format: text

text:
# Possible symmetries of the superconducting order parameter in a hexagonal ferromagnet

## Triplet order parameter.

The superconducting order parameter transforms according to one of the irreducible representations $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the normal state symmetry group $`𝒢`$. In our case, $`𝒢`$ contains the anti-unitary operation $`KC_{2x}`$, and the standard symmetry analysis should be modified: instead of usual representations, one should use co-representations of the magnetic point group $`𝐃_6(𝐂_6)`$, which can be derived from one-dimensional representations of the unitary subgroup $`𝐂_6`$ magn\_symm . The results for odd co-representations $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are listed in Table 1. Note that the action of the unitary and anti-unitary orbital symmetry elements on scalar functions $`f(𝒌)`$ is defined as follows: $`Rf(𝒌)=f(R^1𝒌)`$, and $`KRf(𝒌)=f^{}(R^1𝒌)`$.

The basis functions of the co-representations in Table 1 vanish on some lines or planes in the momentum space. Although the specific form of the basis function is not imposed by symmetry \[for example, any $`f_\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒌)`$ can be multiplied by an arbitrary real function of $`k_z^2`$, $`k_x^2+k_y^2`$, $`(k_y\pm ik_x)^6`$, etc.\], the position of the zeros in $`𝒌`$-space is independent of the choice of $`f_\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒌)`$. It can be checked that the zeros of the basis functions from Table 1 are all required by symmetry, and, on the other hand, there are no other symmetry-imposed zeros of the basis functions.

All co-representations of $`𝐃_6(𝐂_6)`$ are one-dimensional, therefore the order parameter can be represented as

$$𝒅_\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒌)=i\eta _{}\widehat{𝒆}_+f_\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(𝒌)+i\eta _+\widehat{𝒆}_{}f_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_+}(𝒌)+\eta _3\widehat{𝒆}_3f_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_3}(𝒌).$$
(4)
Thus, the order parameter has three components $`\eta _+`$, $`\eta _{}`$, and $`\eta _3`$, which enter the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) free energy and can be $`𝒓`$-dependent, in general. It is obvious from Eqs. (Possible symmetries of the superconducting order parameter in a hexagonal ferromagnet) and (4) that the orbital symmetries of $`d_+`$, $`d_{}`$, and $`d_3`$, which are described by the co-representations $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3`$ respectively, should all be different. In Table 2, we list the combinations of the orbital co-representations which give rise to the same symmetry $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the vector $`𝒅`$. For example, the vector $`𝒅(𝒌)=i\eta _{}\widehat{𝒆}_+f_{B_u}(𝒌)+i\eta _+\widehat{𝒆}_{}f_{{}_{}{}^{1}E_{1u}^{}}(𝒌)+\eta _3\widehat{𝒆}_3f_{{}_{}{}^{2}E_{2u}^{}}(𝒌)`$ transforms according to the co-representation $`{}_{}{}^{2}E_{2u}^{}`$.

The transformations of the pseudospin vector $`𝒅`$ under the magnetic symmetry elements can be interpreted as operations acting on $`𝜼=(\eta _+,\eta _{},\eta _3)^T`$. Namely, for a co-representation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`C_{6z}𝜼(𝒓)=\chi _\mathrm{\Gamma }[C_{6z}]𝜼(𝒓)`$, where $`\chi _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the character of $`C_{6z}`$ from Table 1. Also, because of our choice of the overall phases of the basis functions (see the caption to Table 1) and the presence of the factors $`i`$ on the right-hand side of Eqs. (4), $`KC_{2x}𝜼(𝒓)=𝜼^{}(𝒓)`$. Note that there are no symmetry operations that transform, say, $`\eta _+`$ to $`\eta _{}`$, etc, which has profound consequences for the GL theory of ferromagnetic superconductors. Indeed, the GL free energy contains all combinations of the order parameter components and the spatial gradients that are invariant under the transformations from $`𝒢`$. The fact that the only change that occurs to $`𝜼`$ under the magnetic symmetry operations is the multiplication by a phase factor which is the same for all three components means that there are more invariant terms allowed in the GL functional for a ferromagnetic superconductor than for its non-ferromagnetic counterpart. The general form of the uniform terms in the free energy density is

$$F=\underset{ij=\pm ,3}{}A_{ij}(T)\eta _i^{}\eta _j+\underset{ijkl=\pm ,3}{}B_{ij,kl}\eta _i^{}\eta _j^{}\eta _k\eta _l,$$
(5)
where $`A_{ij}`$ is a real symmetric matrix, and the matrix $`B`$ is symmetric with respect to $`ij`$ and $`kl`$, and satisfies the following condition: $`B_{ij,kl}=B_{kl,ij}`$. The critical temperature $`T_c`$ is defined as the temperature at which one of the eigenvalues of $`A`$ changes sign. At $`T>T_c`$, $`A`$ is positive definite, and $`\eta _+=\eta _{}=\eta _3=0`$. Below $`T_c`$, all three components of $`𝜼`$ are non-zero, in general. In addition to Eq. (5), the GL functional contains a variety of the gradient terms. All this can lead to a rich phase diagram, which we shall not discuss here. Let us just note Eq. (5) is formally equivalent to a model of a three-band superconductor with three scalar order parameters of the same symmetry.

An important consequence of the above results is that the gap in the spectrum of Bogoliubov quasiparticles goes to zero at some points or lines at the Fermi surface. The excitation spectrum can be obtained by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian $`H=H_0+H_{MF}`$. The quasiparticle energy $`E(𝒌)`$ vanishes at some $`𝒌`$ if the following condition is satisfied:

$`ϵ_+^2ϵ_{}^2+2ϵ_+^2|d_+|^2+2ϵ_{}^2|d_{}|^2+2ϵ_+ϵ_{}|d_3|^2`$
$`+|2d_+d_{}+d_3^2|^2=0.`$ (6)
Thus, the condition for the gap zeros on the pseudospin-up sheet of the Fermi surface \[at $`ϵ_+(𝒌)=0`$\], is that $`d_{}(𝒌)=d_3(𝒌)=0`$, i.e. $`f_\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(𝒌)=f_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_3}(𝒌)=0`$. For the gap zeros on the pseudospin-down sheet \[at $`ϵ_{}(𝒌)=0`$\], we must have $`d_+(𝒌)=d_3(𝒌)=0`$, i.e. $`f_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_+}(𝒌)=f_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_3}(𝒌)=0`$. Using Tables 1 and 2, we see that if the symmetry of $`𝒅`$ corresponds to the co-representations $`B_u`$, $`{}_{}{}^{1}E_{2u}^{}`$, or $`{}_{}{}^{2}E_{2u}^{}`$, then all three orbital basis functions have zeros on the line $`k_x=k_y=0`$, so that the energy gap vanishes at the poles of both sheets of the Fermi surface. On the contrary, for the $`{}_{}{}^{1}E_{1u}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{2}E_{1u}^{}`$ symmetries, the gap goes to zero at the poles of one of the sheets, while the other sheet remains fully gapped. For the $`A_u`$ symmetry, there are no symmetry-imposed gap zeros.

In the discussion above, we implicitly assumed that all three components of $`𝒅`$ have comparable magnitude. More realistic scenario is that the conditions for the appearance of superconductivity are more favorable on one of the sheets of the Fermi surface, so that only one component of the order parameter, say $`d_{}`$ on the pseudospin-up sheet, is dominant. Then, the $`d_+`$ component is induced by the inter-band interactions of the form $`c_{𝒌+}^{}c_{𝒌,+}^{}c_𝒌^{}c_{𝒌^{},}`$, which are expected to be small if the spin-orbit coupling is weak (these interactions vanish at zero spin-orbit coupling because of the spin conservation). Also, if the exchange band splitting greatly exceeds the superconducting energy scale, which is of the order of $`T_c`$, then the inter-band interactions $`c_{𝒌+}^{}c_{𝒌,}^{}c_𝒌^{}c_{𝒌^{},+}`$ responsible for the $`d_3`$-component, are negligibly small. While this is the case in such materials as ZrZn2 and UGe2, it is not clear whether it is also true for the graphite-based ferromagnets. If the $`d_3`$-component can indeed be neglected, then the conditions for the presence of the gap zeros become less restrictive, so that, as seen from Tables 1 and 2, the energy gap always has either line and/or point nodes on both sheets of the Fermi surface.

## Singlet order parameter.

Similar to the $`d_3`$-component of the triplet pairing, the singlet pairing can only be realized if the exchange band splitting is less than the superconducting $`T_c`$ (Chandrasekhar-Clogston limit) cc\_limit64 . This limit can be slightly exceeded if to consider the possibility of the Cooper pairs having a non-zero momentum (Larkin-Ovchinnikov-Fulde-Ferrell state) loff . The symmetry analysis can be done similarly to the triplet case. The only difference is that there is only one order parameter component, and the symmetry is described by even co-representations of $`𝐃_6(𝐂_6)`$. We have

$$d_{0,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(𝒌)=\psi f_\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒌),$$
(7)
where $`\psi `$ is a quantity which enters the GL functional, and $`f_\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒌)`$ is the basis function for the co-representation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, see Table 3. As mentioned above, $`f_\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒌)`$ can be multiplied by an arbitrary real function of $`k_z^2`$, $`k_x^2+k_y^2`$, $`(k_y\pm ik_x)^6`$, etc. Under the action of the magnetic symmetry elements, $`C_{6z}\psi (𝒓)=\chi _\mathrm{\Gamma }[C_{6z}]\psi (𝒓)`$, where $`\chi _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the character of $`C_{6z}`$ from Table 3, and also $`KC_{2x}\psi (𝒓)=\psi ^{}(𝒓)`$.

The condition for the gap in the excitation energy $`E(𝒌)`$ to vanish at some $`𝒌`$ is simply

$$ϵ_+ϵ_{}+|d_0|^2=0,$$
(8)
therefore the gap nodes appear simultaneously on both sheets of the Fermi surface where the basis function $`f_\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒌)`$ has symmetry-imposed zeros. From Table 3, we see that for all order parameter symmetries, except from $`A_g`$, the gap goes to zero either on the equators or at the poles of both Fermi surfaces.

The expressions for the basis functions of the co-representations of $`𝐃_6(𝐂_6)`$ given in Tables 1 and 3 are applicable if the Fermi surface is centered around the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point of the first Brillouin zone. It is not the case in graphite, where the Fermi surface consists of small “sausage”-like pockets along the six vertical edges of the hexagonal Brillouin zone, i.e. along the lines $`𝒌=C_{6z}^n𝒌_s`$, where $`n=0,\mathrm{},5`$, $`𝒌_s=2𝑲_1/3𝑲_2/3+k_z\widehat{𝒆}_z`$, and $`𝑲_1`$ and $`𝑲_2`$ are the reciprocal lattice vectors dress64 . It can be easily proved that for all odd and even $`E`$ co-representations, in addition to the zeros at $`k_x=k_y=0`$, the basis functions also vanish at the vertical edges of the Brillouin zone, because $`𝒌_s`$ and $`C_{3z}𝒌_s`$ are equivalent points. Similarly, if a basis function vanishes on the plane $`k_z=0`$, then it should also vanish at the horizontal surfaces of the Brillouin zone, i.e. at $`k_z=\pm \pi /c_0`$, where $`c_0`$ is the lattice constant of graphite along the $`z`$ axis.

The presence of the gap nodes would manifest itself in power-law temperature dependences of the thermodynamic and transport properties min99 . For example, the electronic specific heat at low temperatures should be $`C(T)/TT^2`$ for the first-order point nodes, $`C(T)/TT`$ for the line nodes or the second-order point nodes, and $`C(T)/TT^{2/3}`$ for the third-order point nodes.

To summarize, we have derived a complete symmetry classification of the superconducting states in a hexagonal ferromagnet, considering both the triplet and the singlet pairing channels. We have discussed the nodal structure of the gap in the excitation spectrum, and also the modifications to the Ginzburg-Landau theory for ferromagnetic superconductors. So far, the only experimental system to which our results might be applicable is the graphite-sulfur composite studied in Ref. mhm02 .

The author has greatly benefited from the numerous discussions with M. Walker about the symmetry of ferromagnetic superconductors. The author thanks B. Mitrovic for useful comments and interest to this work, and also F. Razavi and M. Reedyk for the discussions of the experimental situation. The financial support from Brock University is gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# A Subaru/HDS study of Lead (Pb) abundances in eight s-process-element-rich, metal-poor starsBased on data collected at the Subaru Telescope, which is operated by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan.

## 1 Introduction

Lead (Pb) isotopes form, along with those of bismuth, the group of the heaviest stable nuclei. Understanding of the physical processes responsible for the synthesis of these nuclei, as well as their enrichment history in the Galaxy, is important in the study of stellar nucleosynthesis and Galactic chemical evolution, as well as for precision cosmochronology, since these nuclei are the expected decay products of Th and U (Goriely & Arnould, 2001; Schatz et al., 2002). The majority of Pb nuclei in the solar system are believed to have originated in the s-process. However, the so-called main-component of the s-process in classical models cannot explain the solar system abundances of Pb, hence another component (the so-called strong component) was introduced (e.g., Käppeler, Beer, & Wisshak, 1989). Recent theoretical work on nucleosynthesis in asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars, based on the idea of an s-process that occurs in the radiative zone during the inter-pulse phase, have predicted large production of Pb and Bi ($`Z=82`$ and 83, respectively) compared with lighter s-process elements such as Sr ($`Z=38`$) and Ba ($`Z=56`$) in low metallicity AGB stars (Gallino et al., 1998; Goriely & Mowlavi, 2000; Busso et al., 2001). These works suggested that the Pb production in low-metallicity AGB stars corresponds to the strong component assumed in the classical models. Studies of Pb enrichment in the Galaxy have also started using the yields predicted by these AGB models (Travaglio et al., 2001).

Recent abundance studies of $`s`$-process-element-enhanced, metal-poor stars, based on high-resolution spectroscopy, have measured the abundances of Pb and other neutron-capture elements in a number of stars, and made it possible to examine the models of AGB nucleosynthesis in greater detail. For instance, Aoki et al. (2000) determined the abundances of 16 neutron-capture elements, including Pb, for the $`s`$-process-element-rich, very metal-poor (\[Fe/H\]=$``$2.7) star LP 625–44111\[A/B\] = $`\mathrm{log}(N_\mathrm{A}/N_\mathrm{B})\mathrm{log}(N_\mathrm{A}/N_\mathrm{B})_{}`$, and $`\mathrm{log}ϵ_\mathrm{A}=\mathrm{log}(N_\mathrm{A}/N_\mathrm{H})+12`$ for elements A and B.. The Pb abundance of this object is, however, much lower than the prediction by the “standard” model of Gallino et al. (1998), when the abundance pattern is normalized by the abundance of lighter s-process nuclei (e.g., Ba). A similar result was derived for another metal-poor star, LP 706–7, by Aoki et al. (2001). Their abundances could, however, be reconciled with the models of Gallino et al. if the extent of the 13C pocket is reduced by a factor of $``$24 (Ryan et al., 2001). On the other hand, van Eck et al. (2001) studied another three s-process-element-enhanced, metal-poor objects, and found very large Pb enhancements in these objects, compared to those of the lighter elements. They concluded that the results can be explained well by the model of AGB nucleosynthesis presented by Goriely & Mowlavi (2000).

Thus, the abundance ratios of the Pb, and the neutron-capture elements at the second peak of the s-process ($`Z56`$), produced by metal-deficient AGB stars seem to show a large dispersion, or might even be classified into two distinct groups. In order to understand the nature of the s-process nucleosynthesis at low metallicity, we have embarked on an extensive set of studies of the neutron-capture elements for metal-poor stars with excesses of s-process elements. In this Paper we report the abundances of neutron-capture elements, including Pb, for eight metal-poor stars.

## 2 Observations and Measurements

We selected our program sample from the list of metal-poor stars provided by the HK survey of Beers and collaborators (Beers, Preston, & Shectman, 1992; Beers, 1999; Norris, Ryan, & Beers, 1999), taking account of the metallicity and apparent level of carbon enhancement (as indicated by an index, $`GP`$, that measures the strength of the CH G band at 4300 Å ). We have observed more than 10 stars, and selected the 7 stars that clearly exhibit excesses of the s-process elements. For purposes of comparison, we have also observed the s-process-element-rich star HD 196944 studied by van Eck et al. (2001).

Observations were carried out with the High Dispersion Spectrograph (HDS) of the 8.2 m Subaru Telescope (Noguchi et al., 2002). Program stars and observational details are provided in Table 1. The spectra were taken with a resolving power $`R=50,000`$, except for HD 196944, for which a $`R=90,000`$ spectrum was obtained. Our spectra cover the wavelength range 3550–5250Å. Signal-to-Noise (S/N) ratios per 0.012 Å pixel at 4000 Å are given in the table as well. Data reduction was performed in the standard way within the IRAF222IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation. environment, following Aoki et al. (2002b).

Equivalent widths for isolated lines were measured by fitting Gaussian profiles to the absorption lines. The line list and equivalent widths measured are presented in Table 2.

The radial velocity ($`V_\mathrm{r}`$) measured for our spectra are also presented in Table 1. Our separate measurement of the radial velocity for CS 29526–110 ($`V_\mathrm{r}=201.70\pm 0.26`$km s-1 at JD=2452152.7) using WHT/UES shows a variation of the radial velocity, suggesting binarity for this object. The radial velocities measured for our Subaru/HDS spectra of CS 22880–027 and CS 22898–027 agree with the averages of the results by Preston & Sneden (2001) to within 1 km s-1.

## 3 Abundance Analysis

A standard analysis, using the model atmospheres of Kurucz (1993) and the equivalent widths measured above, was performed for lines of Fe I, Fe II, and for most of the neutron-capture elements. A spectrum synthesis technique was applied to the molecular bands of CH, C2, and CN in order to determine the carbon and nitrogen abundances, which are required for estimates of the effective temperature. The line broadening due to macro-turbulence in the stellar atmospheres, and from the spectrograph itself, was estimated from the clean Fe lines for each object, and then applied to the spectrum synthesis.

The effective temperatures given in Table 3 were estimated from broadband colors using previously derived temperature scales. For most of our program stars, we applied the temperature scale based on the de-reddened $`(BV)_0`$ color for carbon-rich, metal-poor stars produced by Aoki et al. (2002a). The $`BV`$ color of CS 30301–015 is uncertain, hence we assume a larger uncertainty in effective temperature in the error estimation procedure described below. The effective temperature of CS 22942–019 was re-determined after its carbon and nitrogen abundances were estimated, because abundances for these two elements assumed in the first determination of the effective temperature were found to be too low, and the effect of molecular absorption was not included correctly. $`JHK`$ photometry data from the interim release of the 2MASS Point Source Catalog (Skrutskie et al. 1997) are also available for three stars (CS 29526–110, CS 22898–027 and CS 31062–050). After correcting for reddening, the effective temperature scale based on $`(VK)_0`$ by Alonso, Arribas, & Martínez-Roger (1996) was applied, and yielded consistent results with those obtained from $`(BV)_0`$ colors. The difference between the two effective temperatures is rather large in CS 29526–110: the effective temperature estimated from $`(VK)_0`$ is higher by 200 K than that from $`(BV)_0`$. We assume a larger uncertainty of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ for this object in the error estimates below.

Surface gravities for our program stars were determined from the ionization balance between Fe I and Fe II, the metallicities were estimated from the abundance analysis for these lines, and the micro-turbulence was determined from the Fe I lines by demanding no dependence of the derived abundance on equivalent widths. The results are provided in Table 3. While the effective temperature of CS 29526–110 is the highest in our sample, and suggests that this star might be a main-sequence turn-off star, its gravity ($`\mathrm{log}g=3.2`$) is not particularly high. This may be due to non-LTE effects in the analysis of the Fe lines, which were neglected in the present work. For the purpose of error estimation, we therefore assume a larger uncertainty in the derived gravity for this star.

The carbon abundances were determined using the C2 Swan bands for CS 31062–050, CS 22942–019, and CS 30301–015, stars for which the CH band at 4323 Å is too strong for abundance analysis. The line list produced by Aoki & Tsuji (1997) for C2 Swan bands were applied. For the other five stars, the CH band was used for carbon abundance determination. The line positions of CH $`AX`$ bands were calculated using the molecular constants derived by Zachwieja (1995) and the oscillator strengths of Brown (1987). Aoki et al. (2002a) showed that the carbon abundance derived from the C2 band is by 0.2 dex higher than that from the CH band for LP 625–44, indicating that we should include this additional uncertainty of about 0.2 dex for the carbon abundances. The CN 3883 Å feature was used for estimates of nitrogen abundances. The line positions of the CN violet system were calculated using the molecular constants presented by Prasad & Bernath (1992) and the oscillator strengths of Bauschlicher, Langhoff & Taylor (1988). Unfortunately, the nitrogen abundances of CS 29526–110, CS 22880–074, and CS 30301–015 are unreliable, because the CN band is either too weak or too strong for abundance determination. The results of the carbon and nitrogen abundances are also given in Table 3. The oxygen abundances are assumed to be \[O/Fe\] = 0.5 in the analysis, taking account of the well-known overabundances of oxygen found in metal-poor stars. The derived carbon and nitrogen abundances are not sensitive to the oxygen abundances assumed in the analysis for warm ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}5000`$ K) stars, because the fraction of carbon bound in the CO molecule is small. The effect of the assumption for the oxygen abundance most severely appears in CS 30301–015 ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=4750`$ K); we tested the range $`0.0<`$\[O/Fe\]$`<1.5`$ for this star, but found that the effect on abundance determination for carbon and nitrogen is smaller than 0.1 dex.

The Pb I 4057 Å line was detected for seven stars in our sample. Figure 1 shows examples of the observed spectra, and the results of synthetic fits, for HD 196944 and CS 31062–050. In this analysis we adopted the line data for the hyperfine splitting and isotope shifts determined by Simons et al. (1989), as given in Table 4. We found that the fit between the observed spectra and the calculated ones is better, when the absolute wavelength of the Pb lines are slightly shifted. For this reason, we shifted the wavelength of these lines by 0.005 Å, which is as large as the uncertainty in the determination of the absolute line position by Simons et al. (1989), in our spectrum synthesis. The CH 4057 Å line blending with the Pb I line was calculated for the carbon abundance which best reproduced other lines of the same CH band. Therefore, the errors in carbon abundances due to the uncertainties of oscillator strengths of the band system do not directly affect the spectrum synthesis for the Pb I 4057 Å line.

The effects of hyper-fine splitting and isotope shifts were included, assuming the solar system isotope ratio for Pb (see Aoki et al., 2001). However, this assumption may not be appropriate for the very metal-poor stars studied here. For instance, a large production of 208Pb was predicted for the s-process at low metallicity (e.g., Gallino et al., 1998). In order to estimate the uncertainty of the Pb abundance due to the effect of the isotope ratio assumed, we also tried the analysis with a single line approximation for the Pb I 4057 Å line, which simulates the case that 208Pb is dominant over the other isotopes. The synthetic spectra calculated with the single line approximation are shown by dotted lines in Figure 1. Because of the larger effect of saturation of the absorption, the derived Pb abundance from the single line approximation is larger than that from the analysis including isotope shifts with the assumption of the solar system isotope ratio. The difference of the resulting abundance is about 0.2 dex for CS 31062–050, in which the Pb I 4057 Å line is strongest among our objects. The effect of the isotope ratios assumed in the analysis for other objects is about 0.1 dex or smaller. We include these uncertainties in the error estimates below.

We found that the abundances of the lighter neutron-capture elements (e.g., Ba), as well as the stellar parameters, of CS 31062–050 are quite similar to those of the well-studied object LP 625–44. However, the Pb absorption line in CS 31062–050 is significantly stronger than that of LP 625–44 (see Figure 6 of Aoki et al., 2002b). This clearly indicates a large dispersion in the ratio of the abundances between the lighter s-process elements and Pb.

The Pb I 3683 Å line was also detected in five of the above seven stars. Though the quality of the spectra at 3683 Å is worse than that at 4057 Å, we found that the abundances derived from the 3683 Å line agree well with those obtained from the 4057 Å line within the errors. We note that the abundances based on the 4057 Å line were adopted as the final result given in Table 5; those based on the 3683 Å line were only used for confirmation. An upper limit on the Pb abundance was obtained for CS 22942–019, in which the above Pb lines were not detected.

The abundances of most of the other neutron-capture elements were determined by standard analysis based on the measured equivalent widths, while the abundances of Ba and Eu were determined from spectrum synthesis. The effects of hyper-fine splitting and isotope shifts were included in the analysis of Ba, La, Nd, and Eu lines using the line lists of McWilliam (1998) and Aoki et al. (2001).

In order to estimate the random error in the analysis, we first calculated the dispersion of the abundances for individual Fe I lines in each star. In addition, we assumed the random error in gf-values to be 0.1 dex, and added it in quadrature to the above dispersion. The random error was evaluated by dividing this estimate by $`n^{1/2}`$ ($`n`$ is the number of lines used in the analysis) for each neutron-capture element. For Pb abundances, we also included the uncertainties due to the isotope ratio assumed in the spectrum synthesis (0.2 dex for CS 31062–050, and 0.1 dex for other stars). The errors in the abundance determination from the uncertainties of the atmospheric parameters were evaluated for $`\sigma (T_{\mathrm{eff}})=100`$K, $`\sigma (\mathrm{log}g)=0.3`$, and $`\sigma (v)=0.5`$km s-1 for HD 196944 and CS 22898–027. These results were then applied to four of the remaining stars. We assumed $`\sigma (T_{\mathrm{eff}})=200`$ K for CS 29526–110 and CS 30301–015, and $`\sigma (\mathrm{log}g)=0.5`$ for CS 29526–110, taking the uncertainties noted above into consideration. We finally derived the total uncertainty by adding in quadrature the individual errors, and list them in Table 5.

We also tried to estimate the effective temperatures for seven stars in our sample based on the Balmer line strengths measured from the medium-resolution spectra obtained during the HK survey follow-up. These effective temperatures are systematically lower, by about 300 K, than those derived above from the broadband colors. The effects of the changes of effective temperature by $`300`$K on the resulting \[Fe/H\] and \[Pb/Ba\], which will be discussed below, are about $`0.20`$ and $`+0.25`$ dex, respectively. Though these effects are important in the determination of the abundances, and will be investigated more thoroughly in our future work, the systematic shift of the abundance ratios does not change the following discussion on the dispersion in the values of \[Pb/Ba\] found in our sample.

The abundances of HD 196944 derived in this work generally agree with those by Začs, Nissen & Schuster (1998) for iron and carbon, and van Eck et al. (2001) for other elements, including Pb, within 0.2 dex, except for La (our result is 0.38 dex higher than that of van Eck et al. (2001)). The agreement between the abundances of HD 196944 determined by van Eck et al. (2001) and those obtained in the present analysis (following the previous work for LP 625–44) indicates that the significant difference in the abundance ratios of Pb, as compared to the lighter s-process elements, in the objects analyzed by van Eck et al. (2001) and those by Aoki et al. (2001) is not due to differences in the respective analysis procedures.

## 4 Discussion and Concluding Remarks

The resulting abundances for two of the stars in our sample are shown in Figure 2, along with the scaled abundance patterns of solar system material, the main s-process component, and the (inferred) r-process pattern (Arlandini et al., 1999). These comparisons are useful to distinguish the origins of the neutron-capture elements detected in our objects. The abundance patterns of elements with $`56Z63`$ in our stars agree with the s-process pattern much better than with the r-process pattern. This result implies that, as expected, the neutron-capture elements in our stars principally originate in the s-process. The values of \[Ba/Eu\] for four of the stars in our sample (CS 29526–110, CS 22898–027, CS 31062–012, and CS 31062–050) are significantly lower (\[Ba/Eu\]=0.36$``$0.47) than seen in the main s-process component (\[Ba/Eu\]=+1.15; Arlandini et al., 1999). We suggest, however, that the derived abundance ratios of \[Ba/Eu\] have been produced by an s-process which produces different abundance ratios from that of the main s-process component. Indeed, Goriely & Mowlavi (2000) predicted lower values of \[Ba/Eu\] ($`0.4`$) for yields of metal-deficient AGB stars, though the \[Ba/Eu\] value of our objects is not correlated with metallicity. To explain these low values of \[Ba/Eu\] by the mixture of the abundance ratios of the r\- and s-process components in the solar system, we must assume that about 80-90% of Eu nuclei were produced by the r-process. If this were true, it follows that these four stars show very large excesses of their r-process elements (\[Eu/Fe\]=1.5$``$1.8), similar to CS 31082–001, an extreme r-process-element-enhanced star (Cayrel et al. 2001; Hill et al. 2002). However, recent high-resolution studies of metal-poor giants indicate that stars with such large excesses of r-process elements are quite rare. An ongoing survey by Christlieb et al. (2002, in preparation) confirms the original suggestion by Beers (private communication) that roughly 3% of giants with \[Fe/H\] $`<2.5`$ exhibit \[r/Fe\]$`+1.0`$. Hence, it would be difficult to appeal to this explanation to account for the excesses of Eu in the four stars in our sample. We treat our stars as having the abundance patterns produced by the s-process for neutron-capture elements in this paper, because the elements discussed below (Ba and Pb) should principally originate from the s-process, even though r-process contamination may have contributed to a portion of the observed Eu excesses.

Figure 3 shows the ratio \[Pb/Ba\], representing the ratio of abundances between elements located at the second and third s-process peaks, as a function of metallicity (\[Fe/H\]). There exists a large scatter in \[Pb/Ba\] for these stars, larger than can be accounted for by the errors in the abundance analysis. It is not apparent that our stars can be readily classified into separate groups on the basis of the present data. There may be evidence for an decreasing trend of \[Pb/Ba\] with decreasing \[Fe/H\] (the correlation estimated from objects in Figure 3, excluding CS 22942–019, is represented as \[Pb/Ba\]$`=2.62+0.88`$\[Fe/H\] with the standard error of the slope of 0.47, i.e., the possible slope is significant at the 1.9 sigma level). Additional data will presumably help to clarify these questions. Additional studies of s-process nucleosynthesis at low metallicity should be carried out to explore the possible reasons for this large dispersion, and the possible dependence on metallicity, of the Pb/Ba ratios.

Comparison of these results with the predictions of AGB nucleosynthesis models of Gallino et al. (1998) and Busso et al. (1999) provides a constraint on their 13C pocket models333 Uncertainties in the amount of 13C in the pocket reflects the unknown amount of mixing of protons from the H-rich envelope down into the C-rich zone. Recent model calculations by Cristallo et al. (2001; see also Goriely & Mowlavi 2000) treat the proton mixing as an input parameter, rather than the amount of 13C in the “pocket”. The efficiency of the 13C as a neutron source for the s-process is also affected by the profile of neutron poisons like 14N. . Figure 1 of Ryan et al. (2001) shows the metallicity dependence of \[Pb/Fe\] and \[Ba/Fe\] predicted by the model for 1.5 $`M_{}`$ AGB stars, compared with the abundance ratios observed in LP 625–44. The value of \[Pb/Ba\] is sensitive to the adopted 13C profile, represented by the normalization factor of the 13C pocket in the standard model of Busso et al. (1999). The \[Pb/Ba\] values found in our stars with $`2.7`$\[Fe/H\]$`1.9`$ distribute from $`0.3`$ to +1.2 (Figure 3). This range of the abundance ratios is not explained by the standard model, which predicts \[Pb/Ba\]$`+2`$, but can be explained by models where the amount of 13C produced as the neutron source for the $`s`$-process is lowered by factors of 6-24 relative to the standard model.

We would also like to mention the model of the s-process in AGB stars recently proposed by Iwamoto et al. (2002). Their model for AGB stars with \[Fe/H\] = $`2.7`$ and $`M=2M_{}`$ shows a possible production of 13C, a candidate for the neutron source of the s-process, as the result of proton mixing into the hot He shell at the second thermal pulse (see also Fujimoto et al., 2000). Since the value of neutron exposure predicted by their model is rather high ($`\tau 1`$mb-1), one may expect high Pb abundances relative to those of lighter neutron-capture elements. However, the small number of the exposures (only one in their model) is preferable to account for the low Pb abundances that we find in some stars in our sample (Aoki et al., 2001). This mechanism for producing the required free neutrons is expected to occur only in very metal-poor (\[Fe/H\]$`2.5`$) AGB stars, and may explain the abundances of some objects with lower metallicity and high \[Pb/Ba\] values. The comparison with this model is, however, still quite speculative, and further theoretical study for the possibility of flash-driven proton mixing and its contribution to the s-process is required.

Finally, we point out that clear temporal variations of radial velocity, which directly implies the binarity of the object, have thus far been detected for only three of the carbon-enhanced, metal-poor stars we have been studying in recent years: CS 22942–019 (Preston & Sneden, 2001), CS 29526–110 (section 2), and LP 625–44 (Aoki et al., 2000). Preston & Sneden (2001) reported that none of the three carbon-rich, metal-poor subgiants in their sample, including the stars CS 22898–027 and CS 22880–074 studied here, exhibited radial velocity variations exceeding 0.5 kms-1 over an 8 year period. Furthermore, no radial velocity variation has been found for the subgiant (or dwarf) LP 706–7 (Norris, Ryan, & Beers, 1997). These results suggest that the enhancement of neutron-capture elements in these subgiants may not be explained as a result of the transfer of material rich in s-process elements across a binary system including an AGB star. For comparisons with the predictions of AGB models, confirmation of binarity based on the radial velocity monitoring is strongly desired. It is interesting to note the large dispersion of \[Pb/Ba\] values of the three objects (CS 22942–019, CS 29526–110, and LP 625–44) for which the variation of radial velocity have been observed. This suggests that the Pb/Ba ratios produced by s-process nucleosynthesis in metal-deficient AGB stars show a large scatter, although the sample is still too small to be confident in this regard.

The present work clearly shows a variety in the abundance ratios of neutron-capture elements for carbon-rich, metal-poor stars, and underscores the importance of further studies for individual objects, including long-term radial velocity monitoring, for development of a better understanding of heavy element production by the s-process operating at low metallicity.

The authors are pleased to acknowledge valuable discussions with Drs. R. Gallino and M. Busso on the variation of s-process nucleosynthesis in their Population II AGB models. We would also like to thank the anonymous referee for useful comments for improving this paper. T.C.B. acknowledges partial support for this work from grant AST00-98549, awarded by the U.S. National Science Foundation.


text:
# Dynamics of the 2d Potts model phase transitionThis work was in part supported by the US Department of Energy under contract DE-FG02-97ER41022.

## 1 Introduction

Lattice gauge theory investigations of the deconfining phase transition, for reviews see , have mainly been limited to studies of their equilibrium properties. In contrast to that, their occurrence in nature is governed by temperature driven dynamics. In the early universe it is a cooling process, which is estimated to proceed slowly on the scale set by hadronic relaxation times. In heavy ion collisions a rapid heating of the nuclei is followed by a much slower cooling process and it is no longer clear whether this cooling is slow or fast on the relaxation time scale. In addition, the small sizes of the nuclei systems impose complications which require to be studied.

What dynamics should we study? Time evolution in nature would correspond to some molecular dynamics simulation of full QCD in Minkowski space, which is out of the question as already Euclidean space Monte Carlo (MC) calculations of QCD stretch computer resources to their limits. One may, however, argue that the computer-time evolution of a MC simulation reveals the correct physical features, as long as the updating procedure stays in the universality class of Glauber dynamics . These are local MC updating schemes, which imitate the thermal fluctuations of nature. Examples are single- and multi-hit Metropolis algorithms, as well as the heat-bath algorithm.

Also to simulate the dynamics of the deconfining phase transition within Euclidean lattice QCD is out of reach for an exploratory study. To gain some qualitative understanding, we have decided to investigate $`q`$-state Potts models, whose simulations are far less computer time intensive. The relationship to QCD is that an effective model for the Polyakov loop is provided by the $`3d`$, 3-state Potts model in an external magnetic field . Even this simplification is not yet a convenient starting point. To get confidence in our numerical methods, we limit our first round of simulations to the $`q`$-state Potts models in $`2d`$, for which a number of rigorous results exist .

In the following we drive our systems many times through various heating and cooling schedules and measure physical observables along the way. Averages and their error bars are calculated with respect to the repetitions of the schedule. Our observables are the internal energy and properties of Fortuin-Kasteleyn  clusters.

Details of our investigations are reported in the next section and a brief summary with conclusions is given in the final section.

## 2 Results

We have performed simulations on $`L\times L`$ lattices for the $`2d`$ Potts model with $`q=2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}`$ and 10, to have an example of a second order transition ($`q=2`$), a weak ($`q=5`$) and a strong ($`q=10`$) first order transition. Due to space restrictions we limit the following presentation to $`q=10`$.

For suitably chosen values of $`\beta _{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`\beta _{\mathrm{max}}`$, we run in the range $`\beta _{\mathrm{min}}\beta \beta _{\mathrm{max}}`$ through each hysteresis cycle at least 640 times with $`\beta `$ changed by $`\pm \mathrm{}\beta `$ after every sweep. The stepsize is

$$\mathrm{}\beta =\frac{2(\beta _{\mathrm{max}}\beta _{\mathrm{min}})}{n_\beta L^2}$$
(1)
where $`\beta _{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`\beta _{\mathrm{max}}`$ define the terminal temperatures and the integer $`n_\beta =1,2,\mathrm{}`$ is varied. In the limit where we send $`L^2\mathrm{}`$ first and then $`\mathrm{}\beta 0`$ the hysteresis is expected to survive, whereas it disappears if we send $`\mathrm{}\beta 0`$ first and then $`L^2\mathrm{}`$.

For a first order phase transition, the slowing down of the Markov process is exponential in computer time, $`\mathrm{exp}[2f_sL]`$, where $`f_s`$ is the interfacial tension. In the following we study the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}\beta (L;n_\beta )0`$ for $`n_\beta `$ fixed. For 1-hit Metropolis updating we give in figure 1 our energy hysteresis data for the 10-state Potts model on a $`80\times 80`$ lattice. Towards large $`n_\beta `$ we see convergence to the equilibrium curve, which is obtained by means of a multicanonical  simulation. To analyze the physical content of such a hysteresis, we define for each $`n_\beta `$ finite volume estimators for a physical observable as its value at the maximum opening of the corresponding hysteresis.

Figure 2 shows, for various fixed values of $`n_\beta `$, the thus obtained latent heat estimates versus the lattice size $`L`$. For sufficiently large $`L`$ all the estimators should, independently of their $`n_\beta `$ values, converge towards the infinite volume value, which is also given in the figure. For each $`n_\beta `$ we have performed fits to extrapolate towards $`L\mathrm{}`$, but only some of them give good estimates. For our small and medium sized lattices the results appear to suffer from finite size corrections in $`L`$ as well as in $`\mathrm{}\beta `$, with the additional twist that $`\mathrm{}\beta `$ can also be too small for some of the lattice sizes used. The best $`L\mathrm{}`$ estimate is

$$\mathrm{}E=0.3485(12)\mathrm{at}n_\beta =16.$$
(2)
Results for other values of $`q`$, other observables and details of these fits will be reported elsewhere.

To focus on a detailed physical understanding of the finite volume transitions, we have begun a cluster analysis of the configurations. The appropriate cluster definition is the statistical one of Fortuin and Kasteleyn , see Ref. for a review of this and related topics. We are interested in the effects of heating and cooling on the cluster structure, compared to their equilibrium structure. Whereas nucleation theory holds in the mean field approximation, phase transitions can also proceed via spinodal decomposition as the result of an off-equilibrium quench, which may still lead to observable signals, even when there is no longer a transition in the strict thermodynamical sense. This is somewhat different from the program of Satz , who focuses on geometric clusters and would like to use them as a signal when there is no proper transition.

For the 10-state model we show in figure 3 our result for percolation of the ordered cluster. A heat bath algorithm was employed with $`n_\beta ^{hb}=1`$. The figure provides evidence that the geometry of the Fortuin-Kasteleyn clusters is distinct during the cooling and the heating part of the hysteresis. The percolation probability of the ordered phase still increases, when we already heat the system up again. A detailed investigation of the related cluster properties is in progress .

## 3 Summary and Conclusions

Our energy hysteresis method allows for dynamical estimates of the latent heat and works similarly for other physical observables. While the precision of these estimates is not competitive with those of equilibrium investigations , the hysteresis method provides information about deviations which are rooted in the dynamics of the heating and cooling process. From our ongoing analysis of the Fortuin-Kasteleyn clusters we gain insight into the dynamics of the transition, which may help to identify signals observable in heavy ion experiments.


text:
# REMARKS ON Q-CALCULUS AND INTEGRABILITY

## 1. INTRODUCTION

Integrable systems such as qKP have been frequently studied in recent years (see e.g. ). Also various noncommutative (NC) integrable models connecting frequently to Moyal deformations arise in the literature (see e.g. ). In view of the intimate relations between integrable systems, differential calculi, and virtually all aspects of theoretical physics (cf. ), as well as the profound connections between quantum groups (QG) and quantum field theory (QFT) for example (cf. ), it seems compelling to pursue further the relations between QG, integrable systems, differential calculi, and zero curvature (cf. ). The present article is primarily concerned with various forms of Hirota equations.

## 2. SOME BACKGROUND

We recall first the derivation of KP from a differential calculus in  (fundamentals of QG theory will be assumed as we proceed (cf. ).

###### EXAMPLE 2.1.

Consider a calculus based on (A) $`dt^2=dx^2=dxdt+dtdx=0`$ (B) $`[dt,t]=[dx,t]=[dt,x]=0`$ and $`[dx,x]=\eta dt`$. Assumingt the Leibnitz rule $`d(fg)=(df)g+f(dg)`$ for functions and $`d^2=0`$ one obtains $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟏})df=f_xdx+(f_t+(1/2)\eta f_{xx})dt`$. For a connection $`A=wdt+udx`$ the zero curvature condition $`F=dA+A^2=0`$ leads to $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟐})(u_tw_x+(\eta /2)u_{xx}+\eta uu_x=0`$ which for $`w_x=0`$ is a form of Burger’s equation. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### EXAMPLE 2.2.

Next consider (A) $`[dt,t]=[dx,t]=[dt,x]=[dy,t]=[dt,y]=[dy,y]=0`$ with (B) $`[dx,x]=2bdy`$ and $`[dx,y]=[dy,x]=3adt`$. Further (C) $`dt^2=dy^2=dtdx+dxdt=dydt+dtdy=dydx+dxdy=0`$. Then $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟑})df=f_xdx+(f_y+bf_{xx})dy+(f_t+3af_{xy}+abf_{xxx}dt)`$. For $`A=vdx+wdt+udy`$ one finds that $`dA+A^2=F=0`$ implies

(2.1)
$$u_x=v_y+bv_{xx}+2bvv_x;w_x=3av_{xy}+abv_{xxx}+3auv_x+3av(v_y+bv_{xx});$$

$$w_x+bw_{xx}=u_t+3au_{xy}+abu_{xxx}+3auu_xv[2bw_x3a(u_y+bu_{xx})]$$

Taking e.g. $`w_x=(3a/2b)u_y+(3a/2)u_{xx}`$ in the last equation to decouple one arrives at $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟒})_x(u_t(ab/2)u_{xxx}+3auu_x)=(3a/2b)u_{yy}`$; for suitable $`a,b`$ this is KP. $`\mathrm{}`$

It is surprisingly difficult to convert these examples into meaningful q-calculus equations and in that spirit for guidance we were motivated to develop many formulas concerning qKP, qKdV, etc. It is convenient and hopefully useful to write down also various formulas involving q-calculus. Thus the presentation has a sort of guide book spirit in which a number of formulas are extracted from various references and some new formulas are derived (especially in the context of Hirota type formulas). We recall first from  that for $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟓})D_qf(x)=[f(qx)f(x)]/(q1)x`$ and $`Df(x)=f(qx)`$ one writes e.g. $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟔})L=D_q+a_0+_1^{\mathrm{}}a_iD_q^i`$ and qKP is defined via $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟕})_jL=[L_+^j,L]`$. Note here also $`L=SD_qS^1`$ where $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟖})S=1+_1^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{w}_jD_q^j`$ with $`_jS=L_{}^jS`$ (recall one often takes $`t=(t_1,t_2,\mathrm{})`$ with $`_j/t_j`$ and it is often convenient to insert x separately instead of identifying $`t_1=x`$). Now e.g. write

(2.2)
$$exp_q(x)=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1q)^kx^k}{(q;q)_k}=exp\left(\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1q)^kx^k}{k(1q^k)}\right)$$

where $`(q;q)_k=(1q)\mathrm{}(1q^k)`$ (nonstandard definition). Then $`D_qexp_q(xz)=zexp_q(xz)`$ and one defines q-Schur polynomials $`\stackrel{~}{p}_k`$ via

(2.3)
$$\underset{𝐙}{}\stackrel{~}{p}_k(x,t_1,\mathrm{})z^k=exp_q(xz)exp(\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t_kz^k)$$

Then $`D_q\stackrel{~}{p}_k=\stackrel{~}{p}_{k1}=_1\stackrel{~}{p}_k(_1=/t_1)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}_k=0(k<0),\stackrel{~}{p}_0=1,\stackrel{~}{p}_1=x+t_1,\stackrel{~}{p}_2=[(q1)/(q^21)]x^2+t_1x+t_1^2/2+t_2,\mathrm{}`$. The qKP wave functions are defined via ($`\xi =_1^{\mathrm{}}t_kz^k=\xi (t,z)`$)

(2.4)
$$\psi _q=Sexp_q(xz)exp(\xi );\psi _q^{}=(S^{})_{\frac{x}{q}}^1exp_{\frac{1}{q}}(xz)exp(\xi )$$

for $`S=1+_1^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{w}_iD_q^i`$, where for $`V=_1^{\mathrm{}}v_iD_q^i`$, one defines $`V_{\frac{x}{q}}=v_i(x/q)q^iD_q^1`$ (note $`e_q(xz)^1=e_{1/q}(xz)`$). It follows that $`L\psi _q=z\psi _q`$ and $`L_{x/q}^{}\psi _q^{}=z\psi _q^{}`$ with a q-Hirota bilinear identity $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟗})ResD_q^n^\alpha \psi _q\psi _q^{}=0`$ where $`^\alpha _1^{\alpha _1}_2^{\alpha _2}\mathrm{}`$. This is proved by an extended lemma of Dickey (cf. ) but we will prefer to use somewhat different forms below as well as some new variations. The q-tau functions are determined via $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟏𝟎})\tau _q(x,t)=\tau (t+c(x))`$ where

$$c(x)=[x]_q=(\frac{(1q)x}{(1q)},\frac{(1q)^2x^2}{2(1q^2)},\frac{(1q)^3x^3}{3(1q^3)},\mathrm{})$$

There results

(2.5)
$$\psi _q=\frac{\tau _q(x,t[z^1])}{\tau _q(x,t)}exp_q(xz)exp(\xi );\psi _q^{}=\frac{\tau _q(x,t+[z^1])}{\tau _q(x,t)}exp_{\frac{1}{q}}(xz)exp(\xi )$$

where $`[z]=(z,z^2/2,z^3/3,\mathrm{})`$. Vertex operators for KP are defined via

$$X(t,z)=exp(\xi )exp(\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(_i/i)z^i)=exp(\xi (t,z)exp(\xi (\stackrel{~}{},z^1))$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{}(_1,_2/2,_3/3,\mathrm{})`$. Then for KP

(2.6)
$$X_q=e_q(xz)X(t,z);\stackrel{~}{X}_q=e_q(xz)^1X(t,z)=e_{1/q}(xz)exp(\xi (t,z)exp(\stackrel{~}{},z^1)$$

We recall also another version of (A9) in the form ($`n>m`$)

(2.7)
$$_{\mathrm{}}D^n(X_q(x,t,z)\tau _q(t))D^{m+1}(\stackrel{~}{X}_q(x,t^{},z)\tau _q(t^{}))𝑑z=0$$

REMARK 2.1. For qKdV one has $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟏𝟏})L^2=D+q^2+(q1)xuD_q+u`$ and $`u=D_q_1log(\tau _q(x,t)\tau _q(qx,t))`$. We will say more about this in Section 5.$`\mathrm{}`$
REMARK 2.2. The standard Schur polynomials are defined via

(2.8)
$$p_n(y)=\left(\frac{y_1^{k_1}}{k_1!}\right)\left(\frac{y_2^{k_2}}{k_2!}\right)\mathrm{};\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_n(y)z^n=exp(\xi (y,z))$$

Further with the prescription $`u=_1^2log\tau `$ of standard KP theory one has from the bilinear identity (with $`x=t_1`$ here and $`_1`$)

(2.9)
$$_{n1}^1u=\frac{1}{\tau ^2}p_n(\stackrel{~}{})\tau \tau =s_n;K_4=s_4=\frac{1}{4}^3u+3uu+\frac{3}{4}^1_2^2u=_3u$$

(see (2.10) for the bilinear notation $`\tau \tau `$) . Here the Hirota equations (see below for a derivation) are

(2.10)
$$\left(\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_n(2y)p_{n+1}(\stackrel{~}{})exp(\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}y_i_i)\right)\tau \tau =0;_j^mab=(\frac{^m}{s_j^m})a(t_j+s_j)b(t_js_j)|_{s=0}$$

The corresponding formula for qKP will be written down later. Note the bilinear form of KP is $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟏𝟐})(^4+3_2^24_1_3)\tau \tau =0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$
REMARK 2.3. We collect a few more formulas. First note $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟏𝟑})D_q^{}=(1/q)D_{1/q}=D_qD^1`$ since $`D_qD^1f(x)=D_qf(q^1x)=[f(x)f(q^1x)]/(q1)x=q^1D_{1/q}f`$. One also notes for $`\xi =t_iz^i`$ that $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟏𝟒})\psi _q=S(exp_q(xz)exp(\xi ))=(1+\stackrel{~}{w}_iz^i)exp_q(xz)exp(\xi )=\widehat{\psi }_qexp_q(xz)exp(\xi )`$ (note $`\stackrel{~}{w}_i`$ depends on q - cf. (A30) below). Further $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟏𝟓})V=v_iD_q^iV^{}=(D_q^{})^iv_i`$ where $`D_q^{}=q^1D_{1/q}`$ and $`(S^{})^1`$ is written as $`(S^{})^1=1+\stackrel{~}{w}_i^{}D_q^i`$. Note also $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟏𝟔})L\psi _q=z\psi _q,_n\psi _q=L_+^n\psi _q,L_{x/q}^{}\psi _q^{}=z\psi _q^{}`$ and $`_n\psi _q^{}=(L_{x/q}^{})_+^n\psi _q^{}`$. Further

$$\psi _q^{}=(S^{})_{x/q}^1exp_{1/q}(xz)exp(\xi )=(1+\stackrel{~}{w}_i^{}z^i)exp_{1/q}(xz)exp(\xi )$$

Additional formulas are $`D_qD^k(f)=q^kD^k(D_qf),D_qf=(D_qf)+D(f)D_q,D_qD_q^1=D_q^1D_qf=f,`$ and thus $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟏𝟕})D_q^1f=_{k0}(1)^kq^{k(k+1)/2}D^{k1}(D_q^kf)D_q^{k1}`$. This leads to

(2.11)
$$D_q^nf=\underset{k0}{}\left[\begin{array}{c}n\\ m\end{array}\right]_qD^{nm}(D_q^kf)D_q^{nm}(n𝐙)$$

where $`\left[\begin{array}{c}n\\ m\end{array}\right]_q=[n]_q\mathrm{}[nm+1]_q/[1]_q\mathrm{}[m]_q`$ with $`[n]_q=(q^n1)/((q1)`$ and one notes also

(2.12)
$$D_q^n=\frac{q^{n(n1)/2}}{x^n(q1)^n}\underset{0}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^mq^{m(m1)/2}\left[\begin{array}{c}n\\ m\end{array}\right]_qD^{nm}$$

More formulas will appear as we go along.$`\mathrm{}`$

## 3. CLASSICAL HIROTA FORMULAS

We would like to have e.g. a formula analogous to (2.10) for qKP, as well as other “generic” formulas in the q-context. In this direction we recall some results from . First note $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟏𝟖})_0^{\mathrm{}}p_k(\stackrel{~}{})z^k=exp(_1^{\mathrm{}}(_m/m)z^m`$ (recall $`\stackrel{~}{}=(_1,_2,\mathrm{})`$ and one writes

(3.1)
$$\psi (t,\mu )=X(t,\mu )\tau /\tau ;X(t,\mu )=e^{\xi (t,\mu )}exp(\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(_m/m)z^m)$$

so formally

(3.2)
$$\psi (t,\mu )=e^{\xi (t,\mu )}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_k(\stackrel{~}{})\mu ^k\tau /\tau =e^{\xi (t,\mu )}\frac{\tau (t[\mu ^1])}{\tau }$$

with $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟏𝟗})\tau (t[\mu ^1])=(_0^{\mathrm{}}p_k(\stackrel{~}{})\mu ^k)\tau `$. Similarly $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟐𝟎})\psi ^{}(t,\lambda )=X^{}(t,\lambda )\tau /\tau `$ with $`X^{}(t,\lambda )=exp(\xi (t,\lambda )exp(_1^{\mathrm{}}(_m/m)\lambda ^m)`$ leading to a natural formula $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟐𝟏})\psi ^{}(t,\lambda )=exp(\xi (t,\lambda )p_k(\stackrel{~}{})\lambda ^k\tau /\tau =exp(\xi )\tau (t+[\lambda ^1])/\tau `$. Note that in , instead of the more standard W with $`W=1+w_j^j`$ satisfying $`L=WW^1`$ with $`\psi =Wexp(\xi )`$ (cf. ), one works with $`\underset{¯}{t}=(t_1+x,t_2,t_3,\mathrm{})`$ and sets $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟐𝟐})\psi (x,t,z)=(Sexp(xz)exp(\xi ))=exp(xz)exp(\xi )\tau (\underset{¯}{t}[z^1])/\tau (t)`$. Then explicitly it is known that

(3.3)
$$S=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{p_n(\stackrel{~}{})\tau (\underset{¯}{t})}{\tau (\underset{¯}{t})}^n$$

(standard Schur polynomials). In this spirit one has also

(3.4)
$$\psi ^{}=(S^{})^1e^{xz}e^\xi =e^{xz\xi }\frac{\tau (\stackrel{~}{t}+[z^1])}{\tau (\underset{¯}{t})}$$

(note also in  $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟐𝟑})W=1+w_j^j,W^{}=1+w_j^{}^jw_j=(1/\tau )p_j(\stackrel{~}{})\tau ,`$ and $`w_j^{}=(1/\tau )p_j(\stackrel{~}{})\tau `$). Clearly the operator $`exp((_i/i)z^i)`$ acting on $`\tau `$ simply translates variables and $`t_1`$ or $`t_1+x`$ is equally affected; one chooses $`\tau (\underset{¯}{t}[z^1])`$ by “design”. Next we recall the classical differential Fay identity

(3.5)
$$_1\tau (t[\mu ^1])\tau (t[\lambda ^1])\tau (t[\mu ^1])_1\tau (t[\lambda ^1])$$

$$(\lambda \mu )\tau (t[\mu ^1])\tau (t[\lambda ^1])+(\lambda \mu )\tau (t)\tau (t[\mu ^1][\lambda ^1])=0$$

and write this as in

(3.6)
$$\frac{\tau (t[\mu ^1][\lambda ^1])\tau (t)}{\tau (t[\mu ^1])\tau (t]\lambda ^1])}=1+\frac{1}{\mu \lambda }\left[_1log(t[\mu ^1])_1log(t[\lambda ^1])\right]$$

This can be used to generate a useful formula in dealing with dispersionless Hirota equations (cf.  and see remarks below). In connection with Hirota formulas we recall also for $`tt^{}`$

(3.7)
$$\psi ^{}(t,\lambda )\psi (t^{},\lambda )𝑑\lambda =0\tau (t+[\lambda ^1])\tau (t^{}[\lambda ^1])e^{{\scriptscriptstyle (t_i^{}t_i)\lambda ^i}}𝑑\lambda =0$$

Let $`tt+y,t^{}ty`$ to obtain

(3.8)
$$0=\tau (t+y+[\lambda ^1])\tau (ty[\lambda ^1])e^{2{\scriptscriptstyle y_i\lambda ^i}}𝑑\lambda =$$

$$=e^{{\scriptscriptstyle y_i_i}+{\scriptscriptstyle \stackrel{~}{}_i\lambda ^i}}\tau \tau e^{2{\scriptscriptstyle y_i\lambda ^i}}𝑑\lambda =p_n(2y)\lambda ^np_{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{})\lambda ^{\mathrm{}}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle y_i_i}}\tau \tau d\lambda $$

This leads to the well known (cf.  and (2.10)) formula involving the coefficient of $`y_n`$

(3.9)
$$_1_n\tau \tau =2p_{n+1}(\stackrel{~}{})\tau \tau $$

Note for the coefficient of $`y_n`$ one takes first the residue term for $`p_n`$ where $`y_n`$ appears bare and then the term for $`n=0`$ and $`\mathrm{}=1`$ to get $`p_1_1`$ and $`_n`$ from the exponent.
Now write from  $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟐𝟒})\psi \psi ^{}=_0^{\mathrm{}}s_n\lambda ^n`$ and $`s_n=_0^nw_jw_{nj}^{}`$ where $`w_0=1`$ and $`s_0=1`$. Given (3.3) and remarks after (A23) we can compute $`s_n`$ directly and then one can utilize (2.9). Thus

(3.10)
$$s_n=\underset{0}{\overset{n}{}}p_j(\stackrel{~}{})\tau p_{nj}(\stackrel{~}{})\tau /\tau ^2$$

This is direct and avoids the Hirota bilinear formalism (evidently one has $`s_0=1,s_1=0,s_2=_1^2log\tau `$, etc. in agreement with (2.9)). This also yields an apparently new formula.

###### PROPOSITION 3.1.

(3.11)
$$\underset{0}{\overset{n}{}}p_j(\stackrel{~}{})\tau p_{nj}(\stackrel{~}{})\tau =p_n(\stackrel{~}{})\tau \tau $$

Now to clarify the “evaluation” of (3.6) we note the important property

(3.12)
$$log\tau (t[\lambda ^1])=logexp\left((_i/i)\lambda ^i\right)\tau =logp_k(\stackrel{~}{})\lambda ^k\tau =$$

$$=exp\left((_i/i)\lambda ^i\right)log\tau =p_k(\stackrel{~}{})\lambda ^klog\tau $$

Now for the left side of (3.6) take logarithms to obtain

(3.13)
$$p_k(\stackrel{~}{})\lambda ^kp_m(\stackrel{~}{})\mu ^mlog\tau +log\tau p_m(\stackrel{~}{})\mu ^mlog\tau $$

$$p_k(\stackrel{~}{})\lambda ^klog\tau =\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_k(\stackrel{~}{})p_m((\stackrel{~}{})\lambda ^k\mu ^mlog\tau $$

The terms with $`k=m=0,k=0,`$ and $`m=0`$ combine with $`log\tau `$ to produce zero. This yields then

(3.14)
$$\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_k(\stackrel{~}{})p_m(\stackrel{~}{})\lambda ^k\mu ^mlog\tau =log\left(1+\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mu ^n\lambda ^n}{\mu \lambda }p_n(\stackrel{~}{})_1log\tau \right)$$

One can push this a little further in the spirit of . Thus, setting $`_1log\tau (t[\lambda ^1])=f(t,\lambda )`$, we have $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟐𝟓})[f(t,\mu )f(t,\lambda )]/(\mu \lambda )_\lambda f(t,\lambda )`$ as $`\mu \lambda `$, so from (3.14) we obtain

(3.15)
$$\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_k(\stackrel{~}{})p_m(\stackrel{~}{})\lambda ^{km}log\tau =L=log(1+_\lambda _1log\tau (t[\lambda ^1])=R=$$

$$=log(1+\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_nf(t,\lambda )\lambda ^{n1}=log(1+\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^{n1}_n_1log\tau (t[\lambda ^1]))=log(D)=$$

$$=log(1+\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^{n1}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{})\lambda ^{\mathrm{}}_n_1log\tau )=log(1+\lambda ^{n\mathrm{}1}p_{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{})_n_1log\tau )$$

($`1n<\mathrm{}`$ and $`0\mathrm{}<\mathrm{}`$). Note also we could write $`(_1L)D=_1D`$ to get rid of the logarithm; then use $`_1^2log\tau =u`$ and one has a form of Hirota equation generating function in terms of u alone! However it is rather too complicated for computations (see below however). We could also try to duplicate further the procedure of  (done below).
To indicate the direct computations based on L,R,D write out $`(_1L)D=_1D`$ in the form

(3.16)
$$(\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_k(\stackrel{~}{})p_m(\stackrel{~}{})\lambda ^{km}_1log\tau )(1+\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^{n1}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{})\lambda ^{\mathrm{}}_n_1log\tau )=$$

$$=\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^{n1}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{})\lambda ^{\mathrm{}}_n_1^2log\tau $$

and equate powers of $`\lambda `$. Write then ($`f=_1log\tau `$)

(3.17)
$$(\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_{km}\lambda ^{km}f)(1+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_{\mathrm{}}_n\lambda ^{n\mathrm{}1}f)=p_{\mathrm{}}_n\lambda ^{n\mathrm{}1}_1f$$

(3.18)
$$\underset{k,m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_{km}\lambda ^{km}f+\underset{k,m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_{k,m}fp_{\mathrm{}}_nf\lambda ^{km\mathrm{}n1}=$$

$$=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_{\mathrm{}}_n\lambda ^{n\mathrm{}1}_1f$$

(3.19)
$$\lambda ^2:p_{11}f=_1^2f;\lambda ^3:\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}p_{12}f=_2_1f+p_1_1^2f;$$

$$\lambda ^4:(2p_{13}+p_{22})f+p_{11}f_1f=_3_1f+p_1_2_1f+p_2_1^2f$$

This is “doable” but becomes a bit tedious so we omit further terms.
We can also encode matters in an elegant manner based on . Thus write L in (3.15) as

(3.20)
$$\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_kp_m\lambda ^{km}log\tau =\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}F_{km}\lambda ^{km}=\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\underset{k+m=j}{}F_{km})\lambda ^j=\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}Z_j\lambda ^j$$

(note $`Z_1=0`$). Then following , (3.15) becomes

(3.21)
$$exp\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}Z_j\lambda ^j=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_i(Z_j)\lambda ^i=1+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^{n\mathrm{}1}p_{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{})_n_1log\tau $$

Note there is no $`\lambda ^1`$ term on the right side which is balanced by $`Z_1=0`$. Then one arrives at

(3.22)
$$\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_i(Z_j)\lambda ^i=\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^i\underset{n+\mathrm{}=i1}{}p_{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{})_n_1log\tau $$

$$p_i(Z_j)=\underset{n+\mathrm{}=i1}{}p_{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{})_n_1log\tau $$

It is shown in  that the subset of Plücker relations involved in (3.15) of (3.20) is sufficient to determine the KP hierarchy. Hence the Hirota equations are encoded in (3.22) and can be expressed immediately in terms of $`u=_1^2log\tau `$ by writing

(3.23)
$$Z_j=\underset{k+m=j}{}_1^2\stackrel{~}{F}_{km};\stackrel{~}{F}_{km}=_1^2p_k(\stackrel{~}{})p_m(\stackrel{~}{})log\tau =p_k(\stackrel{~}{})p_m(\stackrel{~}{})u$$

Thus $`F_{km}=_1^2\stackrel{~}{F}_{km}=F_{km}(u)`$ and $`Z_j=Z_j(u)`$. Similarly the right side of the last equation in (3.22) can be written as $`^1_{n+\mathrm{}=i1}p_{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{})_nu`$. Consequently

###### THEOREM 3.1.

The classical KP Hirota equations can be written directly in terms of $`u=^2log\tau `$ via $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟐𝟔})p_i(Z_j(u))=_{n+\mathrm{}=i1}_1^1_nu`$.

###### COROLLARY 3.1.

One can also compute using (3.16) as in (3.17)-(3.19). A standard version of the Hirota equations in a new form can be given in terms of (3.10) and (3.11).

## 4. MORE ON QKP

One reason for developing Hirota formulas in Section 3 was to be able to give subsequently a q-version in order to write down the form of qKP equations without explicitly compputing terms in an expansion $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟐𝟕})_nL_q=[(L_q^n)_+,L_q]`$ or even $`_nQ=[Q_+^n,Q]`$ where $`Q=D+a_0+_1^{\mathrm{}}a_nD^n`$ with $`Df(x)=f(qx)`$ (Frenkel form). Formulas of this type (e.g. originating in (A27)) could be useful in order to compare with equations arising as in Examples 2.1, 2.2 in a q-context. First recall (2.2) $`exp_q(xz)=exp(_1^{\mathrm{}}c(xz)_i)=exp(1q)^k(xz)^k/k(1q^k)`$ and (cf. (2.4)) $`\psi _q=Se_q(xz)exp(\xi )=(1+\stackrel{~}{w}_iz^i)exp_q(xz)exp(\xi )`$ with (cf. $`(\text{3.1}))\psi _q=\tau _q(x,t[z^1])exp_q(xz)exp(\xi )/\tau _q`$. One sort of expects $`\psi _q(x,t)=\psi (t+[x]_q)`$ since $`exp_q(xz)exp(\xi )=exp((t_iz^i+c(xz)_i)=exp((t_i+c(x)_i)z^i`$ (recall $`c(x)[x]_q`$) - see below). Thus (2.3) $`\stackrel{~}{p}_k(x,t)z^k=e_q(xz)exp(\xi )`$ implies

(4.1)
$$\stackrel{~}{p}_k(x,t_i)z^k=exp(t_i+c(x)_i)z^i=p_k(t_i+c(x)_i)z^k\stackrel{~}{p}_k(x,t)=p_k(t+c(x))$$

Similarly $`\psi _q^{}(x,t)=\psi ^{}(t+[x]_q)`$. So what about formulas like (3.9) or (3.10) or (3.11)? We have ($`_1/t_1`$)

(4.2)
$$\psi _q(x,t)=X_q(t,z)\tau _q(t)/\tau _q(t)=e_q(xz)e^\xi exp(\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(_i/i)z^i)\tau _q/\tau _q=\frac{e_q(xz)e^\xi \tau _q(t[z^1)}{\tau _q(t)}$$

since $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟐𝟖})exp(_1^{\mathrm{}}(_i/i)z^i)\tau _q=\tau _q(t[z^1])=\tau (t+c(x)[z^1])`$. Now following  one looks at $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟐𝟗})S=_0^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{w}_i(t+[x]_q)D_q^i`$ with $`(S^1)_{x/q}^{}=_0^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{w}_j^{}(t+[x]_q)(1)^jD_{1/q}^j`$). Note from (4.2)

(4.3)
$$\psi _q=S(e_q(xz)e^\xi )=(1+\stackrel{~}{w}_jz^j)e_q(xz)e^\xi =e_q(xz)e^\xi p_{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{})z^{\mathrm{}}\tau _q/\tau _q$$

$$1+\stackrel{~}{w}_jz^j=\frac{p_{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{})z^{\mathrm{}}\tau _q}{\tau _q}\stackrel{~}{w}_j=\frac{p_j(\stackrel{~}{})\tau _q}{\tau _q}S=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{p_j(\stackrel{~}{})\tau _q}{\tau _q}D_q^j$$

as in (3.3) and $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟑𝟎})\stackrel{~}{w}_j=w_j(t+c(x))`$. As for Hirota recall (A9); however $`t^{}t`$ is not specified here and we will get more mileage from (2.7) in any event. Thus we go to (2.7) for Hirota with $`D_q`$ terms. Write $`X_q\tau _q=e_q(xz)exp(\xi )exp(\stackrel{~}{}_iz^i)\tau _q=e_q(xz)exp(\xi )p_n(\stackrel{~}{})z^i\tau _q`$. Also $`\stackrel{~}{X}_q=e_{1/q}(xz)X(t,z)`$ so

$$\stackrel{~}{X}_q\tau _q=e_{1/q}(xz)exp(\xi )p_m(\stackrel{~}{})z^i\tau _q$$

Then (2.7) becomes ($`n>m`$)

(4.4)
$$0=D^ne_q(xz)e^{\xi (t,z)}p_{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{})z^{\mathrm{}}\tau (t+c(x))$$

$$D^{m+1}e_{1/q}(xz)e^{\xi (t^{},z)}p_k(\stackrel{~}{})z^k\tau (t^{}+c(x))dz$$

For $`n=1,m=0`$ one has $`De_q`$ and $`De_{1/q}`$, with $`D_qe_q=ze_q`$ and for $`e_{1/q}`$ one goes to Remark 2.3. Thus $`D_{1/q}=qD_qD^1`$ so since $`D_{1/q}e_{1/q}(xz)=ze_{1/q}(xz)`$ there results $`qD_qe_{1/q}(xz/q)=D_{1/q}e_{1/q}(xz)=ze_{1/q}(xz)`$. Thus $`qD_qe_{1/q}(xz)=D_{1/q}e_{1/q}(xzq)=qze_{1/q}(xzq)=qzDe_{1/q}(xz)`$ leading to $`D_qe_{1/q}=zDe_{1/q}`$. We cannot directly replace D by $`D_q`$ in (4.4) of course but for $`n=m+1`$ one can write $`D^ne_q(xz)=e_q(xq^nz)`$ and $`D^ne_{1/q}(xz)=e_{1/q}(xq^nz)=e_q(xq^nz)^1`$. Hence for $`n=m+1`$ (4.4) becomes

(4.5)
$$0=e^{\xi (t,z)}p_{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{})z^{\mathrm{}}D^n\tau _qe^{\xi (t^{},z)}p_k(\stackrel{~}{})z^kD^n\tau _q$$

and this can be put in bilinear form as in (3.8). We state this as

###### PROPOSITION 4.1.

For $`n=m+1`$ (4.4) becomes (4.5) which can be put into bilinear form as in (3.8). The resulting Hirota equations essentially ignore the $`D^n`$ term and produce standard formulas for $`\tau (t+c(x))`$ or $`D^n\tau (t+c(x))`$ in the $`t`$ variables.

Generally however we want to put $`D_q`$ explicitly into the act and for this we need expressions for D in terms of $`D_q`$ (analogous to (2.12)). One has $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟑𝟏})D=1+(q1)xD_q`$ and we note

(4.6)
$$qxD_qf=\frac{qxf(qx)xf(x)}{(q1)x}f(x)\frac{(q1)x}{(q1)x}D_qx=qxD_q+1$$

Consequently

(4.7)
$$D^2=(1+(q1)xD_q)(1+(q1)xD_q)=1+2(q1)xD_q+(q1)^2xD_qxD_q=$$

$$=1+(q^21)xD_q+q(q1)^2x^2D_q^2$$

We note from (2.12)

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}n\\ m\end{array}\right]_q=\frac{(q^n1)\mathrm{}(q^{nm+1}1)}{(q^m1)\mathrm{}(q1)}$$

(4.8)
$$D^2=qx^2(q1)^2D_q^2+(q^21)xD_q+1$$

Similarly $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟑𝟐})D_qx^2=q^2x^2D_q+[(q^21)/(q1)]x`$ and

(4.9)
$$D^3=(q1)^3q^3x^3D_q^3+qx^2(q1)(q^31)D_q^2+(q^31)xD_q+1$$

Another term should reveal the pattern but we prefer to use (2.12) (cf. below). In any event one will have a formula

(4.10)
$$D^n=\underset{0}{\overset{n}{}}a_{nk}D_q^k$$

with $`a_{nk}`$ to be determined. One could go to (2.12) in the form (cf. $`(\mathrm{})`$)

(4.11)
$$q^{n(n1)/2}x^n(q1)^nD_q^n=\underset{0}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^mq^{m(m1)/2}\left[\begin{array}{c}n\\ m\end{array}\right]_qD^{nm}$$

but the calculations are unnecessarily complicated. However a lovely formula was pointed out to the author by J. Cigler, based on his article $`(\mathrm{})`$ Monatshefte für Mathematik, 88 (1979), 87-105, and we give the result here with his proof.

###### THEOREM 4.1.

(Cigler) The $`a_{nk}`$ in (4.10) can be written in the form

(4.12)
$$D^n=\underset{0}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\begin{array}{c}n\\ m\end{array}\right]_q(q1)^mx^mq^{m(m1)/2}D_q^m$$

To prove this one begins with the formula

(4.13)
$$x^n=\underset{0}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\begin{array}{c}n\\ m\end{array}\right]_q(x1)(xq)\mathrm{}(xq^{m1})$$

$$D^n=\underset{0}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\begin{array}{c}n\\ m\end{array}\right]_q(D1)(Dq)\mathrm{}(Dq^{m1})$$

(note here e.g. $`x^m(x^1;q)_m=(x1)(xq)\mathrm{}(xq^{m1})`$). Then to show (4.12) one checks that $`(D1)(Dq)\mathrm{}(Dq^{m1})=(q1)^mq^{m(m1)/2}x^mD_q^m`$ and this is immediate via verification on $`x^r`$ for $`r=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$.
Now write in (4.4)

(4.14)
$$0=e_q(xq^nz)e^{\xi (t,z)}p_{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{})z^{\mathrm{}}D^n\tau _q$$

$$e_{1/q}(xq^{m+1}z)e^{\xi (t^{},z)}p_k(\stackrel{~}{})z^kD^{m+1}\tau _qdz$$

Let $`t^{}t+y`$ and $`tty`$ so $`e^\xi e^\xi ^{}exp(2y_iz^i)`$ and then we are faced with powers of z in $`e_q(xq^nz)`$ and $`e_{1/q}(xq^{m+1}z)=1/e_q(xq^{m+1}z)`$. Here one could write for example $`e_q(xz)=exp(_1^{\mathrm{}}[(1q)^kx^kz^k/k(1q^k)]`$ and $`nm1=s`$ so that

(4.15)
$$logD^ne_q(xz)logD^{m+1}e_q(xz)=\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1q)^kx^kz^k}{k(1q^k)}q^{(m+1)k}(q^{sk}1)=\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_k^{ms}(q)x^kz^k$$

This would introduce a term ($`b_k=b_k^{ms}`$)

(4.16)
$$exp(\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_k^{ms}(q)x^kz^k=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_\nu (b_k)(xz)^\nu $$

into the integrand of (4.14). For completeness we indicate the calculations involving (4.18). Thus from (4.14) we get

(4.17)
$$\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_\nu (b_k)x^\nu z^\nu \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_r(2y)z^r\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{})z^{\mathrm{}}D^n\tau _q(ty)\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_k(\stackrel{~}{})z^kD^{m+1}\tau _q(t+y)dz=0$$

We cannot use the bilinear form now unless $`n=m+1`$ (cf. (4.5)) but nevertheless one can write down a general residue formula. However the presence of the $`\nu `$ index complicates things horribly and produces an infinite number of terms in each equation since all $`\nu `$ come into play.
REMARK 4.1 It might be better to go directly to $`D_q`$ via (4.10) and use the rules derived after (4.4), namely (recall $`qDD_q=D_qD`$ and $`D_qD^1=q^1D_{1/q}`$)

(4.18)
$$D_q^ne_q(xz)=z^ne_q(xz);D_qe_{1/q}(xz)=zDe_{1/q}(xz)$$

$$D_q^ne_{1/q}(xz)=(1)^nz^nq^nD^ne_{1/q}(xz)$$

Note also

(4.19)
$$D_q\left(\frac{1}{e_q}\right)=\frac{e_qDe_q}{e_qDe_q}=\frac{D_qe_q}{e_qDe_q}=\frac{z}{De_q}$$

The problem is to find a nice expression for $`D^ne_q(xz)D^{m+1}e_{1/q}(xz)=D^ne_q/D^{m+1}e_q`$ and (4.15) gives one version; some calculations in this direction using interaction with $`D_q`$ are possible and we will discuss this further in a forthcoming paper. Another gambit is offered via  (second paper) where the Frenkel approach for KP is recast in terms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_qf(x)=f(qx)f(x)=(D1)f(x)`$. Thus

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_q^nf=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ k\end{array}\right)(D^{nk}\mathrm{\Delta }_q^kf)\mathrm{\Delta }_q^{nk}$$

for $`n𝐙`$. Defining

(4.20)
$$E_q(x,z)=exp\left(\frac{log(x)log(1+z)}{log(q)}\right)$$

there results $`\mathrm{\Delta }_qE_q=zE_q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_q^{}E_{1/q}=zE_{1/q}`$ where $`(a_i\mathrm{\Delta }_q^i)^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{1/q}^ia_i`$. Then qKP takes the form $`L=\mathrm{\Delta }_q+a_0+_1^{\mathrm{}}a_i\mathrm{\Delta }_q^i`$ with $`_iL=[L_+^j,L]`$ and $`\psi _q=E_q(x,z)exp(\xi )\tau _q(x,t[z^1])/\tau _q(x,t)`$; here $`\tau _q(x,t)=\tau (t+[[x]]_q)`$ where $`[[x]]_q=((1)^{k1}log(x)/klog(q))`$ for $`k1`$. Also formulas relating $`D_q^n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_q^k`$ should be simpler than those involving $`D^n`$ and $`D_q^k`$ given below in Theorem 4.2. $`\mathrm{}`$
REMARK 4.2. In keeping with Remark 2.1 we should determine now a formula for u in terms of $`D_q`$. Note for qKdV the formula in Remark is $`u=D_q_1(log\tau _q(x,t)\tau _q(qx,t))`$ so $`_1`$ is admitted. Thus we leave $`_1`$ and $`t_1`$ intact even though it is tempting to abandon them. To obtain a u formula we use (4.3) where

(4.21)
$$S=1_1log\tau _qD_q^1+\mathrm{}$$

and $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟑𝟑})L=SD_qS^1`$ or better $`LS=D_qS`$. We recall first from (2.11)

(4.22)
$$D_qf=DfD_q+(D_qf);D_q^1f=D^1fD_q^1+D^2D_qfD_q^1+\mathrm{}$$

Then consider

(4.23)
$$(D_q+a_0+a_iD_q^i)(1+\stackrel{~}{w}_1D_q^1+\stackrel{~}{w}_2D_q^2+\mathrm{})=$$

$$=(1+\stackrel{~}{w}_1D_q^1+\stackrel{~}{w}_2D_q^1+\mathrm{})D_q$$

There results

$$D_q+(D_q\stackrel{~}{w}_1)D_q^1+(D\stackrel{~}{w}_1)+(D\stackrel{~}{w}_2)D_Q^1+(D_q\stackrel{~}{w}_2)D_q^2+\mathrm{}+a_0+a_0\stackrel{~}{w}_1D_q^1+a_1D_q^1+\mathrm{}=$$

(4.24)
$$=D_q+\stackrel{~}{w}_1+\stackrel{~}{w}_2D_q^1+\mathrm{}$$

leading to

(4.25)
$$\stackrel{~}{w}_1=a_0+(D\stackrel{~}{w}_1);(D_q\stackrel{~}{w}_1)+(D\stackrel{~}{w}_2+a_0\stackrel{~}{w}_1+a_1=\stackrel{~}{w}_2$$

Consequently

(4.26)
$$a_0=\stackrel{~}{w}_1(D\stackrel{~}{w}_1);a_1=\stackrel{~}{w}_2(D\stackrel{~}{w}_2)\stackrel{~}{w}_1^2+\stackrel{~}{w}_1D\stackrel{~}{w}_1D_q\stackrel{~}{w}_1$$

###### THEOREM 4.2.

Instead of $`u=^2log\tau `$ as in KP one has a more complicated formula for qKP, namely

(4.27)
$$u=a_1=(1D)\left(\frac{(1/2)(_1^2_2)\tau _q}{\tau _q}\right)\left(\frac{_1\tau _q}{\tau _q}\right)^2+\frac{_1\tau _q}{\tau _q}D\left(\frac{_1\tau _q}{\tau _q}\right)+D_q\frac{_1\tau _q}{\tau _q}$$

Note for $`q1`$ this reduces to $`(\tau /\tau )=^2log\tau `$ as desired. The formula can be rewritten as

(4.28)
$$u=(q1)xD_q\left(\frac{p_2(\stackrel{~}{})\tau _q}{\tau _q}\right)+\frac{_1\tau _q}{\tau _q}(q1)xD_q\left(\frac{_1\tau _q}{\tau _q}\right)+D_q\left(\frac{_1\tau _q}{\tau _q}\right)$$

## 5. ZERO CURVATURE

We go back now to Examples 2.1 and 2.2 and ask whether one can produce qKP type equations from a first order differential calculus (FODC) of some sort. One can (and we will later do this) of course look at differential calculi on a quantum plane or q-deformed Heisenberg algebra which would produce $`D_q`$ or $`D_{q^2}`$ operators in all variables. First however let us try to link $`D_q`$ in the x variable with y and t as “ordinary” variables subject to various noncommutativity relations among the differentials. Consider first the Burger’s equation as in Example 2.1.

###### EXAMPLE 5.1.

Try e.g. $`xdx=q^2dxx`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ style as in ) with $`[dx,t]=adt,[dx,dt]=0=(dt)^2=(dx)^2`$, and $`[dt,x]=adt`$ for consistency. Then $`dx^n=[[n]]_{q^2}x^{n1}dx=[[n]]_{q^2}dxx^{n1}`$; we write this here as $`_qx^ndx`$ (recall $`[[n]]_{q^2}=(q^{2n}1)/(q^21)`$). Further take $`dtt=tdt`$ so

(5.1)
$$df=_qfdx+(a+1)f_tdt$$

Try $`A=wdt+udx`$ as before so

(5.2)
$$dA=(_qw+(a+1)u_t)dxdt$$

For $`A^2`$ we note that $`xt=tx`$ is compatible with the conditions above and e.g. $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟑𝟒})wdtwdt=w(x,t)w(x+a)(dt)^2=0`$ while for $`udxudx`$ one notes $`dxf(x)=D^2fdx`$ while $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟑𝟓})dxt^m=t^mdx+mat^{m1}dt`$ implies that $`dxu=D_x^2udx+aD_x^2u_tdt`$. This leads to

(5.3)
$$A^2=[w(x,t)w(x+a,t)+uaD_x^2u_t+uD_x^2w]dtdx$$

Hence $`dA+A^2=F=0`$ requires

(5.4)
$$w(x,t)w(x+a,t)+auD_x^2u_t+uD_x^2w+_qw+(a1)u_t=0$$

Note if $`q1`$ one obtains $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟑𝟔})w^2+uw+w_x+u_t=0`$ which for $`w=u_x`$ implies $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟑𝟕})u_x^2+uu_x+u_{xx}+u_t=0`$ which is a kind of perturbation of the Burger’s equation by a $`(u_x)^2`$ term (constants can be adjusted by changes of variables etc.) $`\mathrm{}`$

###### EXAMPLE 5.2.

Consider next the q-plane situation

(5.5)
$$(dx)^2=(dt)^2=0;xtqtx=0;dxdt=q^1dtdx;xdx=q^2dxx;$$

$$xdt=qdtx+(q^21)dxt;tdx=qdxt;tdt=q^2dtt$$

Then

(5.6)
$$df=D_t^1_q^xfdx+_q^tfdt$$

(with $`_q`$ as in Example 5.1). Then $`A=udx+wdt`$ yields

(5.7)
$$dA+A^2=0q_q^tu+D_t^1_q^xw+uD_x^2D_t^2w$$

$$\frac{wqt}{x}[D_x^1D_t^1wD_x^3D_t^1w]qwD_x^1D_t^2u=0$$

For $`qq^1`$ evidently $`_qf=[f(q^2x)f(x)]/(q^21)x[f(q^2x)f(x)]/(q^21)x`$ and we write this latter as $`\widehat{}_q`$. This gives

(5.8)
$$q^1\widehat{}_q^tu+D_t\widehat{}_q^xw+uD_x^2D_t^2wq^1wD_xD_t^2u\frac{wt}{qx}[D_xD_twD_x^3D_tw]=0$$

Note that as $`q1`$ (5.8) becomes

(5.9)
$$_tu+_xw+wwu=0$$

Taking $`w=u_x`$ one has

(5.10)
$$u_t+u_{xx}+u_xuu_x=0u_t+uu_x+u_{xx}u_x=0$$

which is again a kind of perturbed Burger’s equation with perturbation $`u_x`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

REMARK 5.1. What should a q-Burger’s equation look like and how do we produce it by zero curvature conditions as indicated? Based on Example 2.1 one might consider a candidate equation as

(5.11)
$$\widehat{}_q^tw+a\widehat{}_q^xw^2+b(\widehat{}_q^x)^2w=0$$

with suitable factors of $`D_x,D_t`$ inserted. Consider then in (5.8) a substitution $`w=q\widehat{}_q^xu`$; this leads to

(5.12)
$$q^1\widehat{}_q^tu+aD_t(\widehat{}_q^x)^2uaq^1\widehat{}_q^xu(D_xD_t^2u)=aD_x^2D_t^2\widehat{}_q^xu+$$

$$+\frac{ta^2}{qx}(\widehat{}_q^xu)D_xD_t(1D_x^2)\widehat{}_q^xu$$

which is a perturbation of (5.11) for example involving powers of $`\widehat{}_q^xu`$.$`\mathrm{}`$
REMARK 5.2. We note also the Cole-Hopf transformation for Burger’s equation. Thus given $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟑𝟖})u_t+2uu_x+\alpha u_{xx}=0`$ one can write

(5.13)
$$u=\alpha \frac{\psi _x}{\psi }=\alpha (log(\psi ));u_x=\alpha ^2(log(\psi ));u_{xx}=\alpha ^3(log(\psi ))$$

Then $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟑𝟗})\alpha _t_xlog(\psi )+\alpha ^2(\psi _x/\psi )^2\alpha ^2^3log(\psi )=0`$. But

(5.14)
$$\left(\frac{\psi _x}{\psi }\right)^3log(\psi )=\left(\frac{\psi _{xx}}{\psi }\right)$$

Consequently for $`\alpha <0`$

(5.15)
$$\alpha _t_xlog(\psi )\alpha ^2(\psi _{xx}/\psi )=0\psi _t\alpha \psi _{xx}=c\psi (=0forc=0)$$

If there is an additional term $`\beta u_x`$ in (A38) then the same method gives rise to $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟒𝟎})\psi _t\alpha \psi _{xx}=\beta \psi _x`$ which can be treated with the same facility as the case $`\beta =0`$. In any event one reduces matters to heat equations and a q-Cole-Hopf transformation should exist.$`\mathrm{}`$
REMARK 5.3. These examples may yet go somewhere but perhaps suffer from the imposed partially canonical structure based on $`xdx=q^2dxx`$ (cf. ). Let us be more simple minded now and work from the qkDv model where

(5.16)
$$L^2=D_q^2+(q1)xuD_q+u;u=D_q_1log[\tau (x,t)D\tau (x,t)]$$

We will broach this matter later using zero curvature ideas for KdV. For now consider situations related to Burger’s equation and try to see what are some good models for q-differential equations. For KdV (cf. ) the zero curvature condition is $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟒𝟏})_mB_n_nB_m[B_n,B_m]=0`$ based on $`_nL^2=[B_n,L^2]`$ where $`B_n=L_+^n`$. Here $`L=_q+s_0+s_1_q^1+\mathrm{}`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟒𝟐})u_1=(q1)xu=s_0+D(s_0)`$. One knows $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟒𝟑})_tu=(_qu)(_q^2s_0)(_qs_0^2)`$ where $`_qD_q`$ here. Further from (A42) one has $`(q1)xu=(q1)x_1_q(log\tau +log(D\tau ))=s_0+Ds_0`$ which in fact implies $`(\mathrm{𝐀𝟒𝟒})s_0=(q1)x_1_qlog\tau `$ (note $`qDD_q=D_qD`$ so $`D(x_1_qlog\tau )=x_1qDD_qlog\tau =x_1_qDlog\tau `$). Hence in principle we can compute the qKdV equation via (A43) but it is complicated. Thus (recall $`_q(fg)=Df_qg+(_qf)g`$)

(5.17)
$$_qs_0=(q1)_1[qx_q^2log\tau +_qlog\tau ];_q^2s_0=$$

$$=(q1)_1[q^2x_q^3log\tau +q_q^2log\tau +_q^2log\tau ]$$

and

$$s_0^2=(q1)^2x^2(_1_qlog\tau )^2;_qs_0^2=(q1)^2[q^2x^2_q(_q_qlog\tau )^2+\frac{q^21}{q1}x(_1_qlog\tau )^2];$$

(5.18)
$$_q(_1_qlog\tau )^2=[D(_1_qlog\tau )]_q(_q_qlog\tau )+_q(_1_qlog\tau )(_1_qlog\tau )$$

This makes it appear feasible only to use the bilinear or some other Hirota form to deal with qKdV. The expression (A43) is not good in terms of u. We will return to these matters later.$`\mathrm{}`$