text:
# A unified formal approach to weak and strong coupling expansions.

## I. Introduction

The problem of divergent series has long time been a big concern, especially for physicists dealing with perturbative methods. In many cases, the divergence of a perturbative expansion arises when the solution of the free part of an equation is too "remote" from the exact solution. The choice of this free part is theoretically quite open but is actually restrained by the computability of the free solution, together with its perturbative corrections.

When the series converges, the accuracy on the result only depends on our ability to compute high order perturbation corrections. Moreover, the convergence of the series and the fact that the successive approximations tend to the right result, might be guaranteed by mathematical theorems.

When the series diverges, the problem faced by the physicists is one of dealing with an apparently worthless result (the truncated series), despite the fact that physical arguments might ensure us that this series actually corresponds to a known finite number. The scientific literature is rich of various methods to treat this situation: pad approximants $`[1]`$, variational methods $`[2,3,4]`$, delta expansion $`[5,6]`$ with principle of minimal sensitivity $`[7]`$ or multiple scale analysis $`[8]`$.

When facing the situation, one can note the following points:

1. While dealing with a physical problem, quantities with physical dimensions are involved, and as a perturbative series expands in powers of a dimensionless parameter, there is a first constraint on the way physical quantities enter this dimensionless parameter. There is also a second constraint regarding the dimension of the physical quantity expanded itself.
2. When approximating a physical quantity in powers of the coupling constant, we sometimes know a strong coupling expansion (in negative powers of the coupling constant) to exist, even if it is not computable.

These two points are central in the way I propose to deal with a class of physical problems involving two physical parameters. The existence of only two physical parameters leads to a unique way to build up a dimensionless parameter $`g`$ (say, the coupling constant).

In the cases where the expression of a physical quantity in term of the physical parameters is not exactly solvable, we expect two different expansions of this physical quantity in powers of the coupling constant to exist, at least formally: the weak coupling expansion (in positive powers of $`g`$) and the strong coupling expansion (in negative powers of $`g`$). Standard perturbative method can give us access to the weak coupling expansion up to a certain order $`p`$. The case we are interested in in this paper is the one when this expansion is divergent. The necessary background for our original systematic method to work can now be stated the following way:
the existence of a weak coupling expansion of $`E`$,

$$E(g)=\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}E_Ng^N,$$
(1)
and of a strong coupling expansion of $`E`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{E}(g)=g^{\alpha /\delta }\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{E}_Ng^{\gamma N/\delta },$$
(2)
where $`E`$ is a dimensionless function of the searched physical quantity. The parameters $`\gamma `$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\delta `$ are crucial ingredients in the correct writing of the srong coupling expansion. Their values usually be obtained analysing the equation obeyed by the $`E`$ (see Simon $`[9]`$ for such a study on the energy of the anharmonic oscillator of quantum mechanics). For our method to work on the calculation of $`E`$ , we thus need to know the following values:

$``$ the $`E_N`$ coefficients up to a certain order $`p`$.

$``$ $`\gamma `$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\delta `$ designed to be the smallest possible triplet of integers to satisfying eq.(2). In the following, this triplet of integer values will be called the *signature* of $`E(g)`$.

A good deal of literature has been devoted to variationnal methods using principle of minimal sensitivity, which happen to be quite efficient $`[3]`$. Some other attempts to deal with divergent series through variationnal methods, making clever use of the knowledge of the existence of a strong coupling expansion, were successful $`[10]`$. The new method we introduce is original in the way it considers weak and strong coupling expansions as two faces of a single object called an *extension*. Making use of the formal properties of *extensions*, one can obtain a non-perurbative analytical estimate of $`E`$ in term of the coupling constant $`g`$, given its signature and a certain amount of coefficients of its divergent expansion. Note that the method will also work as an accelerator of convergence for convergent series.

The next section will introduce the extension method for the trivial case where the signature is *uniform* ($`\gamma =\alpha =\delta =1`$) so that extensions write as expansions in all positive and negative integer powers of the coupling constant.
The completion of the general method through the actual introduction of the notion of signature is performed in the third section.
The fourth section is devoted to the detailed application of the method to two specific cases. It is first experienced on the divergent expansion of the zero dimension anharmonic oscillator. The mathematical homogeneity of the integrated exponential function allows us to consider the integral itself as depending on two parameters with physical dimensions. The extension method will happen to reproduce the exact result from the first order of perturbation. As e second example, the method is applied to the one dimensional anharmonic oscillator of quantum mechanics in the calculation of the ground state energy. It will show a very remarkable agreement with the exact result for any value of the coupling constant.

## II. Extensions of power series for uniform signatures

In the simple case where the signature is uniform ($`\gamma =\alpha =\delta =1`$), the respective weak and strong coupling expansions of $`E`$ in powers of a coupling constant $`g`$ write:

$$E(g)=\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}E_Ng^N\text{and}E(g)=g^1\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{E}_Ng^N.$$

We will consider these two expansion as parts of a single *extension*. To do so introduce such formal sums as:

$`Z_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}Z^n`$
$`Z_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}nZ^n`$
$`\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}`$
$`Z_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{i!(ni)!}}Z^n.`$
The manipulation of negative factorials is made algebraically coherent introducing $`(1)!=\mathrm{\Omega }`$. For all coefficients for which $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ do not simplify, one let it go to infinity as detailed at the beginning of the third part. When $`Z`$ is a given complex value out of the unit circle, these formal double infinite series have the property to be convergent (resp. divergent) in the positive powers of $`Z`$ (called its *right part*) and divergent (resp. convergent) in the negative powers of $`Z`$ (called its *left part*), depending on the modulus of $`Z`$.
Note that $`Z_i`$ can be expressed in term of $`Z_0`$ using derivatives:

$$Z_i=\frac{1}{i!}Z^i(\frac{d}{dZ})^iZ_0.$$
(3)
They also have the following formal property,

$$i0,(1Z)^{i+1}Z_i0,$$

from which one can logically expect the left expansion’s sum ($`l`$) to be in some sense "opposite" to the right one ($`r`$). The latter expectation can be easily checked as long as one performs formal manipulations on power series without any consideration about their convergence: Let us define the linear applications $`r`$ and $`l`$.

$`r(Z_i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{i!(ni)!}}Z^n`$
$`l(Z_i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{i!(ni)!}}Z^n.`$
The expression $`Z^i/(1Z)^{i+1}`$, when formally expanded in powers of $`Z`$, results in $`r(Z_i)`$, and when expanded in powers of $`1/Z`$, results in $`l(Z_i)`$. We write:

$`r(Z_i)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Z^i}{(1Z)^{i+1}}}`$
$`l(Z_i)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Z^i}{(1Z)^{i+1}}},`$
making sense of our previous remark about $`r(Z_i)`$ and $`l(Z_i)`$ being ’opposite’ to each other : $`r(Z_i)l(Z_i)`$.
In the following, we will combine elements as $`Z_i`$’s to build a vector space. We hope any polynomial to have “natural extensions” in this vector space.
Definitions:
$``$ Let $`\mathrm{\Xi }^p`$ be the C-vector space of all polynomials with a lower than $`p`$ degree:

$$A\mathrm{\Xi }^pA=\underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}A_nZ^n\text{for}A_n\text{}$$

$``$ Let $`\mathrm{\Xi }_p`$ be the C-vector space generated by extensions $`Z_i`$ for $`i`$ positive and lower than $`p`$:

$$V\mathrm{\Xi }_pV=\underset{i=0}{\overset{p}{}}V^iZ_i\text{for }V^i\text{}$$

### II.1. Extensions of a polynomial

An element of $`\mathrm{\Xi }_p`$ will be considered as an extension of a $`p`$-order polynomial if its restriction to zero to $`p`$ powers of $`Z`$ identify to the given polynomial. We show now that this properly defined extension of a polynomial is unique.

Definition:
Let $`A`$ and $`V`$ be respective vectors of $`\mathrm{\Xi }^p`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }_p`$, then $`V`$, once expanded as:

$$V=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}V_nZ^n,$$

is said to be *a $`p`$-order extension of* $`A`$ if:

$$V_n=A_n\text{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}np.$$

Moreover, if $`V=_{i=0}^pV^iZ_i`$, from the definition of the $`Z_i`$’s, we have:

$$V_n=\underset{i=0}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{n!}{i!(ni)!}V^i.$$

We will now proceed to show that such a $`p`$-extension of a given polynomial is unique through the introduction of a specific linear mapping between $`\mathrm{\Xi }^p`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }_p`$.
Theorem 1:
For given $`p`$, let $`\phi `$ and $`\phi ^{}`$ be the following linear mappings:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill \phi :& \hfill \mathrm{\Xi }^p& & \mathrm{\Xi }_p\hfill \\ & & & \\ & \hfill Z^n& & _{i=n}^p\frac{i!}{n!(in)!}(1)^{ni}Z_i\hfill \\ & & & \\ \hfill \phi ^{}:& \hfill \mathrm{\Xi }_p& & \mathrm{\Xi }^p\hfill \\ & & & \\ & \hfill Z_i& & _{n=i}^p\frac{n!}{i!(ni)!}Z^n.\hfill \end{array}$$

Then $`\phi `$ and $`\phi ^{}`$ are inverse linear mappings.
Proof:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \phi ^{}(\phi (Z^n))& =& _{i=n}^p\frac{i!}{n!(in)!}(1)^{ni}\phi ^{}(Z_i)\hfill \\ & & \\ & =& _{i=n}^p_{k=i}^p\frac{k!}{n!(in)!(ki)!}(1)^{ni}Z^k\hfill \end{array}$$

Using the following identity for $`kp`$, where $`\delta `$ is the Kroeneker symbol:

$$\underset{i=n}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{1}{(in)!(ki)!}(1)^{ni}=\delta _{n,k},$$

we prove that for $`0np`$ and $`0ip`$:

$$\phi ^{}(\phi (Z^n))=Z^n\text{and}\phi (\phi ^{}(Z_i))=Z_i.$$

\>From the existence of the reversible mapping $`\phi `$ between $`\mathrm{\Xi }^p`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }_p`$ and the fact that $`\{Z^n\}_{0np}`$ is a base of $`\mathrm{\Xi }^p`$, it comes that $`\{Z_i\}_{0ip}`$ is a base of $`\mathrm{\Xi }_p`$.
Theorem 2:
Let $`A\mathrm{\Xi }^p`$, then $`\phi (A)\mathrm{\Xi }_p`$ is the only extension of $`A`$.
Proof:
Let us first recall that:

$$Z_i=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{n!}{i!(ni)!}Z^n$$

$$\phi ^{}(Z_i)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{n!}{i!(ni)!}Z^n,$$

such that by construction, for $`0ip`$, $`Z_i`$ is a $`p`$-order extension of $`\phi ^{}(Z_i)`$.
If now $`A=_{n=0}^pA_nZ^n`$, one can write $`\phi (A)=_{i=0}^pA^iZ_i`$ where:

$$A^i=\underset{n=0}{\overset{i}{}}\frac{i!}{n!(in)!}(1)^{ni}A_n.$$
(4)
\>From the reversibility of $`\phi ,`$ one has $`\phi (\phi ^{}(A))=A`$, and we can establish that:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill A& =& _{i=0}^pA^i\phi ^{}(Z_i)\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \phi (A)& =& _{i=0}^pA^iZ_i.\hfill \end{array}$$

As $`Z_i`$ is an extension of $`\phi ^{}(Z_i)`$, it follows that $`\phi (A)`$ is an extension of $`A`$ for any $`A\mathrm{\Xi }^p`$. The reversibility of $`\phi `$ guarantees the unicity of this extension.
Example:
For $`p=2`$, let us find the extension of the $`2`$-degree polynomial:

$$A=1+2Z+3Z^2.$$

The coordinates of its second order extension are given by the relation (4):

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\hfill A^0& =& A_0\hfill & =& 1\hfill \\ \hfill A^1& =& A_0+A_1\hfill & =& 1\hfill \\ \hfill A^2& =& A_02A_1+A_2\hfill & =& 0,\hfill \end{array}$$

so that:
$``$ $`\phi (A)=A^0Z_0+A^1Z_1`$ is the extension of $`A`$; it also writes:

$$\phi (A)=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(n+1)Z^n,$$

and is actually a second order extension of $`A`$, as expected.
$``$ $`r(\phi (A))=r(Z_0)+r(Z_1)1/(1Z)+Z/(1Z)^2=1/(1Z)^2`$ is what one could reasonably expect as a sum for a divergent series behaving like $`A`$ does for lower orders.
Remark:
This example illustrates an important case where the extension of a $`p`$-order polynomial (in $`\mathrm{\Xi }^p`$) actually belongs to $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{p1}`$, that is $`A^p=0`$

The latter remark will be of great use in the following introduction of a parameter in our method. It will also be verified as a test for the reliability of the method in the example of application given in the fourth section.

### II.2. The introduction of a parameter: $`\omega `$

We will show that the simple introduction of a complex parameter $`\omega `$ allows us to build as many $`\mathrm{\Xi }_p`$ vector spaces which means as many $`p`$-order extensions of a given polynomial as non vanishing values for $`\omega `$. There is then no reason why restraining to the previous $`\omega =1`$ case. At the end, the problem will just remain to find the most appropriate value of $`\omega `$.
\>From now, for a fixed $`\omega `$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^p`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }_p`$ will be redefined:

$$A\mathrm{\Xi }^pA=\underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}A_n(\omega Z)^n\text{for}\omega \text{}^{}\text{and}A_n\text{}$$

$$V\mathrm{\Xi }_pV=\underset{i=0}{\overset{p}{}}V^i(\omega Z)_i\text{for }\omega \text{}^{}\text{and}V^i\text{}$$

where $`(\omega Z)^n=\omega ^nZ^n`$, and $`(\omega Z)_i`$ is defined as follows,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill (\omega Z)_i& =& _{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{n!}{i!(ni)!}(\omega Z)^n\hfill \end{array}$$

$`\phi `$ now acts on vectors as $`(\omega Z)^n`$:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill \phi :& \hfill \mathrm{\Xi }^p& & \mathrm{\Xi }_p\hfill \\ & & & \\ & \hfill (\omega Z)^n& & _{i=n}^p\frac{i!}{n!(in)!}(1)^{ni}(\omega Z)_i\hfill \end{array}$$

Theorems 1 and 2 still hold as long as $`\omega `$ does not vanish and the method now produces an extension $`\phi (A)`$ of $`A`$, depending on the value of $`\omega `$:

$$A=\underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}A_nZ^n=\underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{A_n}{\omega ^n}(\omega Z)^n,$$

$$\phi (A)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{A_n}{\omega ^n}\phi ((\omega Z)^n)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{p}{}}A^i(\omega )(\omega Z)_i,$$

where

$$A^i(\omega )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{i}{}}\frac{i!}{n!(in)!}(1)^{ni}\frac{A_n}{\omega ^n}.$$

When trying to extend a given $`p`$-degree polynomial $`A`$, one now has to deal with as many extensions as possible values for $`\omega `$. The last remark of the preceding section suggests that we could use this freedom on the value of the parameter $`\omega `$ to make $`A^p(\omega )`$ vanish so that we could just keep $`p`$-order extensions of $`A`$ that lie in $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{p1}`$. $`A^p(\omega )`$ being a $`p`$-degree polynomial in $`\omega `$, one expects $`\omega `$ to take at most $`p`$ values ($`A^p(\omega )=0`$) so that a vector of $`\mathrm{\Xi }^p`$ will have at most $`p`$ different extensions. If $`\varpi `$ is a root of $`A^p(\omega )`$, it solves:

$$A^p(\varpi )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{p!}{n!(pn)!}(1)^{np}\frac{A_n}{\varpi ^n}=0,$$
(5)
and the associated extension writes:

$$\phi (A)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{p1}{}}A^i(\varpi )(\varpi Z)_i.$$
(6)
The problem now remains to choose from all these extensions.

### II.3. A criterion for the choice: $`\omega =\varpi `$

The aim of this work is, given a divergent series up to order $`p`$, to obtain an estimation of its complete sum. Let us start with the method applied to the $`(p1)`$-order. In order to establish a convenient criterion for the choice of the “better” $`\omega `$ between the roots of $`A^{p1}(\omega )`$, we will look for the one which makes the better prediction for the forthcoming term of the series: $`A_p`$.
To do so, let us suppose that $`A^{p1}(\omega )`$ and $`A^p(\omega )`$ have a common root $`\varpi `$, the following properties come:
$``$ From the equation (6), the $`\varpi `$-associated $`(p1)`$-order and $`p`$-order extensions identify. As a consequence, the forthcoming term predicted by the $`(p1)`$-order extension is the exact value $`A_p`$.
$``$ From the definition (5) of $`A^p(\omega )`$, one can establish the following relation:

$$\frac{d}{d\omega }(\omega ^pA^p(\omega ))=p\omega ^{p1}A^{p1}(\omega ),$$

so that if $`\varpi `$ is a common root of $`A^{p1}(\omega )`$ and $`A^p(\omega )`$, it has to be a double root of $`A^p(\omega )`$.

The goal is to achieve the best estimate of the complete sum of the series through its extension at a finite order. It seems natural to be interested in the case where two successive extensions (orders $`p1`$ and $`p`$) are equal, thus at order $`p`$, double roots are our best candidate for the choice of $`\varpi `$. In the absence of double roots, we decide to look for the closest couple of roots - in terms of distance in the complex plane - and select one of these. In doing so, we expect our selected root to be also close to a root of the previous estimate. As a consequence, these two successive extensions are hoped to be close to each other. The applications of the method in section IV will corroborate, through numerical observations, these general remarks.

## III. Signature of series in physics

For the moment, to keep reasonable, one has to expect most of the series encountered in physics not to fit in this frame in the sense that the predictions for the forthcoming terms of a development are far from the right one (and that the roots are far from each other). Let us consider for example such a “misfit” expansion:

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{1}{(n/2)!}Z^n,$$

which expected large order behaviour can obviously not be found as a combination of the $`Z_i`$’s as defined. The fact that forthcoming terms of such a series will be very badly predicted by our method can also be pointed out when noticing that an extension of this truncated series has to vanish for even and negative values of $`n`$ (as factorials of negative integers diverge). The $`Z_i`$’s as defined can obviously not satisfy such a condition. This section will take into account this kind of difficulty (now to be considered as a clue) when introducing the notion of signature relying on the knowledge we have of the form of the strong coupling expansion.

Given a finite series of complex numbers, we now have at our disposal a method which permits to extend it infinitely together in positive and negative powers of the coupling constant $`Z`$. Moreover, the right and left parts of this extension can be summed formally. Some of the series we are interested in are characterized by cancellations of an infinite set of coefficients (e.g. $`A_n=0`$ for $`n`$ even and negative. We shall later concentrate on how the occurrence of the vanishing coefficients is in related to the form of the strong coupling expansion. Since no combination of the $`Z_i`$’s can reproduce this kind of behaviour, we ask ourselves now what to do then when we know the expected series to have such a typical property? In this paper, we shall consider such cases where the occurrence of vanishing terms is regular. Let us first consider the following double infinite series where by construction all even and negative powers of the coupling constant do vanish:

$$T=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}T_nZ^n\text{where}T_n=\frac{(1n)!((n1)/2)!}{(1)!}$$
(7)
As previously mentioned, it will be of great use to reconsider the definitions of the factorials in order to make sense with expressions as $`(2)!/(1)!=1`$:

* Definition:
$``$ $`(n1)!n=n!`$ for $`n\text{}^{}`$,
$``$ $`(1)!=\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is infinitely large,
$``$ $`n!=\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+1)`$ for $`n[0,1]\text{}`$.
The following properties come:
$``$ $`n!(1n)!\mathrm{sin}(n\pi )=\pi `$ for $`n\text{}`$ and $`n\text{}`$,
$``$ $`n!(1n)!(1)^n=\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for $`n\text{}`$.

Using these properties, the only non-vanishing terms of $`T`$ are:

$$T_N=\frac{((N1)/2)!}{N!}(1)^N\text{and}T_{12N}=\frac{(2N)!}{N!}(1)^N\text{for}N\text{}$$

When looking at the left part of $`T`$, these cancellations are typical of what has been called the signature of $`T`$, as it points out all the vanishing terms of the expansion it corresponds to.

Definitions:
$``$ If $`T`$ is such that its non-vanishing terms are $`T_{\delta N}`$ and $`T_{\alpha \gamma N}`$ for $`N\text{}`$, then it will be said to have a $`\gamma |\alpha |\delta `$*-signature*. A typical example of this signature is provided by:

$$T_n=\frac{(1\frac{n}{\delta })!(1+\frac{\alpha +n}{\gamma })!}{\mathrm{\Omega }}.$$

For a given signature, this $`T`$ will be called its associated *transformation*.
As a matter of example, the above series (7) has a $`2|1|1`$-signature and the $`1|1|1`$-signature considered in the preceding section was simply called uniform.
$``$ Let us now define the multiplication $`TA`$:

$$A=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_nZ^nTA=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}T_nA_nZ^n$$

then, if $`A`$ has a uniform signature, $`TA`$ will have a $`\gamma |\alpha |\delta `$*-*signature through the action of the transformation $`T`$.
$``$ If $`B`$ is an extension of $`A`$, then $`TB`$ is a *$`T`$-extension* of $`TA`$.

### III.1. The case of non-uniform signatures

As it is formatted to give rise to extensions with uniform signatures, the method developed in the preceding section obviously needs a few adjustment to fit the cases where the signature is known not to be uniform. Suppose we wish to extend a polynomial $`B`$ known to be associated to a non-uniform signature. The method now consists in “removing” its signature multiplying it by $`T^1`$, and let it be extended (through the action of $`\phi `$) into an extension with uniform signature. Then, we just have to put back the proper signature multiplying the result by the associated transformation $`T`$. We thus make sure that the $`T`$-extension obtained has the expected signature (respecting the expected vanishing terms), and is actually a $`T`$-extension of the original polynomial.
If $`B`$ is associated to a $`\gamma |\alpha |\delta `$-signature, then it expands in powers of $`Z^\delta `$ in the weak coupling limit and writes up to order $`p`$:

$$B=\underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}B_{\delta n}Z^{\delta n}$$

Where the connection with equation (1) is obtained replacing $`g`$ with $`Z^\delta `$. $`B`$ can then be rewritten $`T(T^1B)`$ where $`T^1B`$ can be associated to a uniform signature:

$$T^1B=\underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}T_{\delta n}^1B_{\delta n}Z^{\delta n}$$

The extension of $`T^1B`$ can now be found using the method of the second section. $`\phi (T^1B)`$, its extension, will have a uniform signature. The latter product with $`T`$ ensures us to recover the proper $`\gamma |\alpha |\delta `$-signature for the $`T`$-extension of $`B`$:

$$T\phi (T^1B)\text{is a }T\text{extension of}B$$

Definition:
In order to achieve the previous manipulation $`\phi `$ and $`\phi ^{}`$ have to be formally updated in replacing $`Z`$ by $`Z^\delta `$ in their definitions so that they remain inverse mappings. The formal expressions then arising are made explicit as follows:

$$(Z^\delta )^n=Z^{\delta n}\text{and}(Z^\delta )_i=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(n/\delta )!}{i!(n/\delta i)!}Z^n$$

Using this procedure, we can now obtain the unique extension of any polynomial given in addition to its coefficients, its non-uniform signature.

Our goal is at the end to obtain a non-perturbative expression corresponding to the physical quantity corresponding to $`B`$ up to a finite order. To do so, we just have to calculate the sum whether of the right part or of the left part of an extension with a non-uniform signature. Both these sums will reveal to equate up to a simple multiplicative term. If one of them is convergent, the other is not and we will have to consider this second one as formal.

### III.2. Summation

In the general case of a $`\gamma |\alpha |\delta `$-signature, left and right parts of a $`T`$-extension $`\overline{B}`$ of $`B`$ write:

$$r(\overline{B})=\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\overline{B}_{\delta N}Z^{\delta N}\text{and}l(\overline{B})=\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\overline{B}_{\alpha \gamma N}Z^{\alpha \gamma N}$$

The $`p`$-order $`T`$-extension $`\overline{B}`$ writes $`TA`$ where $`T`$ is the transformation associated to its signature, and $`A=\phi (T^1B)`$ is a linear combination of vectors $`((\omega Z)^\delta )_i`$:

$$T_n=\frac{(1\frac{n}{\delta })!(1+\frac{\alpha +n}{\gamma })!}{\mathrm{\Omega }}$$

$$A=\underset{i=0}{\overset{p1}{}}A^i(\omega )((\omega Z)^\delta )_i\text{where}\omega \text{satisfies}A^p(\omega )=0$$

Now recall from equation (3) a useful relation between extensions:

$$((\omega Z)^\delta )_i=\frac{1}{i!}Z^{\delta i}(\frac{d}{dZ^\delta })^i((\omega Z)^\delta )_0$$
(8)
This property suggests to rewrite $`TA`$ as:

$$TA=\underset{i=0}{\overset{p1}{}}A^i(\omega )\frac{1}{i!}Z^{\delta i}(\frac{d}{dZ^\delta })^i\left[T((\omega Z)^\delta )_0\right]$$
(9)
Then, from the sums of $`T((\omega Z)^\delta )_0`$, the sums of $`TA`$ will follow for any extension $`A`$. But as $`(Z^\delta )_0=Z_0`$ and $`TZ_0=T`$, we simply have to sum the left and right parts of $`T`$.
The summation of $`T:`$

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill l(T)& =& _{N=0}^{\mathrm{}}T_{\alpha \gamma N}Z^{\alpha \gamma N}\hfill & & =& _{N=0}^{\mathrm{}}(1)^N\frac{(1+(\alpha +\gamma N)/\delta )!}{N!}Z^{\alpha \gamma N}\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ \hfill r(T)& =& _{N=0}^{\mathrm{}}T_{\delta N}Z^{\delta N}\hfill & & =& _{N=0}^{\mathrm{}}(1)^N\frac{(1+(\alpha +\delta N)/\gamma )!}{N!}Z^{\delta N}\hfill \end{array}$$

Let us now introduce integral expressions for fractional factorials where $`N`$ and $`\nu `$ are respectively positive and non zero positive integers:

$$(N/\nu )!=\nu _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tt^{\nu 1}e^{t^\nu }t^N.$$

If we accept to permute the sum and the integral without wondering whether they diverge or not, left and right parts of $`T`$ can be formally summed:

$$l(T)\delta _0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}e^{(t/Z)^\gamma t^\delta }(t/Z)^\alpha \text{and}r(T)\gamma _0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}e^{t^\gamma (Zt)^\delta }t^\alpha $$

The link between left and right parts of $`T`$ comes from a simple change of variable in the integral:

$$\gamma l(T)\delta r(T).$$
(10)
The analytical properties of $`l`$ and $`r`$ as functions of $`Z`$ are the one of multi-valued functions. It has also to be noted that, depending on the values of $`\gamma `$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\delta `$, the integral expression does not always make sense as conditions on its existence might not be satisfied. Nevertheless, as $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$ are positive integers, only a strictly negative value for $`\alpha `$ can make the integral diverge around $`t=0`$. If this situation occurs, then the first terms of the expansion $`l(T)`$ and $`r(T)`$ (in respective powers of $`Z^\gamma `$ and $`Z^\delta `$) will not be incorporated in the integral expression. As only a finite number of terms are concerned, this will be a complication but not an obstacle to the summing of the series. The application of the method given in the fourth section will illustrate this situation.
The summation of $`TA`$
The summed expression for $`r(TA)`$ is now from (9):

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill r(TA)& & \gamma _{i=0}^{p1}A^i(\omega )\frac{1}{i!}Z^{\delta i}(\frac{d}{dZ^\delta })^i_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}e^{t^\gamma (\omega Zt)^\delta }t^\alpha \hfill \\ & & \\ & & \gamma _0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}e^{(t/\omega Z)^\gamma t^\delta }(t/\omega Z)^\alpha _{i=0}^{p1}A^i(\omega )\frac{1}{i!}(t^\delta )^i\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
where one has successively performed all the derivatives and then a change of variable. The first expression has, by construction, the correct expansion in powers of $`Z^\delta `$ up to order $`p`$. The relation (10) between left and right parts of $`TA`$ still holds as $`l`$ and $`r`$ are linear mappings:

$$\gamma l(TA)\delta r(TA)$$

The formal manipulation performed to obtain the second expression of (11) is such that its expansions around $`Z\mathrm{}`$ and $`Z=0`$ will respectively identify to $`\frac{\gamma }{\delta }l(TA)`$ and $`r(TA)`$. This last point is crucial in the way it it guarantees that the form of the left and right parts (the strong and weak coupling expansions) will be properly recovered.
The appendix will concatenate the step by step expansion procedure to get an extension and a sum from the knowledge of a $`p`$-order series and its signature. The next section will illustrate the method on the divergent perturbative series of quantum mechanics in zero and one dimension.

## IV. Applications of the extension method

The extension method will now be applied to the case of the zero dimensional anharmonic oscillator, which happens to be a simple integral. It will then be tested on the calculation of the ground state energy of the quantum mechanics anharmonic oscillator. These applications will follow the extension procedure as it is concatenated in the appendix (the signature, the extension and the sum).

### IV.1. The zero dimension anharmonic oscillator

We consider the following integral:

$$E(m,\lambda )=\sqrt{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xe^{mx^2/2\lambda x^4/4},$$

which, when expanded in powers of $`\lambda /m^2`$ gives rise to a divergent series.
The Signature:
A dimensional analysis on the base of the zero-degree homogeneity of the exponential function gives:

$$[E]=[x]=[m^{1/2}]=[\lambda ^{1/4}],$$

where $`m`$ and $`\lambda `$ are to be considered as the two parameters with a physical dimension. Then $`E`$ will expand both in powers of $`\lambda /m^2`$ in the weak coupling limit, and in powers of $`(\lambda /m^2)^{1/4}`$ in the strong coupling limit:

$$E(\lambda )=m^{1/2}\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}E_N(\frac{\lambda }{m^2})^N,$$

$$\stackrel{~}{E}(\lambda )=\lambda ^{1/4}\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{E}_N(\frac{m}{\lambda ^{1/2}})^N.$$

Note that $`E(\lambda )`$ is divergent and $`\stackrel{~}{E}(\lambda )`$ is convergent.
The signature in then given by ($`\gamma =2,\alpha =1,\delta =4`$). Taking $`\lambda /m^2=Z^4`$ and $`m=1`$, right and left expansions of such an expression respectively rewrite as:

$$E=\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}E_NZ^{4N}\text{and}\stackrel{~}{E}=Z^1\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{E}_NZ^{2N},$$

exhibiting a $`2|1|4`$-signature.

Given the first coefficients of the right expansion, let us apply the extension procedure to the first order of this divergent series (now called $`B`$):

$$B=B_0+B_4Z^4+...$$

where

$$B_0=\sqrt{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xe^{mx^2/2}=\sqrt{\pi }$$

and

$$B_4=\sqrt{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xe^{mx^2/2}\frac{x^4}{4}=\frac{3}{4}\sqrt{\pi }.$$

We now need the transformation associated to the $`2|1|4`$-signature:

$$T_n==\frac{(1\frac{n}{4})!(1+\frac{1+n}{2})!}{\mathrm{\Omega }},$$

such that:

$$T_0=\sqrt{\pi }\text{and}T_4=\frac{3}{4}\sqrt{\pi }.$$

The first two coefficients of the uniform expansion (freed from its signature) to be extended write:

$$A_0=T_0^1B_0=1\text{and}A_4=T_4^1B_4=1.$$

The Extension:
The parameter $`\omega `$ has to satisfy the equation:

$$A^1(\omega )=1+\frac{1}{\omega ^4}\omega ^4=1$$

We have now all the necessary material to give an estimation of the whole sum, given its first two terms and its signature.
The Sum:
The first order estimation of the integral through the extension procedure is then:

$$2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\frac{1}{Z}e^{(t/Z)^2t^4},$$

which also writes (taking $`t=\sqrt{m}Zx/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`Z=(\lambda /m^2)^{1/4}`$):

$$\sqrt{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xe^{mx^2/2\lambda x^4/4}.$$

This an exact result.

As a matter of comparison: in the case of the calculation of this integral, the usual variationnal method with principal of minimal sensitivity happens to provide a non-exact finite result from any of its $`p`$-order divergent expansion $`[2,4]`$ while the extension method gives the exact result from the first order of perturbation. It is now straightforward to notice that any integral of the form:

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xx^{\alpha 1}e^{x^\gamma Z^\delta x^\delta }$$

will also be exactly estimated form its first order of expansion in powers of $`Z^\delta `$ using the extension procedure. This class of integral can thus be considered as canonical regarding the extension method.

### IV.2. The ground state energy of the anharmonic oscillator

The development of the vacuum energy $`E`$ of the anharmonic oscillator of quantum mechanics is known to be divergent when expanded in powers of the coupling constant $`\lambda `$. Many papers tried with success to deal with this divergent series, sometimes with high level of accuracy and/or complexity $`[3,7,10,11]`$.
The Lagrangian of the model writes:

$$L(m^2,\lambda )=\frac{1}{2}(_t\mathrm{\Phi })^2\frac{1}{2}m^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2\frac{1}{4}\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4$$

A dimensional analysis of physical quantities gives:

$$[L]=1;[t]=1;[\mathrm{\Phi }]=1/2;$$

$$[m]=1;[\lambda ]=3;[E]=1.$$

The vacuum energy for the free Lagrangian $`E(m^2,\lambda 0)`$ and its perturbative corrections in powers of $`\lambda `$ are computable, but one can also imagine another perturbative expansion in powers of $`m^2`$ around the free Lagrangian $`L(m^20,\lambda )`$. This latter strong coupling expansion, although proved to exist and be convergent $`[9]`$, is not computable with the usual technique of perturbation as one cannot solve the free equation. Nevertheless, from dimensional analysis, we know that these two expansions respectively write:

$$E(\lambda )=m\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}E_N(\frac{\lambda }{m^3})^N$$

for the divergent expansion around $`\lambda =0`$ and,

$$\stackrel{~}{E}(\lambda )=\lambda ^{1/3}\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{E}_N(\frac{m^2}{\lambda ^{2/3}})^N$$

for the convergent expansion around $`m^2=0`$ (or $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$).
Without loosing any dimensional information, one can get rid of fractional powers writing $`\lambda /m^3=Z^3`$ and $`m=1`$, then:

$$E=\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}E_NZ^{3N}\text{and}\stackrel{~}{E}=Z\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{E}_NZ^{2N}$$

Considering both these series as right ($`E`$) and left ($`\stackrel{~}{E}`$) parts of the same object we can recognize an extension with $`2|1|3`$-signature.
We can now use the extension procedure to sum the known divergent expansion of $`E`$ to a finite order $`p`$ on the grounds of a $`2|1|3`$-signature ($`\gamma =2,\alpha =1,\delta =3`$). The perturbative series of the ground state energy $`E`$ to be extended will be called $`B`$. A systematic procedure computes the coefficients of the ground state energy ($`B_{3n}`$) $`[12]`$:

$$B=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{3}{16}Z^3\frac{21}{128}Z^6+\frac{333}{1024}Z^9\frac{30885}{32768}Z^{12}+\frac{916731}{262144}Z^{15}+...$$

Left and right parts of its extensions are to be respective approximations of $`\frac{3}{2}\stackrel{~}{E}`$ and $`E`$.

#### IV.2.1. The choice of the “best” root

The search for a $`p`$-order $`T`$-extension goes through the choice between $`p`$ roots of $`A^p(\omega )`$: $`\omega _1,\omega _2,..,\omega _p`$ . The discussion of the section II.3 suggests to consider the root which is as close as possible to another one of the same order (a similar comparison with the preceding order roots reveals to be equivalent). In order to measure this property of a given root $`\omega _i`$ to be close to one or several other roots of the same order, we introduce its *weight*:

$$weight(\omega _i)=\underset{ji}{}\frac{1}{(\omega _j\omega _i)^2}$$

The following array will give the roots of $`A^p(\omega )`$ for $`p=2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4},\text{and}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}`$ together with their weights (in brackets):

$$\begin{array}{cccc}p\hfill & \omega _i\left(weight\right)\hfill & & \\ 2\hfill & \underset{¯}{1.062}\left(191\right)\hfill & 1.135\left(191\right)\hfill & \\ 3\hfill & \underset{¯}{1.053\pm 0.061i}\left(113\right)\hfill & 1.189\left(90\right)\hfill & \\ 4\hfill & 1.043\pm 0.102i\left(135\right)\hfill & \underset{¯}{1.071}\left(216\right)\hfill & 1.236\left(79\right)\hfill \\ 5\hfill & 1.034\pm 0.14i\left(135\right)\hfill & \underset{¯}{1.073\pm 0.033i}\left(355\right)\hfill & 1.279\left(71\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

For every order, the root associated to the biggest weight are underlined (the choice for the underlined root of the second order is arbitrary as both of them have the same weight).
As $`A^p(\omega )`$ is in fact a polynomial in powers of $`1/\omega ^3`$, it has $`p`$ triplets of roots. is why we decided to consider only one root in each triplet: the one lying around the real axis. This choice will not affect the right part of the extension.

In order to test our selected roots, a similar array will show the related estimations for the forthcoming term of the series (as the $`p`$-order $`T`$-extension provides an estimation for the known value of $`B_{3p+3}`$). The estimations associated to the chosen roots will be underlined and the last column will show the exact value:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}p\hfill & \overline{B}_{3p+3}(est.)\hfill & & & B_{3p+3}\left(exact\right)\hfill \\ 2\hfill & \underset{¯}{0.3223}\hfill & 0.3211\hfill & & 0.3252\hfill \\ 3\hfill & \underset{¯}{0.9411\pm 0.0035}\hfill & 0.9552\hfill & & 0.9425\hfill \\ 4\hfill & 3.5034\pm 0.008\hfill & \underset{¯}{3.4948}\hfill & 3.4269\hfill & 3.4970\hfill \\ 5\hfill & 15.6620\pm 0.0049\hfill & \underset{¯}{15.6165\pm 0.0034}\hfill & 16.2018\hfill & 15.6208\hfill \end{array}$$

The relative precision on the results in the complex plane for the chosen roots for respective orders $`p=2`$ to $`5`$ are $`\mathrm{9.\hspace{0.17em}10}^3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4.\hspace{0.17em}10}^3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6.\hspace{0.17em}10}^4\text{and}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.\hspace{0.17em}10}^4`$
As far as I know, the criterion governing the choice for the best root still works systematically for higher orders of perturbations.

#### IV.2.2. The vacuum energy in the strong coupling limit

The vacuum energy of the massless theory identifies to its strong coupling limit: $`\lambda ^{1/3}\stackrel{~}{E}_0`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{E}_0`$ is approximated by $`\frac{2}{3}\overline{B}_1`$. One can verify that the choice for the best root made earlier still holds. The following array shows the estimated values and their relative precisions compared to a known value $`[11]`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{E}_0`$ for order $`p=1`$ to $`5`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}p\hfill & \frac{2}{3}\overline{B}_1\hfill & \\ 1\hfill & 0.420139\hfill & (\mathrm{2.\hspace{0.17em}10}^3)\hfill \\ 2\hfill & 0.4205216\hfill & (\mathrm{1.\hspace{0.17em}10}^3)\hfill \\ 3\hfill & 0.4208109\pm 0.0000952\hfill & (\mathrm{2.\hspace{0.17em}10}^4)\hfill \\ 4\hfill & 0.4207976\hfill & (\mathrm{2.\hspace{0.17em}10}^5)\hfill \\ 5\hfill & 0.4208087\pm 0.0000033i\hfill & (\mathrm{1.\hspace{0.17em}10}^5)\hfill \\ & & \\ \stackrel{~}{E}_0\hfill & 0.4208049\hfill & (\text{exact})\hfill \end{array}$$

The accuracy obtained for the first order (where only the two first terms of $`B`$ are involved) is remarkably high ($`0.2\%`$) and increases with the order of perturbation. We could also check that the choices for the best roots systematically hold for all the coefficients $`\overline{B}_n`$, and also for the sum itself.

#### IV.2.3. The summation for finite coupling

We also dispose of an analytical expression of the vacuum energy in the case of a finite coupling (for any value of $`\lambda =Z^3`$ and $`m=1`$). In order to compute numerically this integral, the zeroth order term in powers of $`Z^3`$ of the integrant of the right sum (which we know to correspond to $`1/2`$) will have to be extracted from the integral as it is not summable around $`t=0`$. As an example, we give the analytical expression of the first order estimation for $`E(\lambda )`$:

$$E(\lambda )\frac{1}{2}+2_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t^2}e^{t^2}(e^{\lambda (\varpi t)^3}1)\frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi }}.$$

where $`\varpi 1.09954`$.
The following arrays show an estimation of $`E(\lambda )`$ for $`\lambda =2`$, $`4`$ and $`8`$ to be compared with the exact value $`[10,11]`$. The corresponding relative precisions are in brackets.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}p\hfill & \lambda =2\hfill & \\ 1\hfill & 0.6957043\hfill & (\mathrm{7.\hspace{0.17em}10}^4)\hfill \\ 2\hfill & 0.6950365\hfill & (\mathrm{2.\hspace{0.17em}10}^4)\hfill \\ 3\hfill & 0.6951801\pm 0.0000363i\hfill & (\mathrm{6.\hspace{0.17em}10}^5)\hfill \\ 4\hfill & 0.6961732\hfill & (\mathrm{3.\hspace{0.17em}10}^6)\hfill \\ 5\hfill & 0.6961768\pm 0.0000008i\hfill & (\mathrm{1.\hspace{0.17em}10}^6)\hfill \\ & & \\ E(2)\hfill & 0.6961758\hfill & (\text{exact})\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}p\hfill & \lambda =4\hfill & \\ 1\hfill & 0.8030005\hfill & (\mathrm{1.\hspace{0.17em}10}^3)\hfill \\ 2\hfill & 0.8035264\hfill & (\mathrm{3.\hspace{0.17em}10}^4)\hfill \\ 3\hfill & 0.8037776\pm 0.0000698i\hfill & (\mathrm{8.\hspace{0.17em}10}^5)\hfill \\ 4\hfill & 0.8037655\hfill & (\mathrm{6.\hspace{0.17em}10}^5)\hfill \\ 5\hfill & 0.8037727\pm 0.0000019i\hfill & (\mathrm{4.\hspace{0.17em}10}^5)\hfill \\ & & \\ E(4)\hfill & 0.8037707\hfill & (\text{exact})\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}p\hfill & \lambda =8\hfill & \\ 1\hfill & 0.9504142\hfill & (\mathrm{1.\hspace{0.17em}10}^3)\hfill \\ 2\hfill & 0.9501856\hfill & (\mathrm{4.\hspace{0.17em}10}^4)\hfill \\ 3\hfill & 0.9505784\pm 0.0001160i\hfill & (\mathrm{1.\hspace{0.17em}10}^4)\hfill \\ 4\hfill & 0.9515597\hfill & (\mathrm{1.\hspace{0.17em}10}^5)\hfill \\ 5\hfill & 0.9515723\pm 0.0000034i\hfill & (\mathrm{5.\hspace{0.17em}10}^6)\hfill \\ & & \\ E(8)\hfill & 0.9515685\hfill & (\text{exact})\hfill \end{array}$$

As expected, the selected roots provide systematically the best approximations, which reveal to improve greatly with the order of perturbation.
One can also test successfully the procedure on other observables of the model, such as the mean value of $`<\mathrm{\Phi }^2>`$ or the excited states of energy. The same relative precisions is achieved in these calculations.

Eventually, one can reasonably expect the method to work as well for any $`x^{2N}`$ potential in one dimension quantum mechanics.

## V. Conclusion

This paper does not provide any proof of the convergence of the extension method despite the logic inherent to its construction. Nevertheless, in the case of the anharmonic oscillator, it reveals to have a highly predictive power for all positive values of the coupling constant. It also makes a crucial and automatic link between weak and strong couplings and provides an analytical expression for the sum of some divergent perturbative series.

Regarding the problems of divergences arising from quantum mechanics and more generally from domains of physics facing divergent expansions involving two physical parameters, the method exposed here, besides its simplicity, has the advantage to be systematic. It is also hoped to provide an excellent approximation of a physical quantity (for any value of the coupling constant) from the first perturbative correction. It opens perspectives for field theories where only lower orders of perturbative corrections (expected to be divergent) are available.

The power of the method obviously comes from our ability to take into account physical information about dimensional quantities. If we want to make it efficient for more complex models, or prove that other classes of series suits the method, we will have to extend it to models involving more than two physical parameters. To do so, we will manage to exhibit, in the same spirit as in this work, constraints arising from dimensional information. This will be the subject of a second part of this work to be published.

## Aknowledgement

I want to thank Hugh F. Jones, Fran ois Molino and especially Philippe Garcia for his long time support and contributions to this work.

## Appendix: the extension procedure

Given respective left an right forms of expansions:

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}B_{\alpha \gamma n}Z^{\alpha \gamma n}\text{and}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}B_{\delta n}Z^{\delta n},$$

We now summarize the method developed in this paper to estimate the value to be associated to the known divergent truncated series:

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}B_{\delta n}Z^{\delta n}.$$

The Signature:
We are in the general case of a $`\gamma |\alpha |\delta `$-signature, the associated transformations is:

$$T_n=\frac{(1\frac{n}{\delta })!(1+\frac{\alpha +n}{\gamma })!}{\mathrm{\Omega }}.$$

The Expansion:
$`\begin{array}{c}A_{\delta n}=T_{\delta n}^1B_{\delta n}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}np\hfill \\ \\ A^i(\omega )=_{n=0}^i\frac{i!}{n!(in)!}(1)^{ni}\frac{A_{\delta n}}{\omega ^{\delta n}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}ip\hfill \\ \\ A^p(\omega )=0\omega =\varpi \hfill \\ \\ \overline{A}_n=\omega ^n_{i=0}^{p1}\frac{n!}{i!(ni)!}A^{\ddot{i}}(\varpi )n\text{}\hfill \\ \\ \overline{B}_n=T_n\overline{A}_nnZ\hfill \end{array}`$
The Sum:

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_{\alpha \gamma n}Z^{\alpha \gamma n}\gamma _0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}e^{(t/\varpi Z)^\gamma t^\delta }(t/\varpi Z)^\alpha \underset{i=0}{\overset{p1}{}}A^i(\varpi )\frac{1}{i!}(t^\delta )^i.$$

which can also be written:

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_{\delta n}Z^{\delta n}\gamma _0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}e^{t^\gamma (\varpi Zt)^\delta }t^\alpha \underset{i=0}{\overset{p1}{}}A^i(\varpi )\frac{1}{i!}((\varpi Zt)^\delta )^i.$$

The Weight:
Between $`\{\omega _1,\omega _2,\mathrm{},\omega _p\}`$ roots of $`A^p(\omega )`$, $`\varpi `$ is the one with the biggest weight:

$$weight(\omega _i)=\underset{ji}{}\frac{1}{(\omega _j\omega _i)^2}$$

## References

<sup>1</sup>J. J. Loeffel, A. Martin, B. Simon, A. S. Wightman, Phys. lett. B 30, 656 (1969).
<sup>2</sup>A. Neveu, Nucl. Phys. B, 18B, 242 (1990).
<sup>3</sup>B. Bellet, P. Garcia, A. Neveu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 11, 5587 (1996).
<sup>4</sup>R. Seznek, J. Zinn-Justin, J. Math. Phys. 20(7), 1398 (1979).
<sup>5</sup>I. R. C. Buckley, A. Duncan, H. F. Jones Phys. Rev. D47, 2554 (1993).
<sup>6</sup>R. Guida, K. Konishi, H. Suzuki, Ann. Phys. 241, 152 (1995).
<sup>7</sup>P. M. Stevenson Phys. Rev. D 23, 2916 (1981).
<sup>8</sup>C. M. Bender, L. M. A. Bettencourt, Phys. Rev. D 54, 7710 (1996).
<sup>9</sup>B. Simon, Ann. Phys. 58, 76 (1970).
<sup>10</sup>W. Janke, H. Kleinert, Phys. Lett. 75, 2787 (1995).
<sup>11</sup>F. Vinette, J. Cizek, J. Math. Phys. 32, 3392, (1991).
<sup>12</sup>C. M. Bender, T. T. Wu, Phys. Rev. 184, 1231 (1969).


format: text

text:
# Local lattice potentials and steady-state vacancies in ionic crystals

## Abstract

Basing on peculiarities of local potentials, the two principal trends in vacancy formation are revealed. The proximity to the threshold of local ionic stability due to a giant potential contribution of electronic delocalization accounts for thermal anion vacancies typical of intrinsic semiconductors of $`AB`$ type. On the other hand, the tendency towards equalizing the potential field results in a high concentration of structural cation vacancies observed in Ni3Sb and relative compounds.

Bulk electrostatic potential field plays a fundamental role in crystals Spac81 , for it specifies both the electronegativity Spac81 ; Boyd81 ; Gene87  and charge transfer Wang80 ; Sato81 ; Cole97 ; Koha98  and eventually contributes to the cohesive energy there Wadd59 ; Tosi64 ; Tref87 . Described by lattice series Wadd59 ; Tosi64 ; Harr75 ; Glas80 , bulk potentials can nevertheless be defined as unique quantities subjected to invariant periodic boundary conditions Khol01 ; Kho02a . The particular event of point charge lattices is of special interest Made18 ; Evje32 ; Bert52 ; HarMon ; Bert78 ; Herz79 ; Heye81 ; Mass82 ; Rein90 ; Goni91 ; Argy92 ; Vito95  because it is relevant to spherically symmetric ions of which external potential effect amounts to that of point charges Jack62 . However, the symmetry of ionic potentials evident in this case Spac81 ; Roy954 ; Birm55 ; Levi66 ; Goo69a ; Cala76 ; Xiao92 ; Kho02b  cannot explain the known fact that the steady-state concentrations of vacancies of various ionic species differ even in the simplest case of diatomic crystals Goo69b . The nature of abnormal concentrations of cation vacancies in Ni3Sb and relative compounds Robe91 ; Rand96 ; Best98  is one more intriguing problem.

In the present paper we discuss in detail that the effect of prevailing anion vacancies inherent in GaAs Bara86 ; Nort94 ; Oate95 ; Jano97  as well as in structurally relative nitrides Bogu95 ; Piqu97 ; Gorc99 ; Orel01  can be understood if the potential contribution of electronic delocalization Khol01 ; Kho02b ; Kho02c  is taken into account. But it turns out that another treatment based on lattice potentials is appropriate to explain cation vacancies in question.

To discuss local properties in ionic crystals, we consider a crystal composed of $`j`$ ionic species per unit cell, with basis vectors $`𝐛_j`$ and with total charges $`q_j`$ described by charge distributions $`\rho _j(𝐫)`$ spherically symmetric for simplicity. According to Khol01 ; Kho02a ; Kho02b , the bulk electrostatic potential $`U_\mathrm{b}(𝐫)`$ at a point $`𝐫`$ can be written as follows:

$$U_\mathrm{b}(𝐫)=U_{\mathrm{Cd}}(𝐫)+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{top}},$$
(1)
where

$`U_{\mathrm{Cd}}(𝐫)={\displaystyle \stackrel{}{}_i}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle _{V_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _j(𝐫^{})d𝐫^{}}{|𝐫^{}+𝐑_i+𝐛_j𝐫|}},`$ (2)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{top}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3v}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle _{V_j}}|𝐫+𝐛_j|^2\rho _j(𝐫)𝑑𝐫,`$ (3)
the sum over $`i`$ runs over the Bravais lattice specified by $`𝐑_i`$, the prime on the summation sign implies missing the singularities of the summand, $`V_j`$ is the volume of integration appropriate to $`\rho _j(𝐫)`$, $`v`$ is the volume of the unit cell. It is important that the absolute convergence of interest can always be achieved for (2) by introducing fictitious point charges, which in turn can be included into the set over $`j`$ Khol01 ; Kho02a . Note that if the distributions $`\rho _j(𝐫)`$ are non-overlapping, then (2) describes the potential in the point-charge lattice, but (3) can be represented as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{top}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3v}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}|𝐛_j|^2q_j+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{top}}^{\mathrm{deloc}},`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{top}}^{\mathrm{deloc}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3v}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle _{V_j}}|𝐫|^2\rho _j(𝐫)𝑑𝐫,`$ (5)
where the first term on the right-hand side of (4) modifies the result of (2) so as to retrieve the potential symmetry in a point-charge lattice, but $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{top}}^{\mathrm{deloc}}`$ determines the potential contribution of electronic delocalization in ions, providing that this potential shift is intrinsically negative and additive with respect to all ions in question Khol01 ; Kho02b .

Based on (1), the bulk Coulomb energy takes the form

$$=\frac{1}{2}\underset{j}{}q_jU_j^{\mathrm{eff}},$$
(6)
where the contribution of fictitious charges mentioned above vanishes by definition, so that $`j`$ runs over all the actual ions in the unit cell Khol01 ; Kho02b ,

$$U_j^{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{1}{q_j}_{V_j}\rho _j(𝐫)U_\mathrm{b}(𝐫+𝐛_j)𝑑𝐫.$$
(7)
In the foregoing case of point-like charges, $`U_j^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ are reduced to the corresponding point-charge-lattice ionic potentials $`U_j^0`$ Khol01 ; Kho02b , but shifted by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{top}}^{\mathrm{deloc}}`$.

It is significant that every ion should be bound energetically in the lattice. This claim implies that

$$q_jU_j^{\mathrm{eff}}<0,$$
(8)
despite the fact that according to (6) and the overall neutrality of the unit cell, the entire value of $`_\mathrm{b}`$ is indifferent to any uniform shift of the potential values. Hence, negative ions are to stay in positive potential fields, so that the admissible negative value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{top}}^{\mathrm{deloc}}`$ appears to be restricted for every actual ionic structure and the lattice instability should be expected otherwise.

Note that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{t}op}^{\mathrm{d}eloc}`$ does not change relative values on the bulk potential map, but describes the binding energies relative to free ions, with including their own stability Wats58 ; Doll95 ; Stef98 . Therefore, it can be essential in the problem of steady-state vacancies forming at high temperatures. To estimate this effect, let a vacancy be generated by the simple exclusion of an ion from its regular position without any relaxation of the surroundings HarMon ; Goo69b ; Lesl85 ; Bhow88 ; Ston88 . The total concentration of vacancies is assumed to be small enough, so that their influence on the bulk potentials Cole97 ; Macd82 ; Wolv95  can be ignored at least while we are interested in thermal vacancies. The energy loss appropriate to a vacancy of the $`j`$th species is then as follows:

$$E_j^{\mathrm{vac}}=q_jU_j^{\mathrm{eff}}.$$
(9)
Based on (9), the steady-state concentrations $`n_j`$ of vacant states can be defined by the Boltzmann relation as

$$n_j=w_j\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{E_j^{\mathrm{vac}}}{k_\mathrm{B}T}\right),$$
(10)
where $`w_j`$ is the number of energetically equivalent ions of the $`j`$th species in the unit cell, $`k_\mathrm{B}`$ is the Boltzmann constant, $`T`$ is the temperature. The inequality $`E_j^{\mathrm{vac}}>0`$ follows from (8)–(10) as a necessary condition for $`n_j1`$.

To make the further discussion complete, we start from the simplest case of $`AB`$ compounds described by point-charge lattices Kho02c . Then there are only two charge species with $`q_+=q_{}=\kappa `$, $`w_\pm =1`$, and

$$E_\pm ^{\mathrm{vac}}=\kappa \left(U_{}^0\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{top}}^{\mathrm{deloc}}\right),$$
(11)
where $`U_{}^0`$ is the point-charge-lattice potential on $`q_{}`$. According to (10) and (11), for the ratio $`n_{}/n_+`$ we derive

$$\frac{n_{}}{n_+}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\kappa \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{top}}^{\mathrm{deloc}}}{k_BT}\right)>1.$$
(12)
Typical energies associated with (10) are of about 10$`^5`$K, so that all the values of $`n_j`$ are usually negligible. However, the contribution of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{top}}^{\mathrm{deloc}}`$ can shift a minimal positive potential $`U_{}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ to threshold (8) and thus the value of $`n_{}`$ becomes appreciable. Presumably, this is the case in semiconductors such as GaAs. To evaluate this particular event, we adopt the lattice spacing $`a=0.56537`$nm Wyck63  and $`\kappa =3e`$, where $`e`$ is the charge of proton. On utilizing the potential values for the ZnS structure from Kho02b , the expected magnitude of $`n_{}10^3`$ at $`T1000`$K Oate95  appears if we invoke $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{top}}^{\mathrm{deloc}}=3.757\kappa /a`$.

To estimate this value in terms of structural ionic parameters, we may assume that there is a close-packed sphalerite structure composed of spherical ions of radii $`R_{\mathrm{Ga}}`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{As}}`$, but their core regions Birm55 ; Call58 ; Simm61 ; Olsz91  of radii $`r_{\mathrm{Ga}}`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{As}}`$, charged uniformly Bert78 ; Herz79 ; Argy92  contribute to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{top}}^{\mathrm{deloc}}`$. According to (5), it is easy to get Khol01 ; Kho02b

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{top}}^{\mathrm{deloc}}=\frac{8\pi }{5a^3}\left(Z_{\mathrm{Ga}}r_{\mathrm{Ga}}^2+Z_{\mathrm{As}}r_{\mathrm{As}}^2\right),$$
(13)
where $`Z_{\mathrm{Ga}}=28e`$ and $`Z_{\mathrm{As}}=36e`$ are the total electronic charges on ions. Keeping in mind the semiempirical character of relationship (13), some variations in relative values of the ionic radii are to be suggested upon comparing (13) with the value $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{top}}^{\mathrm{deloc}}`$ of interest. The result is shown in Fig. 1, where curve 1 corresponds to the limiting case when the

As3- anions form a close-packed fcc structure themselves, curve 3 is appropriate to the ratio $`R_{\mathrm{Ga}}/R_{\mathrm{As}}=0.279`$ proposed by Pauling Paul60 .

It is instructive that a common relation $`r_{\mathrm{ion}}/R_{\mathrm{ion}}0.7`$ can be recognized in all the cases depicted by the thin solid line in Fig. 1. According to (5), in the particular event of $`\rho _{\mathrm{ion}}(𝐫)=\mathrm{exp}(|𝐫|^2)`$ appropriate to the powerful

modern description of electronic configurations in atoms and ions in terms of Gaussian orbitals Chel86 ; Cast98  we have

$$Z_{\mathrm{ion}}=\pi ^{3/2},\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{top}}^{\mathrm{deloc}}=\frac{\pi ^{5/2}}{v}.$$
(14)
The foregoing ionic parameters specified by (13) and (14) and imposed on this charge distribution in Fig. 2 for comparison are in favor of the above assessment.

Note that here we discuss the tendency towards arising vacancies in a perfect system, but not their final states Bara86 ; Nort94 ; Oate95 . Both the classical problem Goo69b ; Koha00 ; Zhan01  of the $`n`$-type conductivity in ZnO and that of vacancies in nitrides Bogu95 ; Piqu97 ; Gorc99  can be comprehended in the same fashion. The trends in complex defects associated with anion vacancies Bara86 ; Jano97 ; Ling01  are clarified as well.

Owing to (8), the above mechanism enforces the stability of cation states and so prevents from cation vacancies as a thermal effect. It means that another nature brings about cation vacancies observed in a large concentration in Ni3Sb Rand96 . Of course, the experimental existence of such a state implies the possibility of its thermodynamic description with a large number of relevant parameters Best98 , but the underlying physical motive remains obscure within such an approach. To elucidate the reason promoting the appearance of this unusual state, we resort to the potential effect associated with structural features.

The stoichiometric Ni3Sb compound has the D03 structure Robe91 ; Rand96 ; Best98 ; Redd01  that is just the BiF3 one Wyck63 , with the local point-charge-lattice potentials listed in Table 1 Khol01 ; Kho02b , where the lattice parameter $`a0.59`$nm Rand96  and the charge $`\kappa `$ on the Ni+ ion

are used as basic units. So, the $`\alpha `$ states of Ni+ ions are formally much more stable than the $`\gamma `$ ones. Notwithstanding, we must propose that there are structural vacancies on the $`\alpha `$ sites, in accord with experiment. The change in the local potentials can then be written in the form

$$U_j^0=(1c)U_j^0(\text{D}0_3)+cU_j^0(\text{B1}),$$
(15)
where c describes the effective admixture of the B1-lattice potentials compiled in Table 1 as well. Keeping in mind that the B1 lattice is free from charges on $`\alpha `$ sites, there are two $`\alpha `$ sites per unit cell with the occupation probability $`1c`$ on each. All the other sites are occupied completely, with the charge $`\kappa (2c3)`$ on a Sb3- ion for neutrality. The changes in $`U_\alpha ^0`$ and $`U_\gamma ^0`$ defined by (15) with the potentials from Table 1 exhibit the principal tendency towards the equalization of the potentials operating on structurally nonequivalent Ni+ ions, as shown in Fig. 3. It is surprising that the potential degeneracy obtained here takes place just at the chemical composition which is the most prominent in experiments Rand96 .

It is evident that apart from a large number of vacant states, equal potentials on $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ sites are capable of promoting the extraordinary high Ni diffusivity Heum66 . Basing on this potential equality, the existence of such a state may presumably be associated with the creation of metallic bonds in the Ni subsystem that is much more effective if all three interpenetrating fcc sublattices composed of Ni+ ions contribute evenly to their formation. A large number of metallic

bonds can in turn depress the effect of local vacancies on the conduction electrons. As a result, the charge transfer determining the actual value of $`\kappa `$ is expected to be the same for all Ni+ ions, in support of the uniform description developed above.

As anticipated, the same trend is inherent in metallic alloys of relative structure Robe91 ; Redd01 ; Mano99 . The fact that the Coulomb contribution is to be less pronounced there may be regarded as one more evidence in favor of the potential equalization discussed.

It is worth noting that the present consideration of the effect of relative potentials is nonetheless based on absolute values of local potentials in point-charge lattices Khol01 ; Kho02b , so that their combination in form (15) is informative. On the other hand, keeping in mind that the value of $`U_\beta ^0(`$D$`0_3)`$ is, in absolute units, close to $`U_{\mathrm{As}}^0`$, but the number of cations is larger, the effect of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{top}}^{\mathrm{deloc}}`$ defined like (13) violates relation (8) for anion states and so renders the stoichiometric Ni3Sb compound unstable, in agreement with experiments Rand96 . Dynamical effects associated with Ni diffusivity and contributing to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{top}}^{\mathrm{deloc}}`$ so as to restore (8) at finite $`c`$ will be discussed elsewhere.

###### Acknowledgements.

I am grateful to Professor V. L. Ginzburg, Professor E. G. Maksimov and Professor V. G. Vaks for their encouragement.


text:
# On group theoretical Hopf algebras and exact factorizations of finite groups

## 1. Introduction

We shall work over an algebraically closed field $`k`$ of characteristic zero. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a finite group, and let $`\omega Z^3(\mathrm{\Sigma },k^\times )`$. Consider the category $`\mathrm{Vec}_\omega ^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-graded vector spaces, with associativity constraint given by $`\omega `$. In the paper , for every pair of subgroups $`F`$ and $`G`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, endowed with 2-cocycles $`\alpha Z^2(F,k^\times )`$ and $`\beta Z^2(G,k^\times )`$, satisfying certain conditions, a semisimple Hopf algebra $`A=A_{\alpha ,\beta }^\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega ,F,G)`$ is associated, in such a way that the category $`\mathrm{Rep}A`$ is monoidally equivalent to the category $`𝒞`$ of $`k_\alpha F`$-bimodules in $`\mathrm{Vec}_\omega ^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Paraphrasing the terminology introduced by Etingof, Nikshych and Ostrik in , we shall use the name *group theoretical* to refer to a Hopf algebra arising from this construction.

A variant of the following question is posed in .

###### Question 1.1.

Is every semisimple Hopf algebra over $`k`$ group theoretical?

###### Remark 1.1.

The answer to the analogous question for finite dimensional semisimple quasi-Hopf algebras is negative, as Remark 8.48 in  shows.

In this paper we shall prove the following characterization of group theoretical Hopf algebras. See Section 2.

###### Theorem 1.2.

Let $`A`$ be a semisimple Hopf algebra over $`k`$. The following statements are equivalent:

(i) $`A`$ is group theoretical.

(ii) there exist a finite group $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and a 3-cocycle $`\omega Z^3(\mathrm{\Sigma },k^\times )`$ such that $`D(A)`$ is twist equivalent to $`D^\omega (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.

Here, $`D^\omega (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is the quasi-Hopf algebra of Dijkgraaf, Pasquier and Roche . Note that the group $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is not uniquely determined. The proof of Theorem 1.2 relies on a description of the category $`\mathrm{Rep}D^\omega (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ given in  and a result of Schauenburg  on the center of certain monoidal categories.

The theorem implies that a group theoretical Hopf algebra appears as a Hopf subalgebra of a Hopf algebra which can be constructed from group algebras and their duals, by means of the operations of taking bismash products, associators and twists; see .

The following theorem will be proved in Section 4. Part (ii) generalizes the result in \[2, Section 5\].

###### Theorem 1.3.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=FG`$ be an exact factorization of a finite group $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Suppose that $`A`$ is a Hopf algebra fitting into the abelian extension

(1.2)
$$1k^GAkF1,$$

associated to this factorization. Then we have:

(i) $`A`$ is group theoretical.

(ii) Let $`[\tau ,\sigma ]`$ denote the element of $`\mathrm{Opext}(k^G,kF)`$ corresponding to the extension (1.2). Then $`D(A)D^\omega (\mathrm{\Sigma })_\varphi `$, for some invertible $`\varphi D^\omega (\mathrm{\Sigma })D^\omega (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, where the class of $`\omega `$ is the 3-cocycle associated to $`[\tau ,\sigma ]`$ in the Kac exact sequence .

See 3.2 for a discussion on $`\omega `$. Observe that part (i) implies that all Hopf subalgebras and quotients of $`A`$, $`A^{}`$ and their twistings are also group-theoretical; see . The proof of Theorem 1.3 is done by explicitly constructing a monoidal equivalence $`\mathrm{Rep}A{}_{F}{}^{}(\mathrm{Vec}_\omega ^\mathrm{\Sigma })_{F}^{}`$. This equivalence is a special case of a result of Schauenburg; see \[12, Theorem 3.3.5\].

As a corollary, we obtain that a semisimple Hopf algebra whose category of representations is isomorphic to one of the categories described by Tambara and Yamagami in , is always group theoretical. In other words, these categories are group theoretical whenever they possess a fiber functor to the category of $`k`$-vector spaces. A special case of this fact appears in \[5, Remark 8.48\].

Aknowledgements

The author thanks N. Andruskiewitsch for many valuable comments on a previous version of this paper.

## 2. Characterization via Drinfeld doubles

### 2.1.

We first review the construction in \[10, Section 3\]. This construction, and its relationship with the structure of semisimple Hopf algebras, has also been explained by Ocneanu.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a finite group, and let $`\omega Z^3(\mathrm{\Sigma },k^\times )`$ be a normalized 3-cocycle. Consider the category $`\mathrm{Vec}_\omega ^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-graded vector spaces, with associativity constraint given by $`\omega `$: explicitly, for any three objects $`U,U^{}`$ and $`U^{\prime \prime }`$ of $`\mathrm{Vec}_\omega ^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, we have $`a_{U,U^{},U^{\prime \prime }}:(UU^{})U^{\prime \prime }U(U^{}U^{\prime \prime })`$, given by

(2.1)
$$a_{U,U^{},U^{\prime \prime }}((uu^{})u^{\prime \prime })=\omega (u,u^{},u^{\prime \prime })u(u^{}u^{\prime \prime }),$$

on homogeneous elements $`uU`$, $`u^{}U^{}`$, $`u^{\prime \prime }U^{\prime \prime }`$, where we use the symbol $`||||`$ to denote the corresponding degree of homogeneity. In other words, $`\mathrm{Vec}_\omega ^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the category of representations of the quasi-Hopf algebra $`k^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, with associator $`\omega (k^\mathrm{\Sigma })^3`$.

Let also $`F`$ and $`G`$ be subgroups of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, endowed with 2-cocycles $`\alpha Z^2(F,k^\times )`$ and $`\beta Z^2(G,k^\times )`$, such that the following conditions are satisfied:

(2.2) $``$ $`\text{The classes}\omega |_F\text{and}\omega |_G\text{are both trivial;}`$
(2.3) $``$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=FG;`$
(2.4) $``$ $`\text{The class}\alpha |_{FG}\beta ^1|_{FG}\text{is non-degenerate.}`$
Then there is an associated semisimple Hopf algebra $`A=A_{\alpha ,\beta }^\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega ,F,G)`$, such that the category $`\mathrm{Rep}A`$ is monoidally equivalent to the semisimple monoidal category $`𝒞=𝒞(\mathrm{\Sigma },\omega ,F,\alpha )`$ of $`k_\alpha F`$-bimodules in $`\mathrm{Vec}_\omega ^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. By \[10, Corollary 3.1\], equivalence classes subgroups $`G`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ satisfying (2.2), (2.3) and (2.4), classify fiber functors $`𝒞\mathrm{Vec}_k`$; these correspond to the distinct Hopf algebras $`A`$.

The categories of the form $`𝒞(\mathrm{\Sigma },\omega ,F,\alpha )`$ are called *group theoretical* in . This motivates the following definition.

###### Definition 2.1.

We shall say that a semisimple Hopf algebra $`A`$ is *group theoretical* if the category $`\mathrm{Rep}A`$ is group theoretical.

A semisimple Hopf algebra $`A^{}`$ is twist equivalent to $`A`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{Rep}A^{}`$ is equivalent to $`\mathrm{Rep}A`$; thus, if $`A^{}`$ is twist equivalent to $`A`$, then $`A^{}`$ is group theoretical if and only if $`A`$ is; indeed twisting the comultiplication in $`A`$ corresponds to changing the fiber functor $`𝒞\mathrm{Vec}_k`$ and thus to changing the data $`(G,\beta )`$. It follows from \[5, 8.8\] that duals, opposites, Hopf subalgebras, quotient Hopf algebras, and tensor products of group theoretical Hopf algebras are also group theoretical. Also, by \[5, Remark 8.47\], if $`D(A)`$ is group theoretical, then so is $`A`$; the converse is also true, since $`D(A)`$ is a 2-cocycle twist of $`(A^{})^{\mathrm{cop}}A`$.

### 2.2. Proof of Theorem 1.2

Recall from , that as a braided monoidal category, $`\mathrm{Rep}D^\omega (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is isomorphic to the Drinfeld center of the category $`\mathrm{Vec}_\omega ^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`𝒵(\mathrm{Vec}_\omega ^\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.

(ii) $``$ (i). The quasi-Hopf algebra $`D^\omega (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is group theoretical; indeed, from the proof of Theorem 3.2 in , $`\mathrm{Rep}D^\omega (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is equivalent to $`𝒞(\mathrm{\Sigma }\times \mathrm{\Sigma },\stackrel{~}{\omega },\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Sigma }),1)`$. Therefore, the assumption (ii) implies that $`D(A)`$ is group theoretical. Hence $`A`$ also is, by \[5, Remark 8.47\].

(i) $``$ (ii). Suppose that $`A=A_{\alpha ,\beta }^\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega ,F,G)`$ is group theoretical. By definition, there is an equivalence of monoidal categories $`\mathrm{Rep}A{}_{B}{}^{}(\mathrm{Vec}_\omega ^\mathrm{\Sigma })_{B}^{}`$, where $`B=k_\alpha F`$. Therefore, the Drinfeld centers of these categories are equivalent.

In view of , the center of the category $`{}_{B}{}^{}(\mathrm{Vec}_\omega ^\mathrm{\Sigma })_{B}^{}`$ is equivalent to the center of $`\mathrm{Vec}_\omega ^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. This implies that $`\mathrm{Rep}D(A)𝒵(\mathrm{Vec}_\omega ^\mathrm{\Sigma })\mathrm{Rep}D^\omega (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.

It follows from \[4, Theorem 6.1\] that there exists an invertible element $`\varphi D^\omega (\mathrm{\Sigma })D^\omega (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ such that $`D(A)D^\omega (\mathrm{\Sigma })_\varphi `$. This finishes the proof of the theorem. ∎

One may also use the results in  instead of  in the proof of the implication (i) $``$ (ii): we have $`𝒞=𝒞(\mathrm{\Sigma },\omega ,F,\alpha )(\mathrm{Vec}_\omega ^\mathrm{\Sigma })^{}`$ with respect to the indecomposable module category of $`k_\alpha F`$-modules in $`\mathrm{Vec}_\omega ^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. By \[10, Corollary 2.1\], the centers $`𝒵(𝒞)`$ and $`𝒵(𝒞^{})`$ are equivalent.

###### Remark 2.2.

(i) Let $`H=D^\omega (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Omega }H^3`$ be the associator. Note that, since $`D(A)`$ is a Hopf algebra, $`\varphi `$ must satisfy the following condition:

(2.5)
$$(1\varphi )(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })(\varphi )\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{id})(\varphi ^1)(1\varphi ^1)\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}(H)^{},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}(H)^{}H^3`$ denotes the centralizer of the subalgebra $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{id})\mathrm{\Delta }(H)`$.

(ii) Let $`A`$ be a finite dimensional quasi-Hopf algebra. Then the quantum double, $`D(A)`$, of $`A`$ has the property that the center of $`\mathrm{Rep}A`$ is equivalent to $`\mathrm{Rep}D(A)`$; see . It turns out that the proof of Theorem 1.2 extends mutatis mutandis to the quasi-Hopf setting, implying that the characterization still holds true after replacing ’Hopf algebra’ by ’quasi-Hopf algebra’ in the statement of 1.2.

## 3. Bicrossed products arising from exact factorizations

We shall consider finite groups $`F`$ and $`G`$, together with a right action of $`F`$ on the set $`G`$, and a left action of $`G`$ on the set $`F`$

$$:G\times FG,:G\times FF.$$

subject to the following conditions:

(3.1) $`sxy`$ $`=(sx)((sx)y),`$
(3.2) $`stx`$ $`=(s(tx))(tx),`$
for all $`s,tG`$, $`x,yF`$. It follows that $`s1=1`$ and $`1x=1`$, for all $`sG`$, $`xF`$.

Such a data of groups and compatible actions is called a matched pair of groups. See . Given finite groups $`F`$ and $`G`$, providing them with a pair of compatible actions is equivalent to finding a group $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ together with an exact factorization $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=FG`$: the actions $``$ and $``$ are determined by the relations $`gx=(gx)(gx)`$, $`xF`$, $`gG`$.

There are well defined maps $`F\stackrel{𝜋}{}\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{𝑝}{}G`$, where

(3.3)
$$p(xg)=g,\pi (xg)=x,xF,gG.$$

Some of the properties of these maps are summarized in the next lemma.

###### Lemma 3.1.

(i) $`\pi (ab)=\pi (a)(p(a)\pi (b))`$, for all $`a,b\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

(ii) $`p(ab)=(p(a)\pi (b))p(b)`$, for all $`a,b\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

###### Proof.

It follows from (3.1) and (3.2). ∎

### 3.1.

Consider the left action of $`F`$ on $`k^G`$, $`x.\varphi (g)=\varphi (gx)`$, $`\varphi k^G`$, and let $`\sigma :F\times F(k^\times )^G`$ be a normalized 2-cocycle; that is, writting $`\sigma =_{gG}\sigma _g\delta _g`$, we have

(3.4) $`\sigma _{gx}(y,z)\sigma _g(x,yz)=\sigma _g(xy,z)\sigma _g(x,y),`$
(3.5) $`\sigma _g(x,1)=1=\sigma _g(1,x),gG,x,y,zF.`$
Dually, we consider the right action of $`G`$ on $`k^F`$, $`\psi (x).g=\psi (xg)`$, $`\psi k^F`$, and let $`\tau =_{xF}\tau _x\delta _x:F\times F(k^\times )^G`$ be a normalized 2-cocycle; i.e.,

(3.6) $`\tau _x(gh,k)\tau _{kx}(g,h)=\tau _x(h,k)\tau _x(g,hk),`$
(3.7) $`\tau _x(g,1)=1=\tau _x(1,g),g,h,kG,xF.`$
We assume in addition that $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau `$ obey the following compatibility conditions:

(3.8) $`\sigma _{ts}(x,y)\tau _{xy}(t,s)=\tau _x(t,s)\tau _y(t(sx),sx)\sigma _t(sx,(sx)y)\sigma _s(x,y),`$
(3.9) $`\sigma _1(s,t)=1,\tau _1(x,y)=1,`$
for all $`x,yF`$, $`s,tG`$.

Therefore the vector space $`A=k^GkF`$ becomes a (semisimple) Hopf algebra with the crossed product algebra structure and the crossed coproduct coalgebra structure. We shall use the notations $`A=k^G{}_{}{}^{\tau }\mathrm{\#}_{\sigma }^{}kF`$, and $`\delta _gx`$ to indicate the element $`\delta _gxA`$. Then the multiplication and comultiplication of $`A`$ are determined by

(3.10)
$$(\delta _gx)(\delta _hy)=\delta _{gx,h}\sigma _g(x,y)\delta _gxy,$$

(3.11)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\delta _gx)=\underset{st=g}{}\tau _x(s,t)\delta _s(tx)\delta _tx,$$

for all $`g,hG`$, $`x,yF`$. There is an exact sequence of Hopf algebras $`1k^GAkF1`$, and conversely every Hopf algebra $`A`$ fitting into an exact sequence of this form is isomorphic to $`k^G{}_{}{}^{\tau }\mathrm{\#}_{\sigma }^{}kF`$ for appropriate actions $``$, $``$, and cocycles $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau `$. Instances of this construction can be found in , , ; see also .

### 3.2.

Fix a matched pair of groups $`:G\times FG`$, $`:G\times FF`$. The set of equivalence classes of extensions $`1k^GAkF1`$ giving rise to these actions is denoted by $`\mathrm{Opext}(k^G,kF)`$: it is a finite group under the Baer product of extensions.

The class of an element of $`\mathrm{Opext}(k^G,kF)`$ can be represented by pair $`(\tau ,\sigma )`$, where $`\sigma :G^2\times Fk^\times `$ and $`\tau :G\times F^2k^\times `$ are maps satisfying conditions (3.4), (3.5), (3.6), (3.7), (3.8) and (3.9). The group $`\mathrm{Opext}(k^G,kF)`$ can also be described as the $`H^1`$-group of a certain double complex \[9, Proposition 5.2\].

By a result of G. I. Kac , there is an exact sequence

$`0`$ $`H^1(\mathrm{\Sigma },k^\times )\stackrel{res}{}H^1(F,k^\times )H^1(G,k^\times )\mathrm{Aut}(k^G\mathrm{\#}kF)H^2(\mathrm{\Sigma },k^\times )\stackrel{res}{}H^2(F,k^\times )H^2(G,k^\times )`$
$`\mathrm{Opext}(k^G,kF)\stackrel{\overline{\omega }}{}H^3(\mathrm{\Sigma },k^\times )\stackrel{res}{}H^3(F,k^\times )H^3(G,k^\times )\mathrm{}`$
In view of \[12, 6.4\], the element $`[\tau ,\sigma ]\mathrm{Opext}(k^G,kF)`$ is mapped under $`\overline{\omega }`$ onto the class of the 3-cocycle $`\omega (\tau ,\sigma )Z^3(\mathrm{\Sigma },k^\times )`$, defined by

(3.12)
$$\omega (\tau ,\sigma )(a,b,c)=\tau _{\pi (c)}(p(a)\pi (b),p(b))\sigma _{p(a)}(\pi (b),p(b)\pi (c)),a,b,c\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$

###### Remark 3.2.

Consider the case of the split extension $`A=k^G\mathrm{\#}kF`$, i.e., where both $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau `$ are trivial; so that the corresponding 3-cocycle $`\omega =\omega (\tau ,\sigma )`$ is also trivial. It has been shown in \[2, Section 5\] that the Drinfeld double of $`A`$ is in this case isomorphic to a 2-cocycle twist of the Drinfeld double of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$; the 2-cocycle is explicitly described in loc. cit. In particular, it follows from Theorem 1.2 that the split extension is group theoretical. This fact has also been observed in \[10, Example 3.1\].

###### Lemma 3.3.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=FG`$ be an exact factorization. Let $`\omega Z^3(\mathrm{\Sigma },k^\times )`$ such that the class of $`\omega `$ belongs to the image of $`\overline{\omega }`$. Then, for arbitrary $`\alpha Z^2(F,k^\times )`$ and $`\beta Z^2(G,k^\times )`$ there is an associated semisimple Hopf algebra $`A_{\alpha ,\beta }^\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega ,F,G)`$.

###### Proof.

Write $`[\omega ]=\overline{\omega }[\tau ,\sigma ]`$, where $`[\tau ,\sigma ]\mathrm{Opext}(k^G,kF)`$. The exactness of the Kac sequence in the term $`H^3(\mathrm{\Sigma },k^\times )`$ implies that $`\omega `$ belongs to the image of $`\overline{\omega }`$ if and only if the classes of $`\omega |_F`$ and $`\omega |_G`$ are trivial. Thus conditions (2.2), (2.3) and (2.4) are verified with arbitrary $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. This proves the lemma. ∎

Our aim in the next section is to show that the semisimple Hopf algebras $`A_{\alpha ,\beta }^\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega ,F,G)`$ are obtained from the bicrossed product $`k^G{}_{}{}^{\tau }\mathrm{\#}_{\sigma }^{}kF`$ by twisting the multiplication and the comultiplication; here $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau `$ are such that the class $`[\tau ,\sigma ]\mathrm{Opext}(k^G,kF)`$ is mapped onto the class of the 3-cocycle $`\omega `$ under $`\overline{\omega }`$.

## 4. A monoidal equivalence

Along this section, we shall fix a representative $`(\tau ,\sigma )`$ of a class in $`\mathrm{Opext}(k^G,kF)`$, and $`\omega `$ will denote the 3-cocycle given by (3.12). We shall write $`A:=k^G{}_{}{}^{\tau }\mathrm{\#}_{\sigma }^{}kF`$.

The first goal of this section is to explicitly construct a monoidal equivalence between the categories $`\mathrm{Rep}A`$ and $`{}_{F}{}^{}(\mathrm{Vec}_\omega ^\mathrm{\Sigma })_{F}^{}`$, of $`F`$-bimodules in $`\mathrm{Vec}_\omega ^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. See Proposition 4.5. This equivalence is a particular case of the result in Theorem 3.3.5 of .

### 4.1. The category $`\mathrm{Rep}A`$

This category is described in the following proposition. We shall consider right $`A`$-actions, instead of left. We follow the lines of the method in .

###### Proposition 4.1.

The category $`\mathrm{Rep}A`$ can be identified with the category $`\mathrm{Vec}_F^G(\sigma ,\tau )`$ of left $`G`$-graded vector spaces $`V`$, endowed with a right map $`:V\times FV`$, subject to the following conditions:

(4.1) $`v1=v,(vx)y=\sigma _{|v|}(x,y)vxy,`$
(4.2) $`|vx|=|v|x,`$
for all $`x,yF`$, and for all homogeneous $`vV`$, where $`|v|`$ denotes the degree of homogeneity of $`vV`$.

The tensor product of two objects $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{Vec}_F^G(\sigma ,\tau )`$ is $`VV^{}`$ with $`G`$-grading and $`F`$-map defined by

(4.3) $`|vv^{}|=|v||v^{}|,`$
(4.4) $`(vv^{})x=\tau _x(|v|,|v^{}|)v(|v^{}|x)v^{}x,`$
on homogeneous elements $`vV`$, $`v^{}V^{}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`V\mathrm{Vec}_F^G(\sigma ,\tau )`$. The identification is done by defining a right action of $`A`$ on $`V`$ by the formula $`v.\delta _gx:=\delta _{g,|v|}vx`$, for all homogeneous $`vV`$, and for all $`gG`$, $`xF`$. It is straightforward to verify that this is indeed an action and that tensor products are preserved. ∎

### 4.2. The category $`{}_{F}{}^{}(\mathrm{Vec}_\omega ^\mathrm{\Sigma })_{F}^{}`$

Let $`{}_{F}{}^{}(\mathrm{Vec}_\omega ^\mathrm{\Sigma })_{F}^{}`$ denote the category of $`F`$-bimodules in the monoidal category $`\mathrm{Vec}_\omega ^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Thus, in view of (3.12), the associativity constraint in this category is given by

(4.5)
$$a_{U,U^{},U^{\prime \prime }}((uu^{})u^{\prime \prime })=\tau _{\pi u^{\prime \prime }}(pu\pi u^{},pu^{})\sigma _{pu}(\pi u^{},pu^{}\pi u^{\prime \prime })u(u^{}u^{\prime \prime }),$$

on homogeneous elements $`uU`$, $`u^{}U^{}`$, $`u^{\prime \prime }U^{\prime \prime }`$.

###### Lemma 4.2.

Objects in the category $`{}_{F}{}^{}(\mathrm{Vec}_\omega ^\mathrm{\Sigma })_{F}^{}`$ are vector spaces $`U`$, together with a left $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-grading $`||||`$, and maps $`:F\times UU`$, $`:U\times FF`$, subject to the following conditions:

(i) $``$ is a left action:

(4.6)
$$1u=u,x(yu)=xyu,x,yF,uU;$$

(ii) $``$ is a twisted right action:

(4.7)
$$u1=u,(ux)y=\sigma _{p(u)}(x,y)uxy,x,yF,uU_u;$$

(iii) bimodule condition:

(4.8)
$$x(uy)=(xu)y,x,yF,uU;$$

(iv) compatibility with the grading:

(4.9)
$$||xuy||=x||u||y,x,yF,uU_u.$$

Tensor product $`U\overline{}U^{}`$ is defined on objects $`U`$ and $`U^{}`$ as follows: $`U\overline{}U^{}=U_FU^{}`$ as vector spaces, with

(v) left $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-grading

(4.10)
$$uu^{}=uu^{},$$

on homogeneous elements $`u,u^{}`$;

(vi) left $`F`$-action

(4.11)
$$x(uu^{})=(xu)u^{};$$

(vii) right twisted $`F`$-action

(4.12)
$$(uu^{})x=\tau _x(pu\pi u^{},pu^{})\sigma _{pu}(\pi u^{},pu^{}x)u(u^{}x),$$

for all $`xF`$, and for all homogeneous elements $`u,u^{}`$.

###### Proof.

It follows from the definitions using (4.5). Conditions (i) and (ii) correspond, respectively, to the commutativity of the following diagrams

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(kFkF)U& \stackrel{a_{kF,kF,U}}{}& kF(kFU)\\ m\mathrm{id}& & \mathrm{id}& & \\ kFU& & kFU\\ & & & & \\ U& =& U,\end{array}\begin{array}{ccc}(UkF)kF& \stackrel{a_{U,kF,kF}}{}& U(kFkF)\\ \mathrm{id}& & \mathrm{id}m& & \\ UkF& & UkF\\ & & & & \\ U& =& U.\end{array}$$

Conditions (iii) and (iv) and formula (v) are easy to see. The actions (vi) and (vii) correspond respectively, to the left and right actions in the category, which are obtained by factorizing the following maps:

$`kF(UU^{})\stackrel{a^1}{}(kFU)U^{}\stackrel{\mathrm{id}}{}UU^{},`$
$`(UU^{})kF\stackrel{𝑎}{}U(U^{}kF)\stackrel{\mathrm{id}}{}UU^{}.`$
This finishes the proof of the lemma. ∎

### 4.3.

We now define functors $`:{}_{F}{}^{}(\mathrm{Vec}_\omega ^\mathrm{\Sigma })_{F}^{}\mathrm{Vec}_F^G(\sigma ,\tau )`$ and $`𝒢:\mathrm{Vec}_F^G(\sigma ,\tau ){}_{F}{}^{}(\mathrm{Vec}_\omega ^\mathrm{\Sigma })_{F}^{}`$, in the form $`(U):={}_{}{}^{F}U`$, with left $`G`$-grading and right twisted $`F`$-action given by

(4.13) $`|u|:=pu,`$
(4.14) $`ux:=ux,xF,`$
for all homogeneous elements $`u{}_{}{}^{F}U`$; and $`𝒢(V)=kFV`$, with left $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-grading, left $`kF`$-action and right twisted $`kF`$-action given by

(4.15) $`xv:=x|v|,`$
(4.16) $`x(yx)=xyv,`$
(4.17) $`yvx:=y(|v|x)(vx),`$
for all $`x,yF`$, and homogeneous $`vV`$.

###### Proposition 4.3.

The functors $``$ and $`𝒢`$ are inverse equivalences of categories.

###### Proof.

We first show that the functor $`𝒢`$ is well defined. Let $`V\mathrm{Vec}_F^G(\sigma ,\tau )`$. Conditions (4.6) and (4.8) follow easily. We compute, for all $`x,y,zF`$, and homogeneous $`vV`$,

$`\sigma _{p(z|v|)}(x,y)(zv)xy`$ $`=\sigma _{p(z|v|)}(x,y)z(|v|xy)(vxy)`$
$`=\sigma _{|v|}(x,y)\sigma _{|v|}(x,y)^1z(|v|x)\left((|v|x)y\right)(vx)y`$
$`=z(|v|x)\left(|vx|y\right)(vx)y=\left((zv)x\right)y,`$
the second and third equalities because of (4.1) and (4.2) and the compatibility condition (3.1). Condition $`u1=u`$ follows from $`|v|1=1`$ and $`v1=v`$. This proves (4.7). Condition (4.9) is verified as follows:

$`||x(zv)y||`$ $`=xz(|v|y)vy=xz(|v|y)|vy|`$
$`=xz(|v|y)(|v|y)=xz|v|y,`$
for all $`x,y,zF`$ and homogeneous $`vV`$. We have shown that the functor $`𝒢`$ is well defined. The proof for $``$ is similar and we omit it.

Next, let $`V\mathrm{Vec}_F^G(\sigma ,\tau )`$. We have natural isomorphisms $`𝒢V=ktVV`$ as twisted right $`F`$-modules, where $`t={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|F|}}_{xF}x`$ is the normalized integral in $`kF`$. It is not difficult to check that this isomorphism preserves gradings. On the other hand, for $`U{}_{F}{}^{}(\mathrm{Vec}_\omega ^\mathrm{\Sigma })_{F}^{}`$, there is a natural isomophism of left $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-graded left $`F`$-modules $`UkF{}_{}{}^{F}U`$, which is compatible with the twisted right action. Therefore, the functors are inverse equivalences, as claimed. ∎

### 4.4.

Let $`U`$ and $`U^{}`$ be objects of $`{}_{F}{}^{}(\mathrm{Vec}_\omega ^\mathrm{\Sigma })_{F}^{}`$. We define natural isomorphisms $`\xi :(U\overline{}U^{})(U)(U^{})`$ in the form

(4.18)
$$\xi (uu^{})=u\pi u^{}tu^{},$$

for $`uU`$, and $`u^{}U^{}`$ homogeneous, where $`tkF`$ is the normalized integral.

###### Remark 4.4.

That $`\xi `$ is indeed an isomorphism can be seen as a consequence of the structure theorem for Hopf modules .

###### Proposition 4.5.

$`(,\xi ^1)`$ is a monoidal equivalence of categories.

###### Proof.

We first see that $`\xi `$ is indeed an isomorphism in $`\mathrm{Vec}_F^G(\sigma ,\tau )`$. Let $`uU`$, $`u^{}U^{}`$ be homogeneous elements; we have $`|uu^{}|=puu^{}=p(uu^{})`$. On the other hand,

$`|\xi (uu^{})|`$ $`=|u\pi ||u^{}||||tu^{}|=p||u\pi ||u^{}||||p||tu^{}||=p||u\pi ||u^{}||||p||u^{}||`$
$`=|u\pi ||u^{}|||p||u^{}||=(p||u||\pi ||u^{}||)p||u^{}||=p(||u||||u^{}||).`$
Thus $`\xi `$ preserves $`G`$-gradings. Let now $`uU`$, $`u^{}U^{}`$ be homogeneous, and let also $`xF`$. We compute

$`\xi \left((uu^{})x\right)`$ $`=\tau _x(pu\pi u^{},pu^{})\sigma _{pu}(\pi u^{},pu^{}x)\xi \left(u(u^{}x)\right)`$
$`=\tau _x(pu\pi u^{},pu^{})\sigma _{pu}(\pi u^{},pu^{}x)u\pi (u^{}x)(tu^{})x`$
$`=\tau _x(pu\pi u^{},pu^{})\left(u\pi (u^{})\right)|(tu^{})x|(tu^{})x`$
$`=\left(u\pi u^{}tu^{}\right)x=\xi (uu^{})x;`$
the first equality because of (4.12) and (4.14), the second by (4.9), the third because of (4.7) and the relationship $`p||tu^{}||=tp||u^{}||=p||u^{}||`$, for all $`u^{}`$; the last equality by (4.4). Therefore $`\xi `$ preserves also right $`F`$-actions.

Finally, the compatibility of $`(,\xi ^1)`$ with the monoidal structures is shown by straightforward computations. One can use for this the following claim, which is a consequence of Lemma 3.1 and the compatibility between $`||||`$ and $``$.

###### Claim 4.1.

$`\pi ||u\pi (||u^{}||)||=\pi ||u||\pi ||u^{}||`$, for all homogeneous $`u,u^{}U`$.

### 4.5.

We are now ready to complete the proof of the main result of this section.

Proof of Theorem 1.3. Part (i) is the content of Proposition 4.5 plus Proposition 4.1. Part (ii) also follows from Proposition 4.5 and the results in  and ; cf. 2.2. ∎

###### Remark 4.6.

Let $`\alpha Z^2(F,k^\times )`$ and $`\beta Z^2(G,k^\times )`$. Then there are exact sequences $`1(k^G)_{J(\beta )}A_{J(\beta )}kF1`$ and $`1k^GA^\alpha (kF)^\alpha 1`$, where $`A_{J(\beta )}`$ and $`A^\alpha `$ are obtained from $`A`$ by twisting the comultiplication and the multiplication, respectively, by means of the obvious 2-cocycles $`J(\beta )`$ and $`\alpha `$. See \[12, Lemma 6.3.1\]. As shown in , this defines an action of $`H^2(F,k^\times )H^2(F,k^\times )`$ on $`\mathrm{Opext}(k^G,kF)`$, which comes from the map $`H^2(F,k^\times )H^2(F,k^\times )\mathrm{Opext}(k^G,kF)`$ of the Kac exact sequence; in particular, the corresponding extensions give the same three cocycle class on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The group theoretical Hopf algebra $`A_{\alpha ,\beta }^\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega ,F,G)`$ arising from arbitrary $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ as in Lemma 3.3, is precisely $`A_{J(\beta )}^\alpha `$.

### 4.6.

Let $`G`$ be a finite group. In the paper  Tambara and Yamagami parametrize all monoidal structures in a semisimple category with simple objects $`G\{m\}`$, satisfying $`gh=gh`$, $`gmmgm`$, for all $`gG`$, and $`mm_{gG}g`$. It turns out that $`G`$ must be abelian, and these categories are classified by pairs $`(\chi ,r)`$, where $`\chi `$ is a non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form on $`G`$, and $`r`$ is a square root of $`|G|`$. Denote the corresponding category by $`𝒞(G,\chi ,r)`$.

In the paper  the question of when one of these categories arises as the category of representations of a semisimple Hopf algebra is studied.

###### Corollary 4.7.

Let $`A`$ be a semisimple Hopf algebra and suppose that there exist a data $`(G,\chi ,r)`$, such that $`\mathrm{Rep}A`$ is equivalent to $`𝒞(G,\chi ,r)`$ as monoidal categories. Then $`A`$ fits into a central extension

(4.19)
$$0k^_2AkG1.$$

In particular, $`A`$ is group theoretical.

This generalizes the last statement in \[5, Example 8.48\].

###### Proof.

It suffices to prove that $`A`$ fits into such an extension. The assumption implies that $`dimA=2|G|`$. On the other hand, the category $`𝒞(G,\chi ,r)`$ contains $`\mathrm{Rep}kG`$ as a full monoidal subcategory. Therefore, $`k^GkG`$ is embedded in $`A^{}`$ as a Hopf subalgebra of index 2. Hence, $`k^G`$ is a normal Hopf subalgebra in $`A^{}`$ and necessarily $`A^{}/A^{}(k^G)^+k_2`$. This completes the proof. ∎