𝔄}{}\frac{(\alpha ,a)}{(\alpha ,x)}\alpha \alpha ,$$

where $`\alpha \beta (u,v)=\alpha (u)\beta (v)`$ for any $`u,vV`$ and $`\alpha ,\beta V^{}`$. Define $`G`$ as $`F_x`$, i.e.

$$G=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x^iF_i$$

which is actually the matrix of the bilinear form

$$G^𝔄=\underset{\alpha 𝔄}{}\alpha \alpha ,$$
(7)
which does not depend on $`x`$. Since the covectors $`\alpha 𝔄`$ generate $`V^{}`$, the form $`G^𝔄`$ is non-degenerate. This means that the natural linear mapping $`\phi _𝔄:VV^{}`$ defined by the formula

$$(\phi _𝔄(u),v)=G^𝔄(u,v),u,vV$$

is invertible. We will denote $`\phi _𝔄^1(\alpha ),\alpha V^{}`$ as $`\alpha ^{}`$. By definition

$$\underset{\alpha 𝔄}{}\alpha ^{}\alpha =Id$$

as an operator in $`V^{}`$ or equivalently

$$(\alpha ,v)=\underset{\beta 𝔄}{}(\alpha ,\beta ^{})(\beta ,v).$$
(8)
for any $`\alpha V^{},vV`$. Now according to (5) the WDVV equations (2,3) for the function (6) can be rewritten as

$$[\stackrel{ˇ}{F}_a^𝔄,\stackrel{ˇ}{F}_b^𝔄]=0$$
(9)
for any $`a,bV`$, where the operators $`\stackrel{ˇ}{F}_a^𝔄`$ are defined as

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{F}_a^𝔄=\underset{\alpha 𝔄}{}\frac{(\alpha ,a)}{(\alpha ,x)}\alpha ^{}\alpha .$$
(10)
Let $`G_𝔄`$ be the form on $`V^{}`$ induced by $`G^𝔄`$:

$$G_𝔄(\alpha ,\beta )=G^𝔄(\alpha ^{},\beta ^{}).$$

Its matrix in the corresponding basis is $`G^1.`$ A simple calculation shows that (9) can be rewritten as

$$\underset{\alpha \beta ,\alpha ,\beta 𝔄}{}\frac{G_𝔄(\alpha ,\beta )B_{\alpha ,\beta }(a,b)}{(\alpha ,x)(\beta ,x)}\alpha \beta 0,$$
(11)
where

$$\alpha \beta =\alpha \beta \beta \alpha $$

and

$$B_{\alpha ,\beta }(a,b)=\alpha \beta (a,b)=\alpha (a)\beta (b)\alpha (b)\beta (a).$$

One can check that the relations (11) are equivalent to

$$\underset{\beta \alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Pi }𝔄}{}\frac{G_𝔄(\alpha ,\beta )B_{\alpha ,\beta }(a,b)}{(\beta ,x)}\alpha \beta |_{(\alpha ,x)=0}0$$

for any $`\alpha 𝔄`$ and any two-dimensional plane $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ containing $`\alpha ,`$ and therefore to

$$\underset{\beta \alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Pi }𝔄}{}G_𝔄(\alpha ,\beta )B_{\alpha ,\beta }(a,b)=0$$
(12)
for any such $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$.

Summarising we have the following result (cf. ).

Proposition 1. The function (6) satisfies the generalised WDVV equations (2,3) iff the relations (12) are satisfied for any $`\alpha 𝔄`$ and any two-dimensional plane $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ such that $`\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }`$.

Remark. In  the conditions (12) have been reformulated in geometric terms ($``$-conditions). For the purpose of the present paper it is more convinient to use these conditions in the original form.

Any Coxeter root system satisfies these conditions but there are many more examples (see ).

## Main Identity and proof of the Theorem.

Let now $`𝒜`$ be a finite set of the vectors $`\alpha `$ in the Euclidean space $`𝐑^n`$ with multiplicities $`m_\alpha `$. We will assume that this set is invariant under the symmetry $`xx`$ and that $`\alpha `$ is the only vector from $`𝒜`$ which is proportional to $`\alpha `$. By $`𝒜_+`$ we mean the positive half of $`𝒜`$:

$$𝒜_+=\{\alpha 𝒜:(\alpha ,v)>0\}$$

for some $`v𝐑^n`$ which is generic in the sense that $`(\alpha ,v)0`$ for all $`\alpha 𝒜`$.

Consider the Schrödinger equation

$$L\psi =\lambda \psi ,$$
(13)
where

$$L=\mathrm{\Delta }+\underset{\alpha 𝒜_+}{}\frac{m_\alpha (m_\alpha +1)(\alpha ,\alpha )}{\mathrm{sin}^2(\alpha ,x)}.$$

Let us look for the solutions of this equation of the form

$$\psi _0=\underset{\alpha 𝒜_+}{}\mathrm{sin}^{m_\alpha }(\alpha ,x).$$
(14)
By straightforward calculation one can check the following result (cf. ).

Lemma 1. The function (14) satisfies the equation (13) for some $`\lambda `$ iff the following Main Identity holds:

$$\underset{\alpha \beta ,\alpha ,\beta 𝒜_+}{}m_\alpha m_\beta (\alpha ,\beta )(\mathrm{cot}(\alpha ,x)\mathrm{cot}(\beta ,x)+1)0.$$
(15)
The eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ in that case has a form $`\lambda =|\rho (m)|^2`$ where $`\rho (m)=\underset{\alpha 𝒜_+}{}m_\alpha \alpha .`$

Actually first we have the condition that the sum

$$S=\underset{\alpha \beta ,\alpha ,\beta 𝒜_+}{}m_\alpha m_\beta (\alpha ,\beta )\mathrm{cot}(\alpha ,x)\mathrm{cot}(\beta ,x)$$

must be a constant in $`x`$. Considering then $`x=itv`$ with a large positive $`t`$ and $`v`$ from the definition of $`𝒜_+`$ we see that this constant must be equal to

$$S=\underset{\alpha \beta ,\alpha ,\beta 𝒜_+}{}m_\alpha m_\beta (\alpha ,\beta ).$$

This leads also to the formula for the eigenvalue $`\lambda .`$ It is worthy to note that this formula implies that the vector $`\rho (m)`$ which depends on the choice of the positive part $`𝒜_+`$ (i.e. on the choice of $`v`$) has the norm $`|\rho (m)|`$ independent on this choice.

Remark. The gauged operator $`\stackrel{~}{L}=\widehat{\psi }_0^1L\widehat{\psi }_0`$, where $`\widehat{\psi }_0`$ is the operator of multiplication by $`\psi _0`$, in this case has the form $`\stackrel{~}{L}=L^{rad}+|\rho (m)|^2,`$

$$L^{rad}=\mathrm{\Delta }2\underset{\alpha 𝒜_+}{}m_\alpha \mathrm{cot}(\alpha ,x)_\alpha .$$

When $`𝒜`$ is a root system with special multiplicities $`L^{rad}`$ is the radial part of Laplace-Beltrami operator on some symmetric space . Thus, the property of $`L`$ we discuss is equivalent to the existence of the ”radial gauge”. We should mention that the relation between the radial parts of the Laplace operators and quantum many-body problems was first observed (in the case of the symmetric spaces $`SU(n)/SO(n)`$) by Berezin, Pokhil and Finkelberg  and was investigated in details by Olshanetsky and Perelomov in .

The Main Identity is equivalent to the following identities:

$$\underset{\beta 𝒜_+,\beta \alpha }{}m_\alpha m_\beta (\alpha ,\beta )\mathrm{cot}(\beta ,x)|_{(\alpha ,x)=k\pi }0$$
(16)
for each $`\alpha 𝒜_+`$ and $`k𝐙`$. In particular,

$$\underset{\beta 𝒜_+,\beta \alpha }{}m_\alpha m_\beta (\alpha ,\beta )\mathrm{cot}(\beta ,x)|_{(\alpha ,x)=0}0.$$
(17)
must be satisfied on all the hyperplanes $`(\alpha ,x)=0.`$ It is easy to see that the last identities are equivalent to the set of identities

$$\underset{\beta 𝒜_+\mathrm{\Pi },\beta \alpha }{}m_\alpha m_\beta (\alpha ,\beta )\mathrm{cot}(\beta ,x)|_{(\alpha ,x)=0}0$$
(18)
hold for any plane $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ containing vector $`\alpha 𝒜_+.`$

Let’s look now at these two-dimensional identities. Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ be the plane generated by $`\alpha ,\beta 𝒜_+,\alpha \beta `$. We can assume that $`(\alpha ,\beta )0`$ since otherwise the identity is trivially satisfied. All the vectors $`\gamma 𝒜_+\mathrm{\Pi }`$ can be splitted into equivalence classes $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ according to the equivalence relation: $`\gamma \gamma ^{}`$ if

$$\gamma ^{}=\pm \gamma +\mu \alpha $$
(19)
for some $`\mu .`$ 111Similar equivalence has been introduced by M.V.Feigin in the theory of trigonometric locus configurations . The restrictions of $`\mathrm{cot}(\gamma ,x)`$ and $`\mathrm{cot}(\gamma ^{},x)`$ on the intersection line of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ with the hyperplane $`(\alpha ,x)=0`$ are the same up to a sign. To take care of this sign let us introduce a skew-symmetric bilinear form $`B=B_{a,b}(\alpha ,\beta )`$ related to a pair of vectors $`a,b𝐑^n`$ by the formula

$$B_{a,b}(\alpha ,\beta )=(\alpha ,a)(\beta ,b)(\alpha ,b)(\beta ,b).$$

It is easy to check that the identity (18) for the plane $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is equivalent to the set of relations

$$\underset{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_s,\gamma \alpha }{}m_\alpha m_\gamma (\alpha ,\gamma )B(\alpha ,\gamma )=0$$
(20)
for all the equivalence classes $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_p.`$ As a corollary we have the same relation on each plane $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$:

$$\underset{\beta \alpha ,\beta 𝒜_+\mathrm{\Pi }}{}m_\alpha m_\beta (\alpha ,\beta )B(\alpha ,\beta )=0$$
(21)
and thus in the whole space:

$$\underset{\beta \alpha ,\beta 𝒜_+}{}m_\alpha m_\beta (\alpha ,\beta )B(\alpha ,\beta )=0$$
(22)
for any $`\alpha 𝒜_+.`$

Let us introduce now the operators $`M_\alpha `$ in $`𝐑^n`$ by the relation

$$M_\alpha =m_\alpha \alpha \alpha ,$$

where by definition $`\alpha \beta (x)=(\beta ,x)\alpha .`$ Let $`M`$ be the sum

$$M=\underset{\alpha 𝒜_+}{}m_\alpha \alpha \alpha .$$

Now we need the following natural definition. We will call a configuration $`𝒜`$ irreducible if it can not be splitted into two non-trivial orthogonal parts.

Lemma 2. The Main Identity (15) implies that all the operators $`M_\alpha ,\alpha 𝒜_+`$ commute with $`M`$. For irreducible configurations this means that $`M`$ is a scalar operator: $`M=\mu I`$ for some $`\mu `$.

Indeed, the commutator $`C_\alpha =[M,M_\alpha ]`$ is $`C_\alpha =[\underset{\beta 𝒜_+}{}m_\beta \beta \beta ,m_\alpha \alpha \alpha ]=\underset{\beta \alpha ,\beta 𝒜_+}{}m_\alpha m_\beta (\alpha ,\beta )(\alpha \beta \beta \alpha ).`$ It is easy to see that the relations (22) are equivalent to $`(C_\alpha (a),b)=0`$ for arbitrary $`a,b𝐑^n`$ which imply that $`C_\alpha =0.`$ The commutativity of the operator $`M`$ with $`M_\alpha `$ means that any $`\alpha 𝒜`$ is an eigenvector of the (self-adjoint) operator $`M`$. If $`M`$ has two different eigenvalues than $`𝒜`$ can be splitted into two orthogonal parts which is impossible in the irreducible case. This proves the Lemma.

Now everything is ready for the proof of our main result. For a given configuration $`𝒜`$ let us define the set $`𝔄`$ in the Euclidean space $`V=𝐑^nV^{}`$ by taking all the vectors of the form $`\sqrt{m_\alpha }\alpha ,\alpha 𝒜_+.`$

Lemma 3. If $`𝒜`$ is irreducible and satisfies the Main Identity then $`𝔄`$ satisfies the relations (12) from the previous section.

Indeed, due to lemma 2 in this case $`G^𝔄=\underset{\alpha 𝒜_+}{}m_\alpha \alpha \alpha `$ is proportional to the scalar product in $`𝐑^n.`$ The same is obviously true for $`G_𝔄`$ so the relations (12) are reduced to (21).

Remark. Strictly speaking we should consider only positive multiplicities in order to stay on reals but one can easily check that the resulting function

$$F(x)=\underset{\alpha 𝒜_+}{}m_\alpha (\alpha ,x)^2\mathrm{log}(\alpha ,x)^2$$

is real even in the case of negative multiplicities and all the arguments work in the complex case as well.

Combining these three lemmas with the Proposition 1 we have the proof of the Theorem in the irreducible case. Reducible case then easily follows.

Now using the results of  we have the following

Corollary. For any configuration $`𝒜`$ satisfying the Main Identity the corresponding set $`𝔄`$ is a $``$-system in the sense of . In particular the following differential operators of the Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov type

$$_a=_a\underset{\alpha 𝒜_+}{}m_\alpha \frac{(\alpha ,a)}{(\alpha ,x)}\alpha \alpha .$$
(23)
commute and therefore define a flat connection in $`𝐑^n`$ .

As the examples one can consider the following ”locus configurations” $`A_n(m)`$ and $`C_{n+1}(m,l)`$ which have been introduced in . They consist of the following vectors in $`𝐑^{n+1}`$:

$$A_n(m)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}e_ie_j,\hfill & 1i<jn,\hfill & \mathrm{with}\mathrm{multiplicity}m,\hfill \\ e_i\sqrt{m}e_{n+1},\hfill & i=1,\mathrm{},n\hfill & \mathrm{with}\mathrm{multiplicity}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1},\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$C_{n+1}(m,l)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}e_i\pm e_j,\hfill & 1i<jn,\hfill & \mathrm{with}\mathrm{multiplicity}k,\hfill \\ 2e_i,\hfill & i=1,\mathrm{},n\hfill & \mathrm{with}\mathrm{multiplicity}m,\hfill \\ e_i\pm \sqrt{k}e_{n+1},\hfill & i=1,\mathrm{},n\hfill & \mathrm{with}\mathrm{multiplicity}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1},\hfill \\ 2\sqrt{k}e_{n+1}\hfill & \mathrm{with}\mathrm{multiplicity}l,\hfill & \end{array}$$

where $`k=\frac{2m+1}{2l+1}`$. The fact that they satisfy the Main Identity (for all values of the parameters) can be checked by direct calculation. Our Theorem thus explains the observation  that the corresponding functions $`F`$ satisfy the generalised WDVV equation.

## Concluding remarks.

We have seen that the Main Identity is behind the relation between the locus configurations and WDVV equation. Since there are locus configurations without this property this explains also why this relation does not always work . An interesting problem is to classify all locus configurations which satisfy the Main Identity. The fact that this is true for the series $`A_n(m)`$ and $`C_{n+1}(m,l)`$ seems to be very important. In particular, as it follows from our analysis in the previous section these configurations (with integer parameters) are the ”vector systems” in the Borcherds’ sense . Their role in Borcherds’ theory deserves a special investigation.

We have already mentioned the relations with the theory of symmetric spaces and the radial parts of the Laplace operators for the usual root systems. It is interesting that the operators related to $`A_n(m)`$ and $`C_{n+1}(m,l)`$ also can be interpreted in a similar way using the Lie superalgebras and symmetric superspaces as it was recently discovered by A.N. Sergeev . This relation gives some new interesting examples of the integrable deformations of Calogero-Sutherland operators satisfying the Main Identity  (and therefore new solutions for the WDVV equation).

## Acknowledgements.

I am grateful to O.A. Chalykh, M.V. Feigin, V.V. Nikulin and A.N. Sergeev for stimulating discussions and useful comments.

This work has been partially supported by EPSRC.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There have been a lot of interest in understanding black hole entropy from a microscopical description, using either string theory  or loop quantum gravity . A third symmetry-based approach originated by Strominger  and Birmingham, Sachs and Sen  is attracting more and more interest -. This method assumes that the symmetries of a black hole horizon are good enough, first to survive a quantification, and second to count the density of states at a given energy. The main argument in favor of these new ideas is probably that they seem to work, although we still do not clearly understand why.

Let us start by summarizing the key points of this calculation: Given a boundary of spacetime (spatial infinity for Strominger  or the black hole horizon in Carlip  and Solodukhin  works), we need to identify the diffeomorphisms which preserve the boundary conditions. Let us assume that their associated algebra contains at least one sub-algebra isomorphic to Diff$`(S^1)`$. This sub-algebra can be parametrized by a (infinite) discrete set of vector fields $`\xi _n^\mu (x)`$, $`n\text{Z}\text{Z}`$ that satisfy

$$i\{\xi _m,\xi _n\}=(mn)\xi _{m+n},$$
(1)
where $`\{,\}`$ denotes the Lie bracket between vector fields (the spacetime index μ has been omitted).

The next step consists in constructing, either using an Hamiltonian  or a covariant-Lagrangian formalism -, the charges associated with each of these vector fields:

$$\xi _n(x)Q_n.$$
(2)
This is usually a difficult and “boundary condition dependent” task. Indeed, only in the cases where the asymptotic conditions which generate the algebra (1) are fully understood, $`Q_n`$ can be derived methodically.

But let us assume that we found these charges. A bracket is then defined by $`[Q_m,Q_n]:=\delta _{\xi _m}Q_n`$ where $`\delta _{\xi _m}`$ is the Lie derivative along $`\xi _m^\mu `$ which acts only on the fields (but not on the vectors $`\xi _n^\mu `$). In this situation, a notable theorem by Brown and Henneaux  shows an isomorphism between the two brackets $`\{.,.\}`$ and $`[.,.]`$ up to central charges (a Lagrangian version of this theorem is derived in ). In particular, from the algebra (1), we get,

$$i[Q_m,Q_n]=(mn)Q_{m+n}+\frac{c}{12}m(m^21)\delta _{m+n},$$
(3)
for some central extension $`c`$ to be determined. We emphasize here that the freedom of shifting $`Q_0`$ by a constant has been fixed by the contribution linear in $`m`$ to the central charge (and then $`Q_1`$, $`Q_0`$ and $`Q_1`$ form a proper $`sl(2,\text{I}\mathrm{R})`$ sub-algebra).

Once $`Q_0`$ and $`c`$ are found, the next idea is to insert them in a Cardy-like formula  to find the entropy of the black hole

$$S=2\pi \sqrt{\frac{c}{6}Q_0}.$$
(4)
The last step is simply to check whether this calculation reproduces or not the well-known semi-classical result.

It is still under discussion why the formula (4) would or should work111Using either the derived $`Q_0`$ and $`c`$, or some “effective” ones. (see the nice references ). In fact, the Cardy’s result comes from a quantum calculation in a two dimensional conformal field theory which has not been identified in our gravitational theory. Moreover, it is not obvious why the classical central charge of equation (3) would then be protected by quantum corrections. Therefore, only a full understanding of the quantum theory which governs the black hole horizon would be able to answer these questions.

However, following Strominger , we can still investigate whether, when and how this Cardy equation works. This is the purpose of this manuscript. To proceed, we first propose a straightforward method (based on one single equation) to compute $`Q_0`$ and $`c`$ on the horizon of any $`D`$-dimensional black hole ($`D3`$). We then show in specific examples that these derived $`Q_0`$ and $`c`$ indeed reproduce the area law formula (with the correct normalization) when used in equation (4). Our construction is strongly inspired from Carlip’s results , although it differs in the construction of $`Q_0`$. A detailed comparison with these works is carried out.

In section 2, we explain and motivate our new construction of $`Q_0`$ and $`c`$, and compare it with previous results found in the literature (see also appendix A). In section 3, we study the examples of BTZ black hole at spatial infinity and on the horizon (the Carlip boundary conditions are discussed in appendix B and the Eddington-Finkelstein change of coordinates in appendix C). In both cases, we find that equation (4) correctly reproduces the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy. We then show how the first law of black hole thermodynamics is embedded in our framework. Finally, we extend our investigation to a general four-dimensional Kerr-adS black hole (which covers Schwarzschild, Kerr and adS-Schwarzschild black holes). We again find a perfect agreement for the entropy computed on the horizon using the Cardy formula.

## 2 A direct derivation of $`Q_0`$ and $`c`$

The charges associated with the diffeomorphism invariance of general relativity depend on the boundary considered. In concrete, there is no general formula like $`Q=_{bd}𝒬[g]`$, for some density $`𝒬[g]`$, which would be defined independently of the boundary “bd”. This is due to the fact that an unambiguous construction of $`𝒬[g]`$ depends necessarily on the boundary conditions222A general formula for the charges was recently given in  following the methods of Anderson and Torres . This formalism requires that the metric approaches a given background metric on the boundary. However in some cases as Brane-World scenarios, no background metric is needed in order to define conserved charges . .

On the other hand, a general boundary-independent formula for the variation of the charge $`𝜹𝒬[g]`$ can be derived from first principles . This formula depends only on the gauge symmetry and on the equations of motion of the theory . For gravity in any spacetime dimension $`D3`$ with or without cosmological constant, the variation of the charge $`Q_n`$ associated with the diffeomorphism $`\xi _n^\mu (x)`$ is given by :

$$𝜹Q_n=_{\mathrm{𝑏𝑑}}\frac{1}{16\pi G}\left(2_\sigma \xi _n^\tau 𝜹\left(\sqrt{\left|g\right|}g^{\sigma [\mu }\delta _\tau ^{\nu ]}\right)+6𝜹\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \sigma }^\tau \right)\sqrt{\left|g\right|}g^{\sigma [\mu }\delta _\tau ^\nu \xi _n^{\rho ]}\right)𝑑S_{\mu \nu }$$
(5)
with $`dS_{\mu \nu }`$ the bi-normal to the intersection between the spacetime boundary considered and a (partial) Cauchy hypersurface.

The equation (5) is valid on any boundary of spacetime whose boundary conditions are compatible with the variational principle333A given set of boundary conditions are compatible with the variational principle if there exits a Lagrangian $``$ in the class $`+_\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }^\mu `$, such that on-shell $`\delta =0`$ (with no boundary terms).. In particular, it has been used at spatial infinity  to recover a covariant formulation of the ADM mass  and also on a Brane-World to properly define its associated conserved charges . The purpose of this paper is to study this equation (5) on the horizon of a black hole. We then assume that there exits a properly defined set of boundary conditions on the horizon compatible with the variational principle (although we will not need to find it explicitely). The main point is that equation (5) will then allow us first, to compute directly the zero mode $`Q_0`$ and the central charge $`c`$ and second, to derive the first law of black hole thermodynamics.

To proceed, let us use the general formula (5) with $`𝜹=\delta _{\xi _m}`$ that is a Lie derivative along $`\xi _m^\mu (x)`$ given by

$$\delta _\xi g_{\mu \nu }=2_{(\mu }\xi _{\nu )},\delta _\xi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \sigma }^\tau =\frac{1}{2}g^{\tau \nu }\left(_\rho \delta _\xi g_{\sigma \nu }+_\sigma \delta _\xi g_{\rho \nu }_\nu \delta _\xi g_{\rho \sigma }\right).$$
(6)
Dropping the following total derivative

$$\frac{6}{16\pi G}_\rho \left(\sqrt{\left|g\right|}\xi _n^{[\mu }^\nu \xi _m^{\rho ]}\right),$$
(7)
the equation (5) then reduces to:

$`[Q_m,Q_n]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\xi _m}Q_n`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{𝑏𝑑}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\left|g\right|}}{16\pi G}}[^\mu \xi _n^\nu _\rho \xi _m^\rho ^\mu \xi _m^\nu _\rho \xi _n^\rho +2_\rho \xi _n^\mu ^\rho \xi _m^\nu `$
$`+(^{\mu \nu }{}_{\rho \sigma }{}^{}2\delta _\rho ^\mu ^\nu {}_{\sigma }{}^{})\xi _n^\rho \xi _m^\sigma (\mu \nu )]dS_{\mu \nu },`$
with $`^{\mu \nu }_{\rho \sigma }`$ the Riemann tensor of the metric.

Results similar to equation (8) can be found in the literature , and are described in the appendix A. In addition, an alternative definition for the bracket between two charges was given in the reference  (see equation (A.1)). As shown in section 3, this other bracket fails to reproduce the known charges at spatial infinity. We will also discuss its applicability on the horizon.

The main point is that equation (8) can be used for any metric which satisfies Einstein equations, and not necessarily for a fixed background metric. Then, given a black hole solution and a subset of diffeomorphisms $`\xi _n(x)`$, we can compute the left-hand side of equation (3) for any $`n`$ and $`m`$ using the single formula (8). In particular, we can consider $`m=n=1`$ and $`m=n=2`$:

$`i[Q_1,Q_1]`$ $`=`$ $`2Q_0.`$ (9)
$`i[Q_2,Q_2]`$ $`=`$ $`4Q_0+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2}}.`$ (10)
The left-hand side of these equations being known, it is then easy to single out $`Q_0`$ and $`c`$.

We would like to insist on the following very important point: the normalization of $`Q_0`$ is fixed in our proposal by requiring that the charges $`Q_1`$, $`Q_0`$ and $`Q_1`$ form a $`sl(2,\text{I}\mathrm{R})`$ sub-algebra. This means that the right-hand side of equations (3), (9) and (10) are completely determined and we cannot shift $`Q_0`$ by some constant anymore. The claim is then that the $`Q_0`$ and the $`c`$ computed in that way on the horizon are the effective quantities to be used in the Cardy formula (4). We show how this works for specific examples in the next section. Of course, it would be more gratifying to have a general proof of this statement; a proof for instance based on a quantum conformal theory living on the horizon. This is however out of the scope of this work.

The problem of the global normalization of $`Q_0`$, and how to fix it, is obviously a key feature if we want to compute the entropy à la Cardy. The usual Regge and Teitelboim  or the covariant symplectic methods  give $`Q_0`$ only up to a constant shift. At spatial infinity, this constant is fixed by requiring that the charge vanishes on a “natural background”, as for instance Minkowski spacetime. On the horizon, the problem is more involved because it is hard to define a background on which $`Q_0`$ would be set to vanish. For instance, it is not clear to the author what would be a natural background for a Kerr black hole, near to the horizon (Minkowski space does not have an internal boundary). Finally, in the reference  the arbitrary shift in $`Q_0`$ was fixed a posteriori so that the Cardy formula gave the expected Bekenstein-Hawking result. However, this approach is quite unsatisfactory in the sense that the non-trivial check of the entropy calculation is lost.

In summary, given a black hole solution and a set of vector fields $`\xi _n^\mu (x)`$ satisfying equation (1), we can directly compute $`Q_0`$ and $`c`$ (and then the entropy $`S`$) by making use of equations (8), (9) and (10).

## 3 Examples

In the following examples we use the method given in the previous section in order to compute $`Q_0`$ and $`c`$. We start with the rotating BTZ black hole in three dimensions, at spatial infinity and on the horizon. We then study the four dimensional adS-Kerr solution. We simultaneously compare our results with recent works on the subject . Finally, we will also use equation (5) to derive the (local) first law of black hole thermodynamics.

### 3.1 The BTZ black hole at spatial infinity

The metric of the rotating BTZ black hole in Schwarzschild-type coordinates is given by :

$$ds^2=N^2dt^2+N^2dr^2+r^2\left(N_\varphi dt+d\varphi \right)^2,$$
(11)
with

$`N^2(r)`$ $`=`$ $`8MG+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16J^2G^2}{r^2}}`$ (12)
$`N_\varphi (r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4JG}{r^2}}.`$ (13)
The horizon of the black hole is located at $`r_+`$, defined by:

$$r_\pm ^2=4MGl^2\left(1\pm \sqrt{1J^2/(Ml)^2}\right).$$
(14)
Moreover, the area, angular momentum and surface gravity on the horizon are respectively:

$`𝒜`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi r_+,`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4JG}{r_+^2}},`$ (16)
$`\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_+^2r_{}^2}{l^2r_+}}.`$ (17)
At spatial infinity ($`r\mathrm{}`$), the BTZ metric has the two sets of asymptotic Killing fields found by Brown and Henneaux . A simple basis for these vector fields is:

$`\xi _n^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{in(t/l+\varphi )}(l,irn,1)+(O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}),O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}),O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}))`$ (18)
$`\xi _n^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{in(t/l\varphi )}(l,irn,1)+(O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}),O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}),O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}})).`$ (19)
The overall normalization is chosen such that the Lie bracket between two vectors gives properly normalized Diff$`(S^1)`$ algebras,

$`i\{\xi _m^+,\xi _n^+\}`$ $`=`$ $`(mn)\xi _{m+n}^+`$ (20)
$`i\{\xi _m^{},\xi _n^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`(mn)\xi _{m+n}^{}`$ (21)
$`i\{\xi _m^+,\xi _n^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (22)
We then use the metric (11) and the vector fields (18) and (19) in equation (8). After performing the integration over $`\varphi `$ from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$ and taking the limit $`r\mathrm{}`$, we get:

$`[Q_m^+,Q_n^+]`$ $`=`$ $`i\delta _{m+n}\left(m(lMJ)+m^3{\displaystyle \frac{l}{8G}}\right)`$ (23)
$`[Q_m^{},Q_n^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`i\delta _{m+n}\left(m(lM+J)+m^3{\displaystyle \frac{l}{8G}}\right)`$ (24)
$`[Q_m^+,Q_n^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (25)
The left hand sides of equations (9) and (10) can then be directly read from equations (23) and (24) for $`m=n=1`$ and $`m=n=2`$. A simple rearrangement then gives:

$`Q_0^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(lMJ\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{l}{16G}}`$ (26)
$`Q_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(lM+J\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{l}{16G}}`$ (27)
$`c^+`$ $`=`$ $`c^{}={\displaystyle \frac{3l}{2G}}`$ (28)
in perfect agreement with .

The Strominger’s derivation  of the black hole entropy using the Cardy formula is almost straightforward. There is just a subtle point which concerns the effective values of $`Q_0^\pm `$ to be used in equation (4). As discussed in , the adS3 metric is recovered from the BTZ solution (11) not by taking $`M=0`$ but instead $`M=\frac{1}{8G}`$ (and $`J=0`$). Indeed, the generators (26) and (27) came naturally normalized such that $`Q_0^\pm |_{adS_3}=0`$. However, there is no physical solution (a spacetime without naked singularities) between $`M=\frac{1}{8G}`$ and $`M=0`$. Therefore, the continuous spectrum of solutions starts with $`M0`$ (and $`J^2M^2l^2`$). Following Strominger, the states responsible for the entropy are then fluctuations above the vacuum $`M=J=0`$. The properly normalized zero modes which annihilate this vacuum are simply $`\overline{Q}_0^\pm =Q_0^\pm \frac{c^\pm }{24}`$. Using these in the Cardy formula (4), we then recover the famous result:

$$S=2\pi \sqrt{\frac{c^+}{6}\overline{Q}_0^+}+2\pi \sqrt{\frac{c^{}}{6}\overline{Q}_0^{}}=\frac{𝒜}{4G}.$$
(29)
Note finally that if we work with the bracket (A.1) instead of the formula (8) to compute the left-hand side of equations (9) and (10), we cannot reproduce the known results (26)-(29). In fact, a direct calculation gives $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_0^\pm =\frac{r^2}{4lG}+\frac{Ml}{2}+\frac{l}{16G}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c}^\pm =\frac{3l}{2G}`$. Although the central charges are unchanged, the charges $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_0^\pm `$ are equal to each other (the dependence in $`J`$ is lost) and diverge at $`r\mathrm{}`$. Now, even when we use the renormalized $`\overline{Q}_0^\pm =\frac{Ml}{2}`$ in the Cardy formula, we cannot recover the semi-classical value for the entropy.

### 3.2 The BTZ black hole at the horizon

The idea is to repeat the above exercise on the horizon. To proceed, we first need to identify a family of Diff$`(S^1)`$ vector fields which preserve the structure of the horizon. Following the work of Carlip  summarized in the appendix B, we consider a set of diffeomorphisms given by (see equation (B.12)):

$$\xi _n^\mu =T_n\chi ^\mu +R_n\rho ^\mu $$
(30)
where $`\chi ^\mu =(1,0,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is the Killing field whose norm vanishes on the horizon. The vector $`\rho ^\mu `$ is defined by formula (B.3).

Let us then consider the general ansatz (obviously motivated by the search of a Diff$`(S^1)`$ algebra) for the functions $`T_n`$,

$$T_n=\frac{1}{\alpha +\mathrm{\Omega }}e^{in\left(\varphi +\alpha t+f(r)\right)},$$
(31)
and therefore (to leading order, see equation (B.13)),

$$R_n=in\frac{\alpha +\mathrm{\Omega }}{\kappa }T_n.$$
(32)
The requirement that the vector fields $`\xi _n`$ satisfy the Diff$`(S^1)`$ algebra (1) first, fixes the overall normalization and second, implies that the arbitrary function $`f(r)`$ has to be well-behaved on the horizon when Schwarzschild coordinates are used. That is $`f(r)`$ should be finite as $`rr_+`$. This condition is indeed a consequence of equation (B.14). In fact, in Schwarzschild coordinates, $`\rho ^\mu _\mu T_n(rr_+)_rf(r)`$ vanishes on the horizon only if $`f(r)`$ is well defined on $``$. The constant parameter $`\alpha `$ will be discussed later.

So, using the vector fields (30) in equation (8), integrating over $`\varphi `$ and taking the limit $`rr_+`$, we get:

$$[Q_m,Q_n]=i\delta _{m+n}m^3\frac{𝒜}{8\pi G}\frac{\alpha +\mathrm{\Omega }}{\kappa }.$$
(33)
We see that the dependence in the arbitrary function $`f(r)`$, completely disappears from the final expression (33). Note however that the regularity of $`f(r)`$ on the horizon was required in order to obtain this result. Next, we use this formula (33) together with equations (9) and (10) to single out the zero-mode and the central charge:

$`Q_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +\mathrm{\Omega }}{\kappa }}`$ (34)
$`c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3𝒜}{2\pi G}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +\mathrm{\Omega }}{\kappa }}.`$ (35)
Using finally these results in the Cardy formula (4), we obtain:

$$S=\frac{𝒜}{4G}\frac{\alpha +\mathrm{\Omega }}{\kappa }.$$
(36)
This coincides with the usual semiclassical formula only for

$$\alpha =\kappa \mathrm{\Omega },$$
(37)
which was imposed by hand in .

One can however intuitively argue in favor of this assignment (37): the natural variables on the horizon are $`v_{}=\varphi \mathrm{\Omega }t`$ (since $`\chi ^\mu _\mu v_{}=0`$) and $`t`$, with periods $`2\pi `$ and $`\frac{2\pi }{\kappa }`$ respectively. However, this period $`\frac{2\pi }{\kappa }`$ is based on the semi-classical computation of Gibbons and Hawking , which we would like to avoid in our symmetry-based calculation of thermodynamical quantities. An independent way for understanding equation (37) is expected to exist, but unknown to the author.

In the rest of this subsection we compare the results (34), (35) and (36) with previous works . First, our equation (33) is in essence equivalent to equation (3.8) of  (with $`\alpha +\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{2\pi }{T}`$). However, the construction of our zero mode (34) differs from the one given in the reference  (which was later criticized in ).

Let us now use the general ansatz (31) in the modified bracket (A.1). After integrating over $`\varphi `$ and taking the limit $`rr_+`$, we get:

$$\left[[Q_m,Q_n]\right]=i\delta _{m+n}\left(m\frac{𝒜}{4\pi G}\frac{\kappa }{\alpha +\mathrm{\Omega }}+m^3\frac{𝒜}{8\pi G}\frac{\alpha +\mathrm{\Omega }}{\kappa }\right).$$
(38)
Then using the same argument above equations (9) and (10), we find

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜}{8\pi G}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{\alpha +\mathrm{\Omega }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +\mathrm{\Omega }}{\kappa }}`$ (39)
$`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3𝒜}{2\pi G}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +\mathrm{\Omega }}{\kappa }}.`$ (40)
First, a naive use of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ in the Cardy formula (4) does not work. Now, even if we assume that equation (37) holds, the equation (4) gives $`S=\sqrt{3}\frac{𝒜}{4G}`$.

In the references , the zero-mode was computed using the Komar integral (A.3). The result is indeed consistent with equation (39), up to a constant shift:

$$J_0=\stackrel{~}{Q}_0\frac{\stackrel{~}{c}}{24}=\frac{𝒜}{8\pi G}\frac{\kappa }{\alpha +\mathrm{\Omega }}.$$
(41)
Then, if we use this effective $`J_0`$ in the Cardy formula, we find $`S=\sqrt{2}\frac{𝒜}{4G}`$, independently of the value of $`\alpha `$. This $`\sqrt{2}`$-anomaly was first pointed out in . Indeed, up to a change of variable described in appendix C, the “extended symmetries” proposed in  are nothing but a special case of equation (31), namely for $`\alpha =\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Finally, in Carlip second paper , the relation $`\alpha =\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }`$ is assumed from the beginning and therefore equation (41) gives $`\frac{𝒜}{8\pi G}`$. In order to avoid the $`\sqrt{2}`$ anomaly discussed before, another $`\frac{c}{24}`$ was then removed from $`J_0`$. From our point of view, where the global normalization of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_0`$ is fixed by the form of the algebra (3), this last step looks a little artificial.

Therefore, only in the case where $`\frac{c}{24}`$ is removed twice from the “natural” generator (39) and equation (37) is assumed to hold, the bracket (A.1) succeeded in reproducing the correct black hole entropy. In that sense, our derivation based on equation (8) seems more straightforward since it only depends on the equality (37).

### 3.3 The first law of thermodynamics

The first law of black hole thermodynamics is also encoded in equation (5). This can indeed be proven in a general way using covariant symplectic methods . Now for a given black hole, we can check this first law in a simple way. The basic idea is to consider the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ as a functional of $`r_+`$ and $`J`$ (instead of $`M`$ and $`J`$). The BTZ metric is therefore given by equations (11) and (13), together with:

$$N^2=\frac{1}{l^2r^2}\left(r^2r_+^2\right)\left(r^2\left(\frac{4GlJ}{r_+}\right)^2\right).$$
(42)
In this case, a variation of $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is given by

$$𝜹g_{\mu \nu }=\frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{r_+}𝜹r_++\frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{J}𝜹J.$$
(43)
Then, using the timelike Killing vector $`\xi ^t=(1,0,0)`$ and the explicit form (43) of $`𝜹g_{\mu \nu }`$ in equation (5), we get

$$𝜹Q_t=\left(\frac{4GJ^2}{r_+^3}+\frac{r_+}{4Gl^2}\right)𝜹r_++\frac{4JG}{r_+^2}𝜹J.$$
(44)
Using then that444It is easy to check that $`\xi ^t`$ is associated with the mass of the black hole. In fact, using that $`\xi ^t=\frac{1}{l}(\xi _0^++\xi _0^{})`$ (see equations (18) and (19)), we get $`Q_t=\frac{1}{l}(Q_0^++Q_0^{})=M+\frac{1}{8G}`$ (see equations (26) and (27)). $`\delta Q_t=\delta M`$ together with the definitions (15), (16) and (17), the equation (44) can be rewritten as:

$$𝜹M=\frac{1}{8\pi G}\kappa 𝜹A+\mathrm{\Omega }𝜹J.$$
(45)
Note that this result is independent of the boundary considered in the equation (5). In fact, the integral does not depend on $`r`$ (when computed with $`\xi ^t`$ and with the BTZ metric).

### 3.4 Four dimensional black holes

Let us consider the Kerr-adS4 black hole  (see also -):

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_r}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\left(dt{\displaystyle \frac{a\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )}{\mathrm{\Xi }}}d\varphi \right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }_r}}dr^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta }}d\theta ^2`$ (46)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta \mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\left(adt{\displaystyle \frac{r^2+a^2}{\mathrm{\Xi }}}d\varphi \right)^2`$
with,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_r`$ $`=`$ $`\left(r^2+a^2\right)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l^2}}\right)2MGr`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{r_+}^{}(rr_+)+\left(6{\displaystyle \frac{r_+^2}{l^2}}+1+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}\right)(rr_+)^2`$
$`+4{\displaystyle \frac{r_+}{l^2}}(rr_+)^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l^2}}(rr_+)^4`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{r_+}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_r}{r}}|_{r=r_+}=r_+\left(3{\displaystyle \frac{r_+^2}{l^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}+1{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{r_+^2}}\right)`$ (48)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta `$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta )`$ (49)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta )`$ (50)
$`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}},`$ (51)
where $`r_+`$ is the highest root of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_r`$.

The area, angular velocity and the surface gravity (equation (B.6)) of the horizon are :

$`𝒜`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{r=r_+}}\sqrt{g_{\theta \theta }g_{\varphi \varphi }}d\theta d\varphi =4\pi {\displaystyle \frac{r_+^2+a^2}{\mathrm{\Xi }}}`$ (52)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{t\varphi }}{g_{\varphi \varphi }}}|_{r=r_+}={\displaystyle \frac{a\mathrm{\Xi }}{r_+^2+a^2}}`$ (53)
$`\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{r_+}^{}}{2(r_+^2+a^2)}}`$ (54)
The mass and angular momentum are given by555We used the superpotential of Katz, Bic̆ák and Lynden-Bell  (see also ) to compute $``$ and $`𝒥`$ (respectively associated with the Killing vectors $`_t`$ and $`_\varphi `$). The background metric to be used is the adS4 spacetime seen by a rotating observer which is obtain from (46) by setting $`M=0`$ .:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{\mathrm{\Xi }}}`$ (55)
$`𝒥`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{aM}{\mathrm{\Xi }^2}}.`$ (56)
Note that the Kerr solution, together with its charges and its thermodynamical quantities can be obtained from the metric (46) by taking the limit $`l\mathrm{}`$. The Schwarzschild solution then follows after setting $`a`$ to zero. Moreover, all our following results will remain valid in these limits.

Following section 3.2, the asymptotic diffeomorphisms on the horizon are given by equation (30). The null Killing vector field is now $`\chi ^\mu =(1,0,0,\mathrm{\Omega })`$. We choose a natural four-dimensional extension of the ansatz (31) for the functions $`T_n`$

$$T_n=\frac{1}{\alpha +\mathrm{\Omega }}e^{in\left(\varphi +\alpha t+f(r,\theta )\right)}.$$
(57)
The normalization of $`T_n`$ has been fixed by the algebra (1). Moreover, we can verify that the constraint (B.14) again requires that the arbitrary function $`f(r,\theta )`$ has to be well-defined (finite) in the limit $`rr_+`$.

We next use the metric (46) and the vector fields $`\xi _n^\mu `$ (derived from equations (30) and (57)) in the formula (8). After a tedious calculation, which involves integrating over $`\varphi `$ (from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$) and over $`\theta `$ (from $`0`$ to $`\pi `$) and taking the limit $`rr_+`$, we finally get:

$$[Q_m,Q_n]=i\delta _{m+n}m^3\frac{𝒜}{8\pi G}\frac{\alpha +\mathrm{\Omega }}{\kappa },$$
(58)
which is identical to (33). We can then follow the same argument to conclude that the semiclassical entropy is again recovered if equation (37) is satisfied.

Note that this derivation of the Kerr-adS4 black hole entropy remains equally valid for the Kerr and the Schwarzschild solutions since the limits $`l\mathrm{}`$ and $`a0`$ are always well defined.

We finally check that equation (5) indeed reproduces the first law of thermodynamics. To proceed, we use the same trick outlined by equation (43), that is, we re-express the metric (46) as a function of $`r_+`$ and $`a`$ in order to compute $`𝜹g_{\mu \nu }`$. Using this varied metric and the timelike Killing vector $`\xi ^t:=(1,0,0,0)`$ in equation (5), we get:

$`𝜹Q_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{r_+}^{}}{2r_+\mathrm{\Xi }G}}𝜹r_++{\displaystyle \frac{a\left(1+\frac{r_+^2}{l^2}\right)\left(3\frac{r_+^2}{l^2}+\frac{a^2}{l^2}+2\right)}{2r_+\mathrm{\Xi }^2G}}𝜹a`$ (59)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi G}}\kappa 𝜹A+\mathrm{\Omega }𝜹J.`$
We used equations (52), (53), (54) and (56) in the second line. Note moreover that the computed integral (5) is independent of $`r`$, and therefore remains valid on any boundary (at spatial infinity or on the horizon).

It is important to compare the result (59) with the first law derived explicitely in the reference . We first need to rewrite $`𝜹Q_t`$ in term of the mass (55). The simplest way to proceed is to re-consider the metric as a functional of $`M`$ and $`a`$. Using now $`𝜹g=\frac{g}{M}𝜹M+\frac{g}{a}𝜹a`$ in equation (5), we find:

$$𝜹Q_t=𝜹+\frac{a}{l^2\mathrm{\Xi }}𝜹a$$
(60)
Combining equations (59) and (60), we find after some simple algebra:

$$𝜹\left(\frac{}{\mathrm{\Xi }}\right)=\frac{1}{8\pi G}\kappa 𝜹A+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}𝜹J,$$
(61)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\mathrm{\Omega }+\frac{a}{l^2}`$ is the angular velocity at infinity . We then recovered the result given in .

## 4 Conclusion

We have presented a new method to derive the zero-mode $`Q_0`$ and the central charge $`c`$ of a given black hole solution. The entropy computed using the Cardy formula then coincides with the Bekenstein-Hawking formula. A simple derivation of the first law of black hole thermodynamics using our framework was also given.

We found a one-parameter family of Diff$`(S^1)`$ algebras which preserve the Carlip boundary conditions on the horizon. However, only one of them gives the correct entropy, namely for $`\alpha =\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }`$. We expect that there exists an additional natural constraint to be imposed on the horizon which would single out this particular Diff$`(S^1)`$ algebra. Finally, if new Diff$`(S^1)`$ algebras are found on the horizon, our formula (8) could then be used to check their ability to derive the black hole entropy.

We have then shown that the Cardy formula is able to handle a microscopical black hole entropy calculation with success. We hope to better understand in the future the quantum conformal theory on the horizon which is responsible for this remarkable result.

Acknowledgments.

I benefited from enlightening correspondence with G. Barnich, F. Brandt and S. Carlip and from discussions with G. Arutyunov and E. Lopez.

## Appendix A: Some comments on equation (8)

The purpose of this first appendix is to compare the equation (8) with similar results given in the literature.

Let us first assume that we have a natural background metric denoted by $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ on a given boundary (for instance flat metric at spatial infinity). We can then normalize the charges $`Q_n`$ such that $`Q_n[\overline{g}]=0`$. As a consequence of the formula (3), the equation (8) evaluated on this background $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ gives then the central charge. We can then compare this result with other formulas derived in the literature.

First, it is straightforward to check that on-shell ($`_{\mu \nu }=\frac{2}{D2}\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }`$), equation (8) evaluated on $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ perfectly agrees with the central charge formula found by Koga  using the covariant symplectic methods. This is not really a surprise since the “covariant Regge-Teitelboim” method  used to derive equation (5) is equivalent to the symplectic techniques developed by Ashtekar , Wald  and collaborators. This was shown in , and will be detailed also in .

A similar formula for the central charge was derived by Barnich and Brandt . There is again a good agreement with Koga’s and our results, up to the term $`(\overline{}^\rho \xi _m^\nu +\overline{}^\nu \xi _m^\rho )(\overline{}^\mu \xi _{\rho n}+\overline{}_\rho \xi _n^\mu )dS_{\mu \nu }`$. Although this extra contribution vanishes for all known examples666G. Barnich and F. Brandt, private communication., it would be of interest to understand its meaning.

An alternative to equation (8) for the bracket between two charges was derived by Carlip in  (see equation (3.3) (and (3.6)) of that paper). This bracket, also used by Jing and Yan  and by Dreyer, Ghosh and Wiśniewski , is denoted here by $`[[,]]`$ :

$`\left[[Q_m,Q_n]\right]={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{𝑏𝑑}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\left|g\right|}}{16\pi G}}`$ $`[\xi _m^\mu _\rho (^\rho \xi _n^\nu ^\nu \xi _n^\rho )\xi _n^\mu _\rho (^\rho \xi _m^\nu ^\nu \xi _m^\rho )`$ (A.1)
$`+\xi _m^\mu \xi _n^\nu (\mu \nu )]dS_{\mu \nu }`$
On-shell, the Lagrangian is related to the Ricci tensor by $`_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }`$. Then, it can be shown that the difference between equation (8) and equation (A.1) is (up to total derivatives analogous to (7))

$$_{\mathrm{𝑏𝑑}}\frac{\sqrt{\left|g\right|}}{16\pi G}[^\mu (\xi _m^\rho _\rho \xi _n^\nu \xi _n^\rho _\rho \xi _m^\nu )(\mu \nu )]dS_{\mu \nu }.$$
(A.2)
This is nothing but the (1/2) Komar superpotential  (also called Noether charge $`𝐐[g,\xi ]`$ in )

$$J[\xi ]=_{\mathrm{𝑏𝑑}}\frac{\sqrt{\left|g\right|}}{16\pi G}[^\mu \xi ^\nu (\mu \nu )]dS_{\mu \nu },$$
(A.3)
evaluated for the Lie bracket of the two vector fields $`\xi _m^\mu `$ and $`\xi _n^\nu `$. As pointed out in a footnote by Koga , the mismatch comes from the equation (3.2) of the reference . Indeed, if we assume that $`\delta _\xi `$ acts on the metric but not on the parameters, this equation (3.2) has to be modified to $`\delta _{\xi _m}J[\xi _n]=(\xi _m𝒅+𝒅\xi _m)J[\xi _n]J[\{\xi _m,\xi _n\}]`$ (see for instance equation (4.8) of  for the analogous example of Yang-Mills theory). The last term $`J[\{\xi _m,\xi _n\}]`$ gives the additional contribution (A.2) on the horizon. In the examples of section 3, the extra term (A.2) does modify the zero-mode $`Q_0`$ but not the central charge.

## Appendix B: Local Killing horizons : the Carlip’s approach

The goal of this appendix is to summarize part of the Carlip’s results  on the asymptotic symmetries of (local) Killing horizons. Although we present this work in a slightly rephrased way, the important results remain unchanged. We refer to the original paper for a detailed discussion.

Let us assume that a locally isolated Killing horizon can be characterized by some vector field $`\chi ^\mu `$, whose norm

$$\chi ^2=0.$$
(B.1)
vanishes on the horizon. We work on the stretched horizon, and we will take the limit $`\chi ^2=0`$ at the end of the calculations.

In the following, we just need to assume that the vector field $`\chi ^\mu `$ is a Killing vector on the horizon and a conformal Killing vector to first order777This is little weaker than the original assumption of Carlip that the vector $`\chi ^\mu `$ is a Killing vector in a neighborhood of the horizon.. Concretely, it is enough to require that:

$$_{(\mu }\chi _{\nu )}=O(\chi ^2)g_{\mu \nu }+O(\chi ^4).$$
(B.2)
Following Carlip’s paper, the vector normal to the horizon is defined by

$$\rho _\mu :=\frac{1}{2\kappa }_\mu \chi ^2.$$
(B.3)
Then, the norm of $`\rho _\mu `$ vanishes on the horizon (null hypersurface)

$$\rho ^2=O(\chi ^2).$$
(B.4)
Now, the normalization factor $`\kappa `$ in the definition of $`\rho _\mu `$ (B.3) is fixed by the requirement that close to the horizon,

$$\rho ^2=\chi ^2+O(\chi ^4).$$
(B.5)
The overall normalization of $`\chi `$ is therefore the only remaining free parameter. Moreover, from equations (B.2) and (B.3), $`\kappa `$ can be identified with the surface gravity associated with $`\chi `$,

$$\kappa ^2:=\underset{\chi ^20}{lim}\left(\frac{_\sigma \chi ^2^\sigma \chi ^2}{4\chi ^2}\right)=\underset{\chi ^20}{lim}\left(\frac{a^\sigma a_\sigma }{\chi ^2}\right),$$
(B.6)
with the acceleration given by $`a^\sigma :=\chi ^\mu _\mu \chi ^\sigma `$.

We can use equations (B.2) and (B.3) to derive some useful identities,

$`\rho ^\mu \chi _\mu `$ $`=`$ $`O(\chi ^4),`$ (B.7)
$`_\chi \rho _\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu (\rho \chi )=O(\chi ^2)\rho _\mu `$ (B.8)
$`_\chi \rho ^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`O(\chi ^2)\rho ^\mu .`$ (B.9)
The next step is to identify a set of diffeomorphisms of the metric which preserve some of the above structure. In particular and following Carlip, we require that the position and the normal direction of the black hole (equations (B.1) and (B.3)) remain unchanged under $`g_{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }+_\xi g_{\mu \nu }`$, that is:

$`\delta _\xi \chi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\chi ^\mu \chi ^\nu _\xi g_{\mu \nu }=O(\chi ^4)`$ (B.10)
$`\delta _\xi \rho _\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}_\mu \left(\chi ^\nu \chi ^\sigma _\xi g_{\nu \sigma }\right)=\rho _\mu O(\chi ^2)`$ (B.11)
For the ansatz

$$\xi ^\mu =R\rho ^\mu +T\chi ^\mu ,$$
(B.12)
the equations (B.10) and (B.11) are satisfy if

$$_\chi T+\kappa R=O(\chi ^2).$$
(B.13)
This equation then gives $`R`$ in term of $`T`$.

Finally, the closure of the Lie bracket between two asymptotic parameters (B.12) requires an additional constraint

$$\rho ^\mu _\mu T=O(\chi ^2)T.$$
(B.14)
Note that the vector field $`\xi ^\mu `$ does not need to be well defined on the horizon itself (this is indeed a coordinate dependent-statement). However, the associated charges should be finite.

## Appendix C: The BTZ metric in Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates

In Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates, the BTZ black hole is :

$$ds^2=N^2dv^2+2dvdr+r^2(N_\phi dt+d\phi )^2$$
(C.1)
with $`N^2`$ and $`N_\phi `$ given as before by equations (12) and (13).

The change between the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates $`(v,r,\phi )`$ and the usual Schwarzschild coordinates $`(t,r,\varphi )`$ is simply:

$`v`$ $`=`$ $`t+A(r)`$ (C.2)
$`r`$ $`=`$ $`r`$ (C.3)
$`\phi `$ $`=`$ $`\varphi +B(r),`$ (C.4)
where the functions $`A(r)`$ and $`B(r)`$ satisfy :

$`_rA`$ $`=`$ $`N^2`$ (C.5)
$`_rB`$ $`=`$ $`N^2N_\varphi .`$ (C.6)
Integrating equations (C.5) and (C.6) explicitely, we find:

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}\left(\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{rr_+}{r+r_+}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{r_{}}{r_+}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{rr_{}}{r+r_{}}}\right)\right)`$ (C.7)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2\kappa }}\left(\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{rr_+}{r+r_+}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{r_+}{r_{}}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{rr_{}}{r+r_{}}}\right)\right).`$ (C.8)
We can then use the asymptotic behavior of $`A`$ and $`B`$ close to the horizon,

$`A`$ $`\stackrel{rr_+}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}\mathrm{log}(rr_+)+O((rr_+)^0)`$ (C.9)
$`B`$ $`\stackrel{rr_+}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2\kappa }}\mathrm{log}(rr_+)+O((rr_+)^0)`$ (C.10)
to check that the “extended symmetries” proposed in 888Our conventions differs by a minus signs from those of , for the angular velocity and for the Diff$`(S^1)`$ algebra (1).,

$$T_n=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}e^{in(\phi +\mathrm{\Omega }v\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\kappa }\mathrm{log}(rr_+)))}$$
(C.11)
is in the coordinates $`t`$ and $`\varphi `$, a special case of the general ansatz (31) (namely for $`\alpha =\mathrm{\Omega }`$). We already saw in section 3.2 that the regular part of the functions $`A(r)`$ and $`B(r)`$ does contribute neither to the zero-mode nor to the central charge and therefore can be dropped out.


text:
# A Remark on Quantum Group Actions and Nuclearity

## 1 Introduction

The notion of compact quantum group has been axiomatized by Woronowicz  and some variations appeared in subsequent papers, e.g. . Here we shall consider compact quantum groups allowing a faithful Haar state and bounded counit, conditions that cover a rather wide range of applicability cf. .

In this note we will show that a $`C^{}`$-algebra acted upon by a compact quantum group with faithful Haar state and bounded counit is nuclear if and only if the fixed point algebra is nuclear. In particular, a compact quantum group with faithful Haar state and bounded counit is a nuclear $`C^{}`$-algebra. Notice however that our assumptions about the faithfulness of the Haar state and the boundedness of the counit are essential: there exist non-nuclear compact quantum groups, as we can infer from , second remark after the statement of Proposition 1.8, and .

As a special case, a $`C^{}`$-algebra acted upon by a compact group of automorphisms is nuclear if and only if the fixed point algebra is nuclear. Indeed this was our initial motivation, during a common discussion long ago at the Rome seminar on Operator Algebras, inspired by a result of Høegh-Krohn, Landstad and Størmer  showing that there is a compact ergodic action on a $`C^{}`$-algebra only if the algebra is nuclear, and by a lemma in . This particular case is discussed separately as it is a simple and clarifying illustration for the general case.

We notice that another extension of the result of Høegh-Krohn, Landstad and Størmer to compact matrix pseudogroups was already proved by Boca in , Corollary 23 : any $`C^{}`$-algebra acted upon ergodically by a nuclear compact matrix pseudogroup is again nuclear. Actually Boca’s proof works in the case of an ergodic action of an arbitrary nuclear compact quantum group.

We also analyse compact actions on von Neumann algebras where the analogous result holds for injective von Neumann algebras. This $`W^{}`$-version can however also be inferred from a similar result for crossed products due to Connes  and indeed can be extended in part to the case of integrable actions of locally compact groups or Kac algebras, but we do not treat this case here.

Our discussion is elementary, but in the last section ($`W^{}`$-case) we make use of the relation between injectivity and semi-discreteness due to Effros-Lance, Choi-Effros and Connes .

Notation:

If $`𝒜`$ is a -algebra we shall denote the identity map on $`𝒜`$ by $`\iota _\begin{array}{c}\\ 𝒜\end{array}`$, or simply by $`\iota `$. When $`𝒜`$ is unital, we shall denote its unit by $`1_𝒜`$.

The maximal tensor product for $`C^{}`$-algebras is denoted by $`_{\mathrm{max}}`$, the minimal one by $`_{\mathrm{min}}`$ or simply by $``$, the algebraic tensor product by $``$. For a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$, we shall usually identify $`A`$ and $`A`$ with $`A`$.

By a homomorphism we shall always mean a -homomorphism.

## 2 Basic Result

Let us call a conditional expectation $``$ on a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$ GNS-faithful if

$$xA\&(y^{}x^{}xy)=0\text{ for }yAx=0.$$

This means that the direct sum of the GNS representations associated with all $``$-invariant states is injective. Of course, $``$ is GNS-faithful if $``$ is faithful.

Let $`A`$ be a $`C^{}`$-algebra, $`A_0A`$ a $`C^{}`$-subalgebra and $`:AA_0`$ a conditional expectation.

If $`B`$ is any $`C^{}`$-algebra, it is easy to see that $`\iota _B:BABA_0`$ extends to a conditional expectation from $`B_{\mathrm{min}}A`$ to $`B_{\mathrm{min}}A_0`$, which is (GNS-)faithful if $``$ is (GNS-)faithful and which we denote by $`\iota _B`$.

We shall say that $``$ is stably (GNS-)faithful if, for every $`C^{}`$-algebra $`B`$, $`\iota _B`$ extends to a bounded (GNS-)faithful map $`\stackrel{~}{}:B_{\mathrm{max}}AB_{\mathrm{max}}A`$. In this case $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is a (GNS-)faithful conditional expectation from $`B_{\mathrm{max}}A`$ onto the closure of $`BA_0`$ in $`B_{\mathrm{max}}A`$.

###### Proposition 1.

Let $`A`$ be a $`C^{}`$-algebra, $`A_0A`$ a $`C^{}`$-subalgebra and $`:AA_0`$ a stably GNS-faithful conditional expectation. Then $`A`$ is nuclear iff $`A_0`$ is nuclear.

* The implication $`A`$ nuclear $``$ $`A_0`$ nuclear is known (indeed one just needs $`A_0`$ to be the range of a conditional expectation). One way to see this is to recall that $`A`$ is nuclear iff the enveloping von Neumann algebra $`A^{}`$ is injective , and to consider the double transposed conditional expectation $`^{}:A^{}A_0^{}`$. If $`A`$ is nuclear, $`A^{}`$ is injective, and then $`A_0^{}`$ is injective too, hence $`A_0`$ is nuclear.

Conversely, assume that $`A_0`$ is nuclear. Given a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`B`$, the identity map on the algebraic tensor product $`BA`$ extends to a homomorphism

$$\pi :B_{\mathrm{max}}AB_{\mathrm{min}}A.$$

To show that $`A`$ is nuclear, we have to prove $`\pi `$ to be one-to-one.

By assumption, there is a GNS-faithful conditional expectation $`\stackrel{~}{}:B_{\mathrm{max}}AB_{\mathrm{max}}A`$ extending $`\iota _B`$. Denoting the conditional expectation $`\iota _B`$ on $`B_{\mathrm{min}}A`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{}^{}`$, we clearly have a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}B_{\mathrm{max}}A& \stackrel{\pi }{}& B_{\mathrm{min}}A\\ \stackrel{~}{}& & \stackrel{~}{}^{}& & \\ B_{\mathrm{max}}A& \stackrel{\pi }{}& B_{\mathrm{min}}A\end{array}.$$
(1)
Since $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ maps $`BA`$ onto $`BA_0`$, by continuity $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ maps $`B_{\mathrm{max}}A`$ onto the closure of $`BA_0`$ in $`B_{\mathrm{max}}A`$, that we may denote by $`BA_0`$ since $`A_0`$ is nuclear. Then (1) yields the commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}B_{\mathrm{max}}A& \stackrel{\pi }{}& B_{\mathrm{min}}A\\ \stackrel{~}{}& & \stackrel{~}{}^{}& & \\ BA_0& \stackrel{\iota _{\begin{array}{c}\\ BA_0\end{array}}}{}& BA_0\end{array}.$$
(2)
Now if $`xB_{\mathrm{max}}A`$ belongs to the kernel of $`\pi `$, then $`\stackrel{~}{}^{}\left(\pi (y^{}x^{}xy)\right)=0`$ for all $`yB_{\mathrm{max}}A`$. By the commutativity of diagram (2) we have $`\stackrel{~}{}(y^{}x^{}xy)=0`$ for all $`yB_{\mathrm{max}}A`$, so $`x=0`$ because $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is GNS-faithful. We conclude that $`\pi `$ is injective and $`A`$ nuclear.   $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Compact Group Actions and Nuclearity

In the sequel, group actions on $`C^{}`$-algebras and von Neumann algebras will be assumed continuous in the usual sense, namely pointwise norm continuity in the $`C^{}`$-case and pointwise weak-continuity in the $`W^{}`$-case.

###### Proposition 2.

Let $`\alpha :G\text{Aut}(A)`$ be an action of a compact group $`G`$ on a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$. Then $`A`$ is nuclear iff the fixed point $`C^{}`$-subalgebra $`A^\alpha `$ is nuclear.

* Let $`_\alpha :AA^\alpha `$ be the conditional expectation defined by

$$_\alpha (a)=\alpha _g(a)\text{d}g,aA.$$

According to Proposition 1, it suffices to show that $`_\alpha `$ is stably faithful.

The action $`\beta =\iota _B\alpha `$ on $`BA`$ preserves the maximal cross norm $`_{\mathrm{max}}`$. Furthermore, $`Gg\beta _g(x)`$ is continuous for every $`xBA`$ with respect to $`_{\mathrm{max}}`$. Thus $`\beta `$ extends to an action $`\beta ^{\mathrm{max}}`$ of $`G`$ on $`B_{\mathrm{max}}A`$.

Set

$$_\beta (x)=\beta _g^{\mathrm{max}}(x)\text{d}g,xB_{\mathrm{max}}A.$$

Then $`_\beta `$ is a faithful conditional expectation because we have

$$_\beta (x)=\beta _g^{\mathrm{max}}(x)\text{d}g=0\beta _g^{\mathrm{max}}(x)=0gG$$

for every positive $`xB_{\mathrm{max}}A`$. Since $`_\beta `$ maps $`BA`$ onto $`BA^\alpha `$ and $`_\beta |_{BA}=\iota _\alpha `$, we see that $`_\alpha `$ is stably faithful.   $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Quantum Group Actions and Nuclearity

Following Woronowicz and Van Daele , by a compact quantum group we shall mean a unital $`C^{}`$-algebra $`H`$ equipped with a comultiplication $`\delta `$, that is a unital homomorphism $`\delta :HHH`$ satisfying

$$(\delta \iota _H)\delta =(\iota _H\delta )\delta ,$$

such that

$$\delta (H)(H1_H)\text{ and }\delta (H)(1_HH)\text{ are linearly dense in }HH.$$

According to , there then exists a unique Haar state on $`H`$, that is a state $`\phi `$ which satisfies the invariance condition

$$\left((\phi \iota _H)\delta \right)(x)=\left((\iota _H\phi )\delta \right)(x)=\phi (x)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_H,xH.$$
(3)
We notice that by condition (3) the fixed point algebra

$$H^\delta =\{xH;\delta (x)=x1_H\}\text{ is equal to }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_H.$$
(4)
The unique Haar state $`\phi `$ is not necessarily faithful. However, the cyclic vector $`\xi _\phi `$ of the GNS-representation $`\pi _\phi `$ is also separating for $`\pi _\phi (H)^{\prime \prime }`$. Indeed, $`\delta `$ lifts to a comultiplication $`\delta _\phi `$ on $`M_\phi =\pi _\phi (H)^{\prime \prime }`$ (see e.g. , Theorem 2.4) and the vector state $`\omega _{\xi _\phi }`$ on $`M_\phi `$ satisfies the invariance conditions corresponding to (3), in particular $`M_{\phi }^{}{}_{}{}^{\delta _\phi }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_{M_\phi }`$. Now , Lemma 0.2.4, implies that the support of $`\omega _{\xi _\phi }|M_\phi `$ belongs to $`M_{\phi }^{}{}_{}{}^{\delta _\phi }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_{M_\phi }`$, hence it is equal to $`1_{M_\phi }`$. Consequently, replacing $`H`$ with $`H/\text{ker}(\pi _\phi )`$ if necessary, one can consider the case where $`\phi `$ is faithful, cf. e.g. , remarks after Theorem 5.6, .

According to , Theorem 2.2, the linear span $`𝒜`$ of all matrix elements of all finite-dimensional unitary representations of $`H`$ is a dense -subalgebra of $`H`$ with $`1_H𝒜,\delta (𝒜)𝒜𝒜`$ and there are unique linear maps $`ϵ:𝒜`$ and $`\kappa :𝒜𝒜`$, called respectively counit and coinverse or antipode, such that

$`(ϵ\iota _𝒜)\left(\delta (a)\right)`$ $`=(\iota _𝒜ϵ)\left(\delta (a)\right)=a,a𝒜,`$
$`\left(m(\kappa \iota _𝒜)\right)\left(\delta (a)\right)`$ $`=\left(m(\iota _𝒜\kappa )\right)\left(\delta (a)\right)=ϵ(a)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_H,a𝒜,`$
where the linear map $`m:𝒜𝒜𝒜`$ is defined by $`m(ab)=ab,a,b𝒜`$.

The counit $`ϵ`$ is a multiplicative positive linear functional on $`𝒜`$ with $`ϵ(1_H)=1`$, but it is in general not bounded. However, it is often bounded and then it extends to a multiplicative state on $`H`$, still denoted by $`ϵ`$, which satisfies

$$(ϵ\iota _H)\delta =(\iota _Hϵ)\delta =\iota _H.$$
(5)
We notice that (5) implies the injectivity of $`\delta `$.

In the rest of this section $`H`$ will denote a compact quantum group with faithful Haar state and bounded counit. This is the case for compact groups and for the quantum $`U(N)`$-group, but not for the dual of a non-amenable discrete group, see , second remark after the statement of Proposition 1.8.

By a coaction $`\alpha `$ of $`H`$ on a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$ we mean a homomorphism $`\alpha :AAH`$ such that

$`(\alpha \iota _H)\alpha =`$ $`(\iota _A\delta )\alpha `$
$`(\iota _Aϵ)\alpha =`$ $`\iota _A.`$
The last equation implies that $`\alpha `$ is injective.

The fixed-point subalgebra is then defined by

$$A^\alpha =\{aA;\alpha (a)=a1_H\}.$$

Denoting

$$=(\iota _A\phi )\alpha :AA,$$

we have the known fact:

###### Lemma 3.

$``$ is a faithful conditional expectation from $`A`$ to $`A^\alpha `$.

* $``$ is a faithful map, being the composition of faithful maps. Clearly $`A^\alpha `$ is contained in the range of $``$.

We now apply standard calculations and check that $``$ is idempotent. Indeed, identifying $`A`$ with $`A`$, we get

$`^2=`$ $`\left((\iota _A\phi )\alpha \right)(\iota _A\phi )\alpha `$
$`=`$ $`(\iota _A\phi )(\alpha \phi )\alpha `$
$`=`$ $`(\iota _A\phi \phi )(\alpha \iota _H)\alpha `$
$`=`$ $`(\iota _A\phi \phi )(\iota _A\delta )\alpha `$
$`=`$ $`\left(\iota _A\left(\underset{=\phi ()1_{}1_{}}{\underset{}{(\phi \phi )\delta }}\right)\right)\alpha `$
$`=`$ $`(\iota _A\phi )\alpha =.`$
To see that $`(A)A^\alpha `$ we compute:

$`\alpha =`$ $`\alpha (\iota _A\phi )\alpha `$
$`=`$ $`(\iota _A\iota _H\phi )(\alpha \iota _H)\alpha `$
$`=`$ $`(\iota _A\iota _H\phi )(\iota _A\delta )\alpha `$
$`=`$ $`\left(\iota _A\left(\underset{=\phi ()1_H1_{}}{\underset{}{(\iota _H\phi )\delta }}\right)\right)\alpha `$
$`=`$ $`\left(\iota _A(\phi ()1_H)\right)\alpha =1_H.`$
The rest is now clear.   $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 4.

Let $`B,A`$ and $`H`$ be $`C^{}`$-algebras. The identity map on $`BAH`$ extends to a homomorphism

$$\rho :B_{\mathrm{max}}(A_{\mathrm{min}}H)(B_{\mathrm{max}}A)_{\mathrm{min}}H.$$

* Let $`B`$ and $`A`$ act faithfully on a Hilbert space $``$ in such a way that the $`C^{}`$-algebra generated by $`B`$ and $`A`$ is $`B_{\mathrm{max}}A`$ and let $`H`$ act faithfully on a Hilbert space $`𝒦`$. The $`C^{}`$-algebra generated by $`B`$, $`A`$ and $`H`$ on $`𝒦`$ is clearly $`(B_{\mathrm{max}}A)_{\mathrm{min}}H`$ and the $`C^{}`$-algebra generated by $`A`$ and $`H`$ is $`A_{\mathrm{min}}H`$. Thus $`(B_{\mathrm{max}}A)_{\mathrm{min}}H`$ contains commuting copies of $`B`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{min}}H`$. By the universal property of $`_{\mathrm{max}}`$, we have a natural homomorphism $`\rho :B_{\mathrm{max}}(A_{\mathrm{min}}H)(B_{\mathrm{max}}A)_{\mathrm{min}}H`$.   $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`\alpha :AAH`$ be a coaction as above and $`B`$ a $`C^{}`$-algebra. By the universality property of $`_{\mathrm{max}}`$, the map $`\iota _B\alpha :BAB(AH)`$ extends to a homomorphism $`\iota _B\alpha :B_{\mathrm{max}}AB_{\mathrm{max}}(AH)`$. By composing it with the map $`\rho `$ in Lemma 4, we get a homomorphism

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\rho (\iota _B\alpha ):B_{\mathrm{max}}A(B_{\mathrm{max}}A)H.$$

###### Lemma 5.

$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ is a coaction of $`H`$ on $`B_{\mathrm{max}}A`$.

* We first check the “counit” condition

$$(\iota _{\begin{array}{c}\\ B_{\mathrm{max}}A\end{array}}ϵ)\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\iota _{\begin{array}{c}\\ B_{\mathrm{max}}A\end{array}}.$$

Clearly we have

$$\left((\iota _{\begin{array}{c}\\ B_{\mathrm{max}}A\end{array}}ϵ)\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\right)(b1_A)=(\iota _{\begin{array}{c}\\ B_{\mathrm{max}}A\end{array}}ϵ)(b1_A1_H)=b1_A,bB.$$

Note that $`(\iota _{\begin{array}{c}\\ B_{\mathrm{max}}A\end{array}}ϵ)\rho `$ is the bounded map from $`B_{\mathrm{max}}(AH)`$ to $`B_{\mathrm{max}}A`$, $`bahb\left(ϵ(h)a\right)`$, $`aA`$, $`bB`$, $`hH`$, thus

$$(\iota _{\begin{array}{c}\\ B_{\mathrm{max}}A\end{array}}ϵ)\rho :bxb\left((\iota _Aϵ)(x)\right),bB,xAH.$$

By the counit property of $`ϵ`$, we then have

$`\left((\iota _{\begin{array}{c}\\ B_{\mathrm{max}}A\end{array}}ϵ)\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\right)(1_Ba)=`$ $`\left((\iota _{\begin{array}{c}\\ B_{\mathrm{max}}A\end{array}}ϵ)\rho \right)(1_B\alpha (a))`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_B\left((\iota _Aϵ)\alpha (a)\right)=1_Ba,aA.`$
As $`ϵ`$ is multiplicative $`(\iota _{\begin{array}{c}\\ B_{\mathrm{max}}A\end{array}})ϵ\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ acts identically on $`BA`$, hence on $`B_{\mathrm{max}}A`$ by continuity. As a consequence, $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ is injective.

Since $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ is injective, the restriction of $`\rho `$ to $`(\iota _B\alpha )(B_{\mathrm{max}}A)`$ is injective too and we can define the following commuting diagrams

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}B_{\mathrm{max}}A& \stackrel{\iota _B\alpha }{}& B_{\mathrm{max}}(AH)& \underset{\iota _B(\iota _A\delta )}{\overset{\iota _B(\alpha \iota _H)}{}}& B_{\mathrm{max}}((AH)H)\\ \iota _{B_{\mathrm{max}}A}& & \rho & & \rho ^{}& & \\ B_{\mathrm{max}}A& \stackrel{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}{}& (B_{\mathrm{max}}A)H& \underset{\iota _{B_{\mathrm{max}}A}\delta }{\overset{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\iota _H}{}}& (B_{\mathrm{max}}A)HH\end{array}$$

where $`\rho ^{}`$ is the natural map constructed by Lemma 4, showing that $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ is a coaction.   $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 6.

$``$ is stably faithful.

* Let $`B`$ a $`C^{}`$-algebra. The conditional expectation $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ on $`B_{\mathrm{max}}A`$ extending $`\iota _B`$ on $`BA`$ is the one associated with the coaction $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$, hence it is faithful by Lemma 3.   $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 7.

Let $`\alpha `$ be a coaction of a compact quantum group $`H`$ with faithful Haar state and bounded counit on a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$. Then $`A`$ is nuclear iff $`A^\alpha `$ is nuclear.

* This is a consequence of Propositions 1 and 6.   $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 8.

A compact quantum group $`H`$ with faithful Haar state and bounded counit is a nuclear $`C^{}`$-algebra.

* The comultiplication $`\delta `$ is a coaction of $`H`$ on itself and the statement follows by the above corollary, taking (4) into account.   $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 Compact Group Actions: the $`W^{}`$-case

Before giving a $`W^{}`$-version of Proposition 2, we need some preliminaries.

Let $`X`$ be a Banach space, and $`Y`$ a weak dense Banach subspace of $`X^{}`$. By a $`\sigma (X,Y)`$-continuous group of isometries $`V:GB(X)`$ we mean a $`\sigma (X,Y)`$-continuous homomorphism of the group $`G`$ into the group of all $`\sigma (X,Y)`$-continuous linear isometries of $`X`$. We note that to check the $`\sigma (X,Y)`$-continuity of the map $`gGV_gB(X)`$ we may verify that the maps $`gGy(V_gx)`$ are continuous when $`x`$ varies in a norm dense subset of $`X`$ and $`y`$ varies in a norm dense subset of $`Y`$.

Let $`M`$ and $`N`$ be von Neumann algebras. The binormal tensor product $`N_{\text{bin}}M`$ is the norm completion of $`NM`$ with respect to the norm

$$x=\underset{\pi }{sup}\pi (x),xNM,$$

where the supremum ranges over all representations of $`NM`$ with normal restrictions to $`N1_M`$ and $`1_NM`$, called binormal representations .

Let $`F(N_{\text{bin}}M)^{}`$ be the Banach space of normal linear functionals associated with all such binormal representations.

###### Lemma 9.

The kernel $`J`$ of the natural homomorphism

$$\pi :N_{\text{bin}}MN_{\mathrm{min}}M$$

is $`\sigma (N_{\text{bin}}M,F)\text{closed}`$.

* When $`M`$ and $`N`$ act on $`L^2(M)`$ and $`L^2(N)`$ (respectively), the $`C^{}`$-subalgebra of $`B(L^2(N)\overline{}L^2(M))`$ generated by $`N1_M`$ and $`1_NM`$ carries the minimal tensor product norm $`_{\mathrm{min}}`$. Thus we may identify it with $`N_{\mathrm{min}}M`$.

With this identification, $`\pi `$ is a binormal representation of $`N_{\text{bin}}M`$ on $`L^2(N)\overline{}L^2(M)`$, whose kernel is $`J`$. Note now that $`\pi `$ is continuous from the $`\sigma (N_{\text{bin}}M,F)`$-topology to the $`\sigma `$-weak topology of $`B(L^2(N)L^2(M))`$, therefore $`J`$ is $`\sigma (N_{\text{bin}}M,F)`$-closed.   $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 10.

Let $`\alpha :G\text{Aut}(M)`$ be an action of a compact group $`G`$ on a von Neumann algebra $`M`$. Then $`M`$ is injective iff the fixed point subalgebra $`M^\alpha `$ is injective.

* If $`M`$ is injective, so is $`M^\alpha `$ because there is a conditional expectation from $`M`$ to $`M^\alpha `$.

Now assume that $`M^\alpha `$ is injective. In analogy with the proof of Proposition 1, we shall prove that, given any von Neumann algebra $`N`$, the ideal $`J`$ in Lemma 9 is $`\{0\}`$, what means that $`M`$ is semidiscrete, that is injective .

The action $`\beta =\iota \alpha `$ on $`NM`$ preserves the norm $`_{\text{bin}}`$, so each $`\beta _g`$ extends to a $``$-automorphism of $`N_{\text{bin}}M`$, still denoted by $`\beta _g`$. Furthermore, the map $`Gg\beta _g(x)`$ is $`\sigma (NM,F)`$-continuous for every $`xNM`$. Therefore the action $`\beta `$ on $`N_{\text{bin}}M`$ is $`\sigma (N_{\text{bin}}M,F)`$-continuous.

Let us consider the conditional expectation $`_\alpha :MM^\alpha `$ defined by

$$_\alpha (x)=\alpha _g(x)\text{d}g,xM.$$

The completely positive map $`\iota _\alpha :N_{\mathrm{min}}MN_{\mathrm{min}}M`$ has norm 1, so

$$(\iota _\alpha )(x)_{\mathrm{min}}x_{\mathrm{min}}x_{\text{bin}},xNM.$$

Now let $`xNM`$. Then $`(\iota _\alpha )(x)NM^\alpha `$. As $`M^\alpha `$ is semidiscrete, $`_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`_{\text{bin}}`$ coincide on $`NM^\alpha `$. Therefore

$$(\iota _\alpha )(x)_{\text{bin}}x_{\text{bin}},xNM,$$

so $`(\iota _\alpha )|_{NM}`$ extends to a linear map of norm 1 from $`N_{\text{bin}}M`$ to itself, still denoted by $`\iota _\alpha `$, whose range is contained in the closure of $`NM^\alpha `$ in $`N_{\text{bin}}M`$.

Let $`xN_{\text{bin}}M`$ and choose $`x_nNM`$, $`n1`$, with $`xx_n_{\text{bin}}0`$. Then, for all $`\phi F`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\phi ((\iota _N_\alpha )(x))=\underset{n}{lim}\phi ((\iota _N_\alpha )(x_n))\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{n}{lim}\phi (\beta _g(x_n))\text{d}g=\phi (\beta _g(x))\text{d}g,\end{array}$$

so

$$_\beta (x)=\beta _g(x)\text{d}g$$

exists in the $`\sigma (N_{\text{bin}}M,F)`$-weak sense and $`_\beta (x)=(\iota _N_\alpha )(x)`$ for all $`xNM`$. In particular, the range of $`_\beta `$ is contained in the closure of $`NM^\alpha `$. Moreover $`_\beta `$ is faithful.

Now let $`xJ`$ be a positive element. Since each $`\beta _g`$ leaves $`J`$ globally invariant, $`\beta _g(x)J`$ for all $`gG`$. By the Hahn-Banach theorem $`_\beta (x)`$ belongs to the $`\sigma (N_{\text{bin}}M,F)`$-closed linear span of $`\{\beta _g(x);gG\}`$, thus $`_\beta (x)J`$ by Lemma 9.

But $`_\beta (x)`$ is also in the closure of $`NM^\alpha `$ which, by the semidiscreteness of $`M^\alpha `$, intersects $`J`$ only in $`0`$. Consequently $`_\beta (x)=0`$ and the faithfulness of $`_\beta `$ yields $`x=0`$. We conclude that $`J`$ is trivial and $`M`$ is semidiscrete, thus injective.   $`\mathrm{}`$

Acknowledgements. We thank S. Woronowicz for a clarifying answer to a question and F. P. Boca for calling our attention to reference .