text:
# Magnetic moment of the 𝜌-meson in QCD sum rules

## 1 Introduction

Investigation of the static properties of vector mesons provides an important information about strong interaction of hadrons. In particular, the vector dominance hypothesis (VDM) supposes that the interaction of real or virtual photon with hadrons proceeds in such a way that the photon first transforms into vector mesons $`\rho ,\omega ,\varphi ,`$ which then undergo interaction with hadrons. In the consistent lagrangian formulation of VDM it is assumed  (for review, see ) that $`\rho `$-mesons are Yang-Mills vector bosons. In the framework of this hypothesis the $`\rho `$-meson magnetic moment is equal to 2 (in units $`eh/(2m_\rho c)`$), at least if strong interaction is neglected.
The goal of this paper is to calculate the $`\rho `$-meson magnetic moment in QCD, using the method of QCD sum rules in external fields ,.
In paper  the $`\rho `$-meson formfactors were found at intermediate momentum transfer by QCD sum rules. By extrapolation of the $`\rho `$-meson magnetic formfactor to the point $`Q^2=0`$ (outside the applicability domain of the technique) it was found that the $`\rho `$-meson magnetic moment $`\mu `$ is close to 2. However, this result can not be considered as conclusive; the direct calculation of $`\mu `$ in QCD in model independent way is still absent. The $`\rho `$-meson magnetic moment was calculated in the Dyson-Schwinger equation based models , and in the framework of relativistic quantum mechanics .
Here we work in the limit of zero quark masses, $`\alpha _s`$-corrections are neglected.

## 2 Phenomenological part of the sum rule

We consider the correlator of two vector currents in the external electromagnetic field:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(p)=id^4xe^{ipx}T(j_\mu (x)j_\nu ^+(0)_F.$$
$`(1)`$
Here subscript $`F`$ denotes the presence of the external electromagnetic field with strength $`F_{\rho \lambda }`$ and $`j_\mu `$ is the vector current with $`\rho `$-meson quantum numbers: $`j_\mu =\overline{u}\gamma _\mu d`$. Its matrix element is

$$\rho ^+|j_\mu |0=(m_\rho ^2/g_\rho )e_\mu ,$$
$`(2)`$
where $`m_\rho `$ is the $`\rho `$-meson mass, $`g_\rho `$ is the $`\rho `$-$`\gamma `$ coupling constant, $`g_\rho ^2/(4\pi )=1.27`$, and $`e_\mu `$ is the $`\rho `$-meson polarization vector.
In the limit of weak external field we consider only linear in $`F_{\rho \lambda }`$ terms in the correlator $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }`$ (1):

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^0+i\sqrt{4\pi \alpha }\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu \chi \sigma }F_{\chi \sigma }.$$
$`(3)`$
We find magnetic moment from sum rule for the invariant function $`\mathrm{\Pi }(p^2)`$ at certain kinematical structure of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu \chi \sigma }`$ (3). To obtain this sum rule, we calculate $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ at $`p^2<0`$ as the operator product expansion series. On the other hand, we saturate dispersion relation for $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ by the contributions of physical states. After equating of these representations the required sum rule appears.
Therefore, first of all one should choose kinematical structure.
The electromagnetic vertex of the $`\rho `$-meson has the following general form :

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\rho (p+q,e^r^{})|j_\chi ^{el}|\rho (p,e^r)=e_\sigma ^r^{}e_\rho ^r(\left((2p+q)_\chi g_{\rho \sigma }(p+q)_\rho g_{\chi \sigma }p_\sigma g_{\rho \chi }\right)F_1(q^2)+\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }+(g_{\chi \rho }q_\sigma g_{\chi \sigma }q_\rho )F_2(q^2)+\frac{1}{m_\rho ^2}(p+q)_\rho p_\sigma (2p+q)_\chi F_3(q^2)).(4)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

In (4) $`j_\chi ^{el}=e_u\overline{u}\gamma _\chi u+e_d\overline{d}\gamma _\chi d`$ is electromagnetic current, $`e_u,e_d`$ are $`u`$\- and $`d`$-quark charges and $`F_1,F_2,F_3`$ are electric, magnetic and quadrupole formfactors correspondingly,

$$F_1(0)=1,\mu =1+F_2(0),$$
$`(5)`$
$`\mu `$ is the $`\rho `$-meson magnetic moment.
Using (2) and (4), we obtain for the $`0|j_\mu |\rho \rho |j_\chi |\rho \rho |j_\nu |0ϵ_\chi `$ transition:

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }i\underset{r,r^{}}{}0|j_\mu |\rho ^r^{}\rho ^r^{}|j_\chi ^{el}|\rho ^r\rho ^r|j_\nu |0ϵ_\chi =\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }=i\frac{m_\rho ^4}{g_\rho ^2}\underset{r,r^{}}{}e_\mu ^r^{}e_\sigma ^r^{}e_\rho ^re_\nu ^rϵ_\chi (\left((2p+q)_\chi g_{\rho \sigma }(p+q)_\rho g_{\chi \sigma }p_\sigma g_{\rho \chi }\right)F_1(q^2)+(6)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }+(g_{\chi \rho }q_\sigma g_{\chi \sigma }q_\rho )F_2(q^2)+\frac{1}{m_\rho ^2}(p+q)_\rho p_\sigma (2p+q)_\chi F_3(q^2)).\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

Here $`ϵ_\chi `$photon polarization, $`r,r^{}`$ are the $`\rho `$-meson polarization indices. Let us consider in this expression linear in $`q_\sigma `$ terms. We sum over $`\rho `$-meson polarizations, retain the antisymmetric over $`\chi ,\sigma `$ part, introduce $`F_{\chi \sigma }=i(ϵ_\chi q_\sigma ϵ_\sigma q_\chi )`$ and obtain for (6):

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\frac{m_\rho ^4}{2g_\rho ^2}F_{\chi \sigma }((F_2+\frac{1}{2}F_1)\frac{1}{p^2}\left(p_\nu (p_\chi g_{\mu \sigma }p_\sigma g_{\mu \chi })p_\mu (p_\chi g_{\nu \sigma }p_\sigma g_{\nu \chi })\right)+\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }+\frac{1}{2}F_1\frac{1}{p^2}\left(p_\nu (p_\chi g_{\mu \sigma }p_\sigma g_{\mu \chi })+p_\mu (p_\chi g_{\nu \sigma }p_\sigma g_{\nu \chi })\right)+(F_2+F_1)(g_{\mu \chi }g_{\nu \sigma }g_{\mu \sigma }g_{\nu \chi })).\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

Formfactor $`F_3`$ does not give linear in $`q_\sigma `$ contribution.
Thus, we choose the structure

$$p_\nu (p_\chi g_{\mu \sigma }p_\sigma g_{\mu \chi })p_\mu (p_\chi g_{\nu \sigma }p_\sigma g_{\nu \chi }).$$
$`(7)`$
In comparison with another possible structure, $`g_{\mu \chi }g_{\nu \sigma }g_{\mu \sigma }g_{\nu \chi }`$, (7) contains two additional powers of momentum in the numerator, which result in better convergence of the operator expansion series.
It should be noted here that, as follows from the vector current conservation, the antisymmetric over field indices $`\chi ,\sigma `$ structure in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu \chi \sigma }`$ (3) is antisymmetric over $`\rho `$-meson indices $`\mu ,\nu `$ too.
From (5) one can see that $`F_2(0)+1/2F_1(0)=\mu 1/2`$.
Thus, one should calculate the invariant function $`\mathrm{\Pi }(p^2)`$ at the structure (7) in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu \chi \sigma }`$. In the dispersion relation for $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ we use the simplest model of physical spectrum, which contains the lowest resonance and continuum. Phenomenological representation of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ has the form:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(p^2)=𝑑s\frac{\rho _L(s)}{(sp^2)^2}+\mathrm{},$$

$$\rho _L(s)=\frac{m_\rho ^4}{2g_\rho ^2}\frac{1}{s}\left(\mu \frac{1}{2}\right)\delta (sm_\rho ^2)+f(s)\theta (ss_\rho ).$$

Here dots mean the contributions of non-diagonal transitions (for example,
$`0|j_\mu |\rho ^{}\rho ^{}|j_\chi ϵ_\chi |\rho \rho |j_\nu |0`$, where $`\rho ^{}`$ is the excited state with the same quantum numbers as $`\rho `$), function $`f`$ represent continuum contribution and $`s_\rho `$ is the continuum threshold for the $`\rho `$-meson.
Retaining only the terms, which do not vanish after Borel transformation, we obtain:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(p^2)=\frac{m_\rho ^2}{2g_\rho ^2}\frac{\mu \frac{1}{2}}{(m_\rho ^2p^2)^2}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{C}}{m_\rho ^2p^2}+\underset{s_\rho }{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑s\frac{f(s)}{(sp^2)^2},$$
$`(8)`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ appears due to non-diagonal transitions.

## 3 Calculation of the vector current correlator

Now let us calculate $`\mathrm{\Pi }(p^2)`$, basing on the operator product expansion in QCD.
The quark propagator in the external electromagnetic field $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ in the fixed-point gauge $`x_\mu A_\mu =0,A_\mu =1/2F_{\mu \nu }x_\nu `$ can be found in :

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }Tq_\alpha ^a(x)\overline{q}_\beta ^b(0)_F=\frac{i\delta ^{ab}(\widehat{x})_{\alpha \beta }}{2\pi ^2x^4}\frac{\delta ^{ab}g_{\alpha \beta }}{12}\overline{q}q\frac{i\delta ^{ab}\overline{q}\sigma _{\rho \lambda }q_F}{48}(\gamma _\rho \gamma _\lambda \gamma _\lambda \gamma _\rho )_{\alpha \beta }\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\frac{\delta ^{ab}\sqrt{4\pi \alpha }e_qF_{\rho \lambda }}{32\pi ^2x^2}(\widehat{x}\gamma _\rho \gamma _\lambda +\gamma _\rho \gamma _\lambda \widehat{x})_{\alpha \beta }.\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

Here $`e_q`$ is the quark charge, $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are spinor indices, $`a,b`$ \- color indices and (see ) $`\overline{q}\sigma _{\rho \lambda }q_F=\sqrt{4\pi \alpha }e_q\chi F_{\rho \lambda }\overline{q}q,`$ $`\chi `$ is the quark condensate magnetic susceptibility.
The expression for the quark propagator in the external electromagnetic and soft gluon fields has the following form in momentum representation :

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\widehat{S}_{FG}=\frac{ige_q\sqrt{4\pi \alpha }F_{\rho \lambda }G_{\sigma \tau }^nt^n}{2p^6}(\gamma _\lambda \gamma _\tau \gamma _\rho \gamma _\sigma \widehat{p}2p_\lambda \gamma _\tau \gamma _\sigma \gamma _\rho 2p_\tau \gamma _\lambda \gamma _\rho \gamma _\sigma \text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\frac{8p_\rho p_\tau g_{\lambda \sigma }}{p^2}\widehat{p}+2g_{\lambda \tau }\gamma _\sigma \gamma _\rho \widehat{p}2g_{\lambda \tau }g_{\rho \sigma }\widehat{p}).\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

Here $`G_{\sigma \tau }^n`$ is the gluon field strength and $`t^n`$ are the color matrices.
The contribution of the loop diagrams to $`\mathrm{\Pi }(p^2)`$ is equal to

$$\frac{3}{16\pi ^2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{ds}{(sp^2)^2}.$$
$`(9)`$
According to the quark-hadron duality, the continuum contribution in the interval of $`P^2=p^2`$ from $`s_\rho `$ to infinity is determined by the bare loop in this interval. Therefore, function $`f`$ in (8) is constant: $`f=3/(16\pi ^2)`$.
The loop diagrams correspond to the operator of the lowest dimension $`F_{\rho \lambda }`$. Operators of dimension 4 are absent. As was shown in , operator $`\overline{q}(D_\mu \gamma _\nu D_\nu \gamma _\mu )q`$ has opposite with respect to the electromagnetic field C-parity and can not be induced by them, while operator $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \lambda }\overline{q}\gamma _5\gamma _\rho D_\lambda q`$ vanishes due to equation of motion for massless quarks.
There are a number of vacuum expectation values of operators of dimension 6:
$`\overline{q}\sigma _{\rho \lambda }q_F\overline{q}q`$, $`G_{\sigma \tau }^nG_{\sigma \tau }^nF_{\mu \nu }`$ and

$$g\overline{q}\left((G_{\mu \lambda }^nD_\nu \stackrel{}{D}_\nu G_{\mu \lambda }^n)(G_{\nu \lambda }^nD_\mu \stackrel{}{D}_\mu G_{\nu \lambda }^n)\right)\gamma _\lambda t^nq_F,$$

$$ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \lambda }g\overline{q}(G_{\rho \xi }^nD_\lambda +\stackrel{}{D}_\lambda G_{\rho \xi }^n)\gamma _\xi \gamma _5t^nq_F,$$
$`(10)`$
$$d^{ikl}(G_{\mu \lambda }^iG_{\lambda \rho }^kG_{\rho \nu }^lG_{\nu \lambda }^iG_{\lambda \rho }^kG_{\rho \mu }^l)_F,$$

where $`D_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative and $`d^{ikl}`$ are SU(3) structure constants.
The diagrams, corresponding to the operator $`G_{\sigma \tau }^nG_{\sigma \tau }^nF_{\mu \nu }`$, have infrared divergence. We introduce the cut-off over transversal momenta $`\lambda `$ and obtain their contribution into $`\mathrm{\Pi }(p^2)`$:

$$\frac{1}{36}\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G^2\left(\frac{1}{2\lambda ^4p^2}\frac{1}{6\lambda ^2p^4}+\frac{3}{p^6}\right).$$
$`(11)`$
This divergence is probably cancelled by the contribution of field induced vacuum expectation values (10) (for example, this was shown in  for dimension 4 operators and symmetric tensor field). Usually such vacuum expectation values can be calculated by constructing corresponding sum rule. But for operators (10) this approach is inapplicable because of their high dimension.
The dominating contribution appears from no loop diagrams with hard gluon exchange. In our case such diagrams contain the operator $`\overline{q}\sigma _{\rho \lambda }q_F\overline{q}q`$. They give:

$$\frac{2}{9}\frac{g^2\overline{q}q^2\chi }{p^6}.$$
$`(12)`$
It should be noted here that the quark condensate magnetic susceptibility $`\chi `$ is negative.
Collecting the expressions (9), (11), (12), one can find the operator product expansion part of the sum rule:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(p^2)=\frac{3}{16\pi ^2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{ds}{(sp^2)^2}+\frac{2}{9}\frac{g^2\overline{q}q^2\chi }{p^6}\frac{1}{36}\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G^2\left(\frac{1}{2\lambda ^4p^2}\frac{1}{6\lambda ^2p^4}+\frac{3}{p^6}\right).$$
$`(13)`$
The uncertainty in the contribution of the vacuum expectation values (10) is included into the errors.

## 4 Results and discussion

After Borel transformation

$$\widehat{B}(M^2)=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{P^2,n\mathrm{}}{P^2/n=M^2}}{lim}\frac{(P^2)^{n+1}}{n!}\left(\frac{d}{dP^2}\right)^n,P^2=p^2>0$$

we equate the phenomenological (8) and operator product expansion (13) parts of sum rule and obtain:

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\mu \frac{1}{2}+CM^2=\frac{3g_\rho ^2M^2}{8\pi ^2m_\rho ^2}\left(1e^{s_\rho /M^2}\right)e^{m_\rho ^2/M^2}\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\frac{g_\rho ^2}{m_\rho ^2}e^{m_\rho ^2/M^2}\left(\frac{2g^2\overline{q}q^2\chi }{9M^2}+\frac{1}{36}\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G^2\left(\frac{M^2}{\lambda ^4}+\frac{1}{3\lambda ^2}+\frac{3}{M^2}\right)\right).(14)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

$`C`$ appears due to nondiagonal transitions.
We use the following values of parameters:
$`m_\rho =0.77GeV`$the $`\rho `$-meson mass,
$`g_\rho ^2/(4\pi )=1.27`$the $`\rho `$-$`\gamma `$ coupling constant,
$`s_\rho =1.5GeV^2`$the continuum threshold for $`\rho `$-meson,
$`(\alpha _s/\pi )G^2=0.009\pm 0.007GeV^4`$the gluon condensate ,
$`g^2\overline{q}q^2=(0.28\pm 0.09)\times 10^2GeV^6`$the quark condensate ,
$`\chi =(5.7\pm 0.6)GeV^2`$the quark condensate magnetic susceptibility ,
$`\lambda ^2=0.8GeV^2`$the cut-off over transversal momenta.
First of all, let us consider the contribution of the bare loop (and continuum). It is given by the first term in (14). In  the following relation for $`g_\rho `$ can be found:

$$\frac{g_\rho ^2M^2}{4\pi ^2m_\rho ^2}\left(1e^{s_\rho /M^2}\right)e^{m_\rho ^2/M^2}=1.$$
$`(15)`$
Substituting (15) into (14) and omitting for a while the terms with quark and gluon condensates, one can obtain very simple answer:

$$\mu \frac{1}{2}=\frac{3}{2}.$$

We see that in the parton model approximation the $`\rho `$-meson magnetic moment is equal to 2. This result agrees with prediction of the vector dominance hypothesis.
Now let us analyze the whole equation (14). In order to find the value of magnetic moment, we approximate the right-hand side of (14) (see fig.1) by a straight line in the interval $`0.9GeV^2M^21.3GeV^2`$ and find it ordinate at zero Borel mass.
Thus we obtain:

$$\mu =1.5.$$
$`(16)`$
The contribution of the operators of dimension 6 to this value does not exceed 20%.
The contribution of the terms, which contain $`\lambda ^2`$, is not more than $`20\%`$ of the total contribution of dimension 6 operators. That is why variation of $`\lambda ^2`$ within the interval $`0.6GeV^2\lambda ^21.0GeV^2`$ does not change the value of magnetic moment.
The variations of the values of the quark and gluon condensates within the given limits change the value of magnetic moment by $`\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10\%`$ each.
The uncertainty in the value of the quark condensate magnetic susceptibility results in the error about few percent in the value of the magnetic moment. Variation of the continuum threshold for the $`\rho `$-meson $`s_\rho `$ in the reasonable limits gives the same effect.
Supposing that the contribution of vacuum expectation values (10) does not exceed $`50\%`$ of that from diagrams with hard gluon exchange (12), we obtain after collecting all uncertainties:

$$\mu =1.5\pm 0.3.$$

This is our final result.
In  it was shown that the approximation procedure is correct (nonlinear terms can be safely neglected), when $`\mu CM^2`$. In our case $`CM^2/\mu 0.2÷0.3`$.
Thus we find that in parton model (bare loop) approximation the $`\rho `$-meson magnetic moment $`\mu _{part}=2`$, whereas the nonperturbative interactions decrease this quantity by a quarter: $`\mu =1.5\pm 0.3`$. It is important to mention that all accounted operator product expansion corrections are negative, i.e. results in decrease of $`\mu `$ in comparison with $`\mu _{part}=2`$. Since the effective values of the Borel parameter $`M^2`$ are about $`1GeV^2`$, one may expect that perturbative corrections are remarkable and can reach $`20\%`$.
The value of the $`\rho `$-meson magnetic moment was calculated in a number of papers within the Dyson-Schwinger equation based models. In  the value $`\mu =2.69`$ was found. In  several results are compared, and the values of $`\mu `$ lie between 2.5 and 3.0. Relativistic quantum mechanics model gives  $`\mu =2.23\pm 0.13`$. Unfortunately, while $`\alpha _s`$-corrections are not calculated (we plan to do it in the next paper), it is hard to say with certainty if this discrepancy is real or not.
The author is grateful to B.L. Ioffe for posing the problem and valuable discussions and to A.G. Oganesian for helpful discussions.
The work is supported in part by grants CRDF RP2-2247, INTAS 2000 Project 587 and RFFI 00-02-17808.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Let $`G(m,n)`$ denote the Grassmannian space of all $`n`$-dimensional subspaces of real Euclidean $`m`$-dimensional space $`R^m`$. The principal angles $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n[0,\pi /2]`$ between two subspaces $`P`$, $`QG(m,n)`$ are defined by

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _i=\underset{uP}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{vQ}{\mathrm{max}}uv=u_iv_i,$$

for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, subject to $`uu=vv=1`$, $`uu_j=0`$, $`vv_j=0`$ $`(1ji1)`$. We define the distance111It is shown in  that this is a metric, and in fact is essentially the $`L_2`$ distance between the matrices that describe the orthogonal projections onto $`P`$ and $`Q`$. between $`P`$ and $`Q`$ to be

$$d(P,Q)=\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _n}.$$

In  we discussed the problem of finding good packings in $`G(m,n)`$, that is, for given $`N=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, of choosing $`P_1,\mathrm{},P_NG(m,n)`$ so that $`\underset{ij}{\mathrm{min}}d(P_i,P_j)`$ is maximized. It was shown that for $`N>m(m+1)/2`$ the highest achievable distance, $`d_N(m,n)`$, satisfies

$$d_N^2(m,n)\frac{n(mn)}{m}.$$
(1)
A necessary condition for equality to hold in (1) is that $`N(m1)(m+2)`$. An especially interesting case occurs when $`m`$ is even, $`n=m/2`$, and $`N=(m1)(m+2)`$, where we found optimal packings for $`m=2,4`$ and 8; that is, packings of 4 lines in $`R^2`$, 18 2-spaces in $`R^4`$ and 70 4-spaces in $`R^8`$. The first is the familiar configuration seen on the British flag (the Union Jack), the second is the “double-nine”, a classic configuration from nineteenth-century geometry (see the references in  and also (3) below), but the third was discovered only after a very considerable computer-assisted search. At the time  was written we believed that there would be no further examples in this series.

It came as a considerable surprise therefore when we discovered that such packings exist whenever $`m`$ is a power of 2.

These packings were discovered by a remarkable coincidence. One of us (P.W.S.) had discovered a family of groups in connection with quantum coding theory , and asked the other (N.J.A.S.) for the best way to determine their orders. N.J.A.S. explained to P.W.S. that the Magma computer system , ,  was ideal for this, and gave as an example the symmetry group of above-mentioned set of 70 4-spaces in $`R^8`$, an 8-dimensional group of order $`2^78!=5160960`$. To our astonishment, the first of his groups that P.W.S. tested turned out to be (almost) exactly the same group.

The version of the group that arises from quantum coding in fact has the coordinates in a slightly nicer order, and produces the 70 planes as the orbit of the plane spanned by the first four coordinate vectors. With the help of our colleague R. H. Hardin we verified that the next three groups in the series produced packings meeting the bound in 16, 32 and 64 dimensions. Further investigation then produced the general construction given in Section 3. The groups are described in Section 2.

## 2 The group

The group $`𝒢_i`$ that arises from quantum coding theory is a subgroup of the real orthogonal group $`O(V,R)`$, where $`V`$ denotes $`R^m`$, $`m=2^i`$, $`i1`$, with coordinates indexed by binary $`i`$-tuples $`x=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_i)F^i`$, and $`F`$ is the field of order 2. $`𝒢_i`$ is generated by the following $`2^i\times 2^i`$ orthogonal matrices:

(i) all permutation matrices $`\pi _{A,b}`$ corresponding to affine transformations $`xAx+b`$ of $`F^i`$, where $`A`$ is any invertible $`i\times i`$ matrix over $`F`$ and $`bF^i`$, and

(ii) the matrix $`H=\mathrm{diag}\{H_2,H_2,\mathrm{},H_2\}`$, where $`H_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{++}{+}\right)`$ (and $`+`$ denotes $`+1`$, $``$ denotes $`1`$).

By multiplying these generators it is easy to see that, for $`i2`$, $`𝒢_i`$ contains the matrix $`H^{}=\mathrm{diag}\{H_4,H_4,\mathrm{},H_4\}`$, where

$$H_4=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}+& +& +& +\\ +& & +& \\ +& +& & \\ +& & & +\end{array}\right).$$

Let $`_i`$ be the group generated by the permutations and $`H^{}`$. Then $`𝒢_i=_iH_i`$.

The packings described in Section 3 can be obtained by writing the coordinates in the natural lexicographic order and taking the orbit under $`𝒢_i`$ of the subspace spanned by the first $`2^{i1}`$ coordinate vectors (i.e., those in which $`x_1=0`$). However, the construction now given in Section 3 is a recursive one that no longer explicitly mentions the group. The group is only needed in the analysis, where we make use of the fact that it acts transitively on the subspaces. In the rest of this section we shall therefore give only a brief discussion of these groups, in order to show their connection with the Barnes-Wall lattices.

It turns out that $`_i`$ and $`𝒢_i`$ are well-known groups. $`_i`$ is the Clifford group $`𝒞𝒯_1^+(2^i)`$ studied in , , , which in recent years has been used in the classification of finite simple groups (see the references in ). $`_i`$ is relevant for the present work because of its connection with the Barnes-Wall lattices.

Although the original paper of Barnes and Wall  describes a family of lattices in each dimension $`m=2^i`$ $`(i1)`$, the most interesting lattices are the pair with the highest number of minimal vectors (this number is given by the formula displayed in (4)). We denote this pair of $`2^i`$-dimensional lattices by $`BW_i`$ and $`BW_i^{}`$. A construction of these lattices using Reed-Muller codes is given in  and in , p. 234, example (f) (see also ).

$`BW_i`$ and $`BW_i^{}`$ are geometrically similar lattices, differing only by a rotation and change of scale. When $`i=1`$, for example, we can take $`BW_1`$ to be the square lattice $`Z^2`$ (Fig. 1, solid circles), and $`BW_1^{}`$ to be its sublattice of index 2 (Fig. 1, double circles). In this case the matrix $`D=\sqrt{2}H_2`$ acts as an endomorphism sending $`BW_1`$ to $`BW_1^{}`$. In exactly the same way, the matrix $`\sqrt{2}H`$ sends $`BW_i`$ to $`BW_i^{}`$, a geometrically similar sublattice of index $`2^{m/2}`$ (cf. , pp. 240–241). Applying $`\sqrt{2}H`$ twice sends $`BW_i`$ to $`2.BW_i`$.

Wall  showed that for $`i3`$, $`_i`$ is the full automorphism group of the lattices $`BW_i`$ and $`BW_i^{}`$. (The case $`i=3`$ is special, since $`BW_3`$ and $`BW_3^{}`$ are copies of the root lattice $`E_8`$.) The group $`_i`$ has a normal subgroup $`E`$ which is an extra-special 2-group of order $`2^{1+2i}`$, and $`_i/E`$ is isomorphic to the orthogonal group $`O_{2i}^+(2)D_i(2)`$. The order of $`_i`$ is

$$2^{2i+1}2^{i(i1)}(2^i1)\underset{j=1}{\overset{i1}{}}(4^j1).$$
(2)
By adjoining the irrational matrix $`H`$ we obtain the full group $`𝒢_i`$, twice the size of $`_i`$. The group $`𝒢_i`$ also appears in an apparently totally different context in  (see the group $`L`$ defined in Eq. (2.13)).

The way the group $`𝒢_i`$ arises in quantum coding theory is as follows. The quantum state space of $`i`$ 2-state quantum systems is the complex space $`C^m`$, $`m=2^i`$. Quantum computation involves making unitary transformations in this space (see , ). Some transformations may be much easier to realize than others, and it is therefore important to know which sets of transformations are sufficient for quantum computation, that is, which sets generate a group dense in $`SU(2^i)`$. An interesting set of transformations which generate a finite group are the linear Boolean functions on quantum bits (the permutation matrices in our group $`𝒢_i`$), and certain rotations of quantum bits by $`\pi /2`$. To obtain the corresponding subgroup of the orthogonal group $`SO(2^i)`$, only one rotation is required, which can be taken to be the matrix $`H`$.

## 3 The construction

We specify a subspace $`PG(m,n)`$ by giving a generator matrix, that is, an $`n\times m`$ matrix whose rows span $`P`$. We will use the same symbol for the subspace and the generator matrix, and $`P^{}`$ will denote the subspace orthogonal to $`P`$ (or a generator matrix thereof). $`I`$ denotes an identity matrix.

The construction is recursive. We define a set $`𝒬_i`$ containing $`2^{2i1}`$ monomial matrices of size $`2^{i1}\times 2^{i1}`$ by $`𝒬_1=\{(+),()\}`$,

$$𝒬_i=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}+& 0\\ 0& +\end{array}\right)Q,\left(\begin{array}{cc}+& 0\\ 0& \end{array}\right)Q,\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& +\\ +& 0\end{array}\right)Q,\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& +\\ & 0\end{array}\right)Q;Q𝒬_{i1}\right\},$$

for $`i2`$. Then $`𝒞_i`$ is defined by

$`𝒞_1`$ $`=`$ $`\{(+0),(0+),(++),(+)\},`$
$`𝒞_i`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{(I0),(0I),\left(\begin{array}{cc}P& 0\\ 0& P\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}P& 0\\ 0& P^{}\end{array}\right),(IQ);P𝒞_{i1},Q𝒬_i\right\},`$
for $`i2`$. For example, $`𝒞_2`$ consists of the 18 matrices

$`\begin{array}{c}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}+& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& +& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& +& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& +\end{array}\right)\hfill \\ \left(\begin{array}{cccc}+& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& +& 0\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cccc}+& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& +\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& +& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& +\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& +& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& +& 0\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cccc}+& +& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& +& +\end{array}\right),\hfill \\ \text{ }\left(\begin{array}{cccc}+& +& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& +& \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cccc}+& & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& +& \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cccc}+& & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& +& +\end{array}\right),\hfill \\ \left(\begin{array}{cccc}+& 0& +& 0\\ 0& +& 0& +\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cccc}+& 0& +& 0\\ 0& +& 0& \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cccc}+& 0& & 0\\ 0& +& 0& +\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cccc}+& 0& & 0\\ 0& +& 0& \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cccc}+& 0& 0& +\\ 0& +& +& 0\end{array}\right),\hfill \\ \text{ }\left(\begin{array}{cccc}+& 0& 0& +\\ 0& +& & 0\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cccc}+& 0& 0& \\ 0& +& +& 0\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cccc}+& 0& 0& \\ 0& +& & 0\end{array}\right).\hfill \end{array}`$ (3)
(The third set of matrices in (3) are the matrices $`(IQ)`$.) These are generator matrices for 18 2-spaces in $`R^4`$.

#### Theorem.

Let $`m=2^i`$, $`i1`$. The generator matrices $`𝒞_i`$ define a set of $`(m1)(m+2)=2^{2i}+2^i2`$ $`\text{“sevenrm1}\text{/}\text{“sevenrm2}m`$-dimensional subspaces of $`R^m`$. The distance between any two subspaces is either $`\sqrt{m/4}`$ or $`\sqrt{m/2}`$.

#### Proof.

The number of subspaces is, by induction,

$$2+2(2^{2i2}+2^{i1}2)+2^{2i1}=2^{2i}+2^i2,$$

as claimed.

Since the recursive definition of the $`𝒞_i`$ mentions the matrices $`(I0)`$ and $`(0I)`$, the coordinate positions of $`𝒞_i`$ can be labeled from left to right with binary $`i`$-tuples in the natural order, and the group $`𝒢_i`$ then acts by multiplication on the right. It is now easy to find matrices in $`𝒢_i`$ that permute the subspaces transitively. We leave the details to the reader. Therefore, to determine the distances between the planes, we may assume that one of the planes has generator matrix

$$A=\left[\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}1& & & & & & 0& & & & \\ & 1& & & & & & 0& & & \\ & & 1& & & & & & 0& & \\ & & & \mathrm{}& & & & & & \mathrm{}& \\ & & & & 1& & & & & & 0\end{array}\right].$$

We recall (cf. ) that if a second plane has generator matrix

$$B=\left[\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}c_1& & & & & & s_1& & & & \\ & c_2& & & & & & s_2& & & \\ & & c_3& & & & & & s_3& & \\ & & & \mathrm{}& & & & & & \mathrm{}& \\ & & & & c_n& & & & & & s_n\end{array}\right],$$

where $`c_1^2+s_1^2=\mathrm{}=c_n^2+s_n^2=1`$, $`n=2^{i1}`$, then the principal angles between $`A`$ and $`B`$ are $`\mathrm{arccos}c_1`$, $`\mathrm{arccos}c_2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{arccos}c_n`$.

The principal angles between $`A`$ and $`(0I)`$ are $`\pi /2`$ ($`n`$ times). Between $`A`$ and the subspaces

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}P& 0\\ 0& P\end{array}\right)\text{or}\left(\begin{array}{cc}P& 0\\ 0& P^{}\end{array}\right)$$

they are 0 ($`n/2`$ times), $`\pi /2`$ ($`n/2`$ times); and between $`A`$ and $`(IQ)`$ they are $`\pi /4`$ ($`n`$ times). The distance from $`A`$ to any other plane is therefore either $`\sqrt{n/2}`$ or $`\sqrt{n}`$.

Since the bound (1) is achieved, this is an optimal packing.

Together with R. H. Hardin, we are also investigating other families of subspaces that can be obtained from the same group. If the initial subspace is taken to be that spanned by the first coordinate vector, the orbit consists of the minimal vectors of the Barnes-Wall lattice $`BW_i`$, together with their images under the transformation $`H`$, giving a total of

$$(2+2)(2^2+2)\mathrm{}(2^i+2)$$
(4)
lines, with minimal angle $`\pi /4`$. Taking the plane spanned by the first two coordinates as the initial plane, we appear to obtain packings in $`G(m,2)`$ containing

$$\frac{1}{12}(2^i1)\underset{r=0}{\overset{i}{}}(2^r+2)$$

planes, with minimal distance 1, for $`m=2^i`$, $`i1`$.

On the other hand, if the initial subspace is that generated by the first $`m/4`$ coordinate vectors, we appear to obtain packings in $`G(m,m/4)`$ containing

$$\frac{1}{12}(m2)(m1)(m+2)(m+4)$$

subspaces, with minimal distance $`\sqrt{m/8}`$, for $`m=2^i`$, $`i2`$. The first member of this sequence is the packing of 24 lines in $`R^4`$ formed from the diameters of a pair of dual 24-cells.

We hope to discuss these packings (which appear to be a kind of Grassmannian analogue of Reed-Muller codes and Barnes-Wall lattices) in a subsequent paper.

### Acknowledgements

We thank J. H. Conway and W. M. Kantor for helpful discussions about the groups and R. H. Hardin for assistance with experiments on the computer.


text:
# Unquenched domain wall quarks with TSMB

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Lattice actions with improved chiral properties offer the perspective of QCD simulations with a better control of chiral symmetry at non-zero lattice spacings. A prototype is the domain wall fermion action  defined on a five dimensional hypercubic lattice. Following Shamir’s formulation , the light chiral fermion modes are located on two boundaries of the fifth dimension. The price of the chiral symmetry at non-zero lattice spacing is the extra dimension enlarging the number of degrees of freedom. From a technical point of view this means that the extensions of the fermion matrix are larger and therefore the numerical simulations are slower.

It is an interesting question how much the computation speed decreases compared to, say, Wilson fermions. Since the good chiral properties of domain wall fermions develop only sufficiently close to the continuum limit, the performance studies have to be finally performed on large lattices. A comparison can only be conclusive if the autocorrelations of important physical quantities are also determined – a difficult task requiring a substantial amount of computer time.

A first step towards the effective simulation of domain wall quarks is to identify possible simulation algorithms which have the potential of being applicable in simulations with small quark masses and in large physical volumes. The two-step multi-boson algorithm (TSMB) - has been succesfully tested in this respect in case of the Wilson quark action . The application of TSMB for domain wall quarks has been recently considered in . Here we report on some further tests along these lines.

## 2 ACTION AND ALGORITHM

The lattice action for domain wall quarks can be introduced as

$$S=S_G[U]+S_F[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }},\mathrm{\Psi },U]+S_{PV}[\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\mathrm{\Phi },U].$$
(1)
Here $`S_G`$ denotes the pure gauge-field part depending on the gauge field $`U`$, $`S_F`$ is the fermionic part with the Grassmannian quark fields $`\mathrm{\Psi },\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ and $`S_{PV}`$ depends on the bosonic Pauli-Villars field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which subtracts the heavy fermion modes – as introduced in .

The fermion action $`S_F`$ is defined by

$$S_F=\underset{x,s;x^{},s^{}}{}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x^{},s^{})D_F(x^{},s^{};x,s)\mathrm{\Psi }(x,s).$$
(2)
The four-dimensional space-time coordinates are denoted by $`x,x^{}`$ and the fifth coordinates are $`s,s^{}`$. The domain wall fermion matrix $`D_F`$ is constructed from the standard four-dimensional Wilson fermion matrix

$`D(x^{},x)=\delta _{x^{}x}(4am_0)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{4}{}}}[\delta _{x^{},x+\widehat{\mu }}(1+\gamma _\mu )U_{x\mu }`$
$`+\delta _{x^{}+\widehat{\mu },x}(1\gamma _\mu )U_{x^{}\mu }^{}].`$ (3)
The notations are standard: $`a`$ is the (four-dimensional) lattice spacing and $`\widehat{\mu }`$ denotes the unit vector in direction $`\mu `$. The bare mass $`m_0`$ is chosen to be negative and should be tuned properly for producing the light boundary fermion state. The non-zero matrix elements of the domain wall fermion matrix are:

$`(D_F)_{s,s}=\sigma +D,(D_F)_{s,s+1}=\sigma P_L,`$
$`(D_F)_{s+1,s}=\sigma P_R,(D_F)_{1,N_s}=am_fP_R,`$
$`(D_F)_{N_s,1}=am_fP_L.`$ (4)
Here $`m_f`$ denotes the bare fermion mass of the light boundary fermion, $`N_s`$ is the lattice extension in the fifth dimension, $`P_R=\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma _5),P_L=\frac{1}{2}(1\gamma _5)`$ are chiral projectors and $`\sigma a/a_s`$ determines the lattice spacing in the fifth dimension $`a_s`$ relative to $`a`$.

The TSMB algorithm is based on the hermitean domain wall fermion matrix

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_F\gamma _5R_5D_F$$
(5)
where the reflection in the fifth dimension is defined as $`(R_5)_{s^{},s}\delta _{s^{},N_s+1s}(1s,s^{}N_s)`$. The quark determinant with $`N_f`$ flavours is realized in TSMB by

$$\left|det(\stackrel{~}{D}_F)\right|^{N_f}\frac{1}{detP_{n_1}^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{D}_F^2)detP_{n_2}^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{D}_F^2)}.$$
(6)
The polynomials $`P^{(1)}`$ and $`P^{(2)}`$ satisfy

$$\underset{n_2\mathrm{}}{lim}P_{n_1}^{(1)}(x)P_{n_2}^{(2)}(x)=x^{N_f/2},x[ϵ,\lambda ].$$
(7)
The interval $`[ϵ,\lambda ]`$ covers the spectrum of $`\stackrel{~}{D}_F^2`$ on a typical gauge configuration. The first polynomial $`P^{(1)}`$ of order $`n_1`$ is a crude approximation and is realized by the multi-boson representation . The second polynomial $`P^{(2)}`$ of order $`n_2n_1`$ is a better approximation. It is taken into account in the updates by a global noisy Metropolis correction step. Since for fixed $`n_2`$ (and outside the interval $`[ϵ,\lambda ]`$) the approximation $`P^{(1)}P^{(2)}`$ is not exact, a final correction step is performed by reweighting the gauge configurations which are considered for the evaluation of the expectation values. (For mode details on TSMB see -.)

## 3 SIMULATION TESTS

The implementation of TSMB for domain wall quarks is straightforward. Since domain wall fermions have an extra index labeling the fifth coordinate, a potential problem is the storage of the $`n_1`$ multi-boson fields in computer memory. This problem can be easily solved because (for domain wall fermions and in general) one can organize the gauge field update in such a way that the dependence on the multi-boson fields is collected in a few auxiliary $`33`$ matrix fields which can be easily stored in memory. The multi-boson fields themselves can be kept on disk and have to be read before and written back to disk after a complete boson field update. The duration of the input-output is negligible compared to the time of the update. Organized in this way, TSMB has a rather low storage requirement.

We performed test runs for two degenerate quark flavours $`N_f=2`$ on $`8^34`$ lattices in the vicinity of the $`N_t=4`$ thermodynamic crossover. The parameter sets have been chosen from the points in parameter space which were investigated in . Typical parameters were: $`M_0am_0=1.9,M_qam_f=0.1,\sigma =1.0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.5}`$ and $`5.20\beta 5.45`$. (The Pauli-Villars mass was $`M_1=1`$.) After equilibrating the gauge configurations several features of the domain wall quarks were investigated. For typical wave function profiles in the fifth dimension with $`N_s=8`$ see figure 1. The curves peaking at the walls correspond to eigenvalues with smallest absolute value, those concentrated in the middle to eigenvalues with largest absolute value. Spectral properties of fermion matrices are shortly discussed in the next section.

## 4 SPECTRAL PROPERTIES

As is well known from quenched studies (see for instance ), the good chiral properties of domain wall fermions are realized only if the four-dimensional fermion matrix $`D`$ used for the construction of the domain-wall fermion matrix $`D_F`$ does not have very small eigenvalues. The hermitean four-dimensional fermion matrix $`\stackrel{~}{D}\gamma _5D`$ should have a “gap” near zero in its spectrum.

In our unquenched test runs such a gap does not appear (see figure 2). The lattice spacing is obviously still too large. The spectrum flow of $`D_F`$ on the smae gauge configuration is shown by figure 3.

The conclusion of our first tests is that the application of the TSMB algorithm for numerical simulations of domain wall quarks is straightforward. A comparison of the computation speed compared to, say, Wilson quarks requires an analysis including the measurement of autocorrelations. Since the good chiral properties of domain wall fermions develop only sufficiently close to the continuum limit, the performance studies have to be carried out on large lattices.


text:
# Anchored vector bundles and algebroids

## 1. INTRODUCTION

Let $`M`$ be a connected smooth manifold and $`V`$ be a real vector bundle on $`M`$. The main subject of the present paper is the study of smooth vector bundles with extra algebraic or geometric structures .
Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ be the real vector space of smooth sections of $`V`$. A vector bundle morphism $`\rho `$ from $`V`$ to the tangent bundle of the base manifold $`M`$ is called an anchor. The vector space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ is a (left) module of the associative commutative algebra $`F(M):=C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ of smooth real valued functions on $`M`$, but in general the multiplication defining a real algebra structure of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ is not required to be $`F(M)`$\- bilinear. The role of the anchor map is to control relationships between the algebra structure of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ and its $`F(M)`$-module structure. That is the main idea behind geometric objets such as Lie algebroids, Koszul-Vinberg algebroids, Lie-Rinehart algebras and Courant algebroids.
On the other hand the anchor $`\rho `$ induces a linear map from the vector space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ to the vector space $`X(M)`$ of smooth vector fields on the base manifold $`M`$.
There are two situations depending on whether the multiplication map in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ is skew symmetric or not.
To each skew symmetric multiplication, (that we denote by $`[.,.]`$), one assigns the so called Jacobi anomaly, namely

$$J(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})=[[s,s^{}],s\mathrm{"}]$$

where $``$ denotes the cyclic sum in $`s,s^{},s\mathrm{"}`$

In the present paper, multiplications which are not skew symmetric will be called non  asymmetric. To each non asymmetric multiplication we will assign its Koszul-Vinberg anomaly, namely

$$KV(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})=(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})(s^{},s,s\mathrm{"})$$

where $`(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})=s.(s^{}.s\mathrm{"})(s.s^{}).s\mathrm{"}`$ is the associator (which vanishes for associative algebras).

From a non asymmetric multiplication, say $`s.s^{}`$, one can construct a skew symmetric one by setting

$$[s,s^{}]=s.s^{}s^{}.s$$

The Jacobi anomaly of the last bracket is related to the Koszul-Vinberg anomaly by the following equation

$$J(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})=K(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})$$

Given an element $`s`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$, its image $`\rho (s)`$ under the anchor map acts on $`F(M)`$ as first order differential operator. The relationship between the real algebra structure of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ and its $`F(M)`$-module structure is controlled by the following Leibniz anomaly

$$\text{L}(s,f,s^{})=s.(fs^{})(\rho (s)f)s^{}f(s.s^{})$$

We will call an almost algebroid on the base manifold $`M`$ any couple $`(V,.)`$ consisting of a vector bundle $`V`$ on $`M`$ together with a real algebra structure $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }(V),.)`$ in the vector space of smooth sections of $`V`$.

The present work is concerned with the study of the couple $`(J(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"}),L(s,f,s^{}))`$ (resp. $`(KV(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"}),L(s,f,s^{}))`$) of Jacobi anomaly and Leiniz anomaly (resp. the Koszul-Vinberg anomaly and Leibniz anomaly) of an anchored almost algebroid whose multplication is skew symmetric (resp. non asymmetric).
For instance one easily sees that

$$(J(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"}),L(s,f,s^{}))=(0,0)s,s^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)fF(M)$$

if and only if $`(V,\rho ,[.,.])`$ is a Lie algebroid. On the other hand

$$(KV(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"}),L(s,f,s^{})=(0,0)s,s^{},s\mathrm{"}\mathrm{\Gamma }(V),fF(M)$$

if and only if $`(V,\rho ,.)`$ is a Koszul-Vinberg algebroid.

Our work is inspired by those of Z.J. Liu, A. Weinstein and P. Xu on Dirac structures, (see \[LWX1,LWX2\].)
We have adopted the use of the cohomology of the algebra $`F(M)`$ viewed as a Koszul-Vinberg algebra .
Resolving a old problem raised by Gerstenhaber \[GM\], we recently constructed the cohomolgy theory of Koszul-Vinberg algebras and their modules which controls deformations of those structures, \[NB1\]. That cohomology is also related to Poisson geometry \[NB2,NB3\].
It is remarkable that from each vector bundle $`V`$ on the base manifold $`M`$ arise two cochain complexes of the Koszul-Vinberg algebra $`F(M)`$, namely

$`(c)C^{}(F(M),V)={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}Hom({\displaystyle \stackrel{k}{}}F(M),\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)).`$
$`(c^{})C^{}(F(M),V^{})={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}Hom({\displaystyle \stackrel{k}{}}F(M),\mathrm{\Gamma }(V^{})).`$
To control the Jacobi anomaly and the Leibniz anomaly, the cohomology theory of the Koszul-Vinberg $`F(M)`$ turns out to be more efficient than the Hoschschild cohomology of the associative algebra $`F(M)`$.
It is reasonable to conjecture that many ingredients that are involved in the theory of Courant algebroid structures and Dirac structures lie in the derived objets of the complexes (c) and $`(c^{})`$.
In the present work, we will introduce the notions of CC algebroids and non asymmetric Courant algebroids. The cochain complexes (c) and $`(c^{})`$ will be used to study these structures.

Our main result concerning CC algebroids is Theorem 5.1 which in particular implies that the system of five axioms in the usual definition of Courant algebroids contains three axioms which are superfluous whenever the rank of the vector bundle is greater than 3. For more details on Courant algebroid structures and related topics, the reader may consult works of Liu-Weinstein-Xu, mainly \[LWX1,LWX2\].

We take this opportunity to recall that some years ago (1995 and 2000) we have pointed out a similar redundancy in the usual definition of Lie algebroid structures. Namely: a Lie algebroid is an anchored almost Lie algebroid $`(V,\rho ,[.,.])`$ such that the following axioms hold

$`(AX1)J(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})=0.`$
$`(AX2)L(s,f,s^{})=0.`$
$`(AX3)\rho ([s,s^{}])=[\rho (s),\rho (s^{})]=0.`$
However (AX3) is superfluous .
In fact, it is easily seen that (Ax3) is a consequence of the other two axioms (AX1) and (AX2). The reader is referred to Section 2 of our paper \[NB1\] in Banach Center Publications , Vol. 54, page 103, Warszawa 2001; ibidem, page 45, DEFINITION 2, joint paper by J.Grabowski and K. Grabowska, \[GG\], contains the superfluous axiom (AX3). Thereafter, the later joint paper by J.Grabowski and G. Marmo, \[GMa\], attests that those authors hadn’t read the reference we just recalled.

Another consequence of our Theorem 5.1 is that the theory of Courant algebroid structures of rank less than three differs from that of Courant algebroid structures of rank greater than three. That phenomenon is illustrated by our Example 5.2

Non asymmetric Courant algebroid structures are studied in Section 7 and Section 8. They lead us to features which are quite different from those inherited from CC algebroid structures. Indeed, those structures lead to locally flat (pseudo)clan bundles (Theorem 7.2). That phenomenon is an unexpected incursion of the affine geometry of homogeneous bounded domains in the theory of non asymmetric Courant algebroid structures. We obtain interesting relationships between the differential geometry of non asymmetric Courant algebroid structures and their Koszul-Vinberg cohomology (Theorem 7.5).
An another result concerns the class of non asymmetric Courant algebroid structures with a definite forms $`<.,.>`$. We will show that under some additional conditions, the cohomology class of $`<.,.>`$ doesn’t vanish (Theorem 8.1). This fact is in contrast to properties of clans which arise from the affine geometry of homogeneous hyperbolic bounded domains, \[KV,JLK1,KJ\]. (The cohomology theory used in \[KJ\] is derived from the Chevalley-Eilenberg cohomology theory of Lie algebras). Nevertheless Theorem 8.1 may be compared to similar results in \[JLK2\] where Jean-Louis Koszul has pointed out a lot of canonical vector bundle valued superorder differential forms whose cohomology classes never vanish. (For instance, the divergence class associated to a volume form , cocycles defined by torsion free linear connection). Two examples of clan bundle and pseudo clan bundle are given in Section 8. Section 9 is devoted to some miscellaneous items. In section 10 some observations are made about relationships of algebroid structures with various topics.

## 2. ALGEBROIDS

Given a connected smooth manifold $`M`$, the associative algebra of smooth real valued functions defined on $`M`$ is denoted by $`F(M)`$.

Let $`V`$ be a smooth vector bundle on $`M`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ be the vector space of smooth sections of $`V.`$ We shall consider $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ as a Koszul-Vinberg module of $`F(M)`$ by setting the following axioms

$`(1)(sf)(x)=(fs)(x)=f(x)s(x)`$
for any $`s`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ and any $`f`$ in $`F(M).`$ A vector bundle $`V`$ will be called an almost algebroid whenever $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ is endowed with a real algebra structure. Therefore the product of two sections $`s`$ and $`s^{}`$ will be denoted by $`ss^{}`$.

Given an almost algebroid, it is to be noticed that in general $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ is not an algebra over the ring $`F(M).`$
A vector bundle $`V`$ on $`M`$ together with a vector bundle morphism $`\rho `$ to the tangent bundle $`TM`$ is called anchored vector bundle. The anchor $`\rho `$ induces a map from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM)`$ which is $`F(M)`$ linear. The anchor map of an anchored almost algebroid $`V`$ is used to relate the $`F(M)`$-module structure of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ with its real algebra structure. Such relationships yield to the concept of labelled algebroids.
Before pursuing, let us recall some important labelled almost algebroid structures .

(e1): A Lie algebroid is an anchored almost Lie algebroid $`(V,\rho ,[.,.])`$ such that

$`(2i)(\mathrm{\Gamma }(V),[.,.])\text{ is a real Lie algebra. }`$
Given $`s`$, $`s^{}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ and $`f`$ in $`F(M)`$ one has

$`(2ii)[s,fs^{}]=(\rho (s)f)s^{}+f[s,s^{}].`$
(e2): A Koszul-Vinberg algebroid is an anchored almost algebroid $`(V,\rho ,.)`$ such that given elements $`s`$, $`s^{}`$ and $`s\mathrm{"}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ and an element $`f`$ of $`F(M),`$ one has

$`(3_i)s.(s^{}.s\mathrm{"})(s.s^{}).s\mathrm{"}s^{}.(s.s\mathrm{"})+(s^{}.s).s\mathrm{"}=0.`$
$`(3_{ii})(fs).s^{}f(s.s^{})=0.`$
$`(3_{iii})s.(fs^{})(\rho (s)f)s^{}f(s.s^{})=0.`$
## 3. ALMOST LIE ALGEBROIDS

In this section, we will be concerned with the so called almost Lie algebroid  structures, viz those almost algebroids $`(V,[.,.])`$ whose multiplications $`[.,.]`$ are skew symmetric. Let $`(V,[.,.])`$ be an anchored almost Lie algebroid on $`M`$. Let $`s`$, $`s^{}`$ and $`s\mathrm{"}`$ be sections of $`V`$ and let $`f`$ be an element of $`F(M)`$. The only obstructions for an almost Lie algebroid $`(V,\rho ,[.,.])`$ to be an Lie algebroid are

(ob1): Jacobi anomaly

$$J(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})=[[s,s^{}],s\mathrm{"}].$$

(ob2): Leibniz anomaly

$$L(s,f,s^{})=[s,fs^{}](\rho (s)f)s^{}f[s,s^{}].$$

Regarding the case of non asymmetric anchored almost algebroid structure, we will replace the Jacobi anomaly by the following quantity,which is called Koszul-Vinberg anomaly:

$`(4)KV(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})=s.(s^{}.s\mathrm{"})(s.s^{}).s\mathrm{"}s^{}.(s.s\mathrm{"})+(s^{}.s).s\mathrm{"}.`$
We intend to point out that the cohomology theory of Koszul-Vinberg algebras and their modules provides tools which are useful in studying the Jacobi anomaly and the Koszul-Vinberg anomaly. This idea has been inspired to us by the theory of Courant algebroid structures. \[LWX1,LWX2,LW\], see also \[UK\].

## 4.  KV-COHOMOLOGY $`H^{}(F(M),V)`$

Recall that an algebra $`A`$ whose associator is symmetric with respect to the first two arguments, viz $`KV(a,b,c)=0`$ $`a,b,cA`$, is called a Koszul-Vinberg algebra. In particular any associative algebra is a Koszul-Vinberg algebra . So is the case for $`F(M)`$ when it is endowed with its natural associative commutative real algebra structure.
A two-sided module of $`F(M)`$, say $`W`$, is called a Koszul-Vinberg module if the following identities hold

$$f(gw)(fg)w=g(fw)(gf)w$$

$$f(wg)(fw)g=w(fg)(wf)g,f,gF(M),wW$$

Let $`V`$ be a vector bundle on $`M`$. Then, according to (1), the vector space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ is a Koszul-Vinberg module of $`F(M)`$. We shall deal with the cochain complex whose $`k^{th}`$ homogeneous space is the vector space $`C^k(F(M),V)`$ of $`k`$-multi-linear maps from $`F(M)`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$, $`k`$ being a positive integer. When $`k`$ = 0 we set

$$C^0(F(M),V)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)$$

The coboundary operator

$$\delta :C^k(F(M),V)C^{k+1)}(F(M),V)$$

is defined as follows

$`(5_i)\delta =0ifk=0.`$
If $`k`$ is a positive integer, then

$`(5_{ii})\delta (\mathrm{\Theta })(a_1,..,a_{k+1})={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}(1)^j((a_j\mathrm{\Theta })(a_1,..,\widehat{a}_j,..,a_{k+1})+`$
$$a_{k+1}(\mathrm{\Theta }(a_1,..,\widehat{a}_j,\mathrm{},a_k,a_j)))$$

where

$$(a_j\mathrm{\Theta })(a_1,.,a_k)=a_j(\mathrm{\Theta }(a_1,\mathrm{},a_k))\underset{r}{}\mathrm{\Theta }(a_1,\mathrm{},a_ja_r,\mathrm{},a_k)$$

It is easy to check that

$$H^0(F(M),V)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(V),$$

$$H^1(F(M,V)=Der(F(M,\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)).$$

Thus, two cocycles in $`C^1(F(M),V)`$ are cohomologuous if and only if there are equal.

Let $`(V,\rho ,[.,.])`$ be an anchored almost Lie algebroid and let us suppose that the corresponding vector bundle is endowed with a symmetric bilinear form which is denoted by $`<.,.>`$. We adopt notations of \[LWX1,LWX2\]. To each triple ($`s`$,$`s^{}`$,$`s\mathrm{"}`$) of elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ we assign the smooth function $`T(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})`$ which is defined by

$$T(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})=<[s,s^{}],s\mathrm{"}>.$$

The high lighted focus in the theory of Courant algebroid structures consists of using the function $`T`$ to control the Jacobi anomaly (see \[LWX1,LWX2\]).

## 5. THE MAIN THEOREM

Keeping in mind the notations used above, we are in position to prove the following statement.

###### Theorem 5.1.

Let $`(V,[.,.],\rho )`$ be an anchored almost Lie algebroid on $`M`$ . Let one suppose that the following assumptions to hold.
(i) The vector bundle $`V`$ is endowed with a non degenerate symmetric bilinear form which is denoted by $`<.,.>`$.
(ii) There is a cocycle $`D`$ in $`C^1(F(M),V)`$ satisfying the following two identities

$`(r1)J(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})=D(T(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"}))s,s^{},s\mathrm{"}\mathrm{\Gamma }(V).`$
$`(r2)\rho (s)(<s^{},s\mathrm{"}>)=<[s,s^{}]+D(<s,s^{}>),s\mathrm{"}>+<s^{},[s,s\mathrm{"}]+D(<s,s\mathrm{"}>)>.`$
If $`rank(V)>3,`$ then the anchor map $`\rho `$ satisfies the following identity

$$\rho ([s,s^{}])=[\rho (s),\rho (s^{})]$$

Proof
Following \[UK\], the hypothesis (r2) allows one to control the Leibniz anomaly. More precisely let $`fF(M)`$. Taking in account both (r2) and the the $`\delta `$-closeness of $`D`$, a direct calculation of the quantity $`\rho (s)(<fs^{},s\mathrm{"}>)`$ yields to the following identity

$`(6)[s,fs^{}](\rho (s)f)s^{}f[s,s^{}]=<s,s^{}>D(f).`$
Let $`s`$ and $`s^{}`$ be fixed elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$. Under the assumption that $`rank(V)>3,`$ we can choose a non zero element $`s\mathrm{"}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ such that

$$<s,s\mathrm{"}>=<s^{},s\mathrm{"}>=<[s,s^{}],s\mathrm{"}>=0.$$

Therefore, for each $`fF(M)`$ the Jacobi anomaly $`J(,s,s^{},fs\mathrm{"})`$ is reduced to

$`(7)J(s,s^{},fs\mathrm{"})=fJ(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})+T(s,s^{},s^{})D(f)+(\rho ([s,s^{}])f[\rho (s),\rho (s^{})]f)s\mathrm{"}.`$
On the other hand, under the same hypothesis as above, one easily checks the following identity

$$T(s,s^{},fs\mathrm{"})=fT(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"}).$$

By the virtu of (r1), the following identity holds

$$J(s,s^{},fs\mathrm{"})=D(T(s,s^{},fs\mathrm{"})).$$

Combining those results with the closeness assumption $`\delta (D)=o,`$ we conclude that the following quantity

$$\rho ([s,s^{}])f\rho (s)(\rho (s^{})f)+\rho (s^{})(\rho (s)f)$$

vanishes identically. That ends the proof of Theorem 5.1 $`\mathrm{}`$

EXAMPLE 5.2

Theorem 5.1 fails when the $`rank(V)<3.`$
Indeed, let $`𝐌`$ be the field of real numbers. Let us set

$$V=M\times R.$$

Elements of $`V`$ are denoted by $`(x,y_x)`$ where $`x`$ and $`y_x`$ are two real numbers.
On the other hand, let us denote the tangent bundle of $`M`$ by

$$TM=M\times R_x.$$

Smooth sections of $`V`$ are real valued smooth functions of one real variable. Let $`f`$, $`g`$ and $`h`$ be three real valued smooth functions defined on $`M`$. Let us define the bilinear symmetric form on $`V`$ by setting

$$<f,g>(x)=f(x)g(x)f,g\mathrm{\Gamma }(V).$$

We define the almost Lie algebroid structure on $`V`$ by the following bracket

$$[f,g]=f_xgg_xff,g\mathrm{\Gamma }(V).$$

We now define the anchor map $`\rho `$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ by putting

$$\rho (f)=2f_x.$$

The 1-cocycle $`DC^1(F(M),V)`$ is defined by

$$D(f)=_xf.$$

The reader will easily verify that the data just defined, say $`(V,\rho ,[.,.],<.,.>,D),`$ satisfy both conditions (r1) and (r2) of Theorem 5.1. Nevertheless it is easily seen that the conclusion of Theorem 5.1 fails $`\mathrm{}`$

## 6. CC ALGEBROIDS

Considerations to be discussed in this section are inspired by Theorem 5.1 and some problems which are raised in \[LWX2\] and in \[UK\].

###### Definition 6.1.

A CC algebroid is a datum $`(V,\rho ,[.,.],<.,.>,D)`$ where $`(V,\rho ,[.,.],<.,.>)`$ is an anchored almost Lie algebroid endowed with a non degenerate bilinear symmetric form $`<.,.>`$ and $`D`$ is 1-cocycle in $`C^1(F(M),V)`$ with relationships (r1) and (r2) stated in Theorem 5.1, namely

$`(r1)J(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})=D(T(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})s,s^{},s\mathrm{"}\mathrm{\Gamma }(V).`$
$`(r2)\rho (s)<s^{},s\mathrm{"}>=<[s,s^{}]+D(<s,s^{}>),s\mathrm{"}>+<s^{},[s,s\mathrm{"}]+D(<s,s\mathrm{"}>)>`$
The notion of CC algebroid structure that we just introduced is different from that of Courant algebroid structures studied by Lu, Weinstein and Xu.(See \[LWX1\],LWX2\]). Below is the usually given definiton of Courant algebroid structures

###### Definition 6.2.

(\[LWX1,LWX2\]) A Courant algebroid is an anchored almost Lie algebroid, say $`(V,\rho ,[.,.]`$, endowed with a non degenerate symmetric 2-form $`<.,.>`$ and with a 1-cocycle $`DC^1(F(M),V)`$ subject to satisfy the following five axioms
$`s,s^{},s\mathrm{"}\mathrm{\Gamma }(V),fF(M)`$ the following identities hold

$`Ax13J(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})=D(T(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"}).`$
$`Ax2\rho ([s,s^{}])=[\rho (s),\rho (s^{})].`$
$`Ax3[s,fs^{}]=(\rho (s)f)s^{}+f[s,s^{}]<s,s^{}>D(f).`$
$`Ax4\rho (D(f))=0.`$
$`Ax5\rho (s)<s^{},s\mathrm{"}>=<[s,s^{}]+D(<s,s^{}>),s\mathrm{"}>+<s^{},[s,s\mathrm{"}]+D(<s,s\mathrm{"}>)>`$
###### Remark 6.3.

Our Theorem 5.1 implies that up to a constant factor, each CC algebroid of $`rank>3`$ is a Courant algebroid. Our assertion is made clear by the following Proposition which is a straight corollary of Theorem 5.1.

###### Proposition 6.4.

Let $`(V,\rho ,[.,.],D,<.,.>)`$ be a CC algebroid whose rank is greater than three. Then, $`s,s^{},s\mathrm{"}\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ and $`fF(M)`$ the following identities hold

$`(i)[s,fs^{}]=(\rho (s)f)s^{}+f[s,s^{}]<s,s^{}>D(f)`$
$`(ii)\rho ([s,s^{}])=[\rho (s),\rho (s^{})]`$
$`(iii)\rho (D(f))=0.`$
Proof
By the virtue of (r2), (Theorem 5.1), a direct calculation of $`\rho (s)<fs^{},s\mathrm{"}>`$ yields to Identity (i). Identity (ii) is nothing but the conclusion of Theorem 5.1. To end the proof, one only calculates the following expression

$$\rho ([s,fs^{}])=(\rho (s)f)\rho (s^{})+f\rho ([s,s^{}])<s,s^{}>\rho (D(f))$$

Taking into account that Identity (ii) holds, one easily checks the following

$$<s,s^{}>\rho (D(f))=0$$

Proposition 6.4 is proved. $`\mathrm{}`$

Here is an another direct consequence of Definition 6.1 :

###### Theorem 6.5.

Given a CC algebroid $`(V,\rho ,[.,.],<.,.>,D)`$, the following assertions are equivalent:

$`(A1)\rho ([s,s^{}])=[\rho (s),\rho (s^{})]s,s^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$
$`(A2)\rho (D(f))=0fF(M).`$
Proof.
First. (A2) implies (A1)

Step1. If $`rank(V)=1,`$ then, let us choose $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ such that $`s`$ is a basis of the $`F(M)`$-module $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ in an open subset $`UM.`$ Therefore, let $`V_U`$ be the inverse image of $`U`$ under the projection of $`V`$ on $`M.`$ Then, $`s^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(V_U),`$ $`fF(M)`$ such that $`s^{}=fs.`$ The Leibniz equation gives the following identity

$$[s,s^{}]=[s,sf]=(\rho (s)f)s<s,s>D(f).$$

On the other hand, we have

$$[\rho (s),\rho (fs)]=[\rho (s),f\rho (s)]=(\rho (s)f)\rho (s)$$

By the virtue of (A2) we have

$$\rho ([s,fs]=(\rho (s)f)\rho (s).$$

In conclusion, (A2) implies (A1) if $`rank(V)=1.`$

Step2. Suppose that $`rank(V)>1`$. Let $`s,s^{},s\mathrm{"}\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ and $`fF(M).`$Our hypothesis is that $`fF(M)`$ one has $`\rho (D(f))=0.`$ . Then, the calculation of $`\rho (J(s,s^{},fs\mathrm{"}))`$ yields to

$$\rho (J(s,s^{},fs\mathrm{"})=(\rho ([s,s^{}])[\rho (s,\rho (s^{})])f)\rho (s\mathrm{"})+$$

$$<s^{},s\mathrm{"}>\rho ([s,D(f)])<s,s\mathrm{"}>\rho ([s^{},D(f)]).$$

Since the left member of the equality above vanishes, we deduce the following identity

$`()(\rho ([s,s^{}])[\rho (s,\rho (s^{})])f)\rho (s\mathrm{"})=<s,s\mathrm{"}>\rho ([s^{},D(f)])<s^{},s\mathrm{"}>\rho ([s,D(f)]).`$
Now, let us choose an element $`gF(M)`$ satisfying the following two conditions in some open sub-set of the base manifold $`M`$

$`(C1)<s,D(g)=0.`$
$`(C2)<s^{},D(g)>0.`$
Therefore, replacing $`s\mathrm{"}`$ by $`D(g)`$ in $`()`$ we obtain the following identy

$`()<s^{},D(g)>\rho ([s,D(f)]=ofF(M)`$
Thus, the right member of the identity $`()`$ vanishes identically.

Second: (A1) implies (A2)

Now, our assumption is that $`\rho `$ is an algebra homomorphism from $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }(V),[.,.])`$ to the Lie algebra of smooth vector fields on the base manifold $`M`$. Then, from the following Leibniz equation

$$L(s,f,s^{})=<s,s^{}>D(f),$$

one easily deduces that $`\rho (D(f))`$ vanishes identically. That ends the proof of Theorem 6.5 $`\mathrm{}`$

N.B. In \[UK\], Uchino raises the question to know whether the axiom (Ax2) of Courant algebroid structures may be deduced from the other axioms. Example 5.2 and Theorem 6.5 show that this question is a relevant one. Theorems 5.1, Proposition 6.4 and 6.5 give the complete answer to $`Uchino^{,s}`$ question.
However the two axioms (Ax3) and (Ax4) in the usual definition of Courant algebroid structures are always superfluous.
On the other hand the three axioms (A2),(A3) and (A4) are superfluous whenever the rank of the Courant algebroid is greater than three.
The author recently brought Alan $`Weinstein^{,s}`$ attention to the last observations . Our Theorem 5.1 shows that only the two axioms (Ax1) and (Ax5) are necessary to define Courant algebroid structures of $`rank>3`$.

So, in regard to a Courant algebroid structure, say $`(V,\rho ,[.,.],<.,.>,D),`$ the cases where $`rank(V)3`$ are quite different from those where $`rank(V)>3)`$.
In the cases where $`rank(V)<3`$, it becomes necessary to add the axiom (Ax2) ( or its equivalent $`\rho (D(f))=0fF(M).`$)

Many years ago(in 1995 and in 2000) we pointed out a similar remark about the system of three axioms in the usual definition Lie algebroid structures. The correct definition of Lie algebroid structures is that we have written out , \[NB2\]. Let us recall it below.)

###### Definition 6.6.

A Lie algebroid on the base manifold $`M`$ is an anchored almost Lie algebroid $`(V,\rho ,[.,.])`$ on $`M`$ with the following two properties

$`(P1)J(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})=os,s^{},s\mathrm{"}\mathrm{\Gamma }(V).`$
$`(P2)[s,fs^{}](\rho (s)f)s^{}f[s,s^{}]=0fF(M).`$
###### Remark 6.7.

Both properties (P1) and (P2) imply that the anchor map $`\rho `$ induces a Lie algebra homomorphism from $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }(V),[.,.])`$ to the Lie algebra of smooth vector fields on the base manifold.

Regarding the abundance of literature on the theory of Lie algebroid structures we concluded and claimed (in 1995) that the redundancy of the axiom (Ax3), namely

$$\rho ([s,s^{}])=[\rho (s),\rho (s^{})]$$

has remained unknown to the totaly of experts for many decades. Today in our knowledge the contrary is still uncertain. That is reason why, once more, we would like to repeat things here. First authors to be recently convinced are J.P. Dufour, A. Banyaga, J. Leslie, T.Z. Nguyen, A.Weinstein \[private communications\]; J. Grabowski and M. Marmo, \[GMa\].

Digressions.

Regarding various generalizations of the theory of Lie Algebroid structures, the only exiting problem is to handle the Lie algebroid structure defect. That defect is represented by the couple consisting of Jacobi anomaly and Leibniz anomaly of anchored almost Lie algebroid structures. That is the main concern of many fundamental works. For instance \[KO1,KO2,LWX1,LWX2,LX,MK\]. To handle the Lie algebroid structure defects, many interesting ideas arise from \[PP\].

The highlighted point behind the theory of Courant algebroid structures is to ask both Jacobi anomaly and Leibniz anomaly to lie in the kernel of the anchor map,(via some special first order differential operator $`D`$, which is really a 1-cocycle of the complex (5) (of the Koszul-Vinberg algebra $`F(M)`$)).
Similar ideas work in anchored almost Koszul-Vinberg algebroid structures. In the next section we intend to perform the idea that Courant algebroid structures provide an efficient framework for many interesting investigations, (see\[LWX1,LWX2\] for more details about other relationships, (such as Manin triple, Dirac structures and so on).

## 7.  NON ASYMMETRIC COURANT ALGEBROIDS

We plan pointing out close relationships between non asymmetric almost algebroid structures, (viz those $`(V,.)`$ such that the multiplication of the real algebra $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }(V),.)`$ is not assumed to be skew symmetric) and the geometry of some class of bounded domains.

Let $`(V,\rho ,.)`$ be an anchored almost algebroid on the smooth manifold $`M.`$ To elements $`s`$, $`s^{}`$ and $`s\mathrm{"}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ is assigned the associator $`s(s^{}s\mathrm{"}(ss^{})s\mathrm{"}`$ where $`ss^{}`$ stands for $`s.s^{}`$. Let us recall that $`(V,\rho ,.)`$ is a Koszul-Vinberg algebroid if the following two axioms hold

$`(kv1)s(s^{}s\mathrm{"})(ss^{})s\mathrm{"}s^{}(ss\mathrm{"})+(s^{}s)s\mathrm{"}=0s,s^{},s\mathrm{"}\mathrm{\Gamma }(V).`$
$`(kv2)s(fs^{})(\rho (s)f)sfss^{}=0fF(M).`$
We recall that the Koszul-Vinberg anomaly is the following quantity

$$(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})(s^{},s,s\mathrm{"})$$

where $`(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})`$ stands for $`s(s^{}s\mathrm{"})(ss^{})s\mathrm{"}.`$

Given an anchored almost algebroid on the base manifold $`M`$, say $`(V,\rho ,.)`$, its KV-algebroid structure defect is represented by the couple consisting of the Koszul-Vinberg anomaly and the following Leibniz anomaly

$$\text{L}(s,f,s^{})=s(fs^{})(\rho (s)f)s^{}f(ss^{}),$$

KV stands for Koszul-Vinberg.
Let us consider an anchored almost algebroid with a non degenerate symmetric bilinear form, say $`(V,\rho ,.,<.,.>)`$

We shall consider the vector space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ endowed with its $`F(M)`$-module structure defined by (1). Now, let us set the following definition

###### Definition 7.1.

A non asymmetric Courant algebroid is an anchored almost algebroid $`(V,\rho ,.)`$ with a non degenerate symmetric bilinear form, say $`<.,.>`$, and with a 1-cocycle $`DC^1(F(M),V)`$ subject to satisfy the following requirements:
$`s,s^{},s\mathrm{"}\mathrm{\Gamma }(V),`$ $`fF(M)`$ one has

$`(R1)(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})(s^{},s,s\mathrm{"})=D(\delta (<.,.>(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})).`$
$`(R2)(fs)s^{}=f(ss^{}).`$
$`(R3)\rho (s)<s^{},s\mathrm{"}>=<ss^{}+D(<s,s^{}),s\mathrm{"}>+<s^{},ss\mathrm{"}+D(<s,s\mathrm{"}>)>,`$
the right member of the first equality in (R1) has the following meaning

$$\delta <.,.>(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})=\rho (s)<s^{},s\mathrm{"}>+<ss^{},s\mathrm{"}>+<s^{},ss\mathrm{"}>+$$

$$\rho (s^{})<s,s\mathrm{"}><s^{}s,s\mathrm{"}><s,s^{}s\mathrm{"}>$$

Our first result concerning non asymmetric Courant algebroid structures is the following statement.

###### Theorem 7.2.

Let $`(V,\rho ,.,<.,.>,D)`$ be a non asymmetric Courant algebroid. If its rank is greater than two, then the anchor map $`\rho `$ satisfies the following identity

$$[\rho (s),\rho (s^{})]=\rho (ss^{})\rho (s^{}s)s,s^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)$$

Proof
Let $`s`$ and $`s^{}`$ be elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ and let $`f`$ be an element of $`F(M)`$. Then the following identity is a straight consequence of (R3)

$$s(fs^{})(\rho (s)f)s^{}f(ss^{})=<s,s^{}>D(f).$$

Thus, (R3) is an efficient tool to handle the Leibniz anomaly. Since the rank of $`V`$ is greater than two let $`s\mathrm{"}`$ be a non zero element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ such that

$$<s,s\mathrm{"}>=<s^{},s\mathrm{"}>=0.$$

Therefore, using the identity we just pointed out, a direct calculation yields to the following identity

$$(s,s^{},fs\mathrm{"})(s^{},s,fs\mathrm{"})=f((s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})(s^{},s,s\mathrm{"}))+(\delta <.,.>(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"}>))D(f)+$$

$$(([\rho (s),\rho (s^{})]\rho (ss^{})+\rho (s^{}s))f)s\mathrm{"}.$$

On the other hand, a similar calculation yields to the following identity

$$\delta <.,.>(s,s^{},fs\mathrm{"})=f\delta <.,.>(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"}).$$

Therefore, by the virtu of (R1) one must conclude that the quantity

$$([\rho (s),\rho (s^{})]\rho (ss^{})+\rho (s^{}s))f$$

vanishes identically. That ends the demonstration of Theorem 7.2 $`\mathrm{}`$

Let us make some remark. Let $`V,.,<.,.>`$ be an non asymmetric Courant algebroid and let $`s,s^{},s\mathrm{"}\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$. As above, let us put

$$KV(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})=(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})(s^{},s,s\mathrm{"}).$$

Then $`V,.,<.,.>`$ gives rise to the anchored almost Lie algebroid structure $`V,[.,.]`$ whose bracket is defined by

$$[s,s^{}]=ss^{}s^{}s.$$

The Jacobi anomaly of the last almost Lie algebroid structure is related to the Koszul-Vinberg anomaly $`KV(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})`$ as follows

$$J(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})=KV(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"}).$$

The digressions above lead to close relationships between non asymmetric Courant algebroid structures on a base manifold $`M`$ and locally hessian Lie group bundles on the same base manifold $`M`$.
In fact, consider a non asymmetric Courant algebroid $`(V,\rho ,.,<.,.>,D)`$. Let us use (R1), (R2) and (R3) to calculate the quantity $`\rho (fs)<s^{},s\mathrm{"}>`$. Then, we obtain the following identity

$$<s,s^{}><D(f),s\mathrm{"}>+<s,s\mathrm{"}><D(f),s^{}>=0.$$

Therefore, we must conclude that $`D=0`$. The last condition is equivalent to $`\rho =0`$. Thus, a non asymmetric Courant algebroid is nothing but a Koszul-Vinberg algebra bundle endowed with a non degenerate symmetric bilinear form which is invariant under the left multiplication by elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$. We can write out those particular items in terms of the real valued cohomology the complex (5).

Roughly speaking, let R be an associative commutative ring and let $`A`$ be a R-Koszul-Vinberg algebra. We will endow R with the trivial $`A`$-module structure. We now consider the cochain complex whose the $`k^{th}`$ homogeneous subspaces is the vector space

$$C^k(A,K)=Hom_K(^kA,K).$$

The coboundary operator is defined as in (5).

Considering the case of a non asymmetric Courant algebroid on the base manifold $`M`$, say $`(V,.,<.,.>)`$, we are dealing with a cohomology class in $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }(V),F(M))`$ containing a non degenerate cocyle, namely $`<.,.>`$.

Let us return to the general case of non asymmetric Courant algebroid structures. Let $`(V,.,<.,.>)`$ be such an algebroid structure. We consider elements $`s,s^{},s\mathrm{"}\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ and an element $`fF(M)`$. By the virtue of (R3) one has the following identity

$$<ss,s\mathrm{"}>+<s^{},ss\mathrm{"}>=0.$$

Thus, regarding the bilinear form $`<.,.>`$ as an element of $`C^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }(V),F(M)),`$ one easily sees that

$$\delta <.,.>(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})=0.$$

An interesting consequence of the last calculations is the following statement.

###### Theorem 7.3.

Each non asymmetric Courant algebroid on the base manifold $`M`$ is a locally flat (pseudo) clan bundle on $`M.`$

Proof
Let us recall that (by definition) a real clan (resp. pseudo clan) is a couple $`(A,<.,.>)`$ of real Koszul-Vinberg algebra $`A`$ together with a positive definite (resp non degenerate) real valued symmetric 2-cocyle $`<.,.>C^2(A,R),`$ \[VK,VE,SH\].
A (pseudo) clan $`A,<.,.>`$ is locally flat when the left multiplication by each element of $`A`$ lies in the orthogonal algebra of $`<.,.>`$.
Considering the case of a non asymmetric Courant algebroid the vanishing property of the anchor map implies that the associator map $`(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})`$ is symmetric with respect to the pair ($`s`$,$`s^{}`$). Therefore, we get the following identity

$$KV(s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})=os,s^{},s\mathrm{"}\mathrm{\Gamma }(V).$$

Moreover, if $`x`$ is a fixed element of the base manifold $`M`$, then $`s,s^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$, the element $`(ss^{})(x)`$ of $`V_x`$ depends on $`s(x)`$ and on $`s^{}(x)`$ only. Thus if we set

$$s(x).s^{}(x)=(ss^{})(x)$$

then, the fiber $`V_x`$ is a Koszul-Vinberg algebra endowed with a non degenerate symmetric 2-cocycle, namely $`<.,.>(x)`$. That ends the proof of Theorem 7.3 $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 7.4.

Let us keep in mind the conclusion of Theorem 7.3, the question rises to know whether the Koszul-Vinberg algebra bundle deduced from a non asymmetric Courant algebroid is locally trivial. In other words is there a Koszul-Vinberg algebra fiber type for the bundle $`(V,.)`$?

From the theoretic viewpoint, the cohomology theory of Koszul-Vinberg algebras is helpful in studying this question. To perform the last idea, one must remind that the cochain complex to be considered is $`C^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(V),V)`$ whose coboundary operator is recalled below. Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ be an element of $`C^k(\mathrm{\Gamma }(V),V)`$ and let $`s_1,..,s_{k+1}`$ be smooth sections of $`V`$, then

$`(8)\delta \mathrm{\Theta }(s_1,.,s_{k+1})={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}(1)^j((s_j\mathrm{\Theta })(s_1,.,s_{j1},s_{j+1},.,s_{k+1})+`$
$$(\mathrm{\Theta }(s_1,.,s_k,x_j))s_{k+1})$$

Following our previous remarks, (see the demonstration of Theorem 7.2,) the coboundary operator $`\delta `$ is $`F(M)`$-linear. Thereafter a helpful tool in answering the question raised in Remark 7.4 lies in $`H^2(V_o,V_o),`$ where $`V_o`$ stands for a fixed fiber of the vector bundle $`V.`$
In fact, the deformation theory of Koszul-Vinberg algebras may be controlled by cohomology classes of the complex (8). So, our digressions allow the application of a classical rigidity theorem,\[KM,GM1,KM\]. More precisely, we can state the following result

###### Theorem 7.5.

Let $`(V,.,<.,.>)`$ be a non asymmetric Courant algebroid on a connected base manifold $`M`$. If $`H^2(V_x,V_x)`$ vanishes $`xM`$, then the K-V algebra bundle $`(V,.)`$ is a locally trivial.

An outline of Proof
Without loss of generality, we may suppose the vector bundle $`V`$ to be a trivial bundle. Since $`M`$ is connected, given arbitrary points $`x_o,xM`$, there is an isotopy $`(V_{x(t)},.)`$ whose extremities are $`(V_o,.)`$ and $`(V_x,.)`$; $`V_o`$ stands for the fiber of $`V`$ at the point $`x_o`$. Under the vanishing hypothesis, i.e. $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }(V),V)=0xM,`$ all of the fibers $`(V_x,.)`$ is isomorphic to the fixed Koszul-Vinberg algebra $`(V_o,.)`$. Let us denote by $`KV(V_o)`$ the set of Koszul-Vinberg algebra structures on the vector space $`V_o`$. We denote by $`\mu _o`$ the Koszul-Vinberg multiplication that $`V_o`$ inherits from $`(V,.,<.,.>)`$. Under the action in $`Hom(^2V_o,V_o)`$ of the linear group of the vector space $`V_o`$, the orbit of $`\mu _o`$ is a Zariski open subset of $`KV(V_o)`$. Those ingredients are used to obtain smooth family $`\varphi _x`$ of isomorphisms from $`(V_x,.,)`$ to $`(V_o,\mu _o)`$ $`\mathrm{}`$

## 8.  A NON VANISHING THEOREM

Let $`(V,\rho ,.,<.,.>,D)`$ be a non asymmetric Courant algebroid on the base manifold $`M`$. According to Theorem 7.3, such a datum may be regarded as a (pseudo) clan bundle on $`M.`$
Keeping notations in Section 7, we denote by $`G_x`$ the connected and simply connected Lie Group whose Lie algebra is the vector space $`V_x`$ endowed with the bracket defined by

$$[s(x),s^{}(x)]=(ss^{})(x)(s^{}s)(x).$$

Under some additional conditions, a relevant non trivial invariant of $`(V,.,<.,.>`$ is the cohomology class of the bilinear form $`<.,.>.`$
To make precise our assertion, let us set the following definition

###### Definition 8.1.

A non asymmetric Courant algebroid is called co-compact if each Lie group $`G_x`$ contains a co-compact lattice, say $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$

Many homogeneous convex domains are base manifolds of co-compact non asymmetric Courant algebroids, \[KJL3,KV,VEB\].
Below, we are going to perform that idea.

###### Theorem 8.2.

Let $`(V,.,<.,.>)`$ be a co-compact non asymmetric Courant algebroid. If the cocycle $`<.,.>`$ is definite, then its cohomology class in $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }(V),F(M))`$ doesn’t vanish.

Proof
First of all, if the multiplication in $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }(V),.)`$ is the zero map, then the conclusion of Theorem 8.2 holds. Now let us suppose that the multiplication in $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }(V),.)`$ is not the zero map. Let us assume the cocycle $`<.,.>`$ to be (positive definite and) exact. Then there is a 1-cochain $`\mathrm{\Theta }C^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }(V),F(M))`$ such that

$$<.,.>=\delta \mathrm{\Theta }.$$

In other words, one has

$$<s,s^{}>=\mathrm{\Theta }(ss^{})s,s^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(V).$$

We know that $`<.,.>`$ is invariant under the left multiplications by elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$. Let $`s`$, $`s^{}`$ and $`s\mathrm{"}`$ be elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$. For each $`xM,`$ let $`G_x`$ be the connected and simply connected Lie group whose Lie algebra is the vector space $`V_x`$ endowed with the bracket defined by

$$[s(x),s^{}(s)]=(ss^{})(x)(s^{}s)(x).$$

Let $``$ be the left invariant linear connection on $`G_x`$ defined by

$$(_ss^{})(x)=(ss^{})(x).$$

Actually, the differential form $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is De Rham closed. Then the locally flat manifold $`(\text{G}_x,)`$ carries the (left) invariant closed 1-form $`\mathrm{\Theta }_x`$ whose covariant derivative, say $`(\mathrm{\Theta })`$, is positive definite. Both $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $``$ are left invariant in each Lie group $`G_x`$. Therefore, the triple $`(\mathrm{\Theta },,\mathrm{\Lambda }_x)`$ gives rise to a hyperbolic locally flat structure on the manifold $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x\backslash G_x`$ whose simply connected covering is the triple $`(G_x,\mathrm{\Theta },).`$ Therefore, each $`(G_x,)`$ is isomorphic to a convex cone not containing any straight line. Thereafter, following \[KJL1\], the manifold $`G_x`$ carries a (unique) smooth vector field $`H`$ satisfying the following identity

given any smooth vector field $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }(TG_x)`$ the following identity hold

$$_X(H)=X.$$

Thereafter, let us consider elements $`s,s^{}V_x`$ as left invariant vector fields on $`G_x`$. Since $``$ is the Levi-Civita connection of the Riemannian structure $`(G_x,<.,.>)`$, we check that the following identity holds

$$<ss^{},H>+<s^{},_s(H)>=0.$$

Thus, the vector field $`H`$ is left invariant in the Lie group $`G_x`$. From the last identity we deduce that

$$<ss^{},H>=<s^{},s>.$$

From the exactness of the 2-cocycle $`<.,.>`$, we deduce the following identities

$$<ss^{},H>=\mathrm{\Theta }((ss^{})H)=\mathrm{\Theta }(ss^{}).$$

$$<s^{},_s(H)>=<s^{},sH>=<s^{},s>=\mathrm{\Theta }(s^{}s).$$

In conclusion, we deduce from the calculations above the following identity

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(ss^{})=<s,s^{}>=0s,s^{}V_x.$$

That is absurd and ends the proof of Theorem 8.2 $`\mathrm{}`$

Example 8.3

Let $`L`$ be the linear endomorphism of $`R^2`$ defined by

$$L(x,y)=(y,x)(x,y)R^2.$$

We now consider the semi-direct product of $`R^2`$ with the one parameter subgroup generated by $`L`$. We obtain the connected and simply connected Lie group whose Lie algebra is $`R^3`$ endowed with the following bracket

$$[(x,y,z),(x^{},y^{},z^{})]=(zy^{}z^{}y,zx^{}z^{}x,o).$$

That Lie group carries a left invariant locally flat structure defined by the following left invariant linear connection

$$_{(x,y,z)}(x^{},y^{},z^{})=(zy^{},zx^{},o).$$

Actually, each pair $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ of real numbers with $`\alpha \beta 0`$ defines the following left invariant metric

$$<(x,y,z),(x^{},y^{},z^{})>=\alpha (xx^{}yy^{})+\beta (zz^{}).$$

It is easily seen that the metric defined above is a non exact cocycle $`\mathrm{}`$
.

Example 8.4

Let us consider Lie algebra structure in $`R^3`$ defined by the following bracket

$$[(x,y,z),(x^{},y^{},z^{})]=(zy^{}z^{}y,zx^{}z^{}x,0).$$

The associated connected and simply connected Lie group ,say $`G`$ , carries a left invariant locally flat structure corresponding to the following multiplication

$$(x,y,z).(x^{},y^{},z^{})=(zy^{},zx,0).$$

If $`\alpha `$ is a non zero real number, then we define the following on exact cocycle

$$<(x,y,z),(x^{},y^{},z^{})>=xx^{}+yy^{}+\alpha (zz^{}).$$

The connected and simply connected Lie group associated to the Lie algebra which is defined above contains $`Z^3`$ as a co-compact lattice $`\mathrm{}`$ .

## 9. MISCELLENEA

Let $`(V,.,<.,.>)`$ be a non asymmetric Courant algebroid on $`M.`$ Once for all, let us fix an element $`x_o`$ of the base manifold $`M.`$ We regard $`(V,.,<.,.>)`$ as a smooth deformation of the (pseudo) clan $`(V_o,<.,.>)`$, where $`V_o`$ stands for the fiber of $`V`$ at $`x_o.`$ As in Section 8, to each $`(V_x,<.,.>)`$ is assigned the connected and simply connected Lie group $`G_x`$ whose Lie algebra of is the vector space $`V_x`$ endowed with the bracket defined by

$`(9)[s(x),s^{}(x)]=(ss^{})(x)(s^{}s)(x).`$
All of those Lie groups is endowed with a left invariant locally flat structure, (equivalently, with a left invariant locally flat linear connection, say $`.`$) Each $`G_x`$ also carries a left invariant locally hessian (pseudo) Riemannian metric. That picture forms a smooth deformation of $`(G_o,,<.,.>),`$ where $`_x`$ is the covariant derivation in $`G_x`$ defined by the Koszul-Vinberg multiplication in $`V_x.`$ So, we can view the multiplication $`\mu _x`$ in each Koszul-Vinberg algebra $`(V_x,.)`$ as new multiplication on the same fixed vector space $`V_o.`$ Therefore the cochain $`\nu _x`$ = $`\mu _x\mu _o`$ is a Koszul-Vinberg element of the complex $`C^{}(V_o,V_o).`$ In other words, $`\nu _x`$ satisfies the following KV equation

$`(10)\delta (\nu _x)+KV_{\nu _x}=0.`$
The complex in consideration is that in REMARK 7.4. Koszul-Vinberg elements of that complex are the analogues of the classical Maurer-Cartan elements which arise from the deformation theory of associative algebra structures and Lie algebras structures. The equation (10) above is the analogue of the Maurer-Cartan equation

$$\delta \nu +1/2[\nu ,\nu ]=0.$$

(See \[GM, NA, NR, KM, LWX1, \[VI\] and other references ibidem).

We recall that to each $`\nu C^2(V_o,V_o)`$ is assigned the cochain $`KV_\nu C^3(V_o,V_o)`$ which defined by

$$KV_\nu (s,s^{},s\mathrm{"})=\nu (s,\nu (s^{},s\mathrm{"}))\nu (\nu (s,s^{}),s\mathrm{"})\nu (s^{},\nu (s,s\mathrm{"}))+\nu (\nu (s^{}s),s\mathrm{"}).$$

To end those miscellaneous items, let us denote by G the union of all of the $`G_x`$ when $`x`$ runs over the base manifold $`M`$. Then, G is a set bundle over $`M`$ under the set projection

$$G_xx.$$

We equip G with the finest topology that makes open the projection we just defined. We observe that $`(G_x,_x,<.,.>_x)`$ depends smoothly on $`x`$. So, we obtain the locally hessian Lie group bundle $`(\text{G},,<.,.>)`$ on the base manifold $`M`$.
Naturally, arises the question to know whether $`(\text{G},,<.,.>)`$ is a locally trivial bundle. The complex (8) is an ingredient for studying the affinely flat Lie group bundle $`(\text{G},,).`$ In particular, under the hypothesis of Theorem 7.4, $`(\text{G},)`$ is a locally trivial affine Lie group bundle on the base manifold $`M.`$

## 10. OBSERVATIONS

(O1) Clans arose from the geometry of convex domains, \[KV\],KJL3\]. In particular, the Lie algebra of a locally simply transitive group of affine transformations of a convex cone containing no straight line is a clan. More details can be found in fundamental papers by E.B. Vinberg, e.g. \[EBV\]. See also \[KJL1,KJL2,KJL3,SH,VJ\].

(O2) The literature on the theory of Lie algebroid structures is impressive. We have related some aspects of that theory with the cohomology theory of Koszul-Vinberg algebras. In regard to global invariants of algebroid structures those relationships are efficient (\[NB1,NB2,NBW1,NBW2\]).

There are many other aspects, such as the third Lie Theorem,\[AM,DP\]. The holonomy and the monodromy principle, the duality theory are studied. The theory of Singularities, and so on. There is an abundance of references, for instance \[DC,BR,HJ,DJ,DP,DV,DZ,NTZ MK PJ,PL,WA,WeA\].

(O3) Relationships with Poisson structures and singular foliations are exciting also and have been widely studied from various viewpoints. For instance \[FR,Ia,KJ\] deal with characteristic classes viewpoint. The normal forms are the aim of \[DJ,DZ,NBW2,NTZ\]. Under some careful subtle techniques, the last viewpoint also walks in the theory of KV-algebroid structures, \[NBW2\].

(O4) Above, we just mentioned that the theory of characteristic classes of Lie algebroid structures is subject of intense research programs,\[FR,KJ\]. Given a CC algebroid on the base manifold $`M,`$ say $`(V,\rho ,[.,.],<.,.>),`$ let F be the image of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V)`$ under the anchor map $`\rho .`$ If the rank of $`V`$ is greater than three, then F is a subalgebra of the Lie algebra $`X(M)`$ of smooth vectors fields on $`M.`$ Unfortunately the Frobenius theorem generally fails for singular differential systems, \[AM\]. However it may occur that F be completely integrable in the sense of Stefan; in such an occurrence the techniques developed by R.Fernandes, J.Kubarski (among others) will provide characteristic classes of $`(V,\rho ,[.,.]),`$ though the last triple fails to be an Lie algebroid. See \[FR\] for a similar remark on Courant algebroid structures. For instance let $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ be a smooth two vector on $`M`$, then the cotangent bundle is provided with the almost Lie algebroid structure $`(T^{}M,\mathrm{},[.,.]_\mathrm{\Pi }),`$ where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the vector bundle morphism from $`T^{}M`$ to $`TM`$ defined by $`\mathrm{\Pi }.`$ The bracket of two differential forms $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }(T^{}M)`$ is defined by

$$[\alpha ,\beta ]_\mathrm{\Pi }=L_\mathrm{}\alpha \beta L_\mathrm{}\beta \alpha d\mathrm{\Pi }(\alpha ,\beta ).$$

The Jacobi anomaly of the almost Lie algebroid above is related to the Schouten square of $`\mathrm{\Pi }.`$ Examples of such structures are twisted Poisson structures.

To conclude the author apologizes for limiting the references above to those he has needed to prepare the present work.

Acknowledgements. The author would like to thank Augustin Banyaga, Jean-Paul Dufour and Joshua Leslie for useful discussions. He also thanks Nguen Tien Zung for carefully reading preliminary versions of the present work.