text:
# Weakly multiplicative coactions of quantized function algebras

## 1 Weakly multiplicative coactions

margin:   coinvs

First, we identify a condition that is frequently satisfied by coactions even when they are not algebra maps, and which guarantees that the coinvariants form a subalgebra.

Let $`A`$ be a $`k`$-algebra and let $`𝒪`$ be a Hopf algebra over $`k`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta },S`$ and $`\epsilon `$ denote the comultiplication, antipode and counit maps of $`𝒪`$, respectively. If $`\beta :AA𝒪`$ is a right coaction, then we say that $`\beta `$ is left weakly multiplicative if $`\beta (ab)=\beta (a)\beta (b)`$ for all $`bA`$, provided that $`\beta (a)=a1`$. Similarly, $`\beta `$ is right weakly multiplicative if $`\beta (ab)=\beta (a)\beta (b)`$ for all $`bA`$, provided that $`\beta (b)=b1`$. The following trivial lemma shows that it is useful to identify when a right coaction is left or right weakly multiplicative.

###### Lemma 1.1

Let $`A`$ be a $`k`$-algebra and let $`𝒪`$ be a Hopf algebra over $`k`$. If $`\beta :AA𝒪`$ is either a left or right weakly multiplicative right coaction then the set of coinvariants $`A^{\beta \text{-co-}𝒪}=\{cA\beta (c)=c1\}`$ forms a subalgebra of $`A`$.

* Proof. All that needs to be proved is that the product of two coinvariants are a coinvariant. Let $`a,b`$ be coinvariants, so that $`\beta (a)=a1`$ and $`\beta (b)=b1`$. Then $`\beta (ab)=\beta (a)\beta (b)=(a1)(b1)=ab1`$, as required, by using the left or right weakly multiplicative condition, as appropriate. $`\mathrm{}`$

Next, we show how to construct some left or right weakly multiplicative right coactions which, in general, are not algebra homomorphisms.

We fix the following notation. Let $`A`$ be a $`k`$-algebra and let $`𝒪`$ be a Hopf algebra over $`k`$. Suppose that $`\lambda :A𝒪A`$ is a left coaction and that $`\rho :AA𝒪`$ is a right coaction, and that both $`\lambda `$ and $`\rho `$ are algebra homomorphisms. Suppose further that $`\lambda `$ and $`\rho `$ commute, in the sense that $`(\lambda \mathrm{id})\rho =(\mathrm{id}\rho )\lambda `$.

Define

$$\alpha :=(\mathrm{id}m)\tau _{132}(S\mathrm{id}\mathrm{id})(\lambda \mathrm{id})\rho :AA𝒪,$$
(1)
and

$$\beta :=(\mathrm{id}m)(\tau \mathrm{id})(S\mathrm{id}\mathrm{id})(\lambda \mathrm{id})\rho :AA𝒪$$
(2)
where $`S`$ is the antipode of $`𝒜`$, while $`\tau _{132}`$ is the map that sends $`abc`$ to $`bca`$, and $`\tau `$ is the flip $`abba`$. We will show that $`\alpha `$ is a right weakly multiplicative coaction, and that $`\beta `$ is a left weakly multiplicative coaction.

###### Lemma 1.2

In the above notation, the maps $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are right coactions.

* Proof. We do the computations for $`\alpha `$. The computations for $`\beta `$ are similar. First, to show that $`\alpha `$ is a coaction, we have to show that $`(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })\alpha =(\alpha \mathrm{id})\alpha `$ and that $`(\mathrm{id}\epsilon )\alpha =\mathrm{id}_A`$. The commutativity assumption on $`\lambda `$ and $`\rho `$ make it possible to use the Sweedler notation. Note that in this notation, the formula for $`\alpha `$ is $`\alpha (a)=_{(a)}a_0a_1S(a_1)`$. Thus, $`(\alpha \mathrm{id})\alpha (a)=_{(a)}a_0a_1S(a_1)a_2S(a_2)`$. Now, $`(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })\alpha (a)=(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })(_{(a)}a_0a_1S(a_1))=_{(a)}a_0\mathrm{\Delta }(a_1S(a_1))=_{(a)}a_0\left\{\mathrm{\Delta }(a_1)\mathrm{\Delta }(S(a_1))\right\}=_{(a)}a_0\left\{(a_1a_2)(S(a_1)S(a_2))\right\}=_{(a)}a_0a_1S(a_1)a_2S(a_2)`$, as required.

Next, $`(\mathrm{id}\epsilon )\alpha (a)=(\mathrm{id}\epsilon )(_{(a)}a_0a_1S(a_1))=_{(a)}a_0\epsilon (a_1)\epsilon (S(a_1))=_{(a)}a_0\epsilon (a_1)\epsilon (a_1)=_{(a)}\epsilon (a_1)a_0\epsilon (a_1)=_{(a)}a_0\epsilon (a_1)=_{(a)}a_0\epsilon (a_1)=a`$, as required. Thus, $`\alpha `$ is a coaction. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 1.3

In the above notation, the coaction $`\alpha `$ is right weakly multiplicative and the coaction $`\beta `$ is left weakly multiplicative. In particular, the sets of coinvariants $`A^{\alpha \text{-co-}𝒪}`$ and $`A^{\beta \text{-co-}𝒪}`$ are subalgebras.

* Proof. The proofs are similar to \[4, Lemma 2.2\] and \[7, Proposition 1.1\]. We give the proof for $`\alpha `$, the proof for $`\beta `$ is similar. Let $`a,bA`$ and suppose that $`\alpha (b)=b1`$. Then, $`\alpha (ab)=_{(ab)}(ab)_0(ab)_1S((ab)_1)=_{(a)}_{(b)}a_0b_0a_1b_1S(b_1)S(a_1)=_{(a)}(a_0a_1)(_{(b)}b_0b_1S(b_1))(1S(a_1))=_{(a)}(a_0a_1)(b1)(1S(a_1))=_{(a)}(a_0a_1S(a_1))(b1)=\alpha (a)\alpha (b)`$; so that $`\alpha `$ is right weakly multiplicative. Now, apply Lemma 1.1. $`\mathrm{}`$

In  coactions that are not algebra homorphisms are constructed in this way, and their coinvariants are calculated. In , for example, $`A=𝒪=𝒪(GL_q(N))`$, and $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ are two possible quantum deformations of the conjugation coaction. Explicit generators and the structure of the two subalgebras of coinvariants were determined for the case when $`q`$ is not a root of unity. The commutativity (and a vector space isomorphism) of these coinvariant subalgebras was explained recently in ; it was shown to follow from the fact that $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$ is coquasitriangular, and an interpretation of coinvariants via cocommutativity conditions (see Section 4). However, in  (and in ) the connection between these two possible quantum deformations $`\alpha ,\beta `$ of the conjugation coaction is not considered. This is done in the next section of this paper for coquasitriangular Hopf algebras.

## 2 The coquasitriangular case

margin:   coquasi

Recall, from \[10, 10.1.1\], that a bialgebra $`𝒪`$ is coquasitriangular if there exists a linear form $`𝐫:𝒪𝒪k`$ such that the following conditions hold:
(i) $`𝐫`$ is convolution invertible with inverse $`\overline{𝐫}:𝒪𝒪k`$; that is, $`𝐫\overline{𝐫}=\overline{𝐫}𝐫=\epsilon \epsilon `$ on $`𝒪𝒪`$,
(ii) $`m^{\mathrm{op}}=𝐫m\overline{𝐫}`$ on $`𝒪𝒪`$,
(iii) $`𝐫(m\mathrm{id})=𝐫_{13}𝐫_{23}`$ and $`𝐫(\mathrm{id}m)=𝐫_{13}𝐫_{12}`$ on $`𝒪𝒪𝒪`$,
where $`m^{\mathrm{op}}(ab)=ba,m(ab)=ab,𝐫_{12}(abc)=𝐫(ab)\epsilon (c),𝐫_{23}(abc)=\epsilon (a)(bc)`$ and $`𝐫_{13}(abc)=\epsilon (b)(ac)`$, for $`a,b,c𝒪`$. The map $`𝐫`$ is known as a universal $`r`$-form of $`𝒪`$.

In Sweedler notation, condition (i) is

$$𝐫(a_1,b_1)\overline{𝐫}(a_2,b_2)=\overline{𝐫}(a_1,b_1)𝐫(a_2,b_2)=\epsilon (a)\epsilon (b);$$

and conditions (ii) and (iii) are

$`ba`$ $`={\displaystyle 𝐫(a_1,b_1)a_2b_2\overline{𝐫}(a_3,b_3)}`$
$`𝐫(ab,c)`$ $`={\displaystyle 𝐫(a,c_1)𝐫(b,c_2)}`$
$`𝐫(a,bc)`$ $`={\displaystyle 𝐫(a_1,c)𝐫(a_2,b)}`$
for $`a,b,c𝒪`$. Here, we are thinking of $`𝐫`$ as a bilinear form $`𝒪\times 𝒪k`$, and $`𝐫(a,b)=𝐫(ab)`$.

###### Proposition 2.1

Let $`𝒪`$ be a coquasitriangular Hopf algebra. Suppose that $`A`$ is an algebra and that $`\lambda :A𝒪A`$ and $`\rho :AA𝒪`$ are algebra homomorphisms that are left and right coactions, respectively, and that $`\lambda `$ and $`\rho `$ commute. Suppose that $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are defined as in the previous section. Then $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are isomorphic coactions.

* Proof. Let $`𝐫`$ be a universal $`r`$-form for $`𝒪`$, with convolution inverse $`\overline{𝐫}`$. Define $`\psi :AA`$ by $`\psi (v)=_{(v)}𝐫(S(v_1),v_1)v_0`$.

First we show that $`\psi `$ is a vector space isomorphism, by giving an explicit inverse $`\varphi `$. Define $`\varphi :AA`$ by $`\varphi (v)=_{(v)}\overline{𝐫}(S(v_1),v_1)v_0`$. Then,

$`\varphi (\psi (v))`$ $`=\varphi ({\displaystyle \underset{(v)}{}}𝐫(S(v_1),v_1)v_0)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{(v)}{}}𝐫(S(v_2),v_2)\overline{𝐫}(S(v_1),v_1)v_0`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{(v)}{}}\epsilon (S(v_1))v_0\epsilon (v_1)`$
$`=v,`$
and, similarly, one checks that $`\psi (\varphi (v))=v`$; so that $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$ are inverse linear transformations.

Next, we check that $`\psi `$ intertwines with $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$; that is, $`\alpha \psi =(\psi \mathrm{id})\beta `$. An equivalent condition to (ii) above is the requirement that $`𝐫(a_1,b_1)a_2b_2=𝐫(a_2,b_2)b_1a_1`$, for $`a,b𝒪`$, see \[10, p332, equation (5)\]. Applying this with $`a=S(v_1)`$ and $`b=v`$, and noting that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(S(v_1))=S(v_1)S(v_2)`$, we obtain $`𝐫(S(v_1),v_1)S(v_2)v_2=𝐫(S(v_2),v_2)v_1S(v_1)`$. Thus,

$`\alpha (\psi (v))`$ $`=\alpha ({\displaystyle \underset{(v)}{}}𝐫(S(v_1),v_1)v_0)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{(v)}{}}𝐫(S(v_2),v_2)v_0v_1S(v_1)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{(v)}{}}v_0𝐫(S(v_2),v_2)v_1S(v_1)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{(v)}{}}v_0𝐫(S(v_1),v_1)S(v_2)v_2`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{(v)}{}}𝐫(S(v_1),v_1)v_0S(v_2)v_2`$
$`=(\psi \mathrm{id})(\beta (v))`$
for $`vA`$; that is, $`\alpha \psi =(\psi \mathrm{id})\beta `$, as required. $`\mathrm{}`$

It is now easy to check that $`\beta \varphi =(\varphi \mathrm{id})\alpha `$ and that $`vA`$ is a $`\beta `$-coinvariant if and only if $`\psi (v)`$ is an $`\alpha `$-coinvariant.

In Section 4, we will see in examples that there is often a natural grading present on the algebra $`A`$, and that this induces a grading on the subalgebras of coinvariants for $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. The maps $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$ respect these gradings, and so the subalgebras of coinvariants automatically have the same Hilbert series. However, the maps $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$ are not algebra homomorphisms in general (nor are their restrictions to the coinvariant subalgebras).

## 3 Coinvariant subalgebras are finitely generated

margin:   cofingen

Next, we identify conditions that will guarantee that the coinvariants of a weakly multiplicative coaction form a finitely generated algebra.

Recall that a Hopf algebra $`𝒪`$ is cosemisimple if any $`𝒪`$-comodule decomposes as the direct sum of irreducible subcomodules, \[10, 11.2.1\]. An equivalent condition for $`𝒪`$ to be cosemisimple is given in terms of Haar functionals.

###### Definition 3.1

A linear functional $`h`$ on $`𝒪`$ is left invariant if $`(\mathrm{id}h)\mathrm{\Delta }(a)=h(a)1`$, for all $`a𝒪`$. Similarly, $`𝒪`$ is right invariant if $`(h\mathrm{id})\mathrm{\Delta }(a)=h(a)1`$, for all $`a𝒪`$.

A Hopf algebra $`𝒪`$ is cosemisimple if and only if there exists a unique left and right invariant linear functional $`h`$ on $`𝒪`$ such that $`h(1)=1`$, \[10, 11.2.1, Theorem 13\]. Such a functional is then called the Haar functional of $`𝒪`$. In Sweedler notation, the Haar functional satisfies $`h(a)1=_{(a)}a_1h(a_2)=_{(a)}h(a_1)a_2`$ for all $`a𝒪`$.

Our aim is to show that for suitable left or right weakly multiplicative right coactions $`\beta `$ of a cosemisimple Hopf algebra $`𝒪`$ the coinvariants of $`\beta `$ form a finitely generated subalgebra.

###### Lemma 3.2

Let $`𝒪`$ be a cosemisimple Hopf algebra, with Haar functional $`h`$, and let $`V`$ be a $`k`$-vector space such that $`\beta :VV𝒪`$ is a right coaction. Set $`\pi :=(\mathrm{id}h)\beta :VV`$. Then (i) $`\pi (V)V^{\beta \text{-co-}𝒪}`$, (ii) $`\pi (v)=v`$ for all $`vV^{\beta \text{-co-}𝒪}`$ and (iii) $`\pi ^2=\pi `$.

* Proof. (i) Let $`vV`$. Note that $`\pi (v)=(\mathrm{id}h)\beta (v)=_{(v)}v_0h(v_1)`$. Hence,

$`\beta (\pi (v))`$ $`=\beta ({\displaystyle \underset{(v)}{}}v_0h(v_1))={\displaystyle \underset{(v)}{}}v_0v_1h(v_2)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{(v)}{}}v_0h(v_1)1=({\displaystyle \underset{(v)}{}}v_0h(v_1))1`$
$`=\pi (v)1,`$
as required. (Note that the second equality is justified by the fact that $`\beta (\mathrm{id}h)\beta =(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{id}h)(\beta \mathrm{id})\beta =(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{id}h)(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })\beta `$.)

(ii) Let $`vV^{\beta \text{-co-}𝒪}`$. Then $`\pi (v)=(\mathrm{id}h)\beta (v)=(\mathrm{id}h)\{v1\}=vh(1)=v`$.

(iii) Let $`vV`$. Then $`\pi (v)V^{\beta \text{-co-}𝒪}`$ by (i); so the result follows by (ii). $`\mathrm{}`$

Thus, $`\pi :=(\mathrm{id}h)\beta `$ is a projection from $`V`$ onto $`V^{\beta \text{-co-}𝒪}`$, cf. \[10, 11.2.2, Corollary 19\] and the comment following that result.

###### Lemma 3.3

Let $`A`$ be a $`k`$-algebra and $`𝒪`$ be a cosemisimple Hopf algebra over $`k`$. Suppose that $`\beta :AA𝒪`$ is a left weakly multiplicative right coaction with $`R:=A^{\beta \text{-co-}𝒪}`$. Set $`\pi :=(\mathrm{id}h)\beta `$. Then $`\pi `$ is a left $`R`$-module epimorphism from $`A`$ to $`R`$; that is, $`\pi (A)=R`$ and $`\pi (ba)=b\pi (a)`$ for all $`aA`$ and $`bR`$.

* Proof. Parts (i) and (ii) of the previous lemma show that $`\pi (A)=R`$. Let $`bR`$ and $`aA`$. Then

$`\pi (ba)`$ $`=(\mathrm{id}h)\{\beta (ba)\}=(\mathrm{id}h)\{\beta (b)\beta (a)\}`$
$`=(\mathrm{id}h)\{(b1)({\displaystyle \underset{(a)}{}}a_0a_1)\}=(\mathrm{id}h)\{({\displaystyle \underset{(a)}{}}ba_0a_1\}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{(a)}{}}ba_0h(a_1)=b\{{\displaystyle \underset{(a)}{}}a_0h(a_1)\}`$
$`=b\pi (a),`$
so that $`\pi `$ is an $`R`$-module homomorphism. $`\mathrm{}`$

The following proposition is well-known; we give a proof for completeness.

###### Proposition 3.4

Suppose that $`R=R_0R_1`$ is an $``$-graded subring of a right noetherian ring $`A`$. Suppose that there exist an epimorphism $`\pi :AR`$ of left $`R`$-modules, such that $`\pi (A)=R`$ and $`\pi (R_0)=R_0`$. Then there exist homogeneous elements $`r_1,\mathrm{},r_sR`$, of positive degree, such that $`R=_{uM}uR_0`$, where $`M`$ is the multiplicative semigroup generated by $`1,r_1,\mathrm{},r_s`$. In particular, $`R=R_0r_1,\mathrm{},r_s`$ as a ring.

* Proof. Set $`R^+:=R_1R_2\mathrm{}`$. Then $`R^+A`$ is a right ideal of the right noetherian ring $`A`$; so there are homogeneous elements $`r_iR^+`$, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},s`$, with $`R^+A=r_1A+\mathrm{}+r_sA`$. Observe that $`RR_0+R^+A`$. We claim that $`R=_{uM}uR_0`$, where $`M`$ is the multiplicative semigroup generated by $`1,r_1,\mathrm{},r_s`$. Note that $`R_0_{uM}uR_0`$. Assume that $`n>0`$ and that $`R_m_{uM}uR_0`$ for each $`0m<n`$. Now

$$R_nR=\pi (R)\pi (R_0+R^+A)=R_0+\pi (\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}r_iA)R_0+\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}r_i\pi (A)=R_0+\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}r_iR.$$

Let $`rR_n`$. Then there exist $`r_0R_0`$ and $`x_iR`$ with $`r=r_0+_{i=1}^sr_ix_i`$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that the $`x_i`$ are homogeneous and that each $`r_ix_iR_n`$. Thus, for each $`i`$, we have $`x_iR_m`$ for some $`m<n`$, since $`r_iA^+`$. By the inductive hypothesis, each $`x_i_{uM}uR_0`$ and the result follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 3.5

Let $`A=A_0A_1`$ be a right noetherian $``$-graded $`k`$-algebra with $`A_0=k`$ and let $`𝒪`$ be a cosemisimple Hopf algebra over $`k`$. Suppose that $`\beta :AA𝒪`$ is a left weakly multiplicative right coaction such that $`\beta (A_i)A_i𝒪`$ for each $`i`$. Then $`A^{\beta \text{-co-}𝒪}`$ is a subalgebra of $`A`$ that is finitely generated as a $`k`$-algebra.

* Proof. Note that $`R:=A^{\beta \text{-co-}𝒪}`$ is a subalgebra of $`A`$, by Lemma 1.1. Set $`R_i:=RA_i`$ and note that $`R=R_0R_1\mathrm{}`$, since $`\beta (A_i)A_i𝒪`$. Set $`\pi :=(\mathrm{id}h)\beta `$. Then $`\pi `$ is a left $`R`$-module epimorphism, by Lemma 3.3. The result now follows from Proposition 3.4. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.6

The obvious modification of Theorem 3.5 holds for a left noetherian algebra endowed with a right weakly multiplicative right coaction.

## 4 Coinvariants of quantum groups in FRT-bialgebras

margin:   frt

Examples of coactions $`\alpha ,\beta `$ studied in Section 1 are naturally associated to quantized algebras of functions on the simple Lie groups $`SL(N)`$, $`O(N)`$, $`Sp(N)`$. Let us briefly recall their construction due to Faddeev-Reshetikhin-Takhtajan ; see \[10, Chapter 9\] for a detailed presentation.

Take the free associative algebra $`x_{ij}`$ in $`N^2`$ generators $`x_{ij}`$, $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},N`$. Fix an $`N^2\times N^2`$ matrix $`R`$ with complex entries $`R_{ij}^{mn}`$, $`i,j,m,n=1,\mathrm{},N`$. Let $`𝒜(R)`$ be the quotient algebra of $`x_{ij}`$ modulo the two-sided ideal generated by

$$\underset{k,l}{}R_{kl}^{ji}x_{km}x_{ln}=\underset{k,l}{}x_{ik}x_{jl}R_{mn}^{lk},i,j,m,n=1,\mathrm{},N.$$
(3)
Since this ideal is generated by homogeneous elements (with respect to the standard grading of the free algebra), the algebra $`𝒜(R)`$ is graded, the generators $`x_{ij}𝒜(R)`$ having degree $`1`$. There is a unique bialgebra structure on $`𝒜(R)`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(x_{ij})=\underset{k}{}x_{ik}x_{kj},\epsilon (x_{ij})=\delta _{ij},$$
(4)
where $`\delta _{ii}=1`$, and $`\delta _{ij}=0`$ for $`ij`$. Note that the comultiplication and the counit respect the grading. The bialgebra $`𝒜(R)`$ is called the coordinate algebra of the quantum matrix space associated with $`R`$, or briefly, the FRT-bialgebra. It is shown in  that if $`R`$ is lower (or upper) triangular, then $`𝒜(R)`$ is a noetherian algebra.

For the rest of this section we assume that $`q^{}`$ is not a root of unity, and that $`R`$ is the R-matrix of the vector representation of one of the Drinfeld-Jimbo algebras $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_N)`$, $`U_q(𝔰𝔬_N)`$ with $`N=2n`$, $`U_{q^{1/2}}(𝔰𝔬_N)`$ with $`N=2n+1`$, $`U_q(𝔰𝔭_N)`$ with $`N=2n`$. See \[10, 9.2, 9.3\] for the explicit formulae for $`R`$; for the case of $`𝔰𝔩_N`$, the relations (3) will be given in Section 5, (9). For each of these cases $`𝒜:=𝒜(R)`$ contains a distinguished central group-like element $`Q`$ (for the case of $`𝔰𝔩_N`$, $`Q`$ is the quantum determinant, and $`Q`$ is a quadratic element in the other cases, given explicitly in \[10, 9.3.1\]), such that the quotient bialgebra $`𝒪:=𝒜(R)/Q1`$ has a unique Hopf algebra structure. The Hopf algebra $`𝒪`$ is denoted by $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$, $`𝒪(O_q(N))`$, $`𝒪(Sp_q(N))`$ in the respective cases, and is called the coordinate algebra of the quantum special linear group, orthogonal group, and symplectic group, respectively. Furthermore, $`𝒪(O_q(N))`$ contains a group-like element $`D`$ (similar to the quantum determinant). The quotient Hopf algebra $`𝒪(O_q(N))/D1`$ is denoted by $`𝒪(SO_q(N))`$, and is called the coordinate algebra of the quantum special orthogonal group (cf. ).

From now on $`𝒪`$ stands for any of $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$, $`𝒪(O_q(N))`$, $`𝒪(SO_q(N))`$, $`𝒪(Sp_q(N))`$, and $`\pi :𝒜𝒪`$ denotes the natural homomorphism from the corresponding FRT-bialgebra. If $`q`$ is transcendental over $``$, then $`𝒪`$ is cosemisimple by . The cosemisimplicity of $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$ is known under the weaker assumption that $`q`$ is not a root of unity, see  (or  combined with our Section 5). It is well known that the bialgebras $`𝒜`$, $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$, $`𝒪(O_q(N))`$, $`𝒪(Sp_q(N))`$ are coquasitriangular, see \[10, 10.1.2\].

Set

$$\lambda :=(\pi \mathrm{id})\mathrm{\Delta }:𝒜𝒪𝒜,$$

$$\rho :=(\mathrm{id}\pi )\mathrm{\Delta }:𝒜𝒜𝒪.$$

Clearly $`\lambda `$ is a left coaction, $`\rho `$ is a right coaction, and both $`\lambda `$ and $`\rho `$ are algebra homomorphisms. Moreover, $`\lambda `$ and $`\rho `$ commute by the coassociativity of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. So we are in the setup of Section 1, and the formulae (1), (2) of Section 1 define the right coactions $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ of $`𝒪`$ on $`𝒜`$. First we observe that the coinvariants can be interpreted independently from the coactions $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ as follows.

###### Proposition 4.1

For $`f𝒜`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }(f)=f_1f_2`$ we have

* $`f`$ is an $`\alpha `$-coinvariant if and only if $`f_1\pi (f_2)=f_2\pi (f_1)`$.
* $`f`$ is a $`\beta `$-coinvariant if and only if $`f_1f_2=f_2S^2(\pi (f_1))`$.

* Proof. This is a straightforward modification of the proof of \[4, Theorem 2.1\] and \[3, Lemma 1.1\]. $`\mathrm{}`$

As an application of our results, properties of the subalgebras of $`\alpha `$-coinvariants and $`\beta `$-coinvariants in $`𝒜`$ are summarized in the following theorem.

###### Theorem 4.2

Let $`𝒪`$ be any of $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$, $`𝒪(O_q(N))`$, $`𝒪(Sp_q(N))`$, and let $`𝒜`$ be the corresponding FRT-bialgebra. Then

* the sets of coinvariants $`𝒜^{\alpha \text{-co-}𝒪}`$ and $`𝒜^{\beta \text{-co-}𝒪}`$ are graded subalgebras of $`𝒜`$;
* the algebras $`𝒜^{\alpha \text{-co-}𝒪}`$ and $`𝒜^{\beta \text{-co-}𝒪}`$ are commutative.

Assume in addition that $`q`$ is transcendental over $``$ (or $`𝒪=𝒪(SL_q(N))`$ and $`q`$ is not a root of unity). Then

* $`𝒜^{\alpha \text{-co-}𝒪}`$ and $`𝒜^{\beta \text{-co-}𝒪}`$ are finitely generated subalgebras of $`𝒜`$;
* the graded algebras $`𝒜^{\alpha \text{-co-}𝒪}`$ and $`𝒜^{\beta \text{-co-}𝒪}`$ have the same Hilbert series.

* Proof. (i) The coinvariants form a subalgebra by Proposition 1.3. This is a graded subalgebra, since the comultiplication on $`𝒜`$ is homogeneous.

(ii) Both $`𝒜`$ and $`𝒪`$ are coquasitriangular bialgebras. Moreover, by \[10, 10.1.2, Theorem 9\] we know that there is a universal r-form $`𝐫`$ on $`𝒜`$ which induces a universal r-form on $`𝒪`$ denoted by the same symbol $`𝐫`$. Thus we have

$$𝐫(x,y)=𝐫(\pi (x),\pi (y))\text{ for }x,y𝒜.$$
(5)
Assume that $`a,b`$ are $`\gamma `$-coinvariants, where $`\gamma `$ is either $`\alpha `$ or $`\beta `$. Let $`T`$ denote the identity operator on $`𝒪`$ when $`\gamma =\alpha `$, and the automorphism $`S^2`$ of $`𝒪`$ when $`\gamma =\beta `$. Note that

$$𝐫(T(x),T(y))=𝐫(x,y)\text{ for any }x,y𝒪$$
(6)
by \[10, 10.1.1, Proposition 2.(v)\]. Then we have

$$a_1a_2=a_2T(\pi (a_1))\text{ and }b_1b_2=b_2T(\pi (b_1))$$

by Proposition 4.1. Applying $`(\pi \mathrm{id}\mathrm{id})(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{id})`$ to these equalitites we get

$`{\displaystyle \pi (a_1)a_2\pi (a_3)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \pi (a_2)a_3T(\pi (a_1))}`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \pi (b_1)b_2\pi (b_3)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \pi (b_2)b_3T(\pi (b_1))}.`$ (8)
We have

$$ba=𝐫(a_1,b_1)a_2b_2\overline{𝐫}(a_3,b_3)$$

by condition (ii) in the defining properties of $`𝐫`$ (see Section 2). By (5), (7), (8), (6), and the defining property (i) of $`𝐫,\overline{𝐫}`$ in Section 2, the right hand side of the above equality equals

$`{\displaystyle 𝐫(\pi (a_1),\pi (b_1))a_2b_2\overline{𝐫}(\pi (a_3),\pi (b_3))}`$ $`={\displaystyle }𝐫(\pi (a_2),\pi (b_2))a_3b_3\overline{𝐫}(T(\pi (a_1)),T(\pi (b_1))`$
$`={\displaystyle }𝐫((a_2,b_2)a_3b_3\overline{𝐫}(a_1,b_1)`$
$`={\displaystyle \epsilon (a_1)\epsilon (b_1)a_2b_2}=ab,`$
thus $`ab=ba`$ for all $`\gamma `$-coinvariants $`a,b`$.

(iii) The additional assumptions on $`q`$ ensure that $`𝒪`$ is cosemisimple. As we noted above, $`𝒜`$ is both left and right Noetherian by , since the R-matrix is triangular. The homogeneous components of $`𝒜`$ are subcomodules with respect to $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. Hence we may apply Theorem 3.5 to conclude that $`𝒜^{\alpha \text{-co-}𝒪}`$ and $`𝒜^{\beta \text{-co-}𝒪}`$ are finitely generated graded subalgebras.

(iv) $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are isomorphic coactions by Proposition 2.1; the map $`\psi `$ in its proof is homogeneous on $`𝒜`$, hence the restrictions $`\alpha _d`$, $`\beta _d`$ of $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ to the homogeneous component $`𝒜_d`$ of $`𝒜`$ are also isomorphic coactions. The cosemisimplicity of $`𝒪`$ implies that the dimension of the space of $`\alpha `$-coinvariants in $`𝒜_d`$ equals the multiplicity of the trivial corepresentation in $`\alpha _d\beta _d`$, which equals the dimension of the space of $`\beta `$-coinvariants in $`𝒜_d`$. In other words, the graded algebras $`𝒜^{\alpha \text{-co-}𝒪}`$ and $`𝒜^{\beta \text{-co-}𝒪}`$ have the same Hilbert series. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 4.3

The statements (i) and (iii) of Theorem 4.2 (and their proofs) are clearly valid for $`𝒪=𝒪(SO_q(N))`$ and the corresponding FRT-bialgebra.

###### Remark 4.4

The above theorem was motivated by the main result of . In that paper $`𝒪=𝒪(GL_q(N))`$, the coordinate algebra of the quantum general linear group, $`𝒜=𝒪(M_q(N))`$, the coordinate algebra of $`N\times N`$ quantum matrices, and $`\pi `$ is the natural embedding of $`𝒪(M_q(N))`$ into $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$. The main result of  is that if $`q`$ is not a root of unity, then $`𝒜^{\alpha \text{-co-}𝒪}`$ and $`𝒜^{\beta \text{-co-}𝒪}`$ are $`N`$-variable commutative polynomial algebras, with explicitly given generators. (This result implies the case of $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$ of Theorem 4.2, as we shall show in Theorem 5.9.) Moreover, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ extend to a coaction of the Hopf algebra $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$ on itself, and the subalgebras of coinvariants can be explicitly described. It was observed later in  that the commutativity of these coinvariant subalgebras follows from the coquasitriangularity of $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$, and the interpretation of the coinvariants in terms of certain cocommutativity conditions. The proof of statement (ii) in Theorem 4.2 is a modification of the proof of \[2, Proposition 2.1\].

###### Remark 4.5

Theorem 3.5 can be applied to conclude the finite generation property of various other subalgebras of coinvariants arising in this context. For example, the algebra $`𝒜^{\lambda \text{-co-}𝒪}`$ of $`\lambda `$-coinvariants and the algebra $`𝒜^{\rho \text{-co-}𝒪}`$ of $`\rho `$-coinvariants are also finitely generated, provided that $`𝒪`$ is cosemisimple. See also the problem studied in .

There are unique right coactions $`\overline{\alpha }`$, $`\overline{\beta }`$ of the Hopf algebra $`𝒪`$ on itself such that $`\pi `$ intertwines between $`\alpha `$ and $`\overline{\alpha }`$, and $`\pi `$ intertwines between $`\beta `$ and $`\overline{\beta }`$. In Sweedler’s notation we have

$$\overline{\beta }(x)=x_2S(x_1)x_2\text{ and }\overline{\alpha }(x)=x_2x_3S(x_1).$$

Since $`\overline{\beta }`$ is the formal dual of the adjoint action (see \[12, p.36\]), it is called the adjoint coaction of $`𝒪`$; the version $`\overline{\alpha }`$ was introduced in . Recall that $`x𝒪`$ is cocommutative if $`x_1x_2=x_2x_1`$, Following , we call $`x𝒪`$ $`S^2`$-cocommutative if $`x_1x_2=x_2S^2(x_1)`$. The $`S^2`$-cocommutative elements coincide with the $`\overline{\beta }`$-coinvariants (see \[3, Lemma 1.1\], whereas the cocommutative elements coincide with the $`\overline{\alpha }`$-coinvariants (see \[4, Theorem 2.1\]).

###### Corollary 4.6

Let $`𝒪`$ be any of $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$, $`𝒪(O_q(N))`$, $`𝒪(SO_q(N))`$, $`𝒪(Sp_q(N))`$, and assume that $`q`$ is transcendental over $``$ (or $`𝒪=𝒪(SL_q(N))`$ and $`q`$ is not a root of unity). Then each of the cocommutative elements and the $`S^2`$-cocommutative elements in $`𝒪`$ forms a finitely generated subalgebra.

* Proof. Since $`𝒪`$ is cosemisimple by our assumption on $`q`$, the subspace of $`\alpha `$-coinvariants (respectively $`\beta `$-coinvariants) in $`𝒜`$ is mapped onto the subspace of $`\overline{\alpha }`$-coinvariants (respectively $`\overline{\beta }`$-coinvariants) under the morphism $`\pi `$ of $`𝒪`$-comodules. Moreover, $`\pi `$ is an algebra homomorphism. So the statement follows from Theorem 4.2 and the above remark. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 4.7

It was proved in \[2, Theorem 2.2\] that the coquasitriangularity of $`𝒪`$ implies that the two subalgebras in Corollary 4.6 are commutative. A vector space isomorphism between them was also established there.

## 5 $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$ is a central extension of $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$

margin:   gl-sl

Over an algebraically closed base field, any element of the general linear group $`GL(N)`$ can be written as the product of a scalar matrix and an element from $`SL(N)`$. This and the centrality of scalar matrices imply a strong relationship between the representation theories of $`GL(N)`$ and $`SL(N)`$. Our aim is to establish such a link between the corepresentation theories of $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$ and $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$. By a corepresentation we mean a right coaction of a Hopf algebra on a vector space.

We work now over an arbitrary base field $`k`$, and $`q`$ is a non-zero element of $`k`$. Recall that the FRT-bialgebra of $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$ is $`𝒪(M_q(N))`$, the coordinate algebra of quantum $`N\times N`$ matrices, which is the $`k`$-algebra generated by $`N^2`$ indeterminates $`x_{ij}`$, for $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},N`$, subject to the following relations.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill x_{ij}x_{il}& =& qx_{il}x_{ij},\hfill \\ \hfill x_{ij}x_{kj}& =& qx_{kj}x_{ij},\hfill \\ \hfill x_{il}x_{kj}& =& x_{kj}x_{il},\hfill \\ \hfill x_{ij}x_{kl}x_{kl}x_{ij}& =& (qq^1)x_{il}x_{kj},\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
for $`1i<kN`$ and $`1j<lN`$. The algebra $`𝒪(M_q(N))`$ is an iterated Ore extension, and so a noetherian domain. The quantum determinant, $`\mathrm{det}_q`$, is the element

$$\mathrm{det}_q:=\underset{\sigma S_N}{}(q)^{l(\sigma )}x_{1,\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}x_{N,\sigma (N)}.$$

The element $`\mathrm{det}_q`$ is central in $`𝒪(M_q(N))`$ (see, for example, \[14, Theorem 4.6.1\]), and by adjoining its inverse we get the coordinate algebra of the quantum general linear group

$$𝒪(GL_q(N)):=𝒪(M_q(N))[\mathrm{det}_q^1].$$

The algebra $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$ is a Hopf algebra, the comultiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ being given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x_{ij})=_{k=1}^Nx_{ik}x_{kj}`$. The ideal generated by $`(\mathrm{det}_q1)`$ is a Hopf ideal of $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$. The coordinate algebra of the quantum special linear group $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$ is defined as the quotient Hopf algebra of $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$ modulo the ideal generated by $`(\mathrm{det}_q1)`$. Denote by $`\pi `$ the natural homomorphism $`𝒪(GL_q(N))𝒪(SL_q(N))`$, and set $`y_{ij}:=\pi (x_{ij})`$.

The coordinate algebra of the multiplicative group of $`k`$ is the algebra of Laurent polynomials $`k[z,z^1]`$. It is another Hopf algebra homomorphic image of $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$: the homomorphism $`\pi _Z:𝒪(GL_q(N))k[z,z^1]`$ is given by $`\pi _Z(x_{ii})=z`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$ and $`\pi _Z(x_{ij})=0`$ if $`ij`$. This can be paraphrased by saying that the multiplicative group of $`k`$ is a quantum subgroup of the quantum general linear group. Moreover, it is a central quantum subgroup in the following sense:

$$\tau (\pi _Z\mathrm{id})\mathrm{\Delta }=(\mathrm{id}\pi _Z)\mathrm{\Delta }$$
(10)
where $`\tau :k[z,z^1]𝒪(GL_q(N))𝒪(GL_q(N))k[z,z^1]`$ is the flip $`\tau (ab)=ba`$.

Consider $`\eta :k[z,z^1]k[\zeta \zeta ^N=1]`$, the natural homomorphism with $`\eta (z)=\zeta `$ and kernel $`z^N1`$. It follows from $`\pi _Z(\mathrm{det}_q)=z^N`$ that $`\eta \pi _Z`$ factors through $`\pi `$, so we have a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒪(GL_q(N))& \stackrel{\pi _Z}{}& k[z,z^1]\\ \pi & & \eta \\ 𝒪(SL_q(N))& \stackrel{\pi _\zeta }{}& k[\zeta \zeta ^N=1]\end{array}$$
(11)
of Hopf algebra homomorphisms. The map $`\pi _\zeta `$ is given explicitly by $`\pi _\zeta (y_{ii})=\zeta `$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$ and $`\pi _\zeta (y_{ij})=0`$ for $`ij`$. Equation (10) implies

$$\tau (\pi _\zeta \mathrm{id})\mathrm{\Delta }=(\mathrm{id}\pi _\zeta )\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(12)
The relevance of the properties (10) and (12) is shown by Proposition 5.1 below. We state it in a general form. Let $`\kappa :𝒪𝒞`$ be a homomorphism of Hopf algebras such that

$$\tau (\mathrm{id}\kappa )\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒪=(\kappa \mathrm{id})\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒪.$$
(13)
Assume that $`𝒞`$ is cosemisimple. Then $`𝒞`$ decomposes as a direct sum $`_{\phi \mathrm{\Lambda }}𝒞(\phi )`$ of simple subcoalgebras, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a complete list of irreducible corepresentations of $`𝒞`$, and $`𝒞(\phi )`$ is the coefficient space of $`\phi `$ (cf. ). Any $`𝒪`$-corepresentation $`\psi :VV𝒪`$ ‘restricts’ to a $`𝒞`$-corepresentation $`(\mathrm{id}\kappa )\psi :VV𝒞`$. Therefore $`V`$ decomposes as $`_{\phi \mathrm{\Lambda }}V_\phi `$, where

$$V_\phi =\{vV(\mathrm{id}\kappa )\psi (v)V𝒞(\phi )\}.$$

In other words, $`V_\phi `$ is the sum of simple $`𝒞`$-subcomodules of $`V`$ on which the $`𝒞`$-corepresentation is isomorphic to $`\phi `$. In particular, $`𝒪=_{\phi \mathrm{\Lambda }}𝒪_\phi `$, where

$$𝒪_\phi =\{f𝒪(\mathrm{id}\kappa )\mathrm{\Delta }(f)𝒪𝒞(\phi )\}.$$

###### Proposition 5.1

Any summand $`V_\phi `$ in $`V=_{\phi \mathrm{\Lambda }}V_\phi `$ is an $`𝒪`$-subcomodule, and $`\psi (V_\varphi )V_\phi 𝒪_\phi `$. In particular, $`𝒪_\phi `$ is a subcoalgebra, and $`V_\phi `$ is an $`𝒪_\phi `$-comodule.

* Proof. First we show that $`\psi (V_\phi )V𝒪_\phi `$. Assume that $`vV_\phi `$. Write $`\psi (v)=_ia_ib_i`$ with $`\{a_i\}`$ linearly independent, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(b_i)=_jb_i^jc_i^j`$. Then

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}a_ib_i^j\kappa (c_i^j)`$ $`=(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{id}\kappa )(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })\psi (v)`$
$`=(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{id}\kappa )(\psi \mathrm{id})\psi (v)`$
$`=(\psi \mathrm{id})(\mathrm{id}\kappa )\psi (v)`$
is contained in $`V𝒪𝒞(\phi )`$. It follows that $`_jb_i^j\kappa (c_i^j)`$ is contained in $`𝒪𝒞(\phi )`$ for all $`i`$; that is, $`b_i𝒪_\phi `$ for all $`i`$. This means that $`\psi (v)V𝒪_\phi `$.

So for $`vV_\phi `$,

$$u:=(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{id}\kappa )(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })\psi (v)V𝒪_\phi 𝒞(\phi ).$$
(14)
Write $`\psi (v)`$ as a sum $`\psi (v)=_{\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }}w_\nu `$ with $`w_\nu V_\nu 𝒪_\phi `$. By (13) we have

$`(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{id}\kappa )(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })\psi `$ $`=(\mathrm{id}\tau )(\mathrm{id}\kappa \mathrm{id})(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })\psi `$
$`=(\mathrm{id}\tau )(\mathrm{id}\kappa \mathrm{id})(\psi \mathrm{id})\psi `$
$`=(\mathrm{id}\tau )[((\mathrm{id}\kappa )\psi )\mathrm{id}]\psi .`$
Thus $`u=_{\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }}u_\nu `$, where

$$u_\nu =(\mathrm{id}\tau )[((\mathrm{id}\kappa )\psi )\mathrm{id}](w_\nu )V_\nu 𝒪_\phi 𝒞(\nu ).$$
(15)
By combining (14) and (15) we conclude that $`u_\nu =0`$ if $`\nu \phi `$, hence $`w_\nu =0`$ if $`\nu \phi `$. That is, $`\psi (v)=w_\phi V_\phi 𝒪_\phi `$, as we claimed.

If we apply the result just proved for the corepresentation $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`𝒪`$, we get that $`𝒪_\phi `$ is a subcoalgebra. $`\mathrm{}`$

The Hopf algebra $`k[z,z^1]`$ is the sum of one-dimensional subcoalgebras, hence it is cosemisimple, and all its irreducible corepresentations are $`1`$-dimensional. Up to isomorphism, the irreducible corepresentations are $`kkk[z,z^1]`$, $`11z^d`$, as $`d`$ ranges over the set of integers. Apply Proposition 5.1 with $`𝒪=𝒪(GL_q(N))`$, $`𝒞=k[z,z^1]`$, and $`\kappa =\pi _Z`$. We get

$$𝒪(GL_q(N))=\underset{d}{}𝒪(GL_q(N))_d,$$

where

$$𝒪(GL_q(N))_d=\{f𝒪(GL_q(N))(\mathrm{id}\pi _Z)\mathrm{\Delta }(f)=fz^d\}$$

is a subcoalgebra of $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$. For an arbitrary corepresentation $`\psi :VV𝒪(GL_q(N))`$ we have

$$V=\underset{d}{}V_d,\text{ where }V_d:=\{vV(\mathrm{id}\pi _Z)\psi (v)=vz^d\}.$$
(16)
By Proposition 5.1, $`V_d`$ is a subcomodule, moreover, it is an $`𝒪(GL_q(N))_d`$-comodule.

Similarly, $`k[\zeta \zeta ^N=1]`$ is cosemisimple, its irreducible corepresentations are indexed by $`/(N)`$, the set of residue classes modulo $`N`$: with $`\overline{d}/(N)`$, the residue class of $`d`$ modulo $`N`$, we associate the one-dimensional corepresentation $`11\zeta ^d`$. Apply Proposition 5.1 with $`𝒪=𝒪(SL_q(N))`$, $`𝒞=k[\zeta \zeta ^N=1]`$, and $`\kappa =\pi _\zeta `$. So

$$𝒪(SL_q(N))=\underset{d/(N)}{}𝒪(SL_q(N))_{\overline{d}},$$

where

$$𝒪(SL_q(N))_{\overline{d}}=\{f𝒪(SL_q(N))(\mathrm{id}\pi _\zeta )\mathrm{\Delta }(f)=f\zeta ^d\}$$

is a subcoalgebra of $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$. Any corepresentation $`\psi :VV𝒪(SL_q(N))`$ decomposes as

$$V=\underset{\overline{d}/(N)}{}V_{\overline{d}},\text{ where }V_{\overline{d}}:=\{vV(\mathrm{id}\pi _\zeta )\psi (v)=v\zeta ^d\}.$$

By Proposition 5.1, $`V_{\overline{d}}`$ is a subcomodule, moreover, it is an $`𝒪(SL_q(N))_{\overline{d}}`$-comodule.

Let us introduce some terminology, based on on the above discussion. We say that an $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$-corepresentation $`\psi `$ on $`V`$ is homogeneous of degree $`d`$ if $`V=V_d`$; in this case $`V`$ is an $`𝒪(GL_q(N))_d`$-comodule. Similarly, we say that an $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$-corepresentation $`\psi `$ on $`V`$ is homogeneous of degree $`e/(N)`$ if $`V=V_e`$; in this case $`V`$ is an $`𝒪(SL_q(N))_e`$-comodule. Note that an indecomposable corepresentation of $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$ or $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$ is necessarily homogeneous.

Denote by $`\pi _d`$ the restriction of $`\pi `$ to $`𝒪(GL_q(N))_d`$. The diagram (11) implies that $`\pi _d`$ maps $`𝒪(GL_q(N))_d`$ into $`𝒪(SL_q(N))_{\overline{d}}`$. Our main aim is to show that $`\pi _d`$ is an isomorphism (of coalgebras) for all $`d`$. To see $`𝒪(GL_q(N))_d`$ more explicitly, note that for the generators of $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$ we have $`x_{ij}𝒪(GL_q(N))_1`$, $`\mathrm{det}_q^1𝒪(GL_q(N))_N`$, hence $`𝒪(GL_q(N))_d`$ is spanned by the elements $`w/\mathrm{det}_q^r`$, where $`w`$ is a monomial in the $`x_{ij}`$ of degree $`rN+d`$. The space $`𝒪(SL_q(N))_{\overline{d}}`$ is spanned by the monomials in the $`y_{ij}`$ whose degree is congruent to $`d`$ modulo $`N`$.

The tensor product of Hopf algebras becomes a Hopf algebra with obvious operations. Consider

$$:=𝒪(SL_q(N))k[z,z^1].$$

We shall identify $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$ with a Hopf subalgebra of $``$. The technical advantage of $``$ is that the $``$-grading

$$=\underset{d}{}_d=\underset{d}{}𝒪(SL_q(N))z^d$$

becomes visible. We have $`_d_m=_{d+m}`$, so $``$ is a graded algebra. From $`\mathrm{\Delta }(z)=zz`$ we get that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(_d)_d_d`$, so $`_d`$ is a subcoalgebra of $``$. Moreover, we have the obvious Hopf algebra surjections

$$\mathrm{id}\epsilon :=𝒪(SL_q(N))k[z,z^1]𝒪(SL_q(N))$$

and

$$\epsilon \mathrm{id}:=𝒪(SL_q(N))k[z,z^1]k[z,z^1],$$

where $`\epsilon `$ denotes the counit map of the appropriate Hopf algebra. The second surjection can be used to define the right coaction $`(\mathrm{id}_{}(\epsilon \mathrm{id}))\mathrm{\Delta }_{}:k[z,z^1]`$, and the grading on $``$ can be reinterpreted in terms of this $`k[z,z^1]`$-coaction as in (16):

$$_d=\{a(\mathrm{id}_{}(\epsilon \mathrm{id}))\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(a)=az^d\}.$$
(17)
###### Proposition 5.2

The map $`\iota :=\pi \pi _Z:𝒪(GL_q(N))𝒪(SL_q(N))k[z,z^1]`$ is an embedding of the Hopf algebra $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$ into $``$.

* Proof. Both $`\pi `$ and $`\pi _Z`$ are homomorphisms of Hopf algebras, hence so is $`\pi \pi _Z`$.

The only thing left to show is that $`\iota `$ is injective. Assume to the contrary that $`f`$ is a nonzero element of $`\mathrm{ker}(\iota )`$. Multiplying $`f`$ by an appropriate power of $`\mathrm{det}_q`$ we may assume that $`f𝒪(M_q(N))`$. Recall that $``$ is a $``$-graded algebra, and $`𝒪(M_q(N))`$ is also $``$-graded, the generators $`x_{ij}`$ having degree $`1`$. Since $`\iota (x_{ij})=y_{ij}z`$, the restriction of $`\iota `$ to $`𝒪(M_q(N))`$ is homogeneous. So all of the homogeneous components of $`f`$ are contained in $`\mathrm{ker}(\iota )`$. We may assume that $`f`$ itself is homogeneous of degree $`d`$. Then $`0=\iota (f)=\pi (f)z^d`$, implying that $`\pi (f)=0`$. Thus $`f`$ is a multiple of $`(\mathrm{det}_q1)`$. This is a contradiction, because no non-zero multiple of $`(det_q1)`$ in the domain $`𝒪(M_q(N))`$ is homogeneous. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 5.3

Clearly $`\iota (𝒪(GL_q(N)))`$ is the subalgebra of $``$ generated by $`y_{ij}z`$ ($`1i,jN`$) and $`1z^N`$. It is easy to see that $``$ is a free $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$-module of rank $`N`$ generated by the central elements $`1z^i`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},N1`$, but we shall not use this fact. As $`k`$-algebras, $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$ and $``$ are isomorphic by , where ring theoretic properties of $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$ are derived from this isomorphism. However, the algebra isomorphism $`𝒪(GL_q(N))𝒪(SL_q(N))k[z,z^1]`$ given in  is not a morphism of coalgebras. To relate the corepresentation theories, we need the Hopf algebra morphism $`\iota `$.

From now on we shall freely identify $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$ with $`\iota (𝒪(GL_q(N)))`$. It is easy to check on the generators that $`\pi `$ is the restriction to $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$ of the map $`\mathrm{id}\epsilon `$, and $`\pi _Z`$ is the restriction to $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$ of $`\epsilon \mathrm{id}`$. It follows from (17) that

$$𝒪(GL_q(N))_d=_d𝒪(GL_q(N)).$$

###### Proposition 5.4

The map $`\pi _d`$ is an isomorphism between the coalgebras $`𝒪(GL_q(N))_d`$ and $`𝒪(SL_q(N))_{\overline{d}}`$.

* Proof. By (11) we know that $`\pi _d`$ is a surjective coalgebra homomorphism. So we only need to show the injectivity. The restriction of $`\mathrm{id}\epsilon `$ to $`_d`$ is clearly a vector space isomorphism $`_d𝒪(SL_q(N))`$. Since $`\pi _d`$ is the restriction of $`\mathrm{id}\epsilon `$ to $`𝒪(GL_q(N))_d`$, it is also injective. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let us record the following trivial observation.

###### Lemma 5.5

Let $`D`$ be a subcoalgebra of a coalgebra $`C`$, and let $`\phi :VVC`$ be a corepresentation of $`C`$ such that $`\mathrm{im}(\phi )VD`$, so $`V`$ can be viewed as a $`D`$-comodule. Then a subspace $`W`$ of $`V`$ is a $`C`$-subcomodule if and only if $`W`$ is a $`D`$-subcomodule. In particular, $`V`$ is an irreducible (respectively indecomposable) $`C`$-comodule if and only if it is an irreducible (respectively indecomposable) $`D`$-comodule.

###### Corollary 5.6

(i) An indecomposable $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$-corepresentation $`\psi `$ of degree $`d`$ restricts to an indecomposable $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$-corepresentation $`(\mathrm{id}\pi )\psi `$ of degree $`\overline{d}`$.

(ii) Let $`\phi `$ be an indecomposable $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$-corepresentation of degree $`e/(N)`$. For $`d`$ with $`\overline{d}=e`$, define $`\phi ^{(d)}:=(\mathrm{id}\pi _d^1)\phi `$. Then $`\phi ^{(d)}`$ is an indecomposable $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$-corepresentation of degree $`d`$, such that its restriction $`(\mathrm{id}\pi )\phi ^{(d)}`$ is $`\phi `$.

* Proof. This is an immediate consequence of Proposition 5.4 and Lemma 5.5. $`\mathrm{}`$

In particular, by Corollary 5.6 any $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$-corepresentation $`\phi :VV𝒪(SL_q(N))`$ can be ‘lifted’ to an $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$-corepresentation $`\psi :VV𝒪(GL_q(N))`$, such that the restriction of $`\psi `$ to $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$ is $`\phi `$ (note that $`\psi `$ is not uniquely determined).

###### Proposition 5.7

Let $`\psi :VV𝒪(GL_q(N))`$ be a corepresentation of $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$, and consider its restriction $`\overline{\psi }:=(\mathrm{id}\pi )\psi `$ to $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$.

* $`\psi `$ is irreducible if and only if $`\overline{\psi }`$ is irreducible.
* $`\psi `$ is cosemisimple if and only if $`\overline{\psi }`$ is cosemisimple.

* Proof. (i) It is trivial that the irreducibility of $`\overline{\psi }`$ implies the irreducibility of $`\psi `$. For the converse, observe that if $`\psi :VV𝒪(GL_q(N))`$ is irreducible, then it is indecomposable, hence homogeneous of some degree $`d`$. In particular, it is an $`𝒪(GL_q(N))_d`$-comodule, and the result follows using the coalgebra isomorphism $`\pi _d`$ of Proposition 5.4, and Lemma 5.5.

(ii) Clearly $`\psi `$ is cosemisimple (that is, $`V`$ is the sum of simple subcomodules) if and only if its homogeneous components are cosemisimple. Thus we may assume that $`\psi `$ itself is homogeneous. Then the result immediately follows from the coalgebra isomorphism in Proposition 5.4 and Lemma 5.5, as above. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proposition 5.7 (ii) gives an alternative proof of the fact that $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$ is cosemisimple if and only if $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$ is cosemisimple. Actually, both of them are known to be cosemisimple if and only if $`q`$ is not a root of unity, see , , .

Next we draw a consequence on $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$-coinvariants, extending to the quantum case the well known relation between relative $`GL(N)`$-invariants and absolute $`SL(N)`$-invariants.

###### Proposition 5.8

Let $`\psi `$ be an $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$-corepresentation on $`V`$, and let $`\overline{\psi }:=(\mathrm{id}\pi )\psi `$ be its restriction to $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$. Then the subspace of $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$-coinvariants in $`V`$ equals

$$\underset{j}{}\{vV\psi (v)=v\mathrm{det}_q^j\}.$$

In particular, if $`\psi `$ is homogeneous of degree zero, then $`vV`$ is an $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$-coinvariant if and only if $`v`$ is an $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$-coinvariant.

* Proof. Consider the decomposition $`V=_dV_d`$ into the direct sum of homogeneous $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$-comodules. Obviously each summand $`V_d`$ is an $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$-subcomodule (with respect to $`\overline{\psi }`$). Therefore $`vV`$ is an $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$-coinvariant if and only if all the homogeneous components of $`v`$ are $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$-coinvariants. Thus we may restrict to the case when $`V=V_d`$ for some $`d`$. If there is a non-zero $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$-coinvariant in $`V_d`$, then $`d=jN`$ for an integer $`j`$, because $`1𝒪(SL_q(N))_{\overline{0}}`$. Assume that this is the case. We have $`\pi _d(\mathrm{det}_q^j)=1`$, and $`\pi _d`$ is a coalgebra isomorphism by Proposition 5.4. So the coefficient space (cf. ) of the $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$-comodule generated by $`v`$ is spanned by $`\mathrm{det}_q^j`$. Moreover, we have $`\psi (v)=v\mathrm{det}_q^j`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

For the rest of the paper we assume that $`k=`$, the field of complex numbers. As an application of Proposition 5.8, we deduce from the results of  an explicit description of the subsets of $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$-coinvariants in $`𝒪(M_q(N))`$ and $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$ with respect to the coactions $`\alpha ,\beta `$ defined in Section 4.

Fix an integer $`t`$ with $`1tN`$. Let $`I`$ and $`J`$ be subsets of $`\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ with $`|I|=|J|=t`$. The subalgebra of $`𝒪(M_q(N))`$ generated by $`x_{ij}`$ with $`iI`$ and $`jJ`$ can be regarded as an algebra of $`t\times t`$ quantum matrices, and so we can calculate its quantum determinant - this is a $`t\times t`$ quantum minor and we denote it by $`[I|J]`$. The quantum minor $`[I|I]`$ is said to be a principal quantum minor. We denote the sum of all the principal quantum minors of a given size $`i`$ by $`\sigma _i`$. Note that $`\sigma _1=x_{11}+\mathrm{}+x_{NN}`$ and that $`\sigma _N=\mathrm{det}_q`$. Consider also the weighted sums of principal minors $`\tau _i:=_Iq^{2w(I)}[I|I]`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$ (here $`w(I)`$ denotes the sum of the elements of $`I`$, and the summation ranges over all subsets $`I`$ of size $`i`$).

###### Theorem 5.9

Assume that $`q`$ is not a root of unity.

* The subset of $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$-coinvariants in $`𝒪(M_q(N))`$ with respect to $`\alpha `$ is an $`N`$-variable commutative polynomial subalgebra of $`𝒪(M_q(N))`$ generated by $`\sigma _i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$.
* The subset of $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$-coinvariants in $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$ with respect to $`\alpha `$ is an $`(N1)`$-variable commutative polynomial subalgebra of $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$ generated by $`\pi (\sigma _i)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N1`$.
* The subset of $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$-coinvariants in $`𝒪(M_q(N))`$ with respect to $`\beta `$ is an $`N`$-variable commutative polynomial subalgebra of $`𝒪(M_q(N))`$ generated by $`\tau _i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$.
* The subset of $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$-coinvariants in $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$ with respect to $`\beta `$ is an $`(N1)`$-variable commutative polynomial subalgebra of $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$ generated by $`\pi (\tau _i)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N1`$.

* Proof. Both $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are homogeneous of degree zero, so the subsets of $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$-coinvariants in $`𝒪(M_q(N))`$ are the same as for the corresponding $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$-coaction by Proposition 5.8. Hence (i) and (iii) follow from the main result of , describing the spaces of $`𝒪(GL_q(N))`$-coinvariants. The statements (ii) and (iv) are immediate consequences of (i) and (iii). Indeed, since $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$ is cosemisimple by our assumption on $`q`$, the subsets of $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$-coinvariants in $`𝒪(M_q(N))`$ are mapped by $`\pi `$ (which is a morphism of comodules) onto the corresponding subsets of coinvariants in $`𝒪(SL_q(N))`$. So the only thing left to show is that $`\pi (\sigma _i)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N1`$ are algebraically independent, and $`\pi (\tau _i)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N1`$ are algebraically independent. This follows from the observation that $`\mathrm{ker}(\pi )𝒪(M_q(N))^{\alpha \text{-co-}𝒪}=𝒪(M_q(N))^{\alpha \text{-co-}𝒪}(\mathrm{det}_q1)`$ and $`\mathrm{ker}(\pi )𝒪(M_q(N))^{\beta \text{-co-}𝒪}=(\mathrm{det}_q1)𝒪(M_q(N))^{\beta \text{-co-}𝒪}`$ by Lemma 3.3. $`\mathrm{}`$

M. Domokos: Rényi Institute of Mathematics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
P.O. Box 127, 1364 Budapest, Hungary
E-mail: domokos@renyi.hu, domokos@maths.ed.ac.uk
(Domokos is in Edinburgh until February 2004.)
T. H. Lenagan: School of Mathematics, University of Edinburgh,
James Clerk Maxwell Building, King’s Buildings, Mayfield Road,
Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, Scotland
E-mail: tom@maths.ed.ac.uk


format: text

text:
# Beable trajectories for revealing quantum control mechanisms

## 1 Introduction

Advances in pulse shaping for ultrafast lasers, fast detection techniques, and their integration via closed-loop algorithms have made it possible to control the dynamics of a variety of quantum systems in the laboratory. Excitation may be either in the strong or weak field regime, with the goal of obtaining some desired final state. Success in achieving that goal is gauged by a detected signal (*e.g.*, the mass spectrum in the case of selective molecular fragmentation), and this information is fed back into a learning algorithm , which alters the laser pulse shape for the next round of experiments. High duty cycles of $`0.1`$ seconds or less per control experiment make it possible to iterate this process many times and perform efficient experimental searches over a control parameter space defining the laser pulse shape.

As an example of this process, experiments have employed closed-loop methods for selective fragmentation and ionization of organic  and organometallic   compounds, as well as for enhancing optical response in solid-state and other chemical systems    . Yields of targeted species are typically enhanced considerably over those obtained by non-optimized methods. It is found that the optimal pulse shapes achieving these enhancements can be quite complicated, and understanding their physical significance has proven difficult. The same general observations also apply to the many optimal control design simulations carried out in recent years    .

The present paper will address the identification of control mechanisms in theoretical calculations as well as for direct application in the laboratory. In §2 we will first describe John Bell’s beable model for finite dimensional Hilbert spaces, in order to obtain a precise (but non-unique) definition of “mechanism” for quantum systems in terms of trajectories over their associated classical state spaces. For instance, in molecular systems a trajectory would take the form of a sequence of transitions that starts with a given initial molecular configuration and switches to another configuration at a distinct time $`t_1`$, and then to another at $`t_2`$, *etc.*—to be contrasted with a continuously changing superposition of many such configurations.

The means to numerically implement this mechanism concept is presented in §3. An application to the problem of population transfer for a model 7-level system is given in §4, which illustrates the usefulness of mechanism information in understanding control processes. We then show how the beable approach leads to the laboratory working relations (17) and (18), which make it possible to identify some basic aspects of control mechanisms directly from experimental data. We illustrate this process in §6 on simulated experimental data for the model 7-level system. The overall laboratory algorithm for extracting control mechanism information is condensed into a general-purpose procedure in §7.

## 2 Beables and quantum theory

Consider a control problem posed in terms of the quantum evolution

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{d}{dt}|\psi (t)=H(t)|\psi (t)$$
(1)
over a finite dimensional Hilbert space with basis $`|n`$ where $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. Here $`H(t)=H_0\mu E(t)`$ incorporates the effect of the control field $`E(t)`$, and we can explicitly follow the evolution of $`|\psi `$ into a desired final state $`|\psi (t_\mathrm{f})`$.

This paper is concerned with the question: what is the importance of a given sequence $`n_1n_2\mathrm{}`$ of actual transitions—or, more specifically, of a given trajectory defined as a continuous function $`n(t)`$ of time—in achieving the desired final state $`|\psi (t_\mathrm{f})`$? In other words, it is clear that the system *is* being driven into a desired state, but can we find a physical picture of *how* this is being accomplished?

A conventional answer to the question raised above, essentially that given by Bohr on first seeing Feynman’s path integral, is to reject the question as ill-posed because quantum mechanics is said to forbid consideration of precisely defined trajectories over the classical state space $`\{n\}`$. Nevertheless, it is well established that there exist dynamical models generating an ensemble of trajectories $`n(t)`$ whose statistical properties exactly match those associated with $`|\psi (t)`$ at each $`t`$. In the case of a continuous state space, the first such model was that of de Broglie, later rediscovered and completed by Bohm . They reintroduce classical-like particle trajectories into quantum theory by taking the probability current $`𝐉[\psi ]`$ to describe a statistical ensemble of real particles. So,

$$𝐯=\frac{𝐉}{|\psi |^2}=\mathrm{Re}\left\{\mathrm{i}\frac{\mathrm{}}{m}\frac{\psi (𝐱,t)}{\psi (𝐱,t)}\right\}$$
(2)
gives the velocity of a particle with mass $`m`$ and position $`𝐱`$ at time $`t`$, in de Broglie-Bohm (dBB) theory. The physical particle is taken to exist independently of, but also to have its motion determined by, the wavefunction $`\psi `$. The time evolution of $`\psi `$ itself is just given by the Schrodinger equation.

Bohm developed a full account of how ensembles of such classical-like particles could reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics. A basic issue is to compare $`\psi (𝐱,t)`$ with the statistical distribution $`P(𝐱,t)`$ describing an ensemble of particles evolving by (2). One can show that if the initial distribution of particles satisfies $`P(𝐱,0)=|\psi (𝐱,0)|^2`$, then $`P(𝐱,t)=|\psi (𝐱,t)|^2`$ will hold for all $`t>0`$. That is, if the ensemble is initially in the “quantum equilibrium” distribution given by $`|\psi (𝐱,0)|^2`$, the dynamics—(2) for the particles, and the Schrodinger equation for $`\psi `$—will preserve this equilibrium, consistent with the predictions of standard quantum theory. The result is easily generalized to arbitrary interacting $`N`$-particle systems by taking $`𝐱`$ as a point in the $`3N`$ dimensional configuration space.

In dBB theory the position representation has a special status. While one may still regard $`\psi `$ as a basis-independent object, the particle dynamics is given by (2) specifically in terms of $`𝐱|\psi `$ rather than $`𝐩|\psi `$ or some other representation. But, it is easy to formulate analogs of dBB theory in different bases. For instance, one might choose the momentum values $`𝐩`$ as the beables111Bell used the term “beables” rather than the misnomer “hidden variables” to distinguish them from conventional observables. of the theory, and the dBB trajectories $`𝐱(t)`$ would be replaced by momentum space trajectories $`𝐩(t)`$.

In the context of a finite dimensional Hilbert space with basis $`|n`$, the beables can be taken as the sites $`n`$ of the classical state space $`\{n\}`$ analogous to $`\{𝐱\}`$ or $`\{𝐩\}`$. Some law analogous to (2) must be given to generate beable trajectories $`n(t)`$ over the state space. Such trajectories would provide a physical picture of the quantum transitions induced by a control field $`E(t)`$.

In one such theory due to John Bell , trajectories arise from beables stochastically jumping between sites connected by non-zero Hamiltonian matrix elements. To define this Broglie-Bohm-Bell (BBB) theory, the probability for a beable to jump from site $`m`$ to a distinct site $`n`$, sometime in the interval $`(t,t+ϵ)`$, is taken as

$$T_{nm}(t)ϵ=\{\begin{array}{cc}2\mathrm{Re}\{z_{nm}(t)\}ϵ\hfill & \text{if Re}\{z_{nm}(t)\}>0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if Re}\{z_{nm}(t)\}0\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
where

$$z_{nm}(t)=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}H_{nm}\frac{\psi _n(t)^{}}{\psi _m(t)^{}}$$
(4)
and $`\psi _n=n|\psi `$, *etc.* To ensure normalization, the probability for a beable to stay at $`m`$ is thus given by $`1_n^{}T_{nm}(t)ϵ`$, where the primed sum excludes the diagonal term $`n=m`$. From (4), we find

$$\mathrm{Re}\{z_{nm}\}=\mathrm{Re}\{z_{mn}\}\frac{|\psi _n|^2}{|\psi _m|^2}$$
(5)
which implies through (3) that *either* $`T_{nm}(t)=0`$ *or* $`T_{mn}(t)=0`$ at any particular time $`t`$. Together with (1) this gives

$$\frac{d}{dt}|\psi _n|^2=\underset{m}{}2\text{Re}\{z_{nm}|\psi _m|^2\}=\underset{m}{}(T_{nm}|\psi _m|^2T_{mn}|\psi _n|^2)$$
(6)
as a type of master equation. Note that the $`T_{nm}`$ term contributes when Re$`\{z_{nm}\}>0`$, and the $`T_{mn}`$ term contributes when Re$`\{z_{nm}\}<0`$.

Now consider the probability distribution $`P_n(t)`$ of beables in state space generated by the jump rule (3). Accounting for the influx and outflux of beables at site $`n`$, we see $`P_n(t)`$ satisfies

$$\frac{d}{dt}P_n=\underset{m}{}(T_{nm}P_mT_{mn}P_n)$$
(7)
which is formally identical to (6). Thus, provided $`P_n(0)=|\psi _n(0)|^2`$, we are guaranteed $`P_n(t)=|\psi _n(t)|^2`$ for all $`t>0`$, which expresses the equivalence of BBB theory and ordinary quantum mechanics in terms of statistical predictions.

The answer to the initial question regarding the importance of a given trajectory in achieving the desired state $`|\psi (t_\mathrm{f})`$ is now very simple. The importance may be taken as just the probability of realizing that trajectory with the jump rule (3). We can express the final state population in terms of these path probabilities via the integral (path sum) version of (7):

$`P_{n_\mathrm{f}}(t_\mathrm{f})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝒫}{}}P_{n_0}(0)\mathrm{Prob}(𝒫)`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{Prob}(𝒫)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{pJ}{}}ϵT_{n_{p+1}n_p}{\displaystyle \underset{pJ}{}}\left(1ϵ_n^{}T_{nn_p}\right)`$
where $`\mathrm{Prob}(𝒫)`$ is the probability of realizing the path $`𝒫=(n_0,n_1,\mathrm{})`$ under (3), and $`n_p`$ gives the beable configuration at $`t=pϵ`$. The first sum is taken over all such paths ending on $`n_\mathrm{f}`$ at $`t=t_\mathrm{f}`$, and $`J[𝒫]=\{p|n_{p+1}n_p\}`$ defines the jump set.

The above argument for the equivalence of BBB theory and ordinary quantum mechanics ensures that the path probabilities $`\mathrm{Prob}(𝒫)`$ are consistent with the quantum distribution $`|\psi _n(t)|^2`$ governing observables. But, it should be noted that BBB theory is not unique in this regard. The rule (3) may be altered in non-trivial ways while preserving the master equation (6) . The definition (3) might even be changed in ways that do not preserve (6), if one is willing to relinquish a strict probability interpretation for the trajectories .

In general, there are many different ways to assign probabilities to trajectories that all result in the same time-dependent occupation probabilities $`P_n(t)`$. The predictions of quantum mechanics, therefore, cannot select a single assignment. This non-uniqueness at the root of quantum mechanism identification can be dealt with only by reference to the simplicity and explanatory power of a given mechanism definition. Below we adopt the definition (3).

## 3 Simulating beables in quantum control

An ultimate goal is to obtain dynamical mechanism information directly from experimental data associated with the closed-loop control field optimization, without pre-existing knowledge of the system Hamiltonian or wavefunction. Methods employing BBB theory for this purpose are presented in §5, but first we shall study control mechanisms for a model system whose Hilbert space and quantum evolution are given explicitly in numerical simulations.

Consider a quantum-optical system with level energies $`\mathrm{}\omega _n`$ and dipole moments $`\mu _{nm}`$. Applying an external laser field $`E(t)`$, the Hamiltonian in the interaction picture  is

$$H_I=E(t)\underset{nm}{}\mu _{nm}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega _{nm}t}|nm|$$
(9)
where $`\omega _{nm}\omega _n\omega _m`$. We will drop the subscript $`I`$ from now on. $`E(t)`$ is assumed to be given by an independent optimization algorithm designed to, for example, maximally transfer population from $`|n_\mathrm{i}`$ to $`|n_\mathrm{f}`$.

A simple second-order Schrodinger propagator was used to solve (1) in the interaction picture, relying on a factorization of the evolution operator as

$$𝒯\left\{\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}_0^tH(s)𝑑s}\right\}=\underset{p=0}{\overset{N1}{}}𝒯\left\{\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}_{t_p}^{t_{p+1}}H(s)𝑑s}\right\}$$
(10)
where $`t_p=pϵpt_\mathrm{f}/N`$ and $`𝒯`$ is the time-ordering symbol. Choosing a time step $`ϵ\mathrm{}/\mu E`$, we can approximate (10) by dropping the $`𝒯`$ operations on the right hand side and computing the integrals directly. In doing this an error is accrued per time step given by the Baker-Hausdorf identity $`\mathrm{e}^{A+B}=\mathrm{e}^A\mathrm{e}^B\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2}[A,B]+\mathrm{}}`$ as

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}_{t_p}^{t_{p+1}}_{t_p}^{t_{p+1}}[H(r),H(s)]𝑑r𝑑s\left(\frac{\mu E}{\mathrm{}}\right)^2ϵ^3\omega .$$
(11)
The right hand estimate is obtained by expanding $`H(r)`$ to first order about $`r=s`$ and noticing that the $`E^{}(s)`$ term in $`H^{}(s)`$ commutes with $`H(s)`$. The error (11) would generally dominate third order terms like $`(\mu Eϵ/\mathrm{})^3`$.

If the control field is given as $`E(t)=\mathrm{Re}\{_i\alpha _iE_i(t)\}`$, where

$$E_i(t)=A(t)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(\varphi (t)+\omega _i^\mathrm{c}t)}$$

with $`A(t)`$ and $`\varphi (t)`$ possibly adiabatic, we can evaluate $`H(s)𝑑s`$ by writing

$$_{t_p}^{t_{p+1}}\mu E_i(s)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega s}𝑑s\frac{\mu A(t_p)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi (t_p)}}{\mathrm{i}(\omega +\omega _i^\mathrm{c})}\left(\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(\omega +\omega _i^\mathrm{c})t_{p+1}}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(\omega +\omega _i^\mathrm{c})t_p}\right).$$
(12)
(Simply writing $`H(s)𝑑sϵH(t_p)`$ is not appropriate because we do not want to exclude weak field excitation, *i.e.* $`\mu E\mathrm{}\omega `$, so that $`\omega ϵ1`$ may hold.) Thus in the adiabatic case $`|\psi (t)`$ can be propagated in steps determined by $`A(t)`$ and $`\varphi (t)`$ rather than the phase factors $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega t}`$.

Consider the evolution of beable trajectories according to (3), which appears to require a time step small enough that each part of $`H`$, including the $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega t}`$ terms, not vary much over the step. Nevertheless, the total probability of jumping from $`m`$ to $`n`$ over $`(t_p,t_{p+1})`$ is given by the integral $`T_{nm}(s)𝑑s`$ over that range with $`(\mu Eϵ/\mathrm{})^2`$ corrections. Thus we can take an effective jump probability for the interval $`(t_p,t_{p+1})`$ as given by (3) with

$$z_{nm}(t_p)\frac{\psi _n(t_p)^{}}{\psi _m(t_p)^{}}\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}ϵ}_{t_p}^{t_{p+1}}H_{nm}(s)𝑑s$$
(13)
evaluated using (12). If $`\omega ϵ1`$ does not hold, care must be taken to extend the integration in (13) only over $`t(t_p,t_{p+1})`$ for which $`\mathrm{Re}\{z_{nm}(t)\}>0`$, leading to additional boundary terms in the phase difference part of (12). Moving the $`\psi ^{}`$ ratio outside the integral in (13) produces an error per time step of order

$$\frac{ϵ^2H}{\mathrm{}}\frac{\psi }{t}\left(\frac{\mu Eϵ}{\mathrm{}}\right)^2$$

which is again comparable to (11). Therefore beable trajectories may be propagated in steps determined by $`A(t)`$ and $`\varphi (t)`$, *i.e.* in sink with the Schrodinger propagator.

## 4 A model 7-level system: mechanism analysis of an optimal control design

The beable trajectory methodology for identification of control mechanisms will be illustrated with a 7-level system where $`\omega _n`$ and $`\mu _{nm}`$ are given in Fig. 1. The (non-adiabatic) control field $`E(t)`$ shown in Fig. 2 is obtained from a steepest descents algorithm over the space of field histories . It is optimized to transfer population from the ground state $`|0`$ to the highest excited state $`|6`$. By $`t=100`$ fs, the transfer is found to be completed with approximately 97% efficiency (see Fig. 3).

Together with the second-order Schrodinger propagator, using time step $`ϵ=.025`$ fs, an ensemble of $`N_{\mathrm{traj}}=10^5`$ beable trajectories is evolved, all starting in the ground state $`n=0`$ at $`t=0`$. At each time step, a given beable at site $`m`$ is randomly made either to jump to a neighboring site $`nm`$ according to the probabilities $`T_{nm}ϵ`$ given by (3) with (13), or else stay at $`m`$. Four sample trajectories are shown in Fig. 4. As a check, one can count the number of beables residing on each site $`n`$ at time $`t`$ to estimate the occupation probabilities $`P_n(t)`$ and verify that they match the quantum prescriptions $`|\psi _n(t)|^2`$. The finite-ensemble deviations are observed to be consistent with a $`(N_{\mathrm{traj}})^{1/2}`$ convergence law.

About 60% of the trajectories generated are found to involve four jumps, and of these the trajectories passing through sites $`n=2,5`$ are noticeably more probable than those passing through $`n=1,4`$. 6-jump trajectories comprise about 30% of the ensemble. And it becomes increasingly less likely to find trajectories with more and more jumps. The largest number of jumps observed in a single trajectory was 14. Three such trajectories occurred out of the ensemble total $`10^5`$.

A natural expectation is that the optimal field $`E(t)`$ would concentrate on the higher probability trajectories and not waste much effort on guiding highly improbable trajectories, such as the 14-jumpers, to the target state $`n=6`$, as the latter have essentially no impact on the control objective (final population of the target state). Interestingly, though, the vast majority of even the lowest probability trajectories are still guided to $`n=6`$. Apparently, the optimal field is able to coordinate its effect on low probability trajectories with that on other trajectories at no real detriment to the latter. We shall come back to this point later.

One way to conveniently categorize the large set of trajectories, each expressible as a sequence of time-labeled jumps $`(t_1,n_1)(t_2,n_2)\mathrm{}`$, is to drop the time labels, leaving only the “pathway” $`n_1n_2\mathrm{}`$. The importance of a given pathway is then computed as the frequency of trajectories associated with that pathway. Table 1 lists some important and/or interesting pathways and their probabilities.

Fig. 5 shows some typical trajectories associated with the first and fifth pathways listed in Table 1—involving 4 and 6 jumps respectively. $`E(t)`$ guides the 4-jumpers upward in energy, and they begin to arrive at $`n=6`$ around $`t=80`$ fs, early enough that stragglers can catch up but too late for the over-achievers of the group to head off elsewhere. This corresponds to the onset of heavy growth for $`|\psi _6(t)|^2`$ around $`t=80`$ fs (see Fig. 3). The 6-jumpers first reach $`n=6`$ around $`t=50`$ fs, but almost all fall back to $`n=5`$ by $`t=80`$ fs, reuniting with the 4-jumpers just as they begin to jump up to $`n=6`$. These 6-jumpers, along with other high-order contributions, thus explain the small surge in $`|\psi _6(t)|^2`$ between 50 and 80 fs. Another much smaller surge around $`t=30`$ fs and one still smaller around $`t=20`$ fs (see inset of Fig. 3) are attributable to 8-th and higher order trajectories “ringing” back and forth on $`56`$.

For $`t(70\text{ fs},80\text{ fs})`$, many of the 6-jumpers are at $`n=6`$ and need to be de-excited on the $`65`$ transition before they can jump back up to $`n=6`$. Simultaneously, many of the 4-jumpers are at $`n=5`$ and should not be prematurely excited on $`56`$, lest they not remain at $`n=6`$ through $`t=100`$ fs. The optimal field thus faces a conundrum: how to stimulate the $`26`$ transition preferentially for the 6-jumpers (in $`n=6`$) over the 4-jumpers (in $`n=5`$). The means by which this feat is accomplished may be understood by reference to the jump rule (3). $`E(t)`$ induces jumps through the explicit $`H_{nm}(t)`$ factor but also through the $`\psi ^{}`$ quotient, which depends on $`E(t)`$ through $`(\text{1})`$. In particular, (5) implies that at any one time $`t`$ jumps on this transition must be either all upward or all downward. The active direction is switched back and forth according to the sign of $`\mathrm{Re}\{z_{65}(t)\}`$.

Fig. 6 plots $`|E(t)|`$ and $`\mathrm{Re}\{z_{65}(t)\}`$, which controls the upward jump rate $`T_{65}(t)`$. For $`t(70\text{ fs},80\text{ fs})`$ one sees that when $`|E(t)|`$ is large, most often $`\mathrm{Re}\{z_{65}(t)\}`$ dips below zero, disallowing any upward jumps. The correlation coefficient between $`|E(t)|`$ and $`\mathrm{Re}\{z_{65}(t)\}`$ in this range is $`0.4955`$. On the other hand, the correlation between $`|E(t)|`$ and $`\mathrm{Re}\{z_{56}(t)\}`$, which controls downward jumping, is $`+0.4475`$ over the same range.

Looking at the trajectories in more detail, one notices a distinct bunching of jumps. Beables tend to jump together in narrow time bands, or else to abstain in unison from jumping. This behavior can be gauged by calculating the two-time jump-jump correlation function:

$$J_\mathrm{\Omega }^{(2)}(\tau )\frac{1}{N}\underset{p=0}{\overset{N1}{}}J_\mathrm{\Omega }(t_p)J_\mathrm{\Omega }(t_p+\tau )$$

where $`J_\mathrm{\Omega }(t)`$ is the number of jumps of type $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ occurring in $`(t,t+ϵ)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a subset of the entire ensemble of trajectories. For instance, the two-time function with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ taken as the set of jumps on the $`56`$ transition is plotted in Fig. 7. The fs time-scale oscillations correspond to the level splittings $`\omega _{nm}`$ and the dominant frequency components of $`E(t)`$. Enhanced correlations around $`\tau =0`$ correspond to the jump bunching noticeable in the trajectories. Two side-bands around $`\tau =\pm 40`$ fs are associated with 6-jump and higher order trajectories that go up, down, and up again on $`56`$ over the approximate time window $`(50\text{ fs},90\text{ fs})`$. This conclusion can be verified by computing two-time functions with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ specialized to particular pathways. Other much smaller features for $`|\tau |>60`$ fs (see inset of Fig. 7) are attributable to higher order trajectories ringing on $`56`$.

In general, the fs oscillations characteristic of these two-time functions show that $`E(t)`$ works in an essentially discrete way, turning on the flow of beables over a given transition and then turning it off with a duty cycle of $`2`$ fs. The associated bandwidth of $`0.5\text{ fs}^1`$ is small enough to discriminate between all non-degenerate $`\omega _{nm}`$ except between $`\omega _{35}(=\omega _{34})`$ and $`\omega _{56}(=\omega _{46})`$, which differ by only $`0.12\text{ fs}^1`$. This circumstance leaves effectively three distinguishable transitions. With a total time of 100 fs, the control field $`E(t)`$ can potentially enact roughly $`150`$ separate flow operations. The fact that trajectories with pathway probability $`1`$% are still almost always guided successfully to $`n=6`$ suggests that these $`150`$ operations are more than necessary to obtain the 97% success rate achieved by the optimal control algorithm in this simulation. It appears that the algorithm actively sweeps these aberrant trajectories back into the mainstream so as to maximize even their minute contribution to the control objective.

## 5 Control mechanism identification in the laboratory

Using these beable trajectory methods to extract mechanism information directly from closed-loop data is complicated by the fact that we cannot assume knowledge of a time-dependent wavefunction, Hamiltonian, or possibly even the energy level structure of the system. Frequently in the laboratory, the only available information consists of final state population measurements and knowledge of the control field $`E(t)`$.

The following analysis aims to show how a limited statistical characterization of beable trajectories may be generated from laboratory data associated with a given optimal control field. In particular, we will show how to extract $`j_{\mathrm{min}}`$, the minimum number of jumps necessary to reach the final state $`n_\mathrm{f}`$ from the initial state $`n_\mathrm{i}`$; also $`j_𝒫`$, the average number of such jumps over an ensemble of beable trajectories; and possibly higher moments $`(j_𝒫)^k`$ as well. After a general formulation of this analysis is presented, it will be applied to simulated experimental data in the case of the model 7-level system considered above.

We propose to obtain mechanism information by examining the effect on the final state population $`|\psi _{n_\mathrm{f}}|^2`$ of variations in the control field *away from* optimality. Consider the simplest such scheme, wherein the amplitude of the control field is modulated by a constant $``$ independent of time:

$$E(t)\stackrel{~}{E}(t)=E(t)$$

giving rise to a new time-dependent solution $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(t)`$—in particular, a new final state population $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n_\mathrm{f}}(t_\mathrm{f})|^2`$ and new path probabilities P$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{rob}}(𝒫)`$. These quantities are obtained by taking $`T_{nm}\stackrel{~}{T}_{nm}`$ in (8), which is to say using $`\stackrel{~}{E}(t)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_n(t)`$ in the jump rule (3).

To express P$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{rob}}(𝒫)`$ in terms of Prob$`(𝒫)`$, we can write

$`{\displaystyle \underset{pJ}{}}\stackrel{~}{T}_{n_{p+1}n_p}`$ $`=`$ $`^{j_𝒫}{\displaystyle \underset{pJ}{}}T_{n_{p+1}n_p}{\displaystyle \underset{pJ}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_p}{\mathrm{cos}\varphi _p}}\times `$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{pJ}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n_{p+1}}(t_p)|}{|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n_p}(t_p)|}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{pJ}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\psi _{n_{p+1}}(t_p)|}{|\psi _{n_p}(t_p)|}}\right)^1`$
where $`j_𝒫`$ is the number of jumps in $`𝒫`$ and

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_p\mathrm{arg}\left(\mathrm{i}H_{n_{p+1}n_p}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n_{p+1}}(t_p)}{\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n_p}(t_p)}\right).$$

To simplify (14), note that if $`j_𝒫`$ were very large, then successive terms in each of the last two products would tend to cancel, leaving only endpoint contributions. Making the reasonable approximation that they do completely cancel yields

$$\underset{pJ}{}\stackrel{~}{T}_{n_{p+1}n_p}^{j_𝒫}\frac{|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n_\mathrm{f}}(t_\mathrm{f})|}{|\psi _{n_\mathrm{f}}(t_\mathrm{f})|}\underset{pJ}{}T_{n_{p+1}n_p}\underset{pJ}{}\frac{\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_p}{\mathrm{cos}\varphi _p}.$$
(15)
Further, we can make the expansion

$$\mathrm{log}\underset{pJ}{}\frac{\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_p}{\mathrm{cos}\varphi _p}=a_𝒫^{(1)}(1)+a_𝒫^{(2)}(1)^2+\mathrm{}$$

about $`=1`$, where the $`a_𝒫^{(i)}`$ depend on the path $`𝒫`$ but not on $``$. And similarly:

$`\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \underset{pJ}{}}\left(1ϵ_n^{}\stackrel{~}{T}_{nn_p}\right)`$ $``$ $`ϵ_{pJ}_n^{}\stackrel{~}{T}_{nn_p}`$
$`=`$ $`ϵ_{pJ}_n^{}T_{nn_p}+b_𝒫^{(1)}(1)+\mathrm{}`$
Combining these expansions gives a relationship between the path probabilities P$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{rob}}(𝒫)`$ in the modulated case to those, Prob$`(𝒫)`$, in the unmodulated case, which are the ones containing mechanism information regarding the actual optimal control field $`E(t)`$. We can thus write the final population as

$`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n_\mathrm{f}}(t_\mathrm{f})|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝒫}{}}|\psi _{n_0}(0)|^2\text{P}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{rob}}(𝒫)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n_\mathrm{f}}(t_\mathrm{f})|}{|\psi _{n_\mathrm{f}}(t_\mathrm{f})|}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒫}{}}|\psi _{n_0}(0)|^2^{j_𝒫}\mathrm{e}^{a_𝒫(1)}\mathrm{Prob}(𝒫)`$
where $`a_𝒫a_𝒫^{(1)}+b_𝒫^{(1)}`$, and higher order terms in the expansion have been dropped. (This approximation is not as crude as it might seem, since for small $``$ away from 1, the behavior of $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n_\mathrm{f}}(t_\mathrm{f})|^2`$ is dominated by the $`^{j_𝒫}`$ factor.) Cancelling one power of $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n_\mathrm{f}}(t_\mathrm{f})|`$, and recalling that the sum is taken only over paths ending on $`n=n_\mathrm{f}`$ so that $`|\psi _{n_\mathrm{f}}(t_\mathrm{f})|^2=_𝒫\mathrm{Prob}(𝒫)`$, we have

$$|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n_\mathrm{f}}(t_\mathrm{f})||\psi _{n_\mathrm{f}}(t_\mathrm{f})|^{j_𝒫}\mathrm{e}^{a_𝒫(1)}$$
(16)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes an average over the trajectory ensemble generated by the (unmodulated) optimal field $`E(t)`$. Beables in this ensemble are taken as initially distributed at $`t=0`$ according to $`|\psi _n(0)|^2`$, and only trajectories that successfully reach $`n=n_\mathrm{f}`$ at $`t=t_\mathrm{f}`$ are counted.

Note that for $``$ close enough to 0, the minimum value $`j_{\mathrm{min}}`$ taken on by $`j_𝒫`$ will dominate the expectation value in (16), and

$$\mathrm{log}|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n_\mathrm{f}}(t_\mathrm{f})|=j_{\mathrm{min}}\mathrm{log}+\mathrm{O}(1)$$
(17)
gives the dominant behavior independent of $`a_𝒫`$. If we suppose that $`a_𝒫`$, where it is relevant, depends primarily on the endpoints of $`𝒫`$, which are fixed, and only weakly on the rest of the path, then $`a_𝒫`$ can be approximated by some characteristic value $`a`$. Putting $`^{j_𝒫}=\mathrm{e}^{j_𝒫\mathrm{log}}`$ in (16) and expanding in powers of $`\mathrm{log}`$ now gives

$$|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n_\mathrm{f}}(t_\mathrm{f})||\psi _{n_\mathrm{f}}(t_\mathrm{f})|\mathrm{e}^{a(1)}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(j_𝒫)^k}{k!}(\mathrm{log})^k$$
(18)
for the final state population under a modulated field, expressed in terms of the desired statistical properties of the trajectory ensemble under the optimal field itself. Here, $`a`$ enters as an additional parameter that must be extracted from the data. Equations (17) and (18) form the working relations to extract mechanism information from laboratory data.

## 6 Simulated experiments on a 7-level system

In order to extract quantities like $`j_𝒫`$ using the results (17) and (18) data must be generated for the final state population $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n_\mathrm{f}}(t_\mathrm{f})|^2`$ at many values of the modulation factor $``$ over some range $`(_{\mathrm{min}},_{\mathrm{max}})(0,1.5)`$. The desired quantities are obtained as parameters in fitting (17) and (18) to the data as a function of $``$.

One set of simulated data for the above 7-level system is shown in Fig. 8; the sampling increment is $`\mathrm{\Delta }M=.01`$. Noise has been introduced by multiplying the exact $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n_\mathrm{f}}(t_\mathrm{f})|^2`$ values by an independent Gaussian-distributed random number for each value of $``$, where the distribution is chosen to have mean 1, and various standard deviations $`\sigma `$ have been sampled.

We can determine $`j_{\mathrm{min}}`$ from the data using (17), which implies

$$j_{\mathrm{min}}=\underset{0}{lim}\frac{d\mathrm{log}|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n_\mathrm{f}}(t_\mathrm{f})|}{d\mathrm{log}}.$$
(19)
For instance, Fig. 9 plots the derivative in (19), calculated with finite differences from the $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n_\mathrm{f}}(t_\mathrm{f})|^2`$ simulated data for $`\sigma =.1`$, which correctly gives $`j_{\mathrm{min}}=4`$ as the limiting value. Determination of $`j_{\mathrm{min}}`$ proved robust to multiplicative Gaussian noise up to the 40% level ($`\sigma =.4`$).

The quantity $`j_𝒫`$ is more difficult to extract, because while the sum in (18) converges to 0 as $`0`$, the terms of the sum individually diverge and must cancel in a delicate manner. Therefore truncating the sum to an upper limit $`k_{\mathrm{max}}`$ becomes a very bad approximation near $`=0`$. This unstable behavior can be controlled by carefully setting the range $`(_{\mathrm{min}},_{\mathrm{max}})`$ of data to be fitted, given a choice of $`k_{\mathrm{max}}`$.

It is also convenient to constrain the fit by the previous determination of $`j_{\mathrm{min}}=4`$. We have done this by noting that if $`E(t)`$ is truly optimal, then $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n_\mathrm{f}}(t_\mathrm{f})|`$ must have a maximum at $`=1`$, which implies that $`a=j_𝒫`$. This can be used as a weaker constraint on the auxiliary parameter $`a`$ by just requiring $`a>j_{\mathrm{min}}=4`$ in the fit without necessarily supposing that $`E(t)`$ is exactly optimal. We then check that $`aj_𝒫`$ is satisfied in the fit. Fig. 8 shows one such fit where the fitting range is $`(.44,.92)`$. One can see that the fit closely tracks the data for $``$ in this range but quickly diverges from the data just below $`=.44`$ (and, less severely, above $`=.92`$) due to the sum-truncation instability mentioned previously.

In order to identify appropriate ranges in general, we have searched over all combinations such that

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccccc}.2\hfill & <& _{\mathrm{min}}& <& \hfill .8\\ .7\hfill & <& _{\mathrm{max}}& <& \hfill 1.6\end{array}\\ _{\mathrm{max}}_{\mathrm{min}}>10\end{array}$$
(20)
Mathematica’s implementation of the Levenberg-Marquardt non-linear fitting algorithm was used on simulated data for each value of $`\sigma `$ between 0 and .5 with a .01 increment. The best fit at each $`\sigma `$ was used to determine the value of $`j_𝒫`$ most consistent with the simulated data at the given noise level.

For this analysis $`k_{\mathrm{max}}=4`$ was chosen somewhat arbitrarily to balance computational cost and precision. In practice it is likely that the moments $`(j_𝒫)^k`$ for lower $`k`$ values will be most reliably extracted from the data, especially considering the laboratory noise. In the simulations it was found that $`j_𝒫`$ could be reliably extracted, but higher moments were unstable and unreliable. For example, $`(j_𝒫)^2`$ was frequently found to lie slightly below the corresponding fit values for $`j_𝒫^2`$, which is inconsistent with the interpretation of these values as statistical moments of an underlying random variable $`j_𝒫`$. Further constraints could be introduced to attempt to stabilize the extraction of higher moments, but care is needed so as not to overfit the data.

Fig. 10 shows the $`j_𝒫`$ values obtained by fitting data with $`\sigma =.1`$ for each choice of $`(_{\mathrm{min}},_{\mathrm{max}})`$ and Fig. 11 shows the corresponding quality of each fit as measured by its mean squared deviations. In Fig. 10, as well as in the corresponding plots for all other values of $`\sigma `$ studied, two diagonal strips emerge running above a set of smaller islands. The surrounding white “sea” comprises fits that give $`j_𝒫<4`$, which we know to be ruled out by the determination of $`j_{\mathrm{min}}`$.

A virtually identical pattern arises in the fit quality plots. The two strips and underlying islands are seen to give much better fits than the white sea. An additional connected region of good fits is found to extend across the lower-left corner of Fig. 11, nearly all of which are ruled out by $`j_{\mathrm{min}}=4`$. This connected region is somewhat pathological because much of it corresponds to fitting ranges that fail to capture the important behavior of $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n_\mathrm{f}}(t_\mathrm{f})|^2`$ near $`=1`$, and therefore can be ignored. Then the best fits for all values of $`\sigma `$ sampled are found to come from the cluster of islands at $`_{\mathrm{max}}.95`$. As $`\sigma `$ is increased from 0 to .5, these islands flow from $`_{\mathrm{min}}.5`$ to $`_{\mathrm{min}}.3`$, carrying with them the best fit site. Note that the small triangular area in the lower right corner, most noticeable in Fig. 11, is a region excluded from consideration by the third constraint in (20).

The best fit values of $`j_𝒫`$ are shown as a function of $`\sigma `$ in Fig. 12. These values are to be compared with the exact result $`j_𝒫=4.907`$ obtained from the trajectory ensemble calculations in §4, which require explicit knowledge of the level structure and dipole moments $`\mu _{nm}`$ of the system. The ramping behavior in Fig. 12 results from the sampling increment $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the simulated data. Transitioning between one ramp and another corresponds to the shifting of the best fit location by one or two units of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

These $`j_𝒫`$ values are in good agreement (3% discrepancy) with the exact value for noise at the level of 0–25%. It should be noted that a qualitative change occurs in the case of no noise ($`\sigma =0`$), where the islands all disappear and the strips become extended much further on the downward diagonal. Inspecting the fits individually indicates that mean squared deviation does not give an adequate measure of fit quality in this special case. This anomaly seems due to the fact that, in the absence of Gaussian noise from experimental statistics, systematic deviations from (18) associated with the approximation (15) become important.

## 7 Summary procedure for mechanism identification from control experimental data

In order to extract the basic mechanism information comprising $`j_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`j_𝒫`$ from quantum control experimental data, the methods of §6 can be distilled into the following general procedure:

1. Perform a closed-loop optimization of population transfer, giving an associated optimal laser pulse shape $`E(t)`$.
2. Apply a modulated field $`\stackrel{~}{E}(t)=E(t)`$ to the system and measure the the resulting final state population $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n_\mathrm{f}}(t_\mathrm{f})|^2`$ for many values of $``$ over some range $`(\delta ,1.5)`$, where $`\delta `$ is a positive value near 0 determined by experimental sensitivity.
3. Extract $`j_{\mathrm{min}}`$ from the data by extrapolating the limit (19).
4. Choose a truncation of the sum in (18), *e.g.* $`k_{\mathrm{max}}=4`$, and perform a non-linear fit to the data for each of a set of fitting ranges $`(_{\mathrm{min}},_{\mathrm{max}})`$, *e.g.* the set (20). One may choose to constrain the fit by requiring $`a>j_{\mathrm{min}}`$ in (18).
5. Plot the fit values of $`j_𝒫`$, as in Fig. 10, and the corresponding mean squared deviations, as in Fig. 11, over the $`_{\mathrm{min}}`$$`_{\mathrm{max}}`$ plane. Exclude regions in which the fit violates the condition $`j_𝒫>j_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and pathological regions like in the lower-left corner of Fig. 11.
6. Find the point $`(_{\mathrm{min}},_{\mathrm{max}})`$ at which the mean squared deviation is minimized, giving the associated fit value of $`j_𝒫`$ as that most consistent with the data.

## 8 Remarks and Conclusion

Since Bell’s model can be defined for any choice of basis $`|n`$, there is a more general question of how mechanism analysis varies with the choice of basis. Beyond that, Bell’s jump rule (3) itself permits generalization , providing additional freedom over which trajectory probability assignments may vary. The import of this freedom for mechanism identification remains to be determined.

This paper has shown how Bell’s beable model of quantum mechanics can be used to understand the dynamics of quantum systems driven by complicated optimal control fields. Beable trajectories are identified with simple physical processes effecting the controlled transfer of population from one state to another, and aggregations of beable trajectories may be used to compute the importance of different such processes in the dynamics. In the context of a model 7-level system, numerical simulations reveal four chief pathways and also a host of higher order pathways that are collectively significant on the 40% population level. We have shown how the control field sweeps trajectories into these pathways by switching on and off beable flow over specific transitions on a fs time-scale.

Beable trajectory methods were then defined in general for extracting statistical mechanism information directly from experimental data, without requiring knowledge of a Hamiltonian or even the level structure of the system under study. Application to simulated noisy data for the model system produced the correct minimum number of quantum transitions in the control process and the average number of such transitions to within 3% at noise levels up to 25%.

## Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge support from the NSF and DoD. ED acknowledges partial support from the Program for Plasma Science and Technology at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.


text:
# Centrality dependence of the multiplicity and transverse momentum distributions at RHIC and LHC and the percolation of strings

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Most of the multiparticle production is currently described in terms of color strings stretched between the projectile and target, which decay into new strings and subsequently hadronize to produce observed hadrons. Color strings may be viewed as small areas in the transverse space, $`\pi r_o^2`$, $`r_o`$=0.2 fm, filled with color field created by the colliding partons. Particles are produced via emission of $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs in this field . With growing energy and/or atomic number, the number of strings grows, and they start to overlap, forming clusters, very much similar to disks in the two dimensional percolation theory . At a certain critical density,

$$\eta _c=N_s\pi r_o^2/S$$
(1)
a macroscopic cluster appears that marks the percolation phase transition. In (1) $`N_s`$ is the number of strings and $`S`$ is the total transverse area of the scattering of the colliding nuclei.

The percolation theory governs the geometrical pattern of the string clustering. Its observable implications, however, require introduction of some dynamics to describe string interaction, i.e., the behavior of a cluster formed by several overlapping strings. There are several possibilities . Here, we assume that a cluster behaves as a single string with a higher color field $`\stackrel{}{Q}_n`$ corresponding to the vectorial sum of the color charge of each individual $`\stackrel{}{Q}_1`$ string. The resulting color field covers the area $`S_n`$ of the cluster. As $`\stackrel{}{Q}_n=\stackrel{}{Q}_1`$, and the individual string colors may be oriented in an arbitrary manner respective to one another, the average $`\stackrel{}{Q}_{1i}\stackrel{}{Q}_{1j}`$ is zero and $`\stackrel{}{Q}_n^2=n\stackrel{}{Q}_1^2`$.

Knowing this charge color $`\stackrel{}{Q}_n`$, one can compute the particle spectra produced by a single color string of area $`S_n`$ using the Schwinger formula . For the multiplicity $`\mu _n`$ and the average $`p_T^2`$ of particles $`<p_T^2>_n`$ produced by a cluster of $`n`$ strings one finds

$$\mu _n=\sqrt{\frac{nS_n}{S_1}}\mu _1;<p_T^2>_n=\sqrt{\frac{nS_1}{S_n}}<p_T^2>_1$$
(2)
where $`\mu _1`$ and $`<p_T^2>_1`$ are the mean multiplicity and $`p_T^2`$ of particles produced by a simple string with area $`S_1=\pi r_o^2`$. For strings, just touching each other $`S_n=nS_1`$ and hence $`\mu _n=n\mu _1`$, $`<p_T^2>_n=<p_T^2>_1`$, as expected. In the opposite case of maximum overlapping $`S_n=S_1`$ and therefore $`\mu _n=\sqrt{n}\mu _1`$, $`<p_T^2>=\sqrt{n}<p_T^2>_1`$

Equation (2) is the main tool of our calculation . In order to compute the multiplicities we generate strings according the Monte Carlo code of . Each string is produced at an identified impact parameter. From this, knowing the transverse area of each string, we identify all the clusters formed in each collision and subsequently compute for each of them its multiplicity in units $`\mu _1`$. The value of $`\mu _1`$ was fixed by normalizing our results to the SPS WA98 results for central Pb-Pb collisions . In color strings models both $`\mu _1`$ and $`<p_T^2>`$ are assumed to rise with energy due to increase of the rapidity interval available and to the hard contribution. However this rise is very weak in the range $`\sqrt{s}`$=17-200 GeV and we can neglect it, in the first approximation.

## 2 RESULTS

The comparison of our results for the dependence of the multiplicity on the number of participants with the SPS WA98 data, the RHIC Phenix  and Phobos  data at $`\sqrt{s}`$=130 GeV and $`\sqrt{s}`$=200 GeV, is presented in Fig. 1.a, where also is presented our prediction for LHC.

In order to compute the transverse momentum distribution we make use of the parametrization of the $`pp`$ data at 130 GeV

$$\frac{dN}{dp_T^2}=\frac{a}{(p_o+p_T)^\alpha }$$
(3)
where $`a`$,$`p_o`$ and $`\alpha `$ are parameters fitted to data. The standardly expected distribution for Au-Au collision is

$$\frac{dN}{dp_T^2}=<N_{coll}>\frac{dN}{dp_T^2}|_{pp}$$
(4)
However, from Eq. (1) we have

$$<p_T^2>_{AuAu}=<p_T^2>_{pp}\frac{<nS_1/S_n>_{AuAu}^{1/2}}{<nS_1/S_n>_{pp}^{1/2}}$$
(5)
This implies that the same parametrization (3) can be used for nucleus-nucleus collisions with the only change

$$p_op_o\left(\frac{<nS_1/S_n>_{AuAu}}{<nS_1/S_n>_{pp}}\right)^{1/4}$$
(6)
In Fig. 1.b we show the comparison of our results for eight different centrality events in Pb-Pb collisions with WA98 data . In Fig. 2.a we show the distribution (3) for charged particles for central (5%) Au-Au collisions compared to the Phenix data . Also the distribution expected from the independent string picture, Eq. (4), is shown. A very good agreement is obtained. We also obtain a good agreement for peripheral collisions, see reference . In Fig. 2.b we show our prediction for central Au-Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s}`$=5500 GeV compared with the formula (4). In this case, contrary to RHIC energy, a crossing at low $`p_T`$ is predicted.

We observe that for a cluster, $`<p_T^2>=\frac{S_1}{S_n}\frac{<p_T^2>_1}{\mu _1}\mu _n`$, which at high density translate into

$$<p_T^2>_{AA}=\frac{\pi r_o^2}{S_{AA}}\frac{<p_T^2>_1}{\mu _1}\mu _{AA}$$
(7)
The formula (7) shows an universal relation between multiplicities and $`<p_T^2>`$. The scaling laws expressed by the formula (3) with the change (6) and by the formula (7) are very similar to other scaling laws using saturation of gluons.

To conclude, a general comment. We obtain a good description of the multiplicities and transverse momentum distribution at different energies and different centralities including a low and high $`p_T`$ suppression. However we can not reproduce the additional high $`p_T`$ suppression reported at this conference by several collaborations. If the explanation is jet quenching, our approach can provide an unified framework to add the phenomenology of jet quenching. This work was done under contract FPA2002-01161 of Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia of Spain.