text:
# Study of 𝑪𝑷-Violating Asymmetries in 𝐵⁰→𝜋⁺𝜋⁻ Decays

The Belle Collaboration

## Abstract

We present a measurement of $`CP`$-violating asymmetries in $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays based on a $`41.8\mathrm{fb}^1`$ data sample collected at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance with the Belle detector at the KEKB asymmetric-energy $`e^+e^{}`$ collider. We fully reconstruct one neutral $`B`$ meson as a $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ $`CP`$ eigenstate and identify the flavor of the accompanying $`B`$ meson from its decay products. From the asymmetry in the distribution of the time intervals between the two $`B`$ meson decay points, we obtain the $`CP`$-violating asymmetry parameters $`𝒮_{\pi \pi }=1.21{}_{0.27}{}^{+0.38}(\mathrm{stat}){}_{0.13}{}^{+0.16}(\mathrm{syst})`$ and $`𝒜_{\pi \pi }=+0.94{}_{0.31}{}^{+0.25}(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.09(\mathrm{syst}).`$

preprint: KEK Preprint 2002-6preprint: Belle Preprint 2002-8

Kobayashi and Maskawa (KM) proposed, in 1973, a model where $`CP`$ violation is incorporated as an irreducible complex phase in the weak-interaction quark mixing matrix KM . Recent measurements of the $`CP`$-violating parameter $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1`$ by the Belle CP1\_Belle  and BaBar CP1\_BaBar  collaborations established $`CP`$ violation in the neutral $`B`$ meson system that is consistent with KM expectations. Measurements of other $`CP`$-violating parameters provide important tests of the KM model. In this Letter we describe a measurement of $`CP`$-violating asymmetries in the mode $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ CC ; these are sensitive to the parameter $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _2`$ alpha .

The KM model predicts $`CP`$-violating asymmetries in the time-dependent rates for $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ decays to a common $`CP`$ eigenstate, $`f_{CP}`$ Sanda . In the decay chain $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)B^0\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}f_{CP}f_{\mathrm{tag}}`$, where one of $`B`$ mesons decays at time $`t_{CP}`$ to $`f_{CP}`$ and the other decays at time $`t_{\mathrm{tag}}`$ to a final state $`f_{\mathrm{tag}}`$ that distinguishes between $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$, the decay rate has a time dependence given by CPVrev

$`𝒫_{\pi \pi }^q(\mathrm{\Delta }t)={\displaystyle \frac{e^{|\mathrm{\Delta }t|/\tau _{B^0}}}{4\tau _{B^0}}}[1+q\{𝒮_{\pi \pi }\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$
$`+𝒜_{\pi \pi }\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t)\}],`$ (1)
where $`\tau _{B^0}`$ is the $`B^0`$ lifetime, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ is the mass difference between the two $`B^0`$ mass eigenstates, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ = $`t_{CP}`$ $``$ $`t_{\mathrm{tag}}`$, and the $`b`$-flavor charge $`q`$ = +1 ($`1`$) when the tagging $`B`$ meson is a $`B^0`$ ($`\overline{B}^0`$). The $`CP`$-violating parameters $`𝒮_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`𝒜_{\pi \pi }`$ defined in Eq. (Study of $`𝑪𝑷`$-Violating Asymmetries in $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ Decays) are expressed by $`𝒮_{\pi \pi }=2Im\lambda /(|\lambda |^2+1)`$ and $`𝒜_{\pi \pi }=(|\lambda |^21)/(|\lambda |^2+1)`$, where $`\lambda `$ is a complex parameter that depends on both $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing and on the amplitudes for $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ decay to $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. In the SM, to a good approximation, $`|\lambda |`$ is equal to the absolute value of the ratio of the $`\overline{B}^0`$ to $`B^0`$ decay amplitudes. We would have $`𝒮_{\pi \pi }=\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _2`$ and $`𝒜_{\pi \pi }=0`$, or equivalently $`|\lambda |=1`$, if the $`bu`$ tree amplitude were dominant. The situation is complicated by the possibility of significant contributions from gluonic $`bd`$ penguin amplitudes that have a different weak phase and additional strong phases pipipenguin . As a result, $`𝒮_{\pi \pi }`$ may not be equal to $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _2`$ and direct $`CP`$ violation, $`𝒜_{\pi \pi }0`$, may occur.

This measurement is based on a $`41.8\mathrm{fb}^1`$ data sample, which contains 44.8 million $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs, collected with the Belle detector at the KEKB asymmetric-energy $`e^+e^{}`$ (3.5 on 8 GeV) collider KEKB  operating at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance. At KEKB, the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ is produced with a Lorentz boost of $`\beta \gamma =0.425`$ nearly along the electron beamline ($`z`$). Since the $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ mesons are approximately at rest in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ center-of-mass system (cms), $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ can be determined from the displacement in $`z`$ between the $`f_{CP}`$ and $`f_{\mathrm{tag}}`$ decay vertices: $`\mathrm{\Delta }t(z_{CP}z_{\mathrm{tag}})/\beta \gamma c\mathrm{\Delta }z/\beta \gamma c`$.

The Belle detector Belle  is a large-solid-angle spectrometer that consists of a silicon vertex detector (SVD), a central drift chamber (CDC), an array of aerogel threshold Čerenkov counters (ACC), time-of-flight scintillation counters (TOF), and an electromagnetic calorimeter comprised of CsI(Tl) crystals (ECL) located inside a super-conducting solenoid coil that provides a 1.5 T magnetic field. An iron flux-return located outside of the coil is instrumented to detect $`K_L^0`$ mesons and to identify muons (KLM).

The $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ event selection is described in detail elsewhere pipi . We use oppositely charged track pairs that are positively identified as pions according to the combined information from the ACC and the CDC $`dE/dx`$ measurement. Candidate $`B`$ mesons are reconstructed using the energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }EE_B^{\mathrm{cms}}E_{\mathrm{beam}}^{\mathrm{cms}}`$ and the beam-energy constrained mass $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}\sqrt{(E_{\mathrm{beam}}^{\mathrm{cms}})^2(p_B^{\mathrm{cms}})^2}`$, where $`E_{\mathrm{beam}}^{\mathrm{cms}}`$ is the cms beam energy, and $`E_B^{\mathrm{cms}}`$ and $`p_B^{\mathrm{cms}}`$ are the cms energy and momentum of the $`B`$ candidate. The signal region is defined as 5.271 $`<M_{\mathrm{bc}}<`$ 5.287 GeV/$`c^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|<`$ 0.067 GeV, corresponding to $`\pm 3\sigma `$ from the central values. In order to suppress background from the $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$ continuum ($`q=u,d,s,c`$), we form signal and background likelihood functions, $`_S`$ and $`_{BG}`$, from two variables. One is a Fisher discriminant determined from six modified Fox-Wolfram moments SFW ; the other is the $`B`$ flight direction in the cms, with respect to the $`z`$ axis ($`\mathrm{cos}\theta _B`$). We determine $`_S`$ from Monte Carlo (MC) and $`_{BG}`$ from data, and require $`_S/(_S+_{BG})>0.825`$ for candidate events. Figure 1 shows the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distribution for $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ candidates.

The signal yield is extracted by fitting the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distribution with a Gaussian $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ signal function, plus contributions from misidentified $`B^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ events, three-body $`B`$-decays, and continuum background. From the fit, we obtain 73.5 $`\pm `$ 13.8(stat) $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ events, 28.4 $`\pm `$ 12.5(stat) $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ events, and 98.7 $`\pm `$ 7.0(stat) continuum events in the signal region. The $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ contamination is consistent with the $`K\pi `$ misidentification probability measured independently. The contribution from three-body $`B`$-decays is negligibly small in the signal region.

Leptons, charged pions, and kaons that are not associated with the reconstructed $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay are used to identify the flavor of the accompanying $`B`$ meson. We use two parameters, $`q`$ and $`r`$, to represent the tagging information. The first, $`q`$, is already defined in Eq. (Study of $`𝑪𝑷`$-Violating Asymmetries in $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ Decays). The parameter $`r`$ is an event-by-event, MC-determined flavor-tagging dilution factor that ranges from $`r=0`$ for no flavor discrimination to $`r=1`$ for unambiguous flavor assignment. It is used only to sort data into six $`r`$ intervals (boundaries at 0.25, 0.5, 0.625, 0.75 and 0.875). The wrong tag fractions for the six $`r`$ intervals, $`w_l(l=1,6)`$, are determined from the data; we use the same $`w_l`$ values that were used for the $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1`$ measurement CP1\_Belle .

The vertex positions for the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`f_{\mathrm{tag}}`$ decays are reconstructed using tracks with associated hits in the SVD. Each vertex position is also constrained by the interaction point profile smeared in the $`r`$-$`\varphi `$ plane by the average transverse $`B`$ meson decay length. The $`f_{\mathrm{tag}}`$ vertex is determined from all well reconstructed tracks, excluding the $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ candidate and tracks that form a $`K_S^0`$ candidate.

The proper-time interval resolution for the signal, $`R_{\mathrm{sig}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$, is obtained by convolving a sum of two Gaussians (a main component, plus a tail component caused by poorly reconstructed tracks) with a function that takes into account the cms motion of the $`B`$ mesons. We use the same parameters as those used for the $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1`$ measurement; the fraction and the typical width of the main Gaussian are $`0.97\pm 0.02`$ and 1.49 ps, respectively CP1\_Belle . The background resolution function $`R_{q\overline{q}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$, which is dominated by continuum background, has the same functional form but the parameters are obtained from a sideband region in $`M_{bc}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. Using these resolution functions, we perform a $`B^0`$ lifetime measurement that yields $`\tau _{B^0}=1.49\pm 0.21`$(stat) ps for $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ candidates, which is consistent with the world average value PDG .

We determine $`CP`$ violation parameters by performing an unbinned maximum-likelihood fit of a $`CP`$-violating probability density function (pdf) to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distributions. We define the likelihood value for each event as a function of $`𝒮_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`𝒜_{\pi \pi }`$:

$`P_i={\displaystyle }[\{f_{\pi \pi }^l𝒫_{\pi \pi }^q(\mathrm{\Delta }t^{},w_l;𝒮_{\pi \pi },𝒜_{\pi \pi })+f_{K\pi }^l𝒫_{K\pi }^q(\mathrm{\Delta }t^{},w_l)\}R_{\mathrm{sig}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t_i\mathrm{\Delta }t^{})`$
$`+f_{q\overline{q}}^l𝒫_{q\overline{q}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t^{})R_{q\overline{q}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t_i\mathrm{\Delta }t^{})]d\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}.`$ (2)
Here $`f_{\pi \pi }^l`$, $`f_{K\pi }^l`$, and $`f_{q\overline{q}}^l`$ ($`=1f_{\pi \pi }^lf_{K\pi }^l`$) are the fractions of $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ signal, $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ background, and continuum background in flavor-tagging interval $`l`$, respectively. These fractions are determined on an event-by-event basis as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$, properly normalized by the average signal and background fractions in the signal region. The average fractions of $`q\overline{q}`$ background for six $`r`$ bins $`(l=1,6)`$ are 0.632, 0.505, 0.462, 0.440, 0.322 and 0.117. For higher $`r`$ values where we are more sensitive to the asymmetry, the fraction of continuum background decreases; the ratio of $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ signal events to background $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ events is the same for all $`r`$ bins. The pdfs for $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ ($`𝒫_{\pi \pi }^q`$), $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ ($`𝒫_{K\pi }^q`$), and continuum background ($`𝒫_{q\overline{q}}`$), are convolved with their respective resolution functions. We use the same vertex resolution function for $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ candidates. For the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ signal, the pdf is given by Eq. (Study of $`𝑪𝑷`$-Violating Asymmetries in $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ Decays) with $`q`$ replaced by $`q(12w_l)`$, to account for the dilution due to wrong flavor tagging. The pdf for the $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ background is $`𝒫_{K\pi }^q(\mathrm{\Delta }t,w_l)=e^{|\mathrm{\Delta }t|/\tau _{B^0}}/4\tau _{B^0}\{1+q(12w_l)𝒜_{K\pi }\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t)\}`$, where $`𝒜_{K\pi }`$ is the $`\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}K^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`B^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ decay rate asymmetry. We fix $`𝒜_{K\pi }=0`$ pipi , and $`\tau _{B^0}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ to their world average values PDG . The pdf used for the $`q\overline{q}`$ background is $`𝒫_{q\overline{q}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)=\{f_\tau e^{|\mathrm{\Delta }t|/\tau _{\mathrm{bkg}}}/2\tau _{\mathrm{bkg}}+(1f_\tau )\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }t)\}/2,`$ where $`f_\tau `$ is the background fraction with an effective lifetime $`\tau _{\mathrm{bkg}}`$ and $`\delta `$ is the Dirac delta function. We determine $`f_\tau =0.011\pm 0.004`$ and $`\tau _{\mathrm{bkg}}=2.7_{0.7}^{+1.0}`$ ps from the sideband data. In the fit, $`𝒮_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`𝒜_{\pi \pi }`$ are free parameters determined by maximizing the likelihood function $`=_iP_i`$, where the product is over all $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ candidates.

The result of the fit to the 162 candidates (92 $`B^0`$\- and 70 $`\overline{B}^0`$-tags) that remain after flavor tagging and vertex reconstruction is:

$`𝒮_{\pi \pi }`$ $`=`$ $`1.21{}_{0.27}{}^{+0.38}(\mathrm{stat}){}_{0.13}{}^{+0.16}(\mathrm{syst});`$
$`𝒜_{\pi \pi }`$ $`=`$ $`+0.94{}_{0.31}{}^{+0.25}(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.09(\mathrm{syst}).`$
The result is 1.3$`\sigma `$ away from the physical boundary $`𝒮_{\pi \pi }^2+𝒜_{\pi \pi }^2=1`$, which is consistent with a statistical fluctuation. The correlation between $`𝒮_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`𝒜_{\pi \pi }`$ is found to be 0.28. In Figs. 2(a) and (b), we show the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distributions for $`B^0`$\- and $`\overline{B}^0`$-tagged events together with the fit curves; the background-subtracted $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distributions are shown in Fig. 2(c). Figure 2(d) shows the background-subtracted $`CP`$ asymmetry between the $`B^0`$\- and $`\overline{B}^0`$-tagged events as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. The result of the fit is superimposed and shown by the solid curve.

The systematic error on $`𝒮_{\pi \pi }`$ is primarily due to uncertainties in the background fractions ($`\pm 0.09`$) and a possible fit bias near the physical boundary ($`{}_{0.02}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.11}`$). For $`𝒜_{\pi \pi }`$, the background fractions ($`\pm 0.06`$) and the wrong-tag fractions ($`\pm 0.06`$) are the two leading components. We find that uncertainties in $`f_{\pi \pi }^l`$, $`f_{K\pi }^l`$ and $`f_{q\overline{q}}^l`$ in Eq. (2) account for the largest systematic errors. We add their contributions in quadrature to obtain the above values, where each contribution is obtained by varying a parameter by its error and repeating the fit. Other sources of systematic error are uncertainties in the resolution function, physics parameters ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$, $`\tau _{B^0}`$, and $`𝒜_{K\pi }`$) and the background modeling. A value of $`𝒜_{K\pi }=0.06\pm 0.08`$ is obtained from the self-tagged $`B^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ sample pipi ; this introduces a systematic error of $`<0.01`$ for $`𝒮_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`{}_{0.01}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.02}`$ for $`𝒜_{\pi \pi }`$.

We validate our fitting procedure using a large ensemble of MC pseudo-experiments wherein events are generated with nominal pdfs and the observed number of events. For various input values of $`𝒮_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`𝒜_{\pi \pi }`$, we confirm that there is no bias in the fit results. We find that the average expected errors, 0.52 for $`𝒮_{\pi \pi }`$ and 0.35 for $`𝒜_{\pi \pi }`$, are larger than our measurements. However, the probability of obtaining errors that are smaller than our measurement is 5.4% for $`𝒮_{\pi \pi }`$ and 23.6% for $`𝒜_{\pi \pi }`$; the results are within the expected range of statistical fluctuations. The measured likelihood is in good agreement with the average likelihood value obtained in the pseudo-experiments.

We perform a number of cross checks. We examine the event yields and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distributions for $`B^0`$\- and $`\overline{B}^0`$-tagged events in the sideband region and find no significant asymmetry as shown in Fig. 2(e). We select $`B^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ candidates, which have the same track topology as $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, by positively identifying charged kaons. A fit to 309 candidates ($`209\pm 16`$ signal events) yields $`\tau _{B^0}=1.73\pm 0.15`$(stat) ps and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d=0.57\pm 0.08`$(stat) ps<sup>-1</sup>; these are consistent with the world average values PDG . $`𝒜_{K\pi }`$ is $`0.07\pm 0.17`$, in agreement with the counting analysis mentioned above and $`𝒮_{K\pi }=0.15\pm 0.24`$, which is consistent with zero. We also select $`B^0D^{}\pi ^+`$, $`D^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`D^{}\rho ^+`$ candidates using the same event shape criteria. Neither mixing-induced nor direct $`CP`$-violating asymmetry is observed as expected. As an additional test of the consistency of the background treatment, we add events from the $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ sideband and adjust their $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ values. A fit to this background-enriched control sample, which has a background fraction comparable to the $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ sample, yields $`𝒮=0.08\pm 0.06`$ and $`𝒜=0.03\pm 0.04`$, both consistent with a null asymmetry.

We determine the statistical significance from the likelihood function, taking into account the boundary of the physical region as well as the effect of the systematic error. The Feldman-Cousins frequentist approach FeldmanCousins  gives a 99.6% confidence level (C.L.) for $`1𝒮_{\pi \pi }<0`$, equivalent to a $`2.9\sigma `$ significance for a Gaussian error. A similar analysis yields a significance of $`2.9\sigma `$ for $`0<𝒜_{\pi \pi }1`$. The 95% C.L. intervals are found to be $`1.00𝒮_{\pi \pi }<0.39`$ and $`+0.30<𝒜_{\pi \pi }+1.00`$, respectively ToyMC .

In summary, we have measured the $`CP`$ violation parameters in $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay. Our result for $`𝒮_{\pi \pi }`$ indicates that mixing-induced $`CP`$ violation is large. The large $`𝒜_{\pi \pi }`$ term is an indication of direct $`CP`$ violation in $`B`$ meson decay, and suggests that there is a large hadronic phase and interference between the tree and penguin amplitudes apipi\_BaBar . In this case the precise determination of $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _2`$ from $`𝒮_{\pi \pi }`$ requires additional measurements including the branching fractions for the decays $`B^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ GL .

We wish to thank the KEKB accelerator group for the excellent operation of the KEKB accelerator. We acknowledge support from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science; the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Industry, Science and Resources; the National Science Foundation of China under contract No. 10175071; the Department of Science and Technology of India; the BK21 program of the Ministry of Education of Korea and the CHEP SRC program of the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation; the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research under contract No. 2P03B 17017; the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Russian Federation; the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia; the National Science Council and the Ministry of Education of Taiwan; and the U.S. Department of Energy.


format: text

text:
# Hopf-Galois Systems

## Introduction

We introduce the concept of Hopf-Galois system, a reformulation of the notion of Galois extension of the base field for a Hopf algebra. Our motivation for such a definition is to provide a natural way to construct monoidal equivalences between categories of comodules over Hopf algebras.

Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be Hopf algebras (over a field $`k`$). Recall  that a non-zero algebra $`Z`$ is said to be an $`A`$-$`B`$-biGalois extension if $`Z`$ is an $`A`$-$`B`$-bicomodule algebra such that two linear maps $`\kappa _l:ZZAZ`$ and $`\kappa _r:ZZZB`$ are bijective (see Section 1). A useful theorem of P. Schauenburg  brings interest for biGalois extensions: the comodule categories over $`A`$ and $`B`$ are monoidally equivalent if and only if there exists an $`A`$-$`B`$-biGalois extension.

In  we constructed some examples of biGalois extensions. It is more or less clear in these papers that, when checking that the maps $`\kappa _l`$ and $`\kappa _r`$ are bijective, one uses the concept of Hopf-Galois system introduced in the present paper. In fact the construction of a Hopf-Galois system seems to be the easiest and most natural way to get a biGalois extension. Here is a related and well-known situation. Consider a bialgebra $`A`$. Then $`A`$ is a Hopf algebra if only if the the map

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\kappa _l:AA& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Delta }1_A}{}& AAA& \stackrel{1_Am}{}& AA\end{array}$$

is bijective (this is well-know, e.g. to multiplier Hopf algebraists ). In concrete examples, it is much more desirable to require the existence of an antipode, although the axiomatic is slightly more involved. We adopt the same philosophy for Galois extensions.

A Hopf-Galois system consists of four non-zero algebras $`(A,B,Z,T)`$. The algebras $`A`$ and $`B`$ are bialgebras, and $`Z`$ is assumed to be an $`A`$-$`B`$-bicomodule algebra. There are also algebra morphisms $`\gamma :AZT`$ and $`\delta :BTZ`$ with some associativity conditions. Finally there is a linear map $`S:TZ`$ playing the role of an antipode. In fact the first axioms are closely related to the ones of a set of pre-equivalence data of M. Takeuchi (Definition 2.3 in ), the main new feature being the generalized antipode. See Section 1 for the details. The easiest way to understand the axioms is to see a Hopf-Galois system as the dual object of a groupoid with two objects, with some structures forgotten. In fact a Hopf-Galois system is always associated to a pair of objects in the groupoid of fibre functors over the comodules of a Hopf algebra. We show (Theorem 1.2) that if $`(A,B,Z,T)`$ is a Hopf-Galois system, then $`Z`$ is an $`A`$-$`B`$-biGalois extension. Conversely, starting from a Galois extension, it is possible to reconstruct a Hopf-Galois system.

The axiomatic of a Hopf-Galois system is more complicated than the one of an $`A`$-Galois extension or of an $`A`$-$`B`$-biGalois extension. But in a completely parallel way to the observation concerning bialgebras and Hopf algebras, it is also very natural and easy to handle with when dealing with concrete examples. In fact when one suspects an algebra to be an $`A`$-Galois extension, it is not difficult to guess what the whole Hopf-Galois system will be. We present several examples, that, we hope, will convince the reader.

It is quite possible that the axiomatic of Hopf-Galois systems was already known to some experts. It is more or less implicit in , with the notation $`Z^1`$ for the fourth algebra. On the other hand we feel that it should be useful to have written down the axiomatic completely, especially in view of applications in representation theory.

Our work is organized as follows. In Section 1 we give the full definition of a Hopf-Galois system, and we show that such a system always gives rise to a biGalois extension. We also discuss the reconstruction of a Hopf-Galois system from a Galois extension. Since we have decided in this paper to concentrate on examples and applications rather than on theoretical aspects of Hopf-Galois systems, the other sections are devoted to examples. We study the following families of examples.

$``$ Hopf-Galois systems associated to $`2`$-cocycles, with emphasis on the function algebra on the symmetric group, and some examples generalizing those of  are presented.

$``$ Hopf-Galois systems for the Hopf algebra of a non-degenerate bilinear form .

$``$ Hopf-Galois systems for universal cosovereign Hopf algebras . This gives some improvements on the known results  concerning the corepresentation theory of these Hopf algebras.

$``$ Hopf-Galois systems for free Hopf algebras generated by matrix coalgebras .

Notations and conventions. Throughout this paper $`k`$ denotes a commutative field. The reader is assumed to be familiar with Hopf algebras, their modules, comodules, comodule algebras . We also assume familiarity with monoidal categories, monoidal functors . The monoidal category of comodules (resp. finite-dimensional comodules) over a bialgebra $`A`$ is denoted by Comod($`A`$) (resp. Comodf($`A`$)). The monoidal category of finite-dimensional vector spaces over $`k`$ is denoted by $`\mathrm{Vect}_\mathrm{f}(k)`$.

## 1 Definition and basic results

We present the formal definition of a Hopf-Galois system. We work in the monoidal category of vector spaces over $`k`$, but it is clear that our definition still makes sense in any braided monoidal category, and that Theorem 1.2 is valid in such a category. Let us first recall the language of Galois extensions for Hopf algebras (see  for a general perspective).

Let $`A`$ be a Hopf algebra. A left $`A`$-Galois extension (of $`k`$) is a non-zero left $`A`$-comodule algebra $`Z`$ such that the linear map $`\kappa _l`$ defined by the composition

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\kappa _l:ZZ& \stackrel{\alpha 1_Z}{}& AZZ& \stackrel{1_Am_Z}{}& AZ\end{array}$$

where $`\alpha `$ is the coaction of $`A`$ and $`m_Z`$ is the multiplication of $`Z`$, is bijective.

Similarly, a right $`A`$-Galois extension is a non-zero right $`A`$-comodule algebra $`Z`$ such that the linear map $`\kappa _r`$ defined by the composition

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\kappa _r:ZZ& \stackrel{1_Z\beta }{}& ZZA& \stackrel{m_Z1_A}{}& ZA\end{array}$$

where $`\beta `$ is the coaction of $`A`$, is bijective.

Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be Hopf algebras. An algebra $`Z`$ is said to be an $`A`$-$`B`$-bigalois extension  if $`Z`$ is both a left $`A`$-Galois extension and a right $`B`$-Galois extension, and if $`Z`$ is an $`A`$-$`B`$-bicomodule.

###### Definition 1.1

A Hopf-Galois system consists of four non-zero algebras $`(A,B,Z,T)`$, with the following axioms.

$`(\mathrm{𝖧𝖦𝟣})`$ The algebras $`A`$ and $`B`$ are bialgebras.

$`(\mathrm{𝖧𝖦𝟤})`$ The algebra $`Z`$ is an $`A`$-$`B`$-bicomodule algebra.

$`(\mathrm{𝖧𝖦𝟥})`$ There are algebra morphisms $`\gamma :AZT`$ and $`\delta :BTZ`$ such that the following diagrams commute:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}Z& \stackrel{\alpha }{}& AZ\\ \beta & & \gamma 1_Z& & \\ ZB& \stackrel{1_Z\delta }{}& ZTZ\end{array}\begin{array}{ccc}A& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Delta }_A}{}& AA\\ \gamma & & 1_A\gamma & & \\ ZT& \stackrel{\alpha 1_T}{}& AZT\end{array}\begin{array}{ccc}B& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Delta }_B}{}& BB\\ \delta & & \delta 1_B& & \\ TZ& \stackrel{1_T\beta }{}& TZB\end{array}$$

$`(\mathrm{𝖧𝖦𝟦})`$ There is a linear map $`S:TZ`$ such that the following diagrams commute:

When $`A=B=Z=T`$ and $`\alpha =\beta =\gamma =\delta `$, we just have the axioms of a Hopf algebra, the linear map $`S`$ being the antipode. The axiom HG3 is very close from the axioms of a set of pre-equivalence data of M. Takeuchi (), but we do not require a $`B`$-$`A`$-bicomodule structure on $`T`$. We have already mentioned the fact that the easiest way to understand the axioms of a Hopf-Galois system is to see it as the dual object of a groupoid with two objects, where some structures would have been forgotten. In fact, we have only included the axioms needed to prove the following result.

###### Theorem 1.2

Let $`(A,B,Z,T)`$ be a Hopf-Galois system. Then $`Z`$ is an $`A`$-$`B`$-biGalois extension.

Proof. Let $`\eta _l:AZZZ`$ be the morphism defined by

$$\eta _l=(1_Zm_Z)(1_ZS1_Z)(\gamma 1_Z).$$

We show that $`\eta _l`$ is an inverse for $`\kappa _l`$. we have

$`\eta _l\kappa _l`$ $`=(1_Zm_Z)(1_ZS1_Z)(\gamma 1_Z)(1_Am_Z)(\alpha 1_Z)=`$
$`(1_Z`$ $`m_Z)(1_Z1_Zm_Z)(1_ZS1_Z1_Z)(\gamma 1_Z1_Z)(\alpha 1_Z)=`$
$`(1_Z`$ $`m_Z)(1_Zm_Z1_Z)(1_ZS1_Z1_Z)(1_Z\delta 1_Z)(\beta 1_Z)=`$
$`(1_Z`$ $`m_Z)(1_Z(u_Z\epsilon _B)1_Z)(\beta 1_Z)=1_{ZZ}.`$
We also have

$`\kappa _l\eta _l`$ $`=(1_Am_Z)(\alpha 1_Z)(1_Zm_Z)(1_ZS1_Z)(\gamma 1_Z)=`$
$`(1_A`$ $`m_Z)(1_A1_Zm_Z)(1_A1_ZS1_Z)(\alpha 1_T1_Z)(\gamma 1_Z)=`$
$`(1_A`$ $`m_Z)(1_Am_Z1_Z)(1_A1_ZS1_Z)(1_A\gamma 1_Z)(\mathrm{\Delta }_A1_Z)=`$
$`(1_A`$ $`m_Z)(1_A(u_Z\epsilon _A)1_Z)(\mathrm{\Delta }_A1_Z)=1_{AZ}.`$
This proves that $`\kappa _l`$ is an isomorphism. Similarly, we define a morphism $`\eta _r:ZBZZ`$ by

$$\eta _r=(m_Z1_Z)(1_ZS1_Z)(1_Z\delta ),$$

and show that $`\eta _r`$ is an inverse for $`\kappa _r`$. We have

$`\kappa _r\eta _r`$ $`=(m_Z1_B)(1_Z\beta )(m_Z1_Z)(1_ZS1_Z)(1_Z\delta )=`$
$`(m_Z`$ $`1_B)(m_Z1_Z1_B)(1_ZS1_Z1_B)(1_Z1_T\beta )(1_Z\delta )=`$
$`(m_Z`$ $`1_B)(1_Zm_Z1_B)(1_ZS1_Z1_B)(1_Z\delta 1_B)(1_Z\mathrm{\Delta }_B)=`$
$`(m_Z`$ $`1_B)(1_Z(u_B\epsilon _B)1_B)(1_Z\mathrm{\Delta }_B)=1_{ZB}.`$
We also have

$`\eta _r\kappa _r`$ $`=(m_Z1_Z)(1_ZS1_Z)(1_Z\delta )(m_Z1_B)(1_Z\beta )=`$
$`(m_Z`$ $`1_Z)(m_Z1_Z1_Z)(1_Z1_ZS1_Z)(1_Z1_Z\delta )(1_Z\beta )=`$
$`(m_Z`$ $`1_Z)(1_Zm_Z1_Z)(1_Z1_ZS1_Z)(1_Z\gamma 1_Z)(1_Z\alpha )=`$
$`(m_Z`$ $`1_Z)(1_Z(u_Z\epsilon _A)1_Z)(1_Z\alpha )=1_{ZZ}.`$
This proves that $`\kappa _r`$ is bijective and concludes the proof of Theorem 1.2 $`\mathrm{}`$

Combining Theorem 1.2 and a special case of a theorem of P. Schauenburg , we get the following result. It would be interesting to find a direct proof.

###### Corollary 1.3

Let $`(A,B,Z,T)`$ be a Hopf-Galois system. Then $`A`$ and $`B`$ are Hopf algebras.

Another theorem of P. Schauenburg (Theorem 5.5 in ) ensures that if $`A`$ and $`B`$ are Hopf algebras such that there exists an $`A`$-$`B`$-biGalois extension, the comodule categories over $`A`$ and $`B`$ are monoidally equivalent. This theorem, combined with Theorem 1.2, yields the following result.

###### Corollary 1.4

Let $`(A,B,Z,T)`$ be a Hopf-Galois system. Then the categories $`\mathrm{Comod}(A)`$ and $`\mathrm{Comod}(B)`$ are monoidally equivalent.

Let us now explain the reconstruction of a Hopf-Galois system from a Galois extension. We use Tannaka duality techniques, for which our references are  and . We first consider the following general situation. Let $`𝒞`$ be a small category and let $`F,G:𝒞\mathrm{Vect}_\mathrm{f}(k)`$ be some functors. Following , Section 3, we associate a vector space $`\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗆}^{}(F,G)`$ to such a pair:

$$\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗆}^{}(F,G)=\underset{X\mathrm{ob}(𝒞)}{}\mathrm{Hom}_k(G(X),F(X))/𝒩,$$

where $`𝒩`$ be the linear subspace of $`_{X\mathrm{ob}(𝒞)}\mathrm{Hom}_k(G(X),F(X))`$ generated by the elements $`F(f)uuG(f)`$, with $`f\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞(X,Y)`$ and $`u\mathrm{Hom}_k(G(Y),F(X))`$. The class of an element $`u\mathrm{Hom}_k(G(X),F(X))`$ is denoted by $`[X,u]`$ in $`\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗆}^{}(F,G)`$.

This vector space represents the functor $`\mathrm{Vect}_\mathrm{f}(k)\mathrm{Sets}`$, $`V\mathrm{Nat}(F,GV)`$ (see ). Now let $`K:𝒞\mathrm{Vect}_\mathrm{f}(k)`$ be another functor. The universal property of $`\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗆}^{}(F,G)`$ gives a linear map

$$\delta _{F,G}^K:\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗆}^{}(F,G)\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗆}^{}(K,G)\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗆}^{}(F,K),$$

coassociative in an obvious sense. The map $`\delta _{F,G}^K`$ may be described as follows. Let $`X`$ in ob$`(𝒞)`$, let $`\varphi G(X)^{}`$, let $`xF(X)`$ and let $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_n`$ be a basis of $`K(X)`$. Then

$$\delta _{F,G}^K([X,\varphi x])=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}[X,\varphi e_i][X,e_i^{}x].$$

As a particular case of the previous construction, $`\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}^{}(F):=\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗆}^{}(F,F)`$ is a coalgebra (the counit is induced by the trace, see , Section 4)

Assume now that $`𝒞`$ is a monoidal category and that $`F`$ and $`G`$ are monoidal functors. Then $`\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗆}^{}(F,G)`$ inherits an algebra structure, which may be described by the following formula:

$$[X,u].[Y,v]=[XY,\stackrel{~}{F}_{X,Y}(uv)\stackrel{~}{G}_{X,Y}^1],$$

where the isomorphisms $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{X,Y}:F(X)F(Y)F(XY)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{X,Y}:G(X)G(Y)G(XY)`$ are part of the monoidal functors $`F`$ and $`G`$. It is easy to see that the maps $`\delta _{F,G}^K`$ are algebra maps, and hence $`\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}^{}(F)`$ is a bialgebra.

Assume finally that $`𝒞`$ is a rigid monoidal category. This means that every object $`X`$ has a left dual (), i.e. there exist a triplet $`(X^{},e_X,d_X)`$ where $`X^{}\mathrm{ob}(𝒞)`$, while $`e_X:X^{}XI`$ ($`I`$ is the monoidal unit of $`𝒞`$) and $`d_X:IXX^{}`$ are morphisms of $`𝒞`$ such that:

$$(1_Xe_X)(d_X1_X)=1_X\mathrm{and}(e_X1_X^{})(1_X^{}d_X)=1_X^{}.$$

The rigidity of $`𝒞`$ allows one to define a duality endofunctor of $`𝒞`$, which will be used in the proof of the following result.

###### Proposition 1.5

Let $`𝒞`$ be a rigid monoidal category and let $`F,G:𝒞\mathrm{Vect}_\mathrm{f}(k)`$ be monoidal functors. Then $`(\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}^{}(F),\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}^{}(G),\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗆}^{}(G,F),\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗆}^{}(F,G))`$ is a Hopf-Galois system.

Proof. We retain the notations of Definition 1.1. We put $`\alpha :=\delta _{G,F}^F`$, $`\beta :=\delta _{G,F}^G`$, $`\gamma :=\delta _{F,F}^G`$ and $`\delta :=\delta _{G,G}^F`$. It is clear that the axioms (HG1)-(HG3) are satisfied. Hence it remains to construct the linear map $`S:\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗆}^{}(F,G)\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗆}^{}(G,F)`$. Let $`X\mathrm{ob}(𝒞)`$. Then we have natural isomorphisms

$$\lambda _X^F:F(X)^{}F(X^{})\mathrm{and}\lambda _X^G:G(X)^{}G(X^{})$$

such that the following diagrams commute:

Let $`u\mathrm{Hom}_k(G(X),F(X))`$. We put

$$S([X,u])=[X^{},\lambda _X^G{}_{}{}^{t}u(\lambda _X^F)^1].$$

It is easy to see that $`S`$ is a well defined linear map. Now let $`\varphi F(X)^{}`$, let $`xF(X)`$ and let $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_n`$ be a basis of $`G(X)`$. Then we have

$`m`$ $`(1S)\gamma ([X,\varphi x])={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}[X,\varphi e_i][X^{},\lambda _X^G(e_i^{}x)(\lambda _X^F)^1]=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}[XX^{},\stackrel{~}{G}_{X,X^{}}(1_{F(X)}\lambda _X^G)((\varphi e_i)(xe_i^{}))(1_{F(X)}(\lambda _X^F)^1)\stackrel{~}{F}_{X,X^{}}^1]`$
$`=`$ $`[XX^{},\stackrel{~}{G}_{X,X^{}}(1_{F(X)}\lambda _X^G)d_{G(X)}(\varphi x)(1_{F(X)}(\lambda _X^F)^1)\stackrel{~}{F}_{X,X^{}}^1]`$
$`=`$ $`[XX^{},G(d_X)\stackrel{~}{G}_0(\varphi x)(1_{F(X)}(\lambda _X^F)^1)\stackrel{~}{F}_{X,X^{}}^1]`$
$`=`$ $`[I,\stackrel{~}{G}_0(\varphi x)(1_{F(X)}(\lambda _X^F)^1)\stackrel{~}{F}_{X,X^{}}^1F(d_X)]`$
$`=`$ $`[I,\stackrel{~}{G}_0(\varphi x)d_{F(X)}\stackrel{~}{F}_0^1]=\varphi (x)[I,\stackrel{~}{G}_0\stackrel{~}{F}_0^1]=\epsilon ([X,\varphi x])1.`$
Since the elements $`[X,\varphi x]`$ linearly span $`\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}^{}(F)`$, we have the commutativity of the first diagram of HG4. The commutativity of the second diagram is proved similarly. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 1.6

Proposition 1.5 generalizes , using exactly the same idea. More generally, Proposition 1.5 is still valid with weaker hypothesis on the target category (which we have assumed here to be $`\mathrm{Vect}_\mathrm{f}(k)`$): see . Of course the proof is more difficult to write: see the proof of Theorem 2.4.2 in . Our proof, using rank one operators in the case of $`\mathrm{Vect}_\mathrm{f}(k)`$, is not very elegant, but is quite straightforward.

###### Remark 1.7

It is easily seen that the map $`S:\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗆}^{}(F,G)\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗆}^{}(G,F)^{\mathrm{op}}`$ constructed in the proof of Proposition 1.5 is an algebra morphism.

We can now recover a Hopf-Galois system starting from a Galois extension.

###### Corollary 1.8

Let $`A`$ be Hopf algebra and let $`Z`$ be a left $`A`$-Galois extension. Then there exists a Hopf algebra $`B`$ and an algebra $`T`$ such that $`(A,B,Z,T)`$ is a Hopf-Galois system.

Proof. First consider the forgetful functor $`\omega :\mathrm{Comod}_\mathrm{f}(A)\mathrm{Vect}_\mathrm{f}(k)`$. By tannakian reconstruction theorems  the Hopf algebras $`A`$ and $`\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}^{}(\omega )`$ are isomorphic: hence we identify these two Hopf algebras. Now consider the $`A`$-Galois extension $`Z`$. Following Ulbrich , we associate a fibre functor $`\eta _Z:\mathrm{Comod}_\mathrm{f}(A)\mathrm{Vect}_\mathrm{f}(k)`$ to $`Z`$ ($`\eta _Z`$ is a monoidal, $`k`$-linear, exact and faithful functor). For an $`A`$-comodule $`V`$, we have $`\eta _Z(V)=VZ`$, where $`VZ`$ is the kernel of the double arrow:

$$\alpha _V1_Z,1_V\alpha _Z:VZVAZ$$

($`VZ`$ is the cotensor product of ). We have an obvious monoidal natural transformation $`\eta _Z\omega Z`$ and thus the universal property of $`\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗆}^{}(\eta _Z,\omega )`$ yields an $`A`$-colinear algebra morphism $`\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗆}^{}(\eta _Z,\omega )Z`$. Since by Proposition 1.5 and Theorem 1.2 $`\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗆}^{}(\eta _Z,\omega )`$ is a left $`A`$-Galois extension, and since the category of $`A`$-Galois extensions is a groupoid , then $`\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗆}^{}(\eta _Z,\omega )Z`$. Then, with the obvious identifications, $`(\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}^{}(\omega ),\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}^{}(\eta _Z),\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗆}^{}(\eta _Z,\omega ),\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗆}^{}(\omega ,\eta _Z))`$ is the Hopf-Galois system we have announced. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 1.9

In , Schauenburg constructs the Hopf algebra $`B`$ (and the algebra $`T`$ in Section 4) using different techniques. His techniques allow him to work with Hopf algebras over a ring (with a faithful flatness assumption). It is certainly possible to get the whole Hopf-Galois system using his techniques. On the other hand, when the base ring is a field, its seems that the tannakian methods used here are easier to use (it may be a question of personal taste).

Using Remark 1.7 and the proof of the last corollary, we easily have the following result, generalizing the classical fact that the antipode of a Hopf algebra is an algebra anti-morphism. Again it would be interesting to have a direct proof.

###### Corollary 1.10

Let $`(A,B,Z,T)`$ be a Hopf-Galois system. Then $`S:TZ^{\mathrm{op}}`$ is an algebra morphism.

###### Remark 1.11

We have done enough work to prove easily that if $`A`$ and $`B`$ are Hopf algebras such that there exists an $`A`$-$`B`$-biGalois extension, then the comodule categories over $`A`$ and $`B`$ are monoidally equivalent. This is the part of Schauenburg’s Theorem 5.5 in  that was used to prove Corollary 1.4, certainly the most important result of the present paper. So we include a proof for the sake of completeness.

Let $`Z`$ be an $`A`$-$`B`$-biGalois extension. The fibre functor $`\eta _Z:\mathrm{Comod}_\mathrm{f}(A)\mathrm{Vect}_\mathrm{f}(k)`$ factorizes through $`\mathrm{Comod}_f(B)`$, and thus, by the universal property of $`\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}^{}(\eta _Z)`$, there exists a Hopf algebra morphism $`\varphi :\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}^{}(\eta _Z)B`$ such that$`(1_Z\varphi )\alpha ^{}=\beta `$, where $`\alpha ^{}`$ stands for the canonical coaction of $`\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}^{}(\eta _Z)`$ on $`Z`$ (recall that $`\eta _Z(A)=Z`$). Since $`Z`$ may be identified with $`\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗆}^{}(\eta _Z,\omega )`$ (proof of Corollary 1.8), it follows from Proposition 1.5 and Theorem 1.2 that $`Z`$ is a right $`\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}^{}(\eta _Z)`$-Galois extension. Then we have $`(1_Z\varphi )\kappa _r^{}=\kappa _r`$, ($`\kappa _r^{}`$ stands for the Galois map of $`\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}^{}(\eta _Z)`$ relative to $`Z`$) and since $`Z`$ is a right $`B`$-Galois extension, it follows that $`1_Z\varphi `$ is bijective, and so is $`\varphi :\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}^{}(\eta _Z)B`$. Now since $`\eta _Z`$ is a fibre functor, tannakian theorems  ensure that $`\mathrm{Comod}_\mathrm{f}(A)`$ and $`\mathrm{Comod}_\mathrm{f}(\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}^{}(\eta _Z))`$ are monoidally equivalent. This concludes our proof since the category $`\mathrm{Comod}(A)`$ is the category of Ind-objects of $`\mathrm{Comod}_\mathrm{f}(A)`$.

## 2 Hopf-Galois systems and 2-Cocycles

BiGalois extensions are associated to 2-cocycles in . We review this construction in the framework of Hopf-Galois systems. After this, we study a concrete example for the function algebra on the symmetric group.

Let $`A`$ be a Hopf algebra. We use Sweedler’s notation $`\mathrm{\Delta }(a)=a_{(1)}a_{(2)}`$. Recall (see e.g. ) that a 2-cocycle is a convolution invertible linear map $`\sigma :AAk`$ satisfying

$$\sigma (a_{(1)},b_{(1)})\sigma (a_{(2)}b_{(2)},c)=\sigma (b_{(1)},c_{(1)})\sigma (a,b_{(2)}c_{(2)})$$

and $`\sigma (a,1)=\sigma (1,a)=\epsilon (a)`$, for all $`a,b,cA`$. The convolution inverse of $`\sigma `$, denoted $`\overline{\sigma }`$, satisfies

$$\overline{\sigma }(a_{(1)}b_{(1)},c)\overline{\sigma }(a_{(2)},b_{(2)})=\overline{\sigma }(a,b_{(1)}c_{(1)})\overline{\sigma }(b_{(2)},c_{(2)})$$

and $`\overline{\sigma }(a,1)=\overline{\sigma }(1,a)=\epsilon (a)`$, for all $`a,b,cA`$.

Following  and , we associate various algebras to a 2-cocycle. First consider the algebra $`{}_{\sigma }{}^{}A`$. As a vector space $`{}_{\sigma }{}^{}A=A`$ and the product of $`{}_{\sigma }{}^{}A`$ is defined to be

$$a_\sigma .b=\sigma (a_{(1)},b_{(1)})a_{(2)}b_{(2)},a,bA.$$

We also have the algebra $`A_{\overline{\sigma }}`$. As a vector space we have $`A_{\overline{\sigma }}=A`$ and the product of $`A_{\overline{\sigma }}`$ is defined to be

$$a._{\overline{\sigma }}b=\overline{\sigma }(a_{(2)},b_{(2)})a_{(1)}b_{(1)},a,bA.$$

Then $`A_{\overline{\sigma }}`$ is a left $`A`$-comodule algebra with coaction $`\alpha `$ defined by $`\alpha =\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Finally we have the Hopf algebra $`{}_{\sigma }{}^{}A_{\overline{\sigma }}^{}`$ (denoted $`A^\sigma `$ in ). As a coalgebra $`{}_{\sigma }{}^{}A_{\overline{\sigma }}^{}=A`$. The product of $`{}_{\sigma }{}^{}A_{\overline{\sigma }}^{}`$ is defined to be

$$a.b=\sigma (a_{(1)},b_{(1)})\overline{\sigma }(a_{(3)},b_{(3)})a_{(2)}b_{(2)},a,bA,$$

and we have the following formula for the antipode of $`{}_{\sigma }{}^{}A_{\overline{\sigma }}^{}`$:

$$S^\sigma (a)=\sigma (a_{(1)},S(a_{(2)}))\overline{\sigma }(S(a_{(4)}),a_{(5)})S(a_{(3)}).$$

The algebra $`A_{\overline{\sigma }}`$ is a right $`{}_{\sigma }{}^{}A_{\overline{\sigma }}^{}`$-comodule algebra, with coaction defined by $`\beta =\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In this way $`A_{\overline{\sigma }}`$ is an $`A`$-$`{}_{\sigma }{}^{}A_{\overline{\sigma }}^{}`$-bicomodule algebra. We have the following result.

###### Proposition 2.1

Let $`A`$ be Hopf algebra and let $`\sigma :AAk`$ be a 2-cocycle. Then $`(A,_\sigma A_{\overline{\sigma }},A_{\overline{\sigma }},_\sigma A)`$ is a Hopf-Galois system.

Proof. We put $`\gamma =\delta =\mathrm{\Delta }`$. It is easy to see that the axiom HG3 is satisfied. Now define a linear map $`\varphi :_\sigma AA_{\overline{\sigma }}`$ by $`\varphi (a)=\sigma (a_{(1)},S(a_{(2)}))S(a_{(3)})`$, for $`aA`$. Then

$`m_{A_{\overline{\sigma }}}`$ $`(1_{A_{\overline{\sigma }}}\varphi )\gamma (a)=a_{(1)}._{\overline{\sigma }}\varphi (a_{(2)})=a_{(1)}._{\overline{\sigma }}\sigma (a_{(2)},S(a_{(3)}))S(a_{(4)})=`$
$`\sigma `$ $`(a_{(3)},S(a_{(4)}))\overline{\sigma }(a_{(2)},S(a_{(5)}))a_{(1)}S(a_{(6)})=`$
$`\overline{\sigma }`$ $`\sigma (a_{(2)},S(a_{(3)}))a_{(1)}S(a_{(4)})=a_{(1)}S(a_{(2)})=\epsilon (a)1.`$
We also have

$`m_{A_{\overline{\sigma }}}`$ $`(\varphi 1_{A_{\overline{\sigma }}})\delta (a)=\varphi (a_{(1)})._{\overline{\sigma }}a_{(2)}=\sigma (a_{(1)},S(a_{(2)}))S(a_{(3)})._{\overline{\sigma }}a_{(4)}=`$
$`\sigma `$ $`(a_{(1)},S(a_{(2)}))\overline{\sigma }(S(a_{(3)}),a_{(6)})S(a_{(4)})a_{(5)}=\sigma (a_{(1)},S(a_{(2)}))\overline{\sigma }(S(a_{(3)}),a_{(4)})=\epsilon (a)1,`$
by (a5) of Theorem 1.6 in . Thus $`(A,_\sigma A_{\overline{\sigma }},A_{\overline{\sigma }},_\sigma A)`$ is a Hopf-Galois system. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let now study an explicit example. In fact the cocycle will only be used when proving that a certain algebra is non-zero. In  we have constructed 2-cocycle deformations of the function algebra on the symmetric group. We generalize these results here.

Let us fix some notations. Until the end of the section $`k`$ will be a characteristic zero field. We fix $`m,n^{}`$ with $`m,n2`$ and a primitive $`m`$-th root of unity $`\xi `$ contained in $`k`$. We will work with the symmetric group $`S_{mn}`$. For a real number $`x`$, we put $`E^+(x)=n`$ where $`n`$ is such that $`x]n1,n]`$. For $`i\{1,\mathrm{},mn\}`$, we put $`i^{}:=E^+(\frac{i}{m})\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$.

We say that a matrix $`𝐩=(p_{ij})M_n(k)`$ is an AST-matrix (after Artin-Schelter-Tate ) if $`p_{ii}=1`$ and $`p_{ij}p_{ji}=1`$ for all $`i`$ and $`j`$. An AST-matrix is said to be of order $`m`$ if $`p_{ij}^m=1`$ for all $`i`$ and $`j`$. The trivial AST-matrix (i.e. $`p_{ij}=1`$ for all $`i`$ and $`j`$) is denoted by $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

Let $`𝐩M_n(k)`$ be an AST-matrix of order $`m`$. Let $`i,j,k,l\{1,\mathrm{},mn\}`$. We put

$$R_{ij}^{lk}(𝐩):=\delta _{i^{}k^{}}\delta _{j^{}l^{}}\underset{r,s=0}{\overset{m1}{}}\xi ^{r(ik)+s(jl)}p_{j^{}i^{}}^{rs}.$$

###### Definition 2.2

Let $`𝐩,𝐪M_n(k)`$ be AST matrices of order $`m`$. The algebra $`𝒪_{𝐪,𝐩}(S_{mn})`$ is defined to be the universal algebra with generators $`(x_{ij})_{1i,jmn}`$ and satisfying the relations:

$`x_{ij}x_{ik}=\delta _{jk}`$ $`x_{ij};x_{ji}x_{ki}=\delta _{jk}x_{ji};{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{mn}{}}}x_{il}=1={\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{mn}{}}}x_{li},1i,j,kn.`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}`$ $`R_{ij}^{lk}(𝐩)x_{\alpha l}x_{\beta k}={\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}R_{lk}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐪)x_{li}x_{kj},1i,j,\alpha ,\beta n.`$ (2)
When $`𝐩=𝐪`$, then it is easily seen that $`𝒪_𝐩(S_{mn}):=𝒪_{𝐩,𝐩}(S_{mn})`$ is a Hopf algebra, with coproduct defined by $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x_{ij})=_kx_{ik}x_{kj}`$, counit defined by $`\epsilon (x_{ij})=\delta _{ij}`$ and antipode defined by $`S(x_{ij})=x_{ji}`$ (note that $`R_{ij}^{lk}(𝐩)=R_{kl}^{ji}(𝐩)`$). Note that the relations (2) are just FRT relations . If $`m=2`$, the present Hopf algebras coincide with the Hopf algebras $`𝒪_𝐩(S_{2n})`$ of . The algebras $`𝒪_{𝐪,𝐩}(S_{mn})`$ will be shown to part of a Hopf-Galois system. Before we need a lemma.

###### Lemma 2.3

Let $`𝐩M_n(k)`$ be an AST matrix of order $`m`$. Then $`𝒪_{𝐩,\mathrm{𝟏}}(S_{mn})`$ is a non-zero algebra.

Proof. We will use an appropriate 2-cocycle. For $`1in`$, put $`t_i=(m(i1)+1,\mathrm{},mi)S_{mn}`$, and let $`H=t_1,\mathrm{},t_n`$ ($`H(/m)^n`$). Following Artin-Schelter-Tate , we define $`\sigma _𝐩:H\times Hk^{}`$ to be the unique bimultiplicative map such that $`\sigma _𝐩(t_i,t_j)=p_{ij}`$ for $`i<j`$ and $`\sigma _𝐩(t_i,t_j)=1`$ for $`ij`$. Now consider the surjective Hopf algebra morphism

$$\pi :𝒪(S_{mn})k[H],x_{ij}\frac{\delta _{i^{}j^{}}}{m}\underset{k=0}{\overset{m1}{}}\xi ^{k(ji)}t_i^k,1i,j,k,lmn,$$

where $`𝒪(S_{mn})=𝒪_\mathrm{𝟏}(S_{mn})`$ is the function algebra on the symmetric group. Composing now $`\pi \pi `$ with the unique $`k`$-linear extension of $`\sigma _𝐩`$ to $`k[H]k[H]`$, we get a 2-cocycle on $`𝒪(S_{mn})`$, still denoted $`\sigma _𝐩`$. This is the method of construction of 2-cocycles induced by abelian subgroups of Enock-Vainerman . We have

$$\sigma _𝐩(x_{ij},x_{kl})=\delta _{ij}\delta _{kl}\mathrm{if}i^{}k^{}\mathrm{and}\sigma _𝐩(x_{ij},x_{kl})=\frac{\delta _{i^{}j^{}}\delta _{k^{}l^{}}}{m^2}\underset{r,s=0}{\overset{m1}{}}\xi ^{r(ji)+s(lk)}p_{i^{}k^{}}^{rs}\mathrm{if}i^{}<k^{}.$$

It is then a straightforward but tedious computation to check that the generators of $`{}_{\sigma _𝐩}{}^{}𝒪(S_{mn})`$ satisfy the defining relations of $`𝒪_{𝐩,\mathrm{𝟏}}(S_{mn})`$, and thus $`𝒪_{𝐩,\mathrm{𝟏}}(S_{mn})`$ is a non-zero algebra. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 2.4

Consider $`𝐩,𝐪M_n(k)`$ some AST matrices of order $`m`$. Then $`(𝒪_𝐪(S_{mn}),𝒪_𝐩(S_{mn}),𝒪_{𝐪,𝐩}(S_{mn}),𝒪_{𝐩,𝐪}(S_{mn}))`$ is a Hopf-Galois system.

Proof. Let $`𝐫M_n(k)`$ be another AST matrix. It is straightforward to check that there exist a unique algebra morphism

$$\delta _{𝐪,𝐩}^𝐫:𝒪_{𝐪,𝐩}(S_{mn})𝒪_{𝐪,𝐫}(S_{mn})𝒪_{𝐫,𝐩}(S_{mn})$$

such that $`\delta _{𝐪,𝐩}^𝐫(x_{ij})=_kx_{ik}x_{kj}`$. Similarly it easy to see (using $`R_{ij}^{lk}(𝐩)=R_{kl}^{ji}(𝐩)`$) that there exist a unique algebra isomorphism

$$\varphi :𝒪_{𝐩,𝐪}(S_{mn})𝒪_{𝐪,𝐩}(S_{mn})^{\mathrm{op}}$$

such that $`\varphi (x_{ij})=x_{ji}`$. Now using $`\delta _{𝐪,𝐩}^\mathrm{𝟏}`$, Lemma 2.3 and $`\varphi `$, we see that $`𝒪_{𝐪,𝐩}(S_{mn})`$ and $`𝒪_{𝐩,𝐪}(S_{mn})`$ are non-zero algebras. We have defined all the necessary structural morphisms, and it is immediate to check that the axioms of a Hopf-Galois system are satisfied. $`\mathrm{}`$

Combining Proposition 2.4 and Corollary 1.4, we get the following result.

###### Corollary 2.5

Let $`𝐩M_n(k)`$ be an AST matrix of order $`m`$. Then the the category of $`𝒪_𝐩(S_{mn})`$-comodules is monoidally equivalent to the representation category of the symmetric group $`S_{mn}`$.

## 3 Hopf-Galois systems for Hopf algebras of bilinear forms

In  we constructed Hopf biGalois extensions for the universal Hopf algebras associated to non-degenerate bilinear forms. We reconsider this construction at the Hopf-Galois system level: this makes the considerations of  more transparent. Note that in general, the Hopf-Galois systems we have here cannot be obtained using 2-cocycles.

Let $`EGL_m(k)`$ and let $`FGL_n(k)`$. Recall  that the algebra $`(E,F)`$ is the universal algebra with generators $`x_{ij}`$, $`1im,1jn`$, and satisfying the relations

$$F^1{}_{}{}^{t}xEx=I_n;xF^1{}_{}{}^{t}xE=I_m,$$

where $`x`$ is the matrix $`(x_{ij})`$ and $`I_m`$ and $`I_n`$ are the identity matrices of size $`m`$ and $`n`$ respectively. For $`E=F`$ we have the Hopf algebra $`(E)`$ of M. Dubois-Violette and G. Launer .

###### Proposition 3.1

Let $`EGL_m(k)`$ and let $`FGL_n(k)`$ ($`m,n2`$) be such that $`\mathrm{tr}(E^tE^1)=\mathrm{tr}(F^tF^1)`$. Then $`((E),(F),(E,F),(F,E))`$ is a Hopf-Galois system.

Proof. First the end of Section 4 in  ensures that $`(E,F)`$ is a non-zero algebra. Let $`GGL_p(k)`$. It is a direct computation to check that there exists a unique algebra morphism $`\delta _{E,F}^G:(E,F)(E,G)(G,F)`$ such that $`\delta _{E,F}^G(x_{ij})=_{k=1}^px_{ik}x_{kj}`$, $`1im,1jn`$. Also there exists a unique algebra isomorphism $`\varphi :(F,E)(E,F)^{\mathrm{op}}`$ such that $`\varphi (x)=F^1{}_{}{}^{t}xE`$. In this way we have all the necessary structural maps and it is immediate to check that we indeed have a Hopf-Galois system. $`\mathrm{}`$

Using Proposition 3.1 and Corollary 1.4, we have the following result from :

###### Corollary 3.2

1) Let $`EGL_m(k)`$ and let $`FGL_n(k)`$ ($`m,n2`$) be such that $`\mathrm{tr}(E^tE^1)=\mathrm{tr}(F^tF^1)`$. Then the categories $`\mathrm{Comod}((E))`$ and $`\mathrm{Comod}((F))`$ are monoidally equivalent.

2) Assume that $`k`$ is algebraically closed. Let $`EGL_m(k)`$ ($`m2`$) and let $`qk^{}`$ be such that $`q^2+\mathrm{tr}(E^tE^1)q+1=0`$. Then the categories $`\mathrm{Comod}((E))`$ and $`\mathrm{Comod}(𝒪(SL_q(2)))`$ are monoidally equivalent.

## 4 Hopf-Galois systems for cosovereign Hopf algebras

Recall  that a Hopf algebra $`A`$ is said to be cosovereign if there exists a character $`\mathrm{\Phi }A^{}`$ such that $`S^2=\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$. The universal (or free) cosovereign Hopf algebras were constructed in . We describe some of the Hopf-Galois systems associated with this class of Hopf algebras. Our constructions are certainly incomplete, but they nevertheless enable us to improve on certain known results  on the corepresentation theory of the universal cosovereign Hopf algebras (when $`k=`$).

###### Definition 4.1

Let $`EGL_m(k)`$ and let $`FGL_n(k)`$. The algebra $`H(E,F)`$ is defined to be the universal algebra with generators $`u_{ij}`$, $`v_{ij}`$, $`1im,1jn`$, and satisfying the relations

$$u{}_{}{}^{t}v=I_m=vF{}_{}{}^{t}uE^1;{}_{}{}^{t}vu=I_n=F{}_{}{}^{t}uE^1v.$$

When $`E=F`$, we just have the universal cosovereign Hopf algebras $`H(F)`$ of . It is known (see Proposition 3.3 in ) that the Hopf algebra $`H(F)`$ remains unchanged, up to isomorphism, if the matrix $`F`$ is multiplied by a non-zero scalar or is replaced by a conjugate matrix. Similarly, we have the following result.

###### Proposition 4.2

Let $`\lambda k^{}`$, let $`E,PGL_m(k)`$ and let $`F,QGL_n(k)`$. Then $`H(\lambda E,\lambda F)=H(E,F)`$, and we have algebra isomorphisms $`H(E,F)H(PEP^1,QFQ^1)`$ and $`H(E,F)H({}_{}{}^{t}E_{}^{1},{}_{}{}^{t}F_{}^{1})`$.

Proof. The first assertion is obvious. It is easily seen that there exists a unique algebra isomorphism $`f:H(E,F)H(PEP^1,QFQ^1)`$ such that $`f(u)={}_{}{}^{t}Pu{}_{}{}^{t}Q_{}^{1}`$ and $`f(v)=P^1vQ`$. Also we have an algebra isomorphism $`g:H(E,F)H({}_{}{}^{t}E_{}^{1},{}_{}{}^{t}F_{}^{1})`$ such that $`g(u)=v`$ and $`g(v)=EuF^1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The Hopf algebra structure of $`H(F)`$ is a particular case of the following result.

###### Proposition 4.3

Let $`EGL_m(k)`$ and let $`FGL_n(k)`$. Assume that $`H(E,F)0`$. Then $`(H(E),H(F),H(E,F),H(F,E))`$ is a Hopf-Galois system.

Proof. Let $`GGL_p(k)`$. Then it is easy to check that there exists a unique algebra morphism $`\delta _{E,F}^G:H(E,F)H(E,G)H(G,F)`$ such that $`\delta _{E,F}^G(u_{ij})=_{k=1}^pu_{ik}u_{kj}`$ and $`\delta _{E,F}^G(v_{ij})=_{k=1}^pv_{ik}v_{kj}`$, $`1im`$, $`1jn`$. Also there is a unique algebra morphism $`\varphi :H(F,E)H(E,F)^{\mathrm{op}}`$ such that $`\varphi (u)={}_{}{}^{t}v`$ and $`\varphi (v)=F{}_{}{}^{t}uE^1`$. Thus with the obvious structural morphisms, we have a Hopf-Galois system. $`\mathrm{}`$

Of course this last result is useful only when one knows that $`H(E,F)`$ is non-zero. In view of the results of the preceding section, it is quite natural to think that $`H(E,F)`$ will be a non-zero algebra when $`\mathrm{tr}(E)=\mathrm{tr}(F)`$ and $`\mathrm{tr}(E^1)=\mathrm{tr}(F^1)`$. This problem will be studied elsewhere. There is already an interesting case where we can prove that $`H(E,F)0`$.

###### Proposition 4.4

Let $`EGL_m(k)`$ and let $`FGL_n(k)`$ be such that $`\mathrm{tr}(E)=\mathrm{tr}(F)`$. Assume that there exists $`GGL_m(k)`$ and $`KGL_n(k)`$ such that $`E={}_{}{}^{t}GG^1`$ and $`F={}_{}{}^{t}KK^1`$. Then $`H(E,F)`$ is a non-zero algebra.

Proof. It is easy to check that there exists a unique algebra morphism $`f:H(E,F)(G,K)`$ such that $`f(u)=x`$ and $`f(v)={}_{}{}^{t}Gx{}_{}{}^{t}K_{}^{1}`$. We have $`\mathrm{tr}(E)=\mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{t}GG^1)=\mathrm{tr}(F)=\mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{t}KK^1)`$, so by , we know that $`(G,K)`$ is a non-zero algebra. Since $`f`$ is surjective, it is clear that $`H(E,F)`$ is a non-zero algebra. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`qk^{}`$. In the next result, we consider the matrix $`F_q=\left(\begin{array}{cc}q& 0\\ 0& q^1\end{array}\right)GL_2(k)`$, and we put $`H_q:=H(F_q)`$.

###### Corollary 4.5

1) Let $`EGL_m(k)`$ and let $`FGL_n(k)`$ be such that $`\mathrm{tr}(E)=\mathrm{tr}(F)`$. Assume that there exists $`GGL_m(k)`$ and $`KGL_n(k)`$ such that $`E={}_{}{}^{t}GG^1`$ and $`F={}_{}{}^{t}KK^1`$. Then the categories $`\mathrm{Comod}(H(E))`$ and $`\mathrm{Comod}(H(F))`$ are monoidally equivalent.

2) Let $`FGL_n(k)`$. Assume that $`k`$ is algebraically closed and that there exists $`KGL_n(k)`$ such that $`F={}_{}{}^{t}KK^1`$. Let $`qk^{}`$ be such that $`q^2\mathrm{tr}(F)q+1=0`$. Then the categories $`\mathrm{Comod}(H(F))`$ and $`\mathrm{Comod}(H_q)`$ are monoidally equivalent.

Proof. The first assertion follows from Propositions 4.3-4.4 and Corollary 1.4. We have $`F_q={}_{}{}^{t}GG^1`$ for the matrix $`G=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ q& 0\end{array}\right)`$, and hence the second assertion follows from the fist one. $`\mathrm{}`$

Until the end of the section, we assume that $`k=`$. Let us recall that a Hopf $``$-algebra is a Hopf algebra $`A`$, which is also a $``$-algebra and such that the comultiplication is a $``$-homomorphism. Recall  that a Hopf $``$-algebra $`A`$ is said to be a CQG algebra if for every finite-dimensional $`A`$-comodule with associate matrix of coefficients $`aM_n(A)`$, there exists $`KGL_n()`$ such that the matrix $`KaK^1`$ is unitary. A CQG algebra may be seen as the algebra of representative functions on a compact quantum group.

Let $`FGL_n()`$. We have seen in  (Proposition 3.6) that $`H(F)`$ admits a CQG algebra structure if and only if $`F`$ is conjugate to a relatively positive matrix (a matrix $`M`$ is said to be relatively positive if there exists $`\lambda ^{}`$ such that $`\lambda M`$ is a positive matrix). In this case $`H(F)`$ is the dense Hopf $``$-algebra of one the universal compact quantum groups introduced by A. Van Daele and S. Wang , and the corepresentation theory has been worked out by T. Banica : the irreducible comodules are labelled by the free product $``$. We can combine Banica’s results  and Corollary 4.5 to get the cosemisimplicity of some universal cosovereign Hopf algebras which do not admit a CQG algebra structure, as well as their corepresentation theory.

###### Example 4.6

Let $`q,\alpha ^{}`$ Consider the matrix $`F=\left(\begin{array}{cc}q& \alpha \\ 0& q^1\end{array}\right)`$. Since $`H(F)=H(F)`$, we can assume that $`q1`$ without changing the Hopf algebra $`H(F)`$. The matrix $`F`$ is not relatively positive, but satisfies the condition of Corollary 4.5, for $`K=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha \frac{q}{1q}& 1\\ q& 0\end{array}\right)`$, and hence $`\mathrm{Comod}(H(F))^{}\mathrm{Comod}(H_q)`$. If $`q^{}`$, then $`H_q`$ is a CQG algebra and we can use the results of .

Another example is constructed as follows. Let $`\xi `$ be a primitive $`m`$-th root of unity, $`m5`$. Consider the diagonal matrix $`F=\mathrm{Diag}(\xi ,1,\xi ^1)`$. Then $`F`$ is not a relatively positive matrix, but $`F`$ satisfies the condition of Corollary 4.5 (easy to check) and the solutions of $`q^2(1+\xi +\xi ^1)q+1=0`$ are real numbers. Hence we have $`\mathrm{Comod}(H(F))^{}\mathrm{Comod}(H_q)`$, and $`H_q`$ is CQG algera since $`q`$ is a real number: we can use the results of .

## 5 Hopf-Galois systems for free Hopf algebras

M. Takeuchi has constructed in  the free Hopf algebra generated by a coalgebra. We consider here the case of a matrix coalgebra $`M_m(k)^{}`$, and construct the corresponding Hopf-Galois system.

###### Definition 5.1

Let $`m,n^{}`$. The algebra $`H(m,n)`$ is defined to be the universal algebra with generators $`x_{ij}^{(\alpha )}`$, $`1im,1jn`$, $`\alpha `$, and submitted to the relations:

$$x^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{t}x_{}^{(\alpha +1)}=I_m,{}_{}{}^{t}x_{}^{(\alpha +1)}x^{(\alpha )}=I_n,\alpha .$$

When $`m=n`$, we have the free Hopf algebra $`H(m,m)=H(m)=H(M_m(k)^{})`$ of . This Hopf algebra is also considered in , under a different notation. See  or  for the structural morphisms of the Hopf algebra $`H(m)`$. In fact we have the following more general result.

###### Proposition 5.2

Let $`m,n2`$. Then $`(H(m),H(n),H(m,n),H(n,m))`$ is a Hopf-Galois system.

Proof. Let us first check $`H(m,n)`$ is a non-zero algebra. Let $`EGL_m(k)`$ and $`FGL_n(k)`$ be such that $`\mathrm{tr}(E^tE^1)=\mathrm{tr}(F^tF^1)`$. It is a direct computation to check that there exists a unique algebra morphism $`f:H(m,n)(E,F)`$ such that

$$f(x^{(2k)})=(E^1{}_{}{}^{t}E)^kx(F^1{}_{}{}^{t}F)^k\mathrm{and}f(x^{(2k+1)})={}_{}{}^{t}E(E^1{}_{}{}^{t}E)^kx(F^1{}_{}{}^{t}F)^k{}_{}{}^{t}F_{}^{1},k.$$

Thus, since $`f`$ is surjective and $`(E,F)`$ is a non-zero algebra , it is clear that $`H(m,n)`$ is a non-zero algebra. Let $`p2`$. There is a unique algebra morphism $`\delta _{m,n}^p:H(m,n)H(m,p)H(p,n)`$ such that $`\delta _{m,n}^p(x_{ij}^{(\alpha )})=_{k=1}^px_{ik}^{(\alpha )}x_{kj}^{(\alpha )}`$, $`1im,1jn`$, $`\alpha `$. Also there is a unique algebra morphism $`\varphi :H(n,m)H(m,n)^{\mathrm{op}}`$ such that $`\varphi (x^{(\alpha )})={}_{}{}^{t}x_{}^{(\alpha +1)}`$. Thus with the obvious structural morphisms, we have a Hopf-Galois system. $`\mathrm{}`$

Combining Proposition 5.2 and Corollary 1.4, we have:

###### Corollary 5.3

Let $`m2`$. Then the categories $`\mathrm{Comod}(H(m))`$ and $`\mathrm{Comod}(H(2))`$ are monoidally equivalent.

There is also a version of free Hopf algebras with a bijective antipode, considered in  and . It is left as an exercice to the reader, using the preceding techniques, to construct the corresponding Hopf-Galois systems.


text:
# A direct measurement of the W boson decay width

## I Introduction

The theory that describes the fundamental particle interactions is called the standard model (SM). The standard model is a gauge field theory that comprises the Glashow-Weinberg-Salam (GWS) model  of the weak and electromagnetic interactions and quantum chromodynamics (QCD) , the theory of the strong interactions. The discovery of the $`W`$  and $`Z`$  bosons in 1983 by the UA1 and UA2 collaborations at the CERN $`p\overline{p}`$ collider provided a direct confirmation of the unification of the weak and electromagnetic interactions. Experiments have been refining the measurements of the characteristics of the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ bosons. The total decay width of $`W`$ boson, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$, is given in the SM in terms of the masses of the gauge bosons and their couplings to their decay products.

In $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions, $`W`$ bosons are produced by processes of the type $`u\overline{d}`$ or $`\overline{u}dW`$, followed by subsequent leptonic or hadronic decay: $`W\mathrm{}\nu `$ or $`Wq^{}\overline{q}`$, where $`\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau `$, and $`q^{}`$ or $`q`$ represent one of the quarks $`u`$, $`d`$, $`c`$, $`s`$ or $`b`$ (but not $`t`$ since top quark is heavier than the $`W`$ boson).

At lowest order in perturbation theory, the SM predicts the partial decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(We\nu )`$ of $`We\nu `$ to be $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(We\nu )=g^2M_W/48\pi `$ . Including radiative corrections, this can be rewritten as:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(We\nu )=\frac{G_FM_W^3}{6\sqrt{2}\pi }(1+\delta _{\mathrm{SM}}).$$
(1)
where $`G_F/\sqrt{2}=g^2/8M_W^2`$, $`g`$ is the charged current coupling, and $`M_W`$ is the mass of the $`W`$ boson. The SM radiative correction, $`\delta _{\mathrm{SM}}`$, is calculated  to be less than $`\frac{1}{2}\%`$. By using the experimental values of $`G_F`$ (measured from muon decay ) and $`M_W`$ (measured at the Fermilab Tevatron collider  and LEP2 ), the predicted partial width is  $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(We\nu )=226.5\pm 0.3\text{MeV}`$

A $`W`$ boson has three leptonic decay channels and two dominant hadronic decay channels, $`We\overline{\nu },\mu \overline{\nu },\tau \overline{\nu }`$ and $`qq^{}`$, where q is $`u`$ or $`c`$, and $`q^{}`$ is the appropriate CKM mixture of $`d`$ and $`s`$. Other hadronic decay channels are greatly suppressed by CKM off-diagonal matrix elements. Considering the three color charges for quarks, these nine leptonic and hadronic channels yield a total width of $`9\mathrm{\Gamma }(We\nu )`$. Including QCD corrections, the leptonic decay branching ratio is $`B(We\nu )=1/\{3+6[1+\alpha _s(M_W)/\pi +𝒪(\alpha _s^2)]\}`$, leading to the SM prediction for the full width of the $`W`$ boson  of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W=2.0921\pm 0.0025\text{GeV}`$.

Historically, the accurate determination of the width of the $`W`$ boson was available through an indirect measurement using the ratio $``$ of the $`We\nu `$ and $`Zee`$ cross sections:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (p\overline{p}W+X)Br(We\nu )}{\sigma (p\overline{p}Z+X)Br(Zee)}}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _W}{\sigma _Z}}{\displaystyle \frac{Br(We\nu )}{Br(Zee)}}.`$ (3)
A measurement of $``$, together with a calculation  of the ratio of production cross sections $`\sigma _W/\sigma _Z`$ and the measurement of the branching faction $`Br(Zee)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(Zee)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z)`$ from the CERN $`e^+e^{}`$ collider (LEP) , can be used to extract the $`W`$ boson leptonic branching ratio $`Br(We\nu )=\mathrm{\Gamma }(We\nu )/\mathrm{\Gamma }(W)`$, which, in turn, yields the full width of the $`W`$ boson from calculated partial decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(We\nu )`$. Thus, in this indirect measurement, calculations of $`\sigma _W/\sigma _Z`$ and the partial width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(We\nu )`$ yield $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ in the context of the SM. This method was first used by the UA1  and UA2  collaborations. More recently, the CDF  and DØ  collaborations obtained $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W=2.064\pm 0.084`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W=2.169\pm 0.079`$ GeV, respectively, using this technique.

The value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ can also be obtained from the line shape of the transverse mass $`m_T`$ of the $`W`$ boson, because the Breit-Wigner (width) component of the line shape falls off more slowly at high $`m_T`$ than the resolution component does . The transverse mass is given by

$$m_T=\sqrt{2E_T^eE_T^\nu [1\mathrm{cos}(\varphi ^e\varphi ^\nu )]}$$
(4)
where $`E_T^e`$ and $`E_T^\nu `$ are the transverse energies, and $`\varphi ^e`$ and $`\varphi ^\nu `$ are the azimuthal angles, of the electron and neutrino, respectively. The transverse mass has a kinematic upper limit at the value of $`M_W`$, and the shape of the $`m_T`$ distribution at this upper limit, called the “Jacobian edge,” is sensitive to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ . Using this technique, the CDF collaboration reported  a measurement of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W=2.05\pm 0.10`$(stat.)$`\pm `$0.08(syst.) GeV. Figure 1 shows the $`m_T`$ spectrum shape expected for different values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ and indicates the sensitivity of the tail of the transverse mass distribution to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$. Clearly, the effect is greatest in the region above $`m_W`$.

The direct measurement of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ complements the indirect measurement through $``$ in several ways:

* Theoretical inputs for $`\sigma _W/\sigma _Z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(We\nu )`$, which may be sensitive to non-SM coupling of the $`W`$ boson, are not needed.
* The direct measurement explores the region above the $`W`$ boson mass pole, where possible new phenomena such as an additional heavy vector boson ($`W^{}`$) can contribute.
* It is desirable to have more than one method of measuring a given property. The sources of systematic errors in the two methods are different, and the direct method will be important when the measurement through $``$ becomes limited by systematic uncertainty.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we give a brief description of the DØ detector. Particle identification and event selection are discussed in Sec. III. The analysis procedure, including background estimation and Monte Carlo simulation, is described in Sec. IV, and the conclusions are presented in Sec. V. For more detailed information on this analysis, see Ref. .

## II The DØ Detector

### A Experimental Apparatus

The DØ detector  comprises three major systems. The innermost of these is a non-magnetic tracker used in the reconstruction of charged particle tracks. The tracker is surrounded by central and forward uranium/liquid-argon sampling calorimeters. These calorimeters are used to identify electrons, photons, and hadronic jets, and to reconstruct their energies. The calorimeters are surrounded by a muon spectrometer used in the identification of muons and the reconstruction of their momenta. We use a coordinate system ($`\rho ,\theta ,\varphi `$) where $`\rho `$ is the perpendicular distance from the beam line, $`\theta `$ is the polar angle measured relative to the proton beam direction $`z`$, and $`\varphi `$ is the azimuthal angle. The pseudorapidity $`\eta `$ is defined as $`\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{tan}\frac{\theta }{2})`$. For this analysis, the relevant components are the tracking system and the calorimeters.

The central tracking system provides a measurement of the energy loss due to ionization ($`dE/dx`$) for tracks within its tracking volume. This information is used to help distinguish prompt electrons from $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs due to photon conversions.

The structure of the calorimeter has been optimized to distinguish electrons and photons from hadrons and to measure their energies. It is composed of three sections: the central calorimeter (CC), and two end calorimeters (EC). The $`\eta `$-coverage for electrons used in this analysis is $`\eta <1.1`$  in the CC region, which consists of 32 $`\varphi `$ modules. The calorimeter is segmented longitudinally into three sections, the electromagnetic calorimeter (EM), the fine hadronic calorimeter (FH), and the coarse hadronic calorimeter (CH). The EM calorimeter is subdivided longitudinally into four layers (EM1–EM4). The first, second and fourth layers of the EM calorimeter are transversely divided into cells of size $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta \times \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =0.1\times 0.1`$. The electromagnetic shower maximum occurs in the third layer, which is divided into finer units of $`0.05\times 0.05`$ to improve the measurement of the shower shape and spatial resolution. There are 16 FH modules and 16 CH modules in $`\varphi `$. The fine hadronic calorimeter is subdivided longitudinally into three fine hadronic layers (FH1–FH3), and there is only one coarse hadronic layer.

### B Trigger

The DØ trigger has three levels, each applying increasingly more sophisticated selection criteria to an event. The lowest level trigger, Level 0, uses scintillation counters located on the inner faces of the forward calorimeters to signal the presence of an inelastic $`p\overline{p}`$ collision. Data from the Level 0 counters, the calorimeter, and the muon chambers are sent to the Level 1 trigger, which provides a trigger on total transverse energy ($`E_T`$), missing transverse energy ($`E\text{/}_T`$), $`E_T`$ of individual calorimeter towers, and/or the presence of a muon. These triggers operate in less than $`3.5\mu \text{s}`$, the time between bunch crossings. Some calorimeter and muon-based triggers require additional time, which is provided by a Level 1.5 trigger system.

Level 1 (and 1.5) triggers initiate a Level 2 trigger system that consists of a farm of microprocessors. These microprocessors run simplified versions of the off-line event reconstruction algorithms to select events of interest.

## III Particle Identification and Event Selection

This analysis relies on the DØ detector’s ability to identify electrons and to associate the undetected energy with neutrinos. We use both $`We\nu `$ and $`Ze^+e^{}`$ candidate samples for this analysis. The $`W`$ boson candidate sample provides the signal events, while the $`Ze^+e^{}`$ candidate sample is used to calibrate both the data and the Monte Carlo (MC) simulation. Candidate $`W`$ and $`Z`$ events are identified by the presence of an electron and a neutrino, or by the presence of two electrons with an invariant mass consistent with the mass of the $`Z`$ boson, respectively. Electrons from $`W`$ and $`Z`$ boson decays typically have large transverse energy and are isolated from other particles. They are associated with a track in the tracking system and with a large deposit of energy in one of the EM calorimeters. Neutrinos do not interact in the detector, and thus create an apparent transverse energy imbalance in an event. For each $`W`$ boson candidate event, we measure the energy imbalance in the plane transverse to the beam direction ($`E\text{/}_T`$), and attribute this to the neutrino. The following sections provide a brief summary of the procedure  used in this analysis.

### A Electron Identification

Identification of electrons starts at the trigger level with the selection of clusters of electromagnetic energy. At Level 1, the trigger searches for EM calorimeter towers ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \times \mathrm{\Delta }\eta =0.2\times 0.2`$) with signals that exceed predefined thresholds. $`W`$ boson triggers require that the energy deposited in a single EM calorimeter tower exceed 10 GeV. Those events that satisfy the Level 1 trigger are processed by the Level 2 filter. The trigger towers are combined with the energy in the surrounding calorimeter cells within a window of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \times \mathrm{\Delta }\eta =0.6\times 0.6`$.

Events are selected at Level 2 if the transverse energy in this window exceeds 20 GeV. In addition to the $`E_T`$ requirement, the longitudinal and transverse shower shapes are required to match those expected for electromagnetic showers. The longitudinal shower shape is described by the fraction of the energy deposited in each of the four EM layers of the calorimeter. The transverse shower shape is characterized by energy deposition patterns in the third EM layer. The difference between the energies in concentric regions covering $`0.25\times 0.25`$ and $`0.15\times 0.15`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta \times \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ must be consistent with that expected for an electron .

In addition, the electron candidates are required to deposit at least 90% of their energy in the EM section of the calorimeter and to be isolated from other calorimetric energy deposits. To be considered isolated, electrons must satisfy the isolation requirement, $`f_{\text{iso}}<0.15`$, where $`f_{\text{iso}}`$ is defined as:

$$f_{\text{iso}}=\frac{E_{\mathrm{total}}(0.4)E_{\mathrm{EM}}(0.2)}{E_{\mathrm{EM}}(0.2)}$$
(5)
in which $`E_{\mathrm{total}}(0.4)`$ is the total energy, and $`E_{\mathrm{EM}}(0.2)`$ the electromagnetic energy, in cones of radius $`R=\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }\eta )^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )^2}=0.4`$ and $`0.2`$, respectively. This enhances the signal expected from isolated electrons in $`W`$ and $`Z`$ boson decay.

Having selected events with isolated electromagnetic showers at the trigger level, we first define “loose” electron for the purpose to study the background. Those EM clusters are require to locate within the center 80% of a calorimeter module, have an associated track in the central tracking volume and $`|\eta |<1.1`$. To avoid areas of reduced response between neighboring calorimeter modules, the azimuthal angle of electrons is required to be at least $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =0.10\times 2\pi /32`$ radians away from the position of a module boundary. We further impose a set of off-line tighter criteria to identify electrons, thereby reducing the background from QCD multijet events. The first step in identifying an electron is to form a cluster around the trigger tower using a nearest neighbor algorithm. As at the trigger level, the cluster is required to be isolated ($`f_{\text{iso}}<0.15`$). To increase the likelihood that the cluster is due to an electron and not a photon, a charged track from the central tracking system is required to point to the center of the EM cluster. We extrapolate the track to the third EM layer of the calorimeter and calculate the distance between the extrapolated track and the cluster centroid along the azimuthal direction ($`\rho \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$) and in the $`z`$-direction ($`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$). The position of cluster centroid is defined at the radius of the third EM layer of the calorimeter. The $`z`$ position of the event vertex is then defined by the line connecting the centroid position of the EM cluster to associated one in in the central tracking system and extrapolated to the beam line. The electron $`E_T`$ is calculated using this vertex definition . The variable

$$\sigma _{\text{trk}}^2=\left(\frac{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi }{\sigma _{\rho \varphi }}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z}{\sigma _z}\right)^2.$$
(6)
where $`\sigma _{\rho \varphi }`$ and $`\sigma _z`$ are the respective track resolutions, quantifies the quality of the match. A requirement of $`\sigma _{\text{trk}}<5`$ is imposed on the data. These clusters are then subjected to a 4-variable likelihood test . The four variables are:

* A $`\chi ^2`$ comparison of the shower shape with the expected shape of an electromagnetic shower, computed using a $`41`$-variable covariance matrix  for the energy depositions in the cells of the electromagnetic calorimeter and the location of event vertex.
* The electromagnetic energy fraction, defined as the ratio of shower energy in the EM section of the calorimeter relative to the sum of EM energy plus the energy in the first hadronic section of the calorimeter.
* A comparison of the track position to the position of cluster centroid, as defined in Eq. 6.
* The ionization, $`dE/dx`$, along the track. This is used to reduce contamination due to $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs from photon conversions, mainly from jets fragmenting into neutral pions. The $`e^+e^{}`$ pair from photon conversion has a double value of $`dE/dx`$ for a geniue electron due to two overlapping tracks,

To good approximation, these four variables are independent of each other for electron showers. Electrons that satisfy all above criteria are called “tight” electrons.

Electron energies are corrected for the underlying event energy that enter into the electron windows. The electromagnetic energy scale is determined in the test beam data, and adjusted to make the peak of the $`Ze^+e^{}`$ invariant mass agree with the known mass of the $`Z`$ boson . We found it to be $`0.9545\pm 0.0008`$. The electron energy scale is discussed in detail in Ref. .

### B Missing Transverse Energy

The primary sources of missing energy in an event include the neutrinos that pass through the calorimeter undetected and the calorimeter resolution. The energy imbalance is measured only in the transverse plane because of the lost particles emitted at small angles (within the beam pipes). The missing transverse energy is calculated by taking the negative of the vector sum of the transverse energy in all of the calorimeter cells. This gives both the magnitude and direction of $`E\text{/}_T`$, allowing the calculation of the transverse mass of the $`W`$ boson candidates.

### C Event Selection

The $`W`$ boson data sample used in this analysis was collected during the 1994–1995 run of the Fermilab Tevatron collider, and corresponds to an integrated luminosity of $`85.0\pm 3.6\mathrm{pb}^1`$. Events are selected by requiring one tight electron in the central calorimeter $`(\eta <1.1)`$  with $`E_T`$ $`>25`$ GeV. In addition, events are required to have $`E\text{/}_T`$ $`>25`$ GeV and $`W`$ transverse momentum $`p_T(W)<15`$ GeV, which is combined transverse momentum of electron and $`E\text{/}_T`$ (neutrino). After applying all of the described selections, a total of 24487 $`W`$ boson candidates is selected. There are 24479 candidates in the region 0 - 200 GeV, while 8(2) candidates have $`m_T>`$200(250) GeV. Figure 2 shows the transverse mass distribution of the $`We\nu `$ candidates.

Candidates for the process $`Ze^+e^{}`$ are required to have two tight electrons, each with $`E_T`$ $`>`$ 25 GeV in the CC. The invariant mass of the dielectron pair is required to satisfy 60 GeV $`<m_{ee}<`$ 120 GeV. A total of 1997 $`Z`$ boson candidates is selected. Figure 3 shows the invariant mass distribution of the $`Ze^+e^{}`$ candidates.

## IV Analysis Procedure

In this section, we describe the Monte Carlo simulation program used to model the transverse mass spectrum. The background from the dominant processes that can mimic the $`We\nu `$ signal is also estimated. We compare the data with the expectation from the Monte Carlo simulation and extract the decay width of the $`W`$ boson using log-likelihood fits to the $`W`$ boson transverse mass distribution.

### A Monte Carlo Simulation

The transverse mass spectrum for the $`W`$ boson is modeled in three steps: $`W`$ boson production, $`W`$ boson decay, and a parameterized detector simulation .

We first simulate the production of the $`W`$ boson by generating its four momentum and other event characteristics, such as the $`z`$-position of the interaction vertex and the run luminosity. The luminosity is used to parameterize luminosity-dependent effects. To lowest-order, the mass of the $`W`$ boson follows the Breit-Wigner distribution:

$$\sigma (Q)=_{q\overline{q}}(Q)\frac{Q^2}{(Q^2M_W^2)^2+Q^4\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^2/M_W^2}.$$
(7)
where $`Q`$ is the invariant mass of $`W`$ boson, $`M_W`$ is the pole mass and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ the decay width of the $`W`$ boson, and $`_{q\overline{q}}(Q)`$ is called the parton luminosity. To evaluate $`_{q\overline{q}}(Q)`$, we generate $`We\nu `$ events using the leading-order resbos  event generator and the different PDF models described in Refs. , and then select the events using the same kinematic and fiducial constrains as for the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ boson data samples. The resulting event distribution is proportional to the parton luminosity, which we parameterize with the function :

$$_{q\overline{q}}(Q)=\frac{e^{\beta Q}}{Q}.$$
(8)
where $`\beta `$ is obtained from a fit of the MC events to Eq. 7.

The decay of the $`W`$ boson is simulated in the MC and used to calculate the transverse momentum of the electron and other decay products. Any radiation from the decay electron or from the $`W`$ boson can bias the measurement and has to be taken into account. $`W\tau \nu e\nu \overline{\nu }\overline{\nu }`$ events are indistinguishable from $`We\nu `$ and are also included in the model, using a branching ratio of $`Br(\tau e\nu \overline{\nu })/[1+Br(\tau e\nu \overline{\nu })]=0.151`$.

Finally, we apply a parameterized detector simulation to the momenta of all decay products to simulate any observed recoil jets and electron momenta. The parameters giving the electron and recoil system response of the detector are fixed using data, which include $`Z`$ bosons and their recoil jets, to study calorimeter response and resolution. The response to jets and electrons is parameterized as a function of energy and angle. Also included in the detector parameterization are effects due to the longitudinal spread of the interaction vertex and the luminosity-dependent response of the detector caused by multiple collisions.

Uncertainties in the input parameters to the MC will eventually limit the accuracy of the width measurement of the $`W`$ boson. To study the uncertainties, we allow these input parameters to vary by one standard deviation and re-generate the corresponding transverse mass spectrum. We then fit it with a nominal MC template. If the positive and negative variations of the width of the $`W`$ boson with respect to a parameter are not symmetric, the larger value is used for the uncertainty. This estimation is used to estimate the impact of the electron energy resolution, hadronic energy resolution, electron energy scale, hadronic energy scale, dependence on the $`W`$ boson mass, electron angular calibration, and radiative corrections. Detailed studies of these parameters can be found in Ref. . The uncertainties on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ from the electron energy resolution and scale are 27 MeV and 41 MeV, respectively. The uncertainties from the hadronic energy resolution and scale lead to variations in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ of 55 MeV and 22 MeV, respectively. The error on the $`W`$ boson mass of 37 MeV has an effect of 15 MeV on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$. The uncertainties from radiative decay and electron angular calibration correspond to 10 MeV and 9 MeV, respectively.

Uncertainties on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ also arise from uncertainties in the production model and the parton distribution functions (PDFs). The uncertainty from the former is determined from the upper and lower limits  of the most uncertain parameter in the model. This leads to an uncertainty of 28 MeV due to parton luminosity and 12 MeV due to uncertainty in the transverse momentum of the $`W`$ boson in the model. There are several PDF models currently in use. The uncertainty due to variation in PDFs is determined by using different PDFs, including MRSA , CTEQ4M and CTEQ5M , and finding the largest excursion from the value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ determined using the MRST PDF set , leading to a variation of 27 MeV. The value quoted for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ is determined using the MRST PDFs. We chose MRST so that the results can be consistent with DØ mass analysis .

### B Backgrounds

Backgrounds to $`We\nu `$ can affect the shape of the $`m_T`$ spectrum and skew the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$. We account for this by estimating the background as a function of $`m_T`$ and adding this to the $`m_T`$ distribution of the $`W`$ boson from the Monte Carlo. The three dominant background sources are multijet events, $`Zee`$, and $`W\tau \nu `$ decay products. The following describes how the backgrounds are estimated .

A large potential source of background is due to multijet events in which one jet is misidentified as an electron and the energy in the event is mismeasured, thereby yielding large $`E\text{/}_T`$. This background is estimated using jet events from data, following the procedure called the “matrix method,” described in Ref. . The method uses two sets of data, each containing both signal and background. The first data set corresponds to the $`W`$ data sample in this analysis. The second set contains a different mix of signal and background which is obtained with loose electron criteria (described in Sec. III A). We summarize below the essence of this method used to estimate the multijet background.

The number of multijet background ($`N_{BG}^W`$) events in the tight electron $`W`$ data sample is given by

$$N_{BG}^W=ϵ_j\frac{ϵ_sN_lN_t}{ϵ_sϵ_j}.$$
(9)
where $`N_l`$ and $`N_t`$ are the number of events in the $`W`$ boson samples satisfying loose and tight electron criteria, respectively. The tight electron efficiency, $`ϵ_s`$, is the fraction of loose electrons that pass tight electron criteria, as determined by the $`Z`$ boson sample, where one electron is required to pass the tight selection criteria and the other serves as an unbiased probe for determining relative efficiencies. The electron efficiency is obtained to be $`ϵ_s=(86.3\pm 1.2)\%`$. The jet efficiency $`ϵ_j`$ is the fraction of loose “electrons” found in multijet events that also pass tight electron criteria. This sample is required to have $`E\text{/}_T15`$ GeV to minimize the number of $`W`$ bosons contained in it. The results is $`ϵ_j=(5.83\pm 0.25)\%`$. Once $`ϵ_s`$ and $`ϵ_j`$ are determined, we can extract the background-event distribution. The “electron” and “neutrino” transverse momenta and energies are used to form the transverse mass, and this distribution is shown in Figure 4. The total multijet background is estimated to be $`368\pm 32`$ events in the region $`m_T<200`$ GeV, with $`25.4\pm 2.2`$ events in the range 90 GeV $`<m_T<200`$ GeV.

The background sample is smoothed in the region 85 GeV $`<m_T<200`$ GeV. We fit the distribution to an exponential function of the form $`f_{BG}`$ = exp$`(a_0+a_1x+a_2x^2+a_3x^3)`$. The fitting parameters $`a_0,a_1,a_2`$ and $`a_3`$  are used to generate the background distribution for the fit to the signal. For bins outside the fitted region, we use the original data itself, as shown in Figure 4.

Another source of background is due to $`Zee`$ events in which one electron is undetected. This results in a momentum imbalance, with the event now being topologically indistinguishable from $`We\nu `$ events. This background is also estimated using Monte Carlo events. The number of such $`Z`$ boson events present in the $`W`$ boson sample is calculated by applying the $`W`$ boson selection criteria to MC $`Zee`$ events generated using herwig  and processed through a geant  based simulation of the DØ detector, and then overlaid with events from random $`p`$$`\overline{p}`$ crossings. This is done to simulate the effect of the luminosity on the underlying event. Out of a total of 8870 $`Zee`$ events, 48 pass the $`W`$ boson event selection. Normalizing the Monte Carlo sample to the size of the data sample for equivalent luminosity, we estimate that there are 102 $`Zee`$ events in the data sample.

$`W\tau \nu `$ events in which the $`\tau `$ decays into an electron and two neutrinos are indistinguishable from $`We\nu `$ events on an event-by-event basis. Because $`\tau `$ undergoes a three-body decay, leading to a softer electron relative to $`We\nu `$ events, the acceptance is reduced greatly by the standard $`E_T`$ selection criteria. The size of this background is small, and it tends to add events with low values of $`m_T`$. This background is determined using the $`We\nu `$ Monte Carlo, modified to include the decay of the $`\tau `$ lepton. The events are then passed through the same detector simulation used to model the $`We\nu `$ signal.

The shape and total amount of background affect the fit used to determine the width of $`W`$ boson. To estimate the uncertainty in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ due to the uncertainty in absolute background, we scale up (and down) the fitted number of background events by an amount that corresponds to the total uncertainty in the background. This gives an uncertainty of 15 MeV for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ extracted from the region 90 GeV $`<m_T<`$ 200 GeV. To estimate the uncertainty in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ from the uncertainty in the shape of the background spectrum, we perform an ensemble study in which background is generated using a multinomial distribution. The multinomial distribution is defined by:

$$P(N_1,N_2,\mathrm{},N_{ch})=N_{\text{total}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{ch}{}}\frac{p_i^{N_i}}{N_i!}.$$
(10)
where $`N_{\text{total}}`$ is the total number of background events, $`ch`$ is the number of the bins, $`p_i`$ is the original distribution, and $`N_i`$ is numbers of events in $`i`$-$`th`$ bin. The total background $`N_{\text{total}}`$ is kept at its central value, while the number of background events in each bin is allowed to fluctuate. The $`W`$ boson width is then recalculated with the new background distribution. The variation in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ is taken as the uncertainty. We found that this is 39 MeV for the fitted region of $`m_T`$.

### C Likelihood Fitting

We generate a set of Monte Carlo $`m_T`$ templates with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ varying from 1.55 GeV to 2.75 GeV at intervals of 50 MeV. These templates are normalized to the number of events in the region of $`m_T<200`$ GeV. The background distributions of multijet and $`Zee`$ events are added to the templates and a binned likelihood is calculated for data. The $`m_T`$ bin size is 5 GeV. The fitting region is chosen to be 90 GeV $`<m_T<`$ 200 GeV to minimize the systematic uncertainty. From the dependence of the likelihood on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$, we obtain the $`W`$ boson width and its error as: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W=2.23_{0.14}^{+0.15}`$(stat.) GeV. The combined uncertainty, taking the statistical and systematic uncertainties contribution in quadrature, yields the result $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W=2.23_{0.14}^{+0.15}`$(stat.) $`\pm 0.10`$(sys.) GeV$`=2.23_{0.17}^{+0.18}`$ GeV. The $`\chi ^2`$ for the best fit is an acceptable 25.9 for 22 degrees of freedom, corresponding to a probability of 26%. A comparison of the observed spectrum to the probability density function in the fitting region through a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, which compares the observed cumulative distribution function for a variable with a specified theoretical distribution, yields $`\kappa =0.434`$, which is evidence of a good fit.

Figure 5 shows a fit to the likelihood, which corresponds to a fourth-order polynomial fit that determines the peak position. Figure 6 shows the $`m_T`$ spectrum for the data, the normalized MC sample, and the background.

As a consistency check of the fitting method, we also determine the $`W`$ boson width from the ratio of the number of events in the fitting region of 90 GeV $`m_T200`$ GeV to the number of events in the entire spectrum. This yields $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W=2.22\pm 0.14`$(stat.) GeV, compared to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W=2.23_{0.14}^{+0.15}`$(stat.) GeV for the independent maximum likelihood fit in the same region. All results show good agreement.

Sources of systematic uncertainties in the determination of the $`W`$ boson width are those that can affect the shape of the transverse mass distribution. These include the uncertainties from input parameters to the MC program and from background estimation. Details can be found in Ref. . Table I lists all the sources of systematic uncertainty for the decay width of the $`W`$ boson.

Comparing to the SM prediction of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(W)=2.0921\pm 0.0025`$ GeV, we find the difference between SM prediction and our meaasurement to be $`0.24_{0.17}^{+0.18}`$ GeV, which is the width for the $`W`$ boson to decay into final states other than the two lightest quark doublets and the three lepton doublets. We set a 95% confidence level upper limit on the $`W`$ boson width to non-SM final states. Assuming the uncertainty is Gaussian, we set a 95% confidence level upper limit on the invisible partial width of the $`W`$ boson to be 0.59 GeV. Under the assumption that there is no correlation between indirect measurement and direct measurement of the $`W`$ boson decay width and within the framework of SM, we can combine both analysis and obtain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W=2.162\pm 0.062`$ GeV. The 95% confidence level upper limit on the invisible partial width of the $`W`$ boson is 0.191 GeV.

## V Conclusions

We have directly measured the decay width of the $`W`$ boson by fitting the transverse mass in $`We\nu `$ events in $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions at 1.8 TeV, and obtain:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ $`=`$ $`2.23_{0.14}^{+0.15}(\text{stat.})\pm 0.10(\text{syst.})\text{GeV}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`2.23_{0.17}^{+0.18}\text{GeV}.`$ (12)
This result is consistent with the prediction of the standard model.

## VI Acknowledgments

We thank the staffs at Fermilab and collaborating institutions, and acknowledge support from the Department of Energy and National Science Foundation (USA), Commissariat à L’Energie Atomique and CNRS/Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (France), Ministry for Science and Technology and Ministry for Atomic Energy (Russia), CAPES and CNPq (Brazil), Departments of Atomic Energy and Science and Education (India), Colciencias (Colombia), CONACyT (Mexico), Ministry of Education and KOSEF (Korea), CONICET and UBACyT (Argentina), The Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (The Netherlands), PPARC (United Kingdom), Ministry of Education (Czech Republic), A.P. Sloan Foundation, NATO, and the Research Corporation.