text:
# Mean-field model for Josephson oscillation in a Bose-Einstein condensate on an one-dimensional optical trap

## 1 Introduction

The observation of an oscillating Josephson current across the boundaries of a one-dimensional array of potential wells, usually generated by a standing-wave laser field and commonly known as an optical lattice potential, in a trapped cigar-shaped Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) by Cataliotti et al. cata  is a clear manifestation of macroscopic quantum phase coherence. So far the Josephson effect has been confirmed in superconductors with charged electrons and in liquid helium 3 .

The recent experimental observation of BEC in trapped alkali-metal atoms exp  has offered new possibility of the confirmation of Josephson effect in neutral quantum fluids with an array of quasi one-dimensional Josephson junctions not realizable in superconductors. The experimental loading of a cigar-shaped BEC in both one- 1 ; 2 ; ari  and three-dimensional greiner  optical lattice potentials has allowed the study of quantum phase effects on a macroscopic scale such as interference of matter waves kett1 . There have been several theoretical studies on different aspects of a BEC in a one- th  as well as three-dimensional adhi  optical lattice potentials. The phase coherence between different sites of a trapped BEC on an optical lattice has been established in recent experiments cata ; 1 ; 2 ; greiner  through the formation of distinct interference pattern when the traps are removed.

Cataliotti et al. cata ; cata3b  have provided a quantitative measurement of the formation and evolution of interference pattern upon free expansion of a cigar-shaped trapped BEC of repulsive Rb atoms on an optical lattice and harmonic potentials after the removal of the combined traps. The phase coherence in a BEC trapped in a standing-wave optical-lattice is responsible for the formation of a distinct interference pattern upon free expansion as observed in several recent experiments cata ; 1 ; 2 ; greiner ; cata3b . Cataliotti et al. cata  also continued their investigation to a BEC oscillating on the optical lattice via quantum tunneling and found that the phase coherence between different sites is maintained during oscillation initiated by a sudden shift of the magnetic trap along the optical axis.

The phase-coherent BEC on the optical lattice is a quantum superfluid greiner  and the atoms in it move freely from one optical site to another by quantum tunneling. However, the classical movement is prohibited through the high optical potential traps. It has been demonstrated in a recent experiment by Greiner et al. greiner  that, as the optical potential traps are made much too higher, the quantum tunneling of atoms from one optical site to another is stopped resulting in a loss of superfluidity and phase coherence in the BEC. Consequently, no interference pattern is formed upon free expansion of such a BEC which is termed a Mott insulator state. This phenomenon represents a quantum phase transition (with energy nonconservation in the tunneling process) and cannot be accounted for in a classical mean-field model based on the Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) equation 8 .

Following a suggestion by Smerzi et al. sm , more recently Cataliotti et al. cata2  have demonstrated in a novel experiment the loss of phase coherence and superfluidity in a BEC trapped in a optical-lattice and harmonic potentials when the center of the harmonic potential is suddenly displaced along the optical lattice through a distance larger than a critical value. Then a modulational instability takes place in the BEC and it cannot reorganize itself quickly enough and the phase coherence and superfluidity of the BEC are destroyed. The resulting motion of the condensate is not oscillatory in nature. The loss of phase coherence is manifested in the destruction of the interference pattern upon free expansion. However, for displacements smaller than the critical distance the BEC can reorganize itself and the phase coherence and superfluidity are maintained cata ; cata2 . Recently, a new classical mechanism for the loss of superfluidity of a BEC arising from a nonlinear modulation of the scattering length has been suggested loss . Distinct from the quantum phase transition observed by Greiner et al. greiner , these modulational instabilities responsible for the destruction of phase coherence are classical in nature and can be described sm ; cata2  by the mean-field model. Hence in the present paper we present a mean-field description of the experiments by Cataliotti et al. cata ; cata2  to see how well and how far it can describe the observed phenomena. Specifically, we consider the numerical solution of the axially-symmetric GP equation 8  in an optical and a harmonic trap.

Cataliotti et al. cata ; cata2  provided a theoretical account of their study using the tight-binding approximation for the full wave function in the presence of the periodic optical potential wells. Also, there has been a preliminary attempt to explain some features of this experiment using one-dimensional mean-field models cata3b ; cata3 . In reference cata3  a dynamical solution of one-dimensional GP equation was used; whereas in reference cata3b  an one-dimensional model of interference was developed using superposition of analytical matter waves, which is reasonable in the absence of nonlinear atomic interaction. Although, the tight-binding approximation and these one-dimensional models could be reasonable for the study of some aspects of the experiment of Cataliotti et al. cata ; cata2 , here we compare the results with the complete solution of the three-dimensional mean-field Hamiltonian via the nonlinear GP equation 8 .

In section 2 we present the mean-field model based on the axially-symmetric time-dependent nonlinear GP equation. In section 3 we present the numerical results and finally, in section 4 we present the conclusions.

## 2 Mean-field Model

The time-dependent BEC wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫;t)`$ at position $`𝐫`$ and time $`t`$ is described by the following mean-field nonlinear GP equation 8

$`\left[i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2^2}{2m}}+V(𝐫)+gN|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫;t)|^2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫;t)=0,`$ (1)
where $`m`$ is the mass and $`N`$ the number of atoms in the condensate, $`g=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a/m`$ the strength of interatomic interaction, with $`a`$ the atomic scattering length. In the presence of the combined axially-symmetric and optical lattice traps $`V(𝐫)=\frac{1}{2}m\omega ^2(\rho ^2+\nu ^2y^2)+V_{\text{opt}}`$ where $`\omega `$ is the angular frequency of the harmonic trap in the radial direction $`\rho `$, $`\nu \omega `$ that in the axial direction $`y`$, with $`\nu `$ the aspect ratio, and $`V_{\text{opt}}`$ is the optical lattice potential introduced later. The normalization condition is $`𝑑𝐫|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫;t)|^2=1.`$

In the axially-symmetric configuration, the wave function can be written as $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t)=\psi (\rho ,y,t)`$, where $`0\rho <\mathrm{}`$ is the radial variable and $`\mathrm{}<y<\mathrm{}`$ is the axial variable. Now transforming to dimensionless variables $`\widehat{\rho }=\sqrt{2}\rho /l`$, $`\widehat{y}=\sqrt{2}y/l`$, $`\tau =t\omega ,`$ $`l\sqrt{\mathrm{}/(m\omega )}`$, and $`\phi (\widehat{\rho },\widehat{y};\tau )\widehat{\rho }\sqrt{l^3/\sqrt{8}}\psi (\rho ,y;t),`$ equation (1) becomes 9

$`[`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\widehat{\rho }^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{\rho }}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\widehat{\rho }}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\widehat{y}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\widehat{\rho }^2+\nu ^2\widehat{y}^2\right)`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{\text{opt}}}{\mathrm{}\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{\rho }^2}}+8\sqrt{2}\pi n\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\phi (\widehat{\rho },\widehat{y};\tau )}{\widehat{\rho }}}|^2\right]\phi (\widehat{\rho },\widehat{y};\tau )=0,`$
where $`n=Na/l`$. In terms of the one-dimensional probability $`P(y,t)2\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\widehat{\rho }|\phi (\widehat{\rho },\widehat{y},\tau )|^2/\widehat{\rho }`$, the normalization of the wave function is given by $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\widehat{y}P(y,t)=1.`$ The probability $`P(y,t)`$ is useful in the study of the present problem under the action of the optical lattice potential, specially in the investigation of the formation and evolution of the interference pattern after the removal of the trapping potentials.

In the experiment of Cataliotti et al. cata  with repulsive 87Rb atoms in the hyperfine state $`F=1,m_F=1`$, the axial and radial trap frequencies were $`\nu \omega =2\pi \times 9`$ Hz and $`\omega =2\pi \times 92`$ Hz, respectively, with $`\nu =9/92`$. The optical potential created with the standing-wave laser field of wavelength $`\lambda =795`$ nm is given by $`V_{\text{opt}}=V_0E_R\mathrm{cos}^2(k_Lz)`$, with $`E_R=\mathrm{}^2k_L^2/(2m)`$, $`k_L=2\pi /\lambda `$, and $`V_0`$ $`(<12)`$ the strength. For the mass $`m=1.441\times 10^{25}`$ kg of 87Rb the harmonic oscillator length $`l=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/(m\omega )}=1.126`$ $`\mu `$m and the present dimensionless length unit corresponds to $`l/\sqrt{2}=0.796`$ $`\mu `$m. The present dimensionless time unit corresponds to $`\omega ^1=1/(2\pi \times 92)`$ s $`=1.73`$ ms. Although we perform the calculation in dimensionless units using equation (2), we present the results in actual physcial units using these conversion factors consistent with the experiment by Cataliotti et al. cata . In terms of the dimensionless laser wave length $`\lambda _0=\sqrt{2}\lambda /l1`$, the dimensionless standing-wave energy parameter $`E_R/(\mathrm{}\omega )=4\pi ^2/\lambda _0^2`$. Hence in dimensionless unit $`V_{\text{opt}}`$ of equation (2) is

$$\frac{V_{\text{opt}}}{\mathrm{}\omega }=V_0\frac{4\pi ^2}{\lambda _0^2}\left[\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\frac{2\pi }{\lambda _0}\widehat{y}\right)\right].$$
(3)
We solve equation (2) numerically using a split-step time-iteration method with the Crank-Nicholson discretization scheme described recently 11 . The time iteration is started with the known harmonic oscillator solution of equation (2) with $`n=0`$: $`\phi (\widehat{\rho },\widehat{y})=[\nu /(8\pi ^3)]^{1/4}`$ $`\widehat{\rho }`$ $`e^{(\widehat{\rho }^2+\nu \widehat{y}^2)/4}`$ with chemical potential $`\overline{\mu }=(1+\nu /2)`$ 9 . For a typical cigar-shaped condensate with $`\nu 0.1`$ cata  $`\overline{\mu }1`$ is much smaller than the typical depth of the optical potential wells $`E_R/(\mathrm{}\omega )=4\pi ^2/\lambda _0^240`$ so that $`\overline{\mu }<<E_R/(\mathrm{}\omega )`$ and the passage of condensate atoms from one well to other can only proceed through quantum tunneling. The nonlinearity as well as the optical lattice potential parameter $`V_0`$ are slowly increased by equal amounts in $`10000n`$ steps of time iteration until the desired value of nonlinearity and optical lattice potentials are attained. Then, without changing any parameter, the solution so obtained is iterated 50 000 times so that a stable solution is obtained independent of the initial input and time and space steps. The solution then corresponds to the bound BEC under the joint action of the harmonic and optical traps.

## 3 Numerical Results

First we consider the BEC formed on the optical lattice for a specific nonlinearity. In the present study we take nonlinearity $`n=10`$ and optical lattice strength $`V_0=6`$ except in figure 5 where we use a variable $`V_0`$. We consider the ground-state wave function in the combined harmonic and optical lattice potentials. The one-dimensional pattern in the axial $`y`$ direction is most easily illustrated from a consideration of the probability $`P(y,t)`$ at different times. In figure 1 (a) we plot the frontal view of $`P(y,t)`$ for $`0<t<100`$ ms and $`30\mu \text{m}<y<30\mu \text{m}`$. In this interval of $`y`$, there are 150 wells of the optical potential and as many maxima and minima in $`P(y,t)`$, which cannot be visualized clearly in figure 1 (a). In the actual experiment 200 wells were typically populated, which corresponds to a larger condensate than considered in this numerical simulation. For the limitation in computer processing time we had to stick to a smaller condensate. In figure 1 (b) we show a close-up of figure 1 (a) for $`6`$ $`\mu \text{m}<y<6`$ $`\mu \text{m}`$ containing 30 wells. The corresponding optical potential is shown in figure 1 (c), which clearly shows the 30 wells. From figure 1 (b) one can count 30 maxima and 30 minima in probability $`P(y,t)`$.

As the present calculation is performed with the full wave function without approximation, phase coherence among different wells of the optical lattice is automatically guaranteed. As a result when the condensate is released from the combined trap, a matter-wave interference pattern is formed in few milliseconds. The atom cloud released from one lattice site expand, and overlap and interfere with atom clouds from neighboring sites to form the robust interference pattern due to phase coherence. No interference pattern can be formed without phase coherence. The pattern consists of a central peak at $`y=0`$ and two symmetrically spaced peaks, each containing about $`10\%`$ of total number of atoms, moving apart from the central peak cata ; cata3b .

The simulation of the formation of the interference pattern is performed by loading the preformed condensate of figure 1 on two lattices with $`\rho 25`$ $`\mu `$m and (a) $`320`$ $`\mu `$m $`y320`$ $`\mu `$m, and (b) $`160`$ $`\mu `$m $`y160`$ $`\mu `$m which will permit the study of the evolution of the interference pattern on a large interval of space and time. The interference pattern is formed by suddenly removing the combined traps at time $`t=0`$. The time evolution of the system is best illustrated via $`P(y,t)`$ and we plot in figures 2 (a) and (b) $`P(y,t)`$ vs. $`y`$ and $`t`$ for lattices (a) and (b), respectively. The dynamics is symmetric about $`y=0`$ and only $`P(y,t)`$ for positive $`y`$ is plotted in figure 2 (a). In these plots we can clearly see the central condensate and the moving interference peak(s). The peaks spread unobservably slowly as they propagate, even after reflection from the boundary or after crossing each other. The phase coherence between the components of BEC at different sites of optical lattice is responsible for the generation of the interference pattern with very little or practically no spreading. Without the initial phase coherence over a large number of lattice sites, a repulsive condensate in the absence of a trap will disappear in few milliseconds ad . Each of the moving interference peaks is similar to atom laser 1 ; al  which can be used in the scattering of two coherent BECs and other purposes.

We have also examined the wave function $`\phi (\widehat{\rho },\widehat{y},t)`$ at different times (not reported here). We find that there is virtually no spreading of the wave function in the axial $`y`$ direction during few hundred milliseconds. The phase coherence in the axial direction due to the optical lattice is responsible for the localization of the peaks.

Next we consider an oscillating BEC in the combined harmonic and optical traps. If we suddenly displace the magnetic trap along the lattice axis by a small distance after the formation of the BEC in the combined trap, the condensate will be out of equilibrium and start to oscillate. As the height of the potential-well barriers on the optical lattice is much larger than the energy of the system, the atoms in the condensate will move by tunneling through the potential barriers. This fluctuating transfer of Rb atoms across the potential barriers is due to Josephson effect in a neutral quantum liquid. The experiment of Cataliotti et al. cata ; cata3b  demonstrates that the phase coherence between different wells of the condensate is maintained during this mass transfer and a matter-wave interference pattern with three peaks is formed after the removal of the joint trap. The peaks of the expanded condensate oscillate in phase, thus showing that the quantum mechanical phase coherence is maintained over the entire condensate. They studied this problem experimentally in some detail by varying the time of oscillation of the BEC (hold time) before removing the combined trap cata .

To see if the present simulation can represent the essential features of the phase coherence of the oscillating BEC, we load the GP equation with the BEC of the combined harmonic oscillator and optical traps on a lattice defined by $`200`$ $`\mu `$m $`y200`$ $`\mu `$m and $`\rho 25`$ $`\mu `$m and suddenly displace the harmonic trap along the optical axis by 25 $`\mu `$m. The BEC starts to oscillate and we allow the oscillation to evolve through a certain interval of time, called hold time, before the removal of the combined traps. The interference pattern is observed after some time of free expansion and the positions of the interference peaks are noted. In figure 3 we plot the one-dimensional probability $`P(y,t)`$ vs. $`y`$ and $`t`$ after an initial evolution of the oscillation during 35 ms and observe the interference pattern for 160 ms. In this case, unlike in figures 2, the large central peak does not stay at rest and the sizes and positions of the two smaller peaks are not symmetrical around $`y=0`$. The clear formation of the interference pattern with very little spreading even after reflection at the boundaries and its propagation for more than 160 ms is noted in figure 3 which confirms the phase coherence.

To study the phase coherence in detail we plot in figure 4 the positions of the expanded interference peaks after 20 ms of free expansion for different hold times of oscillation in the displaced harmonic potential. We find that the interference peaks oscillate in phase showing the phase coherence in the oscillating BEC. Similar oscillation was also observed in the experiment of Cataliotti et al. cata . From figure 4 we find that the period of this oscillation is about 170 ms corresponding to a frequency of 5.9 Hz, which is very close to the experimental result exhibited in figure 3 of reference cata . To make a more complete comparison with figure 3 of reference cata  we calculated the frequency of atomic current in the array of Josephson junctions for different $`V_0`$ and the results are shown in figure 5 where we plot the present frequencies as well as those of the experiment of Cataliotti et al. cata  and of their tight-binding calculation. From figure 5 we see that the complete solution of the GP equation has led to results in agreement with the experiment of Cataliotti et al.. The agreement of the present calculation in figure 5 performed with a smaller condensate with experiment demonstrates that the frequency of atomic current is mostly determined by the strength of the optical lattice strength and is reasonably independent of the size of the condensate.

Finally, we consider the destruction of superfluidity in the condensate when the center of the magnetic trap is displaced along the optical lattice by a distance larger than the critical distance and the BEC is allowed to stay in this displaced trap for an interval of time (hold time). In this case the BEC does not execute an oscillatory motion but its center moves very slowly towards the new center of the magnetic trap. The destruction of superfluidity and phase coherence for a larger hold time in the displaced trap manifests in the disappearance of the interference pattern upon free expansion as noted in experiment cata2 . As in that experiment, we consider a displacement of the magnetic trap through 120 $`\mu `$m and allow the condensate to freely expand for 27.8 ms after different hold times in the optical and displaced magnetic traps.

For numerical simulation we load the BEC of figure 1 on a lattice with $`\rho 25`$ $`\mu `$m and 200 $`\mu `$m $`y`$ $`200`$ $`\mu `$m and study the its evolution after an initial displacement of 120 $`\mu `$m of the magnetic trap for hold times 0, 35 ms, and 70 ms. As in the experiment no oscillatory motion of the BEC is noted in the displaced trap. The corresponding probability densities are plotted in figures 6 (a), (b), and (c), respectively. For hold times 0 and 35 ms prominent interference pattern is formed upon free expansion as we can see in figures 6 (a) and (b). In these cases three separate pieces of interference patterns corresponding to three distinct trails can be identified. However, as the hold time in the displaced trap increases the maxima of the interference pattern mixes up and finally for a hold time of 70 ms the interference pattern is completely destroyed as we find in figure 6 (c) in agreement with the experiment cata2 .

As the BEC is allowed to evolve for a substantial interval of time after a large displacement of the magnetic trap along the optical axis a dynamical instability of classical nature sets in and the system can not evolve maintaining the phase coherence sm ; cata2 . This has been explicitly demonstrated in the present simulation which results in the destruction of the interference pattern.

## 4 Conclusion

In conclusion, to understand theoretically the experiments by Cataliotti et al. cata ; cata2 , we have studied in detail the phase coherence along a cigar-shaped condensate loaded in a combined axially-symmetric harmonic trap and optical lattice trap using the solution of the mean-field GP equation. Upon removal of the combined traps, the formation of an interference pattern clearly demonstrates the phase coherence over a very large number of optical lattice sites. Each of the moving interference peaks formed of coherent matter wave is similar to a atom laser observed experimentally 1 ; al . The phase coherence along the optical lattice axis of the condensate is maintained even if the initial BEC is set into oscillation by suddenly shifting the harmonic trap along the optical axis through a small distance and keeping the BEC in the displaced trap for a certain hold time. This is clearly demonstrated by the noted correlated oscillation of the condensate peaks after free expansion for different hold times. The present mean-field model provides a proper account of the frequency of atomic current in the array of Josephson Junctions in agreement with experiment cata .

However, if the initial displacement of the harmonic trap along the optical axis is larger than a critical value and the BEC is maintained in the displaced trap for a certain time, the phase coherence is destroyed. Consequently, after release from the combined trap no interference pattern is formed in agreement with experiment cata2 .

The work was supported in part by the CNPq and FAPESP of Brazil.


format: text

text:
# Linear statistics for zeros of Riemann’s zeta function

## 1. Introduction

In this paper we will examine linear statistics of zeros of the Riemann zeta function. Denote its nontrivial zeros by $`1/2+\mathrm{i}\gamma _j`$, $`j=\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$ with $`\gamma _j=\gamma _j`$ and $`𝔢(\gamma _1)𝔢(\gamma _2)\mathrm{}`$. Let $`N(T)`$ denote the number of zeros in the strip $`0<𝔢(\gamma )T`$, then $`N(T)=\overline{N}(T)+S(T)`$ where

$`\overline{N}(T)`$ $`=1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}𝔪\mathrm{log}\left(\pi ^{\mathrm{i}T/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{i}T)\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{T}{2\pi }}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{T}{2\pi e}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{8}}+𝒪(1/T)`$
Selberg  has studied the distribution of the remainder term in the counting function, $`S(t)=N(t)\overline{N}(t)`$, as $`t`$ varies between $`T`$ and $`T+H`$, where $`H=T^a`$ with $`1/2<a1`$. He showed that $`S(t)`$ has Gaussian moments in the sense that when $`T\mathrm{}`$,

$$\frac{1}{H}_T^{T+H}\left|\frac{S(t)}{\sqrt{(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}t)/2\pi ^2}}\right|^{2k}dt\frac{(2k)!}{k!2^k}$$

Fujii , among others, has studied the distribution of $`N(t+h)N(t)`$ around $`t`$ near $`T`$. Since $`\frac{1}{T}_0^TS(t)dt0`$, the mean of this is asymptotic to $`\overline{N}(T+h)\overline{N}(T)`$, and the error term, $`S(t+h)S(t)`$, (which is thus asymptotically centered) has Gaussian moments, so long as $`h`$ is larger than the mean spacing of zeros at that height. That is, if $`h\mathrm{log}T\mathrm{}`$ but $`h1`$ then

$$\frac{1}{T}_T^{2T}\left(\frac{S(t+h)S(t)}{\sigma }\right)^{2k}dt=\frac{(2k)!}{2^kk!}+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{\sigma }\right)$$

where

$$\sigma ^2=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}_0^{h\mathrm{log}T}\frac{1\mathrm{cos}t}{t}dt$$

He has similar results for when $`h\mathrm{}`$ subject to $`hT`$, when $`\sigma ^2`$ is replaced by $`\sigma ^2=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}T\mathrm{log}|\zeta (1+\mathrm{i}h)|)`$.

Note that if $`h`$ is of the order of the mean spacing, that is if $`h=𝒪(1/\mathrm{log}T)`$, then the main term is the same size as the error term (that is, both are $`𝒪(1)`$), and we may no longer conclude the distribution is Gaussian. This is not surprising, since for $`h=𝒪(1/\mathrm{log}T)`$ the distribution of $`N(t+h)N(t)`$ in the large $`T`$ limit is discrete.

In this paper we will study the counting function in that critical scaling. Rather than study $`N(t)`$ itself, instead we will investigate the distribution of a smooth version of the counting function in intervals of size comparable to the mean spacing, $`2\pi /\mathrm{log}T`$. In particular, for a real-valued even function $`f`$, and real numbers $`\tau `$ and $`T>1`$, set

$$N_f(\tau ):=\underset{j=\pm 1,\pm ,2,\mathrm{}}{}f(\frac{\mathrm{log}T}{2\pi }(\gamma _j\tau )).$$

If $`f`$ is the characteristic function of an interval $`[1,1]`$ and if all the $`\gamma _j`$ are real, then $`N_f(\tau )`$ counts the number of zeros in the interval $`[\tau 2\pi /\mathrm{log}T,\tau +2\pi /\mathrm{log}T]`$. However, we will take $`f`$ so that its Fourier transform, $`\widehat{f}(u):=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(x)e^{2\pi \mathrm{i}xu}dx`$, is smooth and of compact support, and will not assume the Riemann Hypothesis.

As $`T\mathrm{}`$, we consider the fluctuations of $`N_f(\tau )`$ as $`\tau `$ varies near $`T`$ in an interval of size about $`H=T^a`$, where $`0<a1`$. More precisely, given a weight function $`w0`$, with $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}w(x)𝑑x=1`$, and $`\widehat{w}`$ compactly supported, we define an averaging operator

$$W_{T,H}:=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}W(\tau )w(\frac{\tau T}{H})\frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{H}.$$

We will show that the expected value of $`N_f`$ is

$$N_f_{T,H}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(x)dx+𝒪(\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}T}).$$

We will also show that for $`\widehat{f}C_c^{\mathrm{}}()`$ the first few moments of $`(N_f)^m_{T,H}`$ of $`N_f`$ are Gaussian:

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`H=T^a`$ with $`0<a1`$, and let $`\widehat{f}C_c^{\mathrm{}}()`$ be such that $`\mathrm{supp}\widehat{f}(2a/m,2a/m)`$. Then the first $`m`$ moments of $`N_f`$ converge as $`T\mathrm{}`$ to those of a Gaussian random variable with expectation $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(x)dx`$ and variance

(1)
$$\sigma _f^2=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{min}(|u|,1)\widehat{f}(u)^2du.$$

The local statistics of the critically scaled zeros of the Riemann zeta function around height $`T`$ (that is, zeros scaled by the mean density, $`\frac{\mathrm{log}T}{2\pi }`$) are believed  to behave like eigenangles of a random unitary matrix, when scaled by $`N/2\pi `$, which is their mean density. Indeed, a similar result to the theorem above holds in random matrix theory : Since the $`\theta _n`$ are angles, we consider the $`2\pi `$–periodic function

$$F_N(\theta ):=\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f\left(\frac{N}{2\pi }(\theta +2\pi j)\right)$$

and model $`N_f`$ by

$$Z_f(U):=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}F_N(\theta _j)$$

where $`U`$ is an $`N\times N`$ unitary matrix with eigenangles $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _N`$.

Writing $`𝔼`$ to denote the average over the unitary group with Haar measure, then without any restrictions on the support of the function $`f`$, we found in  that $`𝔼\{Z_f(U)\}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(x)dx`$, and that the variance is

(2)
$$\sigma (f)^2=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{min}(1,|u|)\widehat{f}(u)^2du$$

Observe that this is in complete agreement with the mean and variance of $`N_f`$ if $`\widehat{f}`$ has the same support restrictions. Furthermore, we showed that for any integer $`m2`$, if $`\mathrm{supp}\widehat{f}[2/m,2/m]`$, then

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}𝔼\left\{\left(Z_f𝔼\{Z_f\}\right)^m\right\}=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{ if }m\text{ odd}\hfill \\ \frac{m!}{2^{m/2}(m/2)!}\sigma (f)^m\hfill & \text{ if }m\text{ even}\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\sigma (f)^2`$, the variance, is given in (2).

These are the moments of a normal random variable. However, the higher moments are not Gaussian, and we called this “mock-Gaussian behaviour”

The random matrix results suggests that theorem 1.1 is not the complete truth. We expect the variance of $`N_f`$, (1), to hold without any restriction on the support of $`\widehat{f}`$, and the $`m`$-th moment of $`N_f`$ to be Gaussian so long as $`\mathrm{supp}\widehat{f}[2/m,2/m]`$.

Random unitary matrices can also be used to model the low-lying zeros of Dirichlet $`L`$–functions, and mock-Gaussian behaviour was found there too . Other classical groups (symplectic, special orthogonal) are believed to model different classes of $`L`$–functions (like the quadratic $`L`$–functions), and they also show mock-Gaussian behaviour .

## 2. Proofs

### 2.1. The explicit formula

Set $`\mathrm{\Omega }(r)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{i}r)+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{i}r)\mathrm{log}\pi `$, where $`\mathrm{\Psi }(s)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(s)`$ is the polygamma function. We need the following version of Riemann’s explicit formula:

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`g(u)C_c^{\mathrm{}}(R)`$ and let $`h(r)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}g(u)e^{\mathrm{i}ru}du`$. Then

(3)
$$h(\gamma _j)=h(\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2})+h(\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2})+\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}h(r)\mathrm{\Omega }(r)dr\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)}{\sqrt{n}}\left(g(\mathrm{log}n)+g(\mathrm{log}n)\right)$$

where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)`$ is the von Mangoldt function.

For $`\widehat{f}C_c^{\mathrm{}}()`$, setting

$$h(r)=f(\frac{\mathrm{log}T}{2\pi }(r\tau )),g(u)=\frac{e^{\mathrm{i}\tau u}}{\mathrm{log}T}\widehat{f}(\frac{u}{\mathrm{log}T})$$

we have $`N_f(\tau )=\overline{N_f}(\tau )+S_f(\tau )`$ where

(4)
$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{N_f}(\tau )=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f\left(\frac{\mathrm{log}T}{2\pi }(r\tau )\right)\mathrm{\Omega }(r)dr\hfill \\ \hfill +f\left(\frac{\mathrm{log}T}{2\pi }(\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\tau )\right)+f\left(\frac{\mathrm{log}T}{2\pi }(\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\tau )\right)\end{array}$$

and

(5)
$$S_f(\tau )=\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}T}\underset{n2}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)}{\sqrt{n}}\widehat{f}(\frac{\mathrm{log}n}{\mathrm{log}T})\left(e^{\mathrm{i}\tau \mathrm{log}n}+e^{\mathrm{i}\tau \mathrm{log}n}\right)$$

###### Remark.

The conditions on $`f`$ (which are determined by the explicit formula), that its Fourier transform has compact support and is infinitely differentiable, can be considerably weakened to requiring that $`f(r)`$ is analytic in the strip $`c𝔪(r)1+c`$ ($`c>0`$) such that $`f(r)(1+|r|)^{(1+\delta )}`$ ($`\delta >0`$, $`r`$).

### 2.2. The mean

###### Lemma 2.2.

For all $`A>1`$,

(6)
$$\begin{array}{c}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(\frac{\mathrm{log}T}{2\pi }(r\tau ))\mathrm{\Omega }(r)\frac{\mathrm{d}r}{2\pi }\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau )}{\mathrm{log}T}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(x)dx+𝒪(\frac{1}{1+|\tau |}\frac{1}{(\mathrm{log}T)^2})+𝒪\left(\frac{\mathrm{log}(1+|\tau |)}{(\mathrm{log}T)^A}\right)\end{array}$$

###### Proof.

To evaluate the integral, we change variables and split the domain of integration into two parts:

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}f({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}T}{2\pi }}(r\tau ))\mathrm{\Omega }(r){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}r}{2\pi }}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{log}T}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}f(x)\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau +{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi x}{\mathrm{log}T}})dx`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{log}T}}({\displaystyle _{|x|Y}}+{\displaystyle _{|x|>Y}})f(x)\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau +{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi x}{\mathrm{log}T}})\mathrm{d}x`$
where $`Y\mathrm{}`$ but $`Y=o(\mathrm{log}T)`$, say $`Y=\sqrt{\mathrm{log}T}`$.

For the bulk of the integral $`x/\mathrm{log}T`$ is small, and so we expand

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau +\frac{2\pi x}{\mathrm{log}T})=\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau )+𝒪(\frac{1}{1+|\tau |}\frac{|x|}{\mathrm{log}T})$$

to find

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}T}_{|x|Y}f(x)\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau +\frac{2\pi x}{\mathrm{log}T})dx\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau )}{\mathrm{log}T}_{|x|Y}f(x)dx+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{1+|\tau |}\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}T}_{|x|Y}f(x)\frac{|x|}{\mathrm{log}T}dx\right)\\ \hfill =\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau )}{\mathrm{log}T}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(x)dx+𝒪(\frac{1}{1+|\tau |}\frac{1}{(\mathrm{log}T)^2})\end{array}$$

For the tail of the integral we use $`f(x)|x|^N`$ for any $`N1`$ (which follows from $`fC_c^{\mathrm{}}()`$) and Stirling’s formula (which yields $`\mathrm{\Omega }(r)=\mathrm{log}(1+|r|)+𝒪(1)`$ for all $`r`$) to find that it is dominated by

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}T}_{|x|>Y}\frac{1}{|x|^N}\mathrm{log}(1+|\tau |+\frac{|x|}{\mathrm{log}T})dx\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{2N}{Y^{N1}\mathrm{log}T}\mathrm{log}(1+|\tau |+\frac{Y}{\mathrm{log}T})+\frac{2N}{\mathrm{log}T}_{x>Y}\frac{1}{x^{N1}}\frac{1}{(x+(1+|\tau |)\mathrm{log}T)}dx\\ \hfill \frac{\mathrm{log}(1+|\tau |)}{Y^{N1}\mathrm{log}T}\end{array}$$

Thus we have

$$\begin{array}{c}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(\frac{\mathrm{log}T}{2\pi }(r\tau ))\mathrm{\Omega }(r)\frac{\mathrm{d}r}{2\pi }=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau )}{\mathrm{log}T}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(x)dx\hfill \\ \hfill +𝒪(\frac{1}{1+|\tau |}\frac{1}{(\mathrm{log}T)^2})+𝒪(\frac{\mathrm{log}(1+|\tau |)}{Y^{N1}\mathrm{log}T})\end{array}$$

Taking $`Y=\sqrt{\mathrm{log}T}`$ gives (6). ∎

###### Lemma 2.3.

For all $`\widehat{f}C_c^{\mathrm{}}()`$,

$$\overline{N_f}_{T,H}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(x)dx+𝒪(\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}T}),T\mathrm{}$$

###### Proof.

Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau )=\mathrm{log}(1+|\tau |)+𝒪(1)`$ for all $`\tau `$, we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau )}{\mathrm{log}T}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}f(x)dx_{T,H}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(x)dx}{\mathrm{log}T}}\left({\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{log}(1+|\tau |)w({\displaystyle \frac{\tau T}{H}}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{H}}+𝒪(1)\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}f(x)dx+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{log}T}})`$
and since the average of the error term in lemma 2.2 is similarly $`𝒪(1/\mathrm{log}T)`$, we have that

$$\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f\left(\frac{\mathrm{log}T}{2\pi }(r\tau )\right)\mathrm{\Omega }(r)dr_{T,H}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(x)dx+𝒪(\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}T})$$

The averages of the polar terms, $`f(\frac{\mathrm{log}T}{2\pi }(\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\tau ))+f(\frac{\mathrm{log}T}{2\pi }(\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\tau ))`$, in $`\overline{N_f}`$ are bounded by $`𝒪(\frac{1}{H\mathrm{log}T})`$ since by Parseval

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(\frac{\mathrm{log}T}{2\pi }(\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\tau ))w(\frac{\tau T}{H})\frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{H}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{log}T}\widehat{f}(\frac{2\pi y}{\mathrm{log}T})e^{\pi y}\widehat{w}(Hy)e^{2\pi \mathrm{i}Ty}dy$$

and since $`\widehat{w}`$ has compact support, the integral is over $`|y|1/H`$ and is bounded by $`𝒪(1/H\mathrm{log}T)`$. ∎

###### Proposition 2.4.

For $`f`$ with $`\widehat{f}C_c^{\mathrm{}}()`$, if $`H\mathrm{}`$ then the mean value of $`N_f`$ is given by

(7)
$$N_f_{T,H}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(x)dx+𝒪(\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}T}),T\mathrm{}.$$

###### Proof.

In view of Lemma 2.3, it suffices to show that the mean value of $`S_f`$ is zero as $`H\mathrm{}`$. Indeed, we have

$$S_f_{T,H}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}T}\underset{n}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)}{\sqrt{n}}\widehat{f}(\frac{\mathrm{log}n}{\mathrm{log}T})\left(\widehat{w}(\frac{H}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}n)e^{\mathrm{i}T\mathrm{log}n}+\widehat{w}(\frac{H}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}n)e^{\mathrm{i}T\mathrm{log}n}\right)$$

Since $`\widehat{w}`$ has compact support, and the prime powers $`n`$ are at least $`2`$, the summands vanish once $`H`$ is larger than a certain constant which depends upon the support of $`\widehat{w}`$. ∎

### 2.3. The centered moments

###### Proof of Theorem 1.1..

From lemma 2.2 and proposition 2.4 we have

$`\left(N_fN_f_{T,H}\right)^m_{T,H}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{m}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{n}}\right)S_f^{mn}(\overline{N_f}N_f_{T,H})^n_{T,H}`$
$`=S_f^m_{T,H}\left(1+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{log}T}})\right)`$
and so it is sufficient to show that the $`m`$th moment of $`S_f`$ is the same as that of a centered normal random variable with variance given by (1). This is achieved in the theorem 2.6. ∎

Before we calculate the $`m`$-th moment of $`S_f`$, as a warm-up we will consider the variance.

###### Proposition 2.5.

If $`H=T^a`$ with $`0<a1`$ and $`\mathrm{supp}\widehat{f}(a,a)`$ then we have

$$(S_f)^2_{T,H}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{min}(|u|,1)\widehat{f}(u)^2du+𝒪(\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}T})$$

###### Proof.

Using the expression (5), multiplying out $`(S_f)^2`$ and integrating we find

$$\begin{array}{c}(S_f)^2_{T,H}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}^2T}\underset{ϵ_1,ϵ_2=\pm 1}{}\underset{n_1,n_2}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(n_1)}{\sqrt{n_1}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(n_2)}{\sqrt{n_2}}\widehat{f}(\frac{\mathrm{log}n_1}{\mathrm{log}T})\widehat{f}(\frac{\mathrm{log}n_2}{\mathrm{log}T})\hfill \\ \hfill \times \widehat{w}(\frac{H}{2\pi }(ϵ_1\mathrm{log}n_1+ϵ_2\mathrm{log}n_2))e^{\mathrm{i}T(ϵ_1\mathrm{log}n_1+ϵ_2\mathrm{log}n_2)}\end{array}$$

In order to get a nonzero contribution we need $`ϵ_1=ϵ_2`$ (since once $`H`$ is larger than a certain constant which depends upon the support of $`\widehat{w}`$ all the $`ϵ_1=ϵ_2`$ terms vanish). Furthermore, since $`\mathrm{supp}\widehat{f}(a,a)`$ we have $`n_1T^{aϵ}`$ for some $`ϵ>0`$, and therefore

$$\widehat{w}(\frac{T^a}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}\frac{n_1}{n_2})=0$$

(for large enough $`T`$) unless $`n_1=n_2`$.

Therefore, taking into account that $`\widehat{w}(0)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}w(x)dx=1`$ we find as soon as $`T`$ is sufficiently large,

$$(S_f)^2_{T,H}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}^2T}\underset{n}{}2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)^2}{n}\widehat{f}(\frac{\mathrm{log}n}{\mathrm{log}T})^2$$

We note that by the Prime Number Theorem, as $`T\mathrm{}`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathrm{log}T)^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)^2}{n}}\widehat{f}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}n}{\mathrm{log}T}})^2`$ $`2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}u\widehat{f}(u)^2du+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{log}T}})`$
$`=\sigma _f^2+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{log}T}})`$
where $`\sigma _f^2`$ is given by (1), this being true since $`\mathrm{supp}\widehat{f}(1,1)`$ by assumption of the theorem. ∎

###### Theorem 2.6.

If $`H=T^a`$ with $`0<a1`$ and $`\mathrm{supp}\widehat{f}(\alpha ,\alpha )`$ then for

$$2m<2a/\alpha $$

we have

$$(S_f)^m_{T,H}\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{(2k)!}{k!2^k}\sigma _f^{2k},\hfill & m=2k\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & m=2k+1\hfill \end{array}+𝒪(\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}T})$$

where the variance $`\sigma _f^2`$ is given by (1).

###### Proof.

Using the expression (5), multiplying out $`(S_f)^m`$ and integrating we find

$$\begin{array}{c}(S_f)^m_{T,H}=(\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}T})^m\underset{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_m=\pm 1}{}\underset{n_1,\mathrm{},n_m}{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(n_j)}{\sqrt{n_j}}\widehat{f}(\frac{\mathrm{log}n_j}{\mathrm{log}T})\hfill \\ \hfill \times \widehat{w}(\frac{H}{2\pi }\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}ϵ_j\mathrm{log}n_j)e^{\mathrm{i}T_{j=1}^mϵ_j\mathrm{log}n_j}\end{array}$$

Since $`\widehat{w}`$ has compact support, in order to get a nonzero contribution we need

$$|\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}ϵ_j\mathrm{log}n_j|\frac{1}{H}$$

Set $`M=_{ϵ_j=+1}n_j`$ and $`N=_{ϵ_j=1}n_j`$. If $`MN`$ then assume w.l.o.g. that $`M>N`$, say $`M=N+u`$ with $`u1`$. Thus for a non-zero contribution we need

$$\frac{1}{H}\mathrm{log}\frac{M}{N}=\mathrm{log}(1+\frac{u}{N})\frac{1}{N}$$

and hence $`T^a=HN\sqrt{MN}T^{m(\alpha ϵ)/2}`$ since $`n_jT^{\alpha ϵ}`$ by assumption on the support of $`\widehat{f}`$. But $`\alpha <2a/m`$, so this is a contradiction. Therefore $`M=N`$, and $`ϵ_j\mathrm{log}n_j=0`$.

Thus for $`T1`$, we find (taking into account that $`\widehat{w}(0)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}w(x)dx=1`$)

$`(S_f)^m_{T,H}`$ $`=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{log}T}})^m{\displaystyle \underset{ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_m=\pm 1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}n_1,\mathrm{},n_m2\\ _{j=1}^mϵ_j\mathrm{log}n_j=0\end{array}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(n_j)}{\sqrt{n_j}}}\widehat{f}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}n_j}{\mathrm{log}T}})`$
(8) $`={\displaystyle \underset{E\{1,\mathrm{},m\}}{}}J(E)`$
where

(9)
$$J(E)=(\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}T})^m\underset{\begin{array}{c}n_1,\mathrm{},n_m2\\ _{jE}n_j=_{jE}n_j\end{array}}{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(n_j)}{\sqrt{n_j}}\widehat{f}(\frac{\mathrm{log}n_j}{\mathrm{log}T})$$

and the subset of indices $`E`$ denotes the $`ϵ_j`$ which are positive. That is $`jE`$ iff $`ϵ_j=+1`$.

Fix a subset $`E\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$. The sum in $`J(E)`$ is over tuples $`(n_1,\mathrm{},n_m)`$ which satisfy $`_{jE}n_j=_{iE}n_i`$. We say that there is a perfect matching of terms if there is a bijection $`\sigma `$ of $`E`$ onto its complement $`E^c`$ in $`\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ so that $`n_j=n_{\sigma (j)}`$, for all $`jE`$. This can happen only if $`m=2k`$ is even and $`\mathrm{\#}E=\mathrm{\#}E^c=k`$.

Decompose

(10)
$$J(E)=J_{diag}(E)+J_{non}(E)$$

where $`J_{diag}(E)`$ is the sum of matching terms - the diagonal part of the sum (nonexistent for most $`E`$), and $`J_{non}(E)`$ is the sum over the remaining, nonmatching, terms.

#### 2.3.1. Diagonal terms

Assume that $`m=2k`$ is even. There are $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2k}{k}\right)`$ subsets $`E\{1,\mathrm{}2k\}`$ of cardinality $`k=m/2`$, and for each such subset $`E`$, $`J_{diag}(E)`$ is the sum over all $`k!`$ bijections $`\sigma :EE^c`$ of $`E`$ onto its complement, of terms

$$\left(\frac{1}{(\mathrm{log}T)^2}\underset{n}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)^2}{n}\widehat{f}(\frac{\mathrm{log}n}{\mathrm{log}T})^2\right)^k$$

We evaluate each factor by using the Prime Number Theorem:

(11)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{1}{(\mathrm{log}T)^2}\underset{n}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)^2}{n}\widehat{f}(\frac{\mathrm{log}n}{\mathrm{log}T})^2& \frac{1}{(\mathrm{log}T)^2}_2^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{log}t}{t}\widehat{f}(\frac{\mathrm{log}t}{\mathrm{log}T})^2dt\hfill \\ & _0^{\mathrm{}}u\widehat{f}(u)^2du\hfill \end{array}$$

Since our function is even and supported inside $`(\alpha ,\alpha )`$ and $`\alpha <2a/m1`$, we can rewrite this as

$$\frac{1}{2}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{min}(1,|u|)\widehat{f}(u)^2\mathrm{d}u=:\sigma (f)^2/2$$

This shows that for $`m=2k`$ even we have as $`T\mathrm{}`$ that

$$\underset{E\{1,\mathrm{},m\}}{}J_{diag}(E)\frac{(2k)!}{2^kk!}\sigma (f)^{2k}$$

Below we will show that the nondiagonal terms $`J_{non}(E)`$ are negligible, and hence by (8) and (10) we will have thus proved Theorem 2.6. ∎

#### 2.3.2. Bounding the off-diagonal terms $`J_{non}(E)`$

We will show that

###### Lemma 2.7.

$$J_{non}(E)\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}T}$$

###### Proof.

Since

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}T}\underset{p}{}\underset{k3}{}\frac{\mathrm{log}p}{p^{k/2}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}T}\underset{p}{}\frac{\mathrm{log}p}{p^{3/2}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}T}$$

the contribution of cubes and higher prime powers to (9) is negligible, and we may assume in $`J_{non}(E)`$ that the $`n_i`$ are either prime or squares of primes (upto a remainder of $`𝒪(1/\mathrm{log}T)`$). By the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, an equality $`_{jE}n_j=_{iE^c}n_i`$ forces some of the terms to match, and unless there is a perfect matching of all terms, the remaining integers satisfy equalities of the form $`n_1n_2=n_3`$ with $`n_1=n_2=p`$ prime and $`n_3=p^2`$ a square of that prime. Thus upto a remainder of $`𝒪(1/\mathrm{log}T)`$, $`J_{non}(T)`$ is a sum of terms of the form

$$\left(\frac{1}{(\mathrm{log}T)^2}\underset{\begin{array}{c}p\\ k=1,2\end{array}}{}\frac{(\mathrm{log}p)^2}{p^k}\widehat{f}(\frac{\mathrm{log}p^k}{\mathrm{log}T})^2\right)^u\left(\frac{1}{(\mathrm{log}T)^3}\underset{p}{}\frac{(\mathrm{log}p)^3}{p^2}\widehat{f}(\frac{\mathrm{log}p}{\mathrm{log}T})^2\widehat{f}(\frac{\mathrm{log}p^2}{\mathrm{log}T})\right)^v$$

with $`2u+3v=m`$, and $`v1`$.

We showed (11) that the matching terms have an asymptotic value, hence are bounded. We bound the second type of term by

$$\frac{1}{(\mathrm{log}T)^3}\underset{p}{}\frac{(\mathrm{log}p)^3}{p^2}\widehat{f}(\frac{\mathrm{log}p}{\mathrm{log}T})^2\widehat{f}(\frac{\mathrm{log}p^2}{\mathrm{log}T})\frac{1}{(\mathrm{log}T)^3}\underset{p}{}\frac{(\mathrm{log}p)^3}{p^2}\frac{1}{(\mathrm{log}T)^3}$$

Thus as long as $`v1`$ (that is if there is no perfect matching of all terms), we get that the contribution is $`𝒪(1/\mathrm{log}T)`$. ∎


text:
# On coseparable and biseparable corings

## 1. Introduction

Corings were introduced by Sweedler in  as a generalisation of coalgebras and a means for dualising the Jacobson-Bourbaki theorem. Recently, corings have resurfaced in the theory of Hopf-type modules, in particular it has been shown in  that the category of entwined modules is an example of a category of comodules of a coring. Since entwined modules appear to be the most general of Hopf-type modules studied since the mid-seventies, the theory of corings provides one with a uniform and general approach to studying all such modules. This simple observation renewed interest in general theory of corings.

Corings appear naturally in the theory of ring extensions. Indeed, they provide an equivalent description of certain types of extensions (cf. ). In this paper we study properties of corings associated to extensions. In particular, we study coseparable corings introduced by Guzman  (and recently studied in  from a different point of view) and we reveal an intriguing duality between such corings and a non-unital generalisation of separable ring extensions. We also show that to any grouplike element in a coseparable coring one can associate a Morita context. This leads to a pair of adjoint functors. One of these functors turns out to be fully faithful. Furthermore we introduce the notion of a biseparable coring and study its relationship to Frobenius corings introduced in . This allows us to consider a conjecture from , concerning biseparable and Frobenius extensions in a new framework.

Our paper is organised as follows. In the next section, apart from recalling some basic facts about corings and comodules, we introduce a non-unital generalisation of separable extensions, which we term separable $`A`$-rings. We show that any coseparable coring is an example of such a separable $`A`$-ring, and conversely, that every separable $`A`$-ring leads to a non-unital coring. We then proceed in Section 3 to construct a Morita context associated to a grouplike element in a coseparable coring. We consider some examples coming from ring extensions and bialgebroids. Finally in Section 4 we introduce the notion of biseparable corings. These are closely related to biseparable extensions, and may serve as a means for settling the question put forward in  of whether biseparable extensions are Frobenius.

Throughout the paper, $`A`$ denotes an associative ring with unit $`1_A`$, and we use the standard notation for right (resp. left) $`A`$-modules $`𝐌_A`$ (resp. $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝐌`$), bimodules, such as $`\mathrm{Hom}_A(,)`$ for right $`A`$-module maps, $`{}_{A}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(,)`$ for left $`A`$-module maps etc. For any $`(A,A)`$-bimodule $`M`$ the centraliser of $`A`$ in $`M`$ is denoted by $`M^A`$, i.e., $`M^A:=\{mM|aA,am=ma\}`$.

## 2. Coseparable $`A`$-corings and separable $`A`$-rings

### 2.1. Coseparable corings

We begin by recalling the definition of a coring from . An $`(A,A)`$-bimodule $`𝒞`$ is said to be a non-counital $`A`$-coring if there exists an $`(A,A)`$-bimodule map $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞:𝒞𝒞_A𝒞`$ rendering the following diagram commutative

The map $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞`$ is termed a coproduct. Given a non-counital $`A`$-coring $`𝒞`$ with a coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞`$, an $`(A,A)`$-bimodule map $`ϵ_𝒞:𝒞A`$ such that

$$(ϵ_𝒞I_𝒞)\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞=I_{A_A𝒞}=I_𝒞,(I_𝒞ϵ_𝒞)\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞=I_{𝒞_AA}=I_𝒞.$$

is called a counit of $`𝒞`$. A non-counital $`A`$-coring with a counit is called an $`A`$-coring.

If $`𝒞`$ is an (non-counital) $`A`$-coring, a right $`A`$-module $`M`$ is called a non-counital right $`𝒞`$-comodule if there exists a right $`A`$-module map $`\varrho ^M:MM_A𝒞`$ rendering the following diagram commutative

The map $`\varrho ^M`$ is called a $`𝒞`$-coaction. If, in addition, a $`𝒞`$-coaction satisfies the condition

$$(I_Mϵ_𝒞)\varrho ^M=I_{M_AA}=I_M,$$

then $`M`$ is called a right $`𝒞`$-comodule. Similarly one defines left $`𝒞`$-comodules, and $`(𝒞,𝒞)`$-bicomodules. Given right $`𝒞`$-comodules $`M`$, $`N`$, a right $`A`$-linear map $`f:MN`$ is called a morphism of right $`𝒞`$-comodules provided the following diagram

is commutative. The category of right $`𝒞`$-comodules is denoted by $`𝐌^𝒞`$. We use Sweedler notation to denote the action of a coproduct or a coaction on elements,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞(c)=c{}_{(1)}{}^{}c{}_{(2)}{}^{},\varrho ^M(m)=m{}_{(0)}{}^{}m{}_{(1)}{}^{}.$$

An immediate example of a left and right $`𝒞`$-comodule is provided by $`𝒞`$ itself. In both cases coaction is given by the coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞`$. Also, for any right (resp. left) $`A`$-module $`M`$, the tensor product $`M_A𝒞`$ (resp. $`𝒞_AM`$) is a right (resp. left) $`𝒞`$-comodule with the coaction $`I_M\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞I_M`$). This defines a functor which is the right adjoint of a forgetful functor from the category of $`𝒞`$-comodules to the category of $`A`$-modules. Although this functor can be defined for non-counital corings and non-counital comodules, the adjointness holds only for corings with a counit.

In particular $`𝒞_A𝒞`$ is a $`(𝒞,𝒞)`$-bicomodule, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞`$ is a $`(𝒞,𝒞)`$-bicomodule map, and following  we have

###### Definition 2.1.

A (non-counital) coring $`𝒞`$ is said to be coseparable if there exists a $`(𝒞,𝒞)`$-bicomodule splitting of the coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞`$.

Although Definition 2.1 makes sense for non-counital corings, it is much more meaningful in the case of corings with a counit. In this case $`(𝒞,𝒞)`$-bicomodule splittings of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞`$, $`\pi :𝒞_A𝒞𝒞`$ are in bijective correspondence with $`(A,A)`$-bimodule maps $`\gamma :𝒞_A𝒞A`$ such that for all $`c,c^{}𝒞`$,

$$\gamma (cc^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{})c^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}=c{}_{(1)}{}^{}\gamma (c{}_{(2)}{}^{}c^{}),\gamma (c{}_{(1)}{}^{}c{}_{(2)}{}^{})=ϵ_𝒞(c).$$

Such a map $`\gamma `$ is termed a cointegral in $`𝒞`$, and the first of the above equations is said to express a colinearity of a cointegral. The correspondence is given by $`\gamma =ϵ_𝒞\pi `$ and $`\pi (cc^{})=c{}_{(1)}{}^{}\gamma (c{}_{(2)}{}^{}c^{})`$. Furthermore $`𝒞`$ is a coseparable $`A`$-coring if and only if the forgetful functor $`𝐌^𝒞𝐌_A`$ is separable (cf. \[5, Theorem 3.5\]).

Corings appear naturally in the context of ring extensions. A ring extension $`BA`$ determines the canonical Sweedler $`A`$-coring $`𝒞:=A_BA`$ with coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞:𝒞𝒞_A𝒞`$ given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞(aa^{})=a1_Aa^{}`$ and counit $`ϵ_𝒞:𝒞A`$ given by $`ϵ_𝒞(aa^{})=aa^{}`$ for all $`a,a^{}A`$. Recall from  that an extension $`BA`$ is said to be split if there exists a $`(B,B)`$-bimodule map $`E:AB`$ such that $`E(1_A)=1_B`$. The map $`E`$ is known as a conditional expectation. The canonical Sweedler coring associated to a split ring extension is coseparable. A cointegral $`\gamma `$ coincides with the splitting map $`E`$ via the natural isomorphisms

$${}_{B}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}_{B}^{}(A,B){}_{B}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}_{B}^{}(A,A){}_{A}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}_{A}^{}(A_BA_AA_BA,A)$$

(cf. \[5, Corollary 3.7\]).

### 2.2. Separable $`A`$-rings

Corings can be seen as a dualisation of $`A`$-rings and coseparable corings turn out to be closely related to a generalisation of separable extensions of rings. In this subsection we describe this generalisation.

###### Definition 2.2.

An $`(A,A)`$-bimodule $`B`$ is called an $`A`$-ring provided there exists an $`(A,A)`$-bimodule map $`\mu :B_ABB`$ rendering commutative the diagram

This means that $`\mu `$ is associative. Note that an $`A`$-ring is necessarily a (non-unital) ring in the usual sense. Equivalently, an $`A`$-ring can be defined as a ring and an $`(A,A)`$-bimodule $`B`$ with product that is an $`A`$-balanced $`(A,A)`$-bimodule map.

Note further that the notion of an $`A`$-ring in Definition 2.2 is a non-unital generalisation of ring extensions. Indeed, it is only natural to call an $`(A,A)`$-bilinear map $`\iota :AB`$ a unit (for $`(B,\mu )`$) if it induces a commutative diagram

If this holds then $`\iota (1_A)=1_B`$ is a unit of $`B`$ in the usual sense. One can then easily show that $`\iota `$ is a ring map, hence a unital $`A`$-ring is simply a ring extension.

###### Definition 2.3.

Given an $`A`$-ring $`B`$, a right $`A`$-module $`M`$ is said to be a right $`B`$-module provided there exists a right $`A`$-module map $`\varrho _M:M_ABM`$ making the following diagram

commute. The map $`\varrho _M`$ is called a right $`B`$-action. On elements the action is denoted by a dot in a standard way, i.e., $`mb=\varrho _M(mb)`$. Remember that for all $`aA`$ we have $`(ma)b=m(ab)`$.

A morphism $`f:MN`$ between two $`B`$-modules is an $`A`$-linear map which makes the following diagram

commute. A right $`B`$-module $`M`$ is said to be firm provided the induced map $`M_BBM`$, $`mbmb`$ is a right $`B`$-module isomorphism. The category of firm right $`B`$-modules is denoted by $`𝐌_B`$. Note that, by definition, $`𝐌_B`$ is a subcategory of the category of right $`A`$-modules $`𝐌_A`$.

Obviously left $`B`$-modules are defined in a symmetric way. Similarly one defines $`(B,B)`$-bimodules, $`(A,B)`$-bimodules etc.

Dually to the definition of coseparable corings we can define separable $`A`$-rings.

###### Definition 2.4.

An $`A`$-ring $`B`$ is said to be separable if the product map $`\mu :B_ABB`$ has a $`(B,B)`$-bimodule section $`\delta :BB_AB`$.

If $`B`$ is a separable $`A`$-ring then clearly $`\mu `$ is surjective and the induced map $`B_BBB`$ is an isomorphism. Therefore $`B`$ is a firm left and right $`B`$-module, i.e., $`B`$ is a firm ring.

Note that if $`B`$ has a unit $`\iota :AB`$ then $`B`$ is a separable $`A`$-ring if and only if $`B`$ is a separable extension of $`A`$. Thus Definition 2.4 extends the notion of a separable extension to non-unital rings. Note, however, that in general this is not an extension, since there is no (ring) map $`AB`$.

###### Remark 2.5.

In consistency with $`A`$-corings, we use the terminology of  in Definition 2.2. In \[17, 11.7\] $`A`$-rings are termed multiplicative $`A`$-bimodules. Following  one might call a separable $`A`$-ring (as defined in Definition 2.4) an $`A`$-ring with a splitting map.

### 2.3. Coseparable $`A`$-corings are separable $`A`$-rings

The main result of this section is contained in the following

###### Theorem 2.6.

If $`𝒞`$ is a coseparable $`A`$-coring then $`𝒞`$ is a separable $`A`$-ring.

Proof.  Let $`\pi :𝒞_A𝒞𝒞`$ be a bicomodule retraction of the coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞`$, and let $`\gamma =ϵ_𝒞\pi `$ be the corresponding cointegral. We claim that $`𝒞`$ is an associative $`A`$-ring with product $`\mu =\pi `$. Indeed, since the alternative expressions for product are $`cc^{}=\gamma (cc^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{})c^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}=c{}_{(1)}{}^{}\gamma (c{}_{(2)}{}^{}c^{})`$, for all $`c,c^{},c^{\prime \prime }𝒞`$ we have, using the left $`A`$-linearity of $`\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞`$,

$$(cc^{})c^{\prime \prime }=(\gamma (cc^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{})c^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{})c^{\prime \prime }=\gamma (cc^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{})\gamma (c^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}c^{\prime \prime }{}_{(1)}{}^{})c^{\prime \prime }{}_{(2)}{}^{}.$$

On the other hand, the colinearity and right $`A`$-linearity of $`\gamma `$, and the left $`A`$-linearity of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞`$ imply

$`c(c^{}c^{\prime \prime })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }c(\gamma (c^{}c^{\prime \prime }{}_{(1)}{}^{})c^{\prime \prime }{}_{(2)}{}^{})={\displaystyle }\gamma (c\gamma (c^{}c^{\prime \prime }{}_{(1)}{}^{})c^{\prime \prime }{}_{(2)}{}^{})c^{\prime \prime }_{(3)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }\gamma (cc^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{}\gamma (c^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}c^{\prime \prime }{}_{(1)}{}^{}))c^{\prime \prime }{}_{(2)}{}^{}={\displaystyle }\gamma (cc^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{})\gamma (c^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}c^{\prime \prime }{}_{(1)}{}^{})c^{\prime \prime }{}_{(2)}{}^{}.`$
This explicitly proves that the product in $`𝒞`$ is associative. Clearly this product is $`(A,A)`$-bilinear. Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞`$ is a $`(𝒞,𝒞)`$-bimodule map since

$$c\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞(c^{})=cc^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{}c^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\pi (cc^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{})c^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞\pi (cc^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞(cc^{}),$$

from the right colinearity of $`\pi `$. Similarly for the left $`𝒞`$-linearity. Finally $`\pi `$ is split by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞`$ since $`\pi `$ is a retraction of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞`$. This proves that $`𝒞`$ is a separable $`A`$-ring. $``$$``$

###### Proposition 2.7.

Let $`𝒞`$ be a coseparable $`A`$-coring with a cointegral $`\gamma `$. View $`𝒞`$ as an $`A`$-ring with product $`\pi `$ as in Theorem 2.6. Then any right $`𝒞`$-comodule $`M`$ is a firm right $`𝒞`$-module with the action $`\varrho _M=(I_M\gamma )(\varrho ^MI_𝒞)`$.

Proof.  Take any $`mM`$ and $`c,c^{}𝒞`$. Then explicitly the action reads $`mc=m{}_{(0)}{}^{}\gamma (m{}_{(1)}{}^{}c)`$, and we can compute

$`(mc)c^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }(m{}_{(0)}{}^{}\gamma (m{}_{(1)}{}^{}c))c^{}={\displaystyle }m{}_{(0)}{}^{}\gamma (m{}_{(1)}{}^{}\gamma (m{}_{(2)}{}^{}c)c^{})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }m{}_{(0)}{}^{}\gamma (\gamma (m{}_{(1)}{}^{}c{}_{(1)}{}^{})c{}_{(2)}{}^{}c^{})={\displaystyle }m{}_{(0)}{}^{}\gamma (m{}_{(1)}{}^{}c{}_{(1)}{}^{})\gamma (c{}_{(2)}{}^{}c^{})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }m{}_{(0)}{}^{}\gamma (m{}_{(1)}{}^{}c{}_{(1)}{}^{}\gamma (c{}_{(2)}{}^{}c^{}))={\displaystyle }m{}_{(0)}{}^{}\gamma (m{}_{(1)}{}^{}cc^{})=m(cc^{}),`$
as required. We used the following properties of a cointegral: colinearity to derive the third equality and $`A`$-bilinearity to derive the fourth and fifth equalities. Obviously the action is right $`A`$-linear. Thus $`M`$ is a $`𝒞`$-module. We need to show that it is firm.

Note that $`M_𝒞𝒞`$ is defined as a cokernel of the following right $`𝒞`$-linear map

$$\lambda :M_A𝒞_A𝒞M_A𝒞,mcc^{}mcc^{}mcc^{}.$$

Since $`\gamma `$ is a cointegral, $`\varrho _M`$ is a right $`𝒞`$-linear retraction of $`\varrho ^M`$, hence, in particular it is a surjection and we have the following sequence of right $`𝒞`$-module maps

We need to show that this sequence is exact. Clearly the associativity of action of $`𝒞`$ on $`M`$ implies that $`\varrho _M\lambda =0`$, so that $`\mathrm{Im}\lambda \mathrm{ker}\varrho _M`$. Furthermore, for all $`mM`$ and $`c𝒞`$ we have

$`(\varrho ^M\varrho _M\lambda (I_M\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞))(mc)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }m{}_{(0)}{}^{}m{}_{(1)}{}^{}\gamma (m{}_{(2)}{}^{}c)`$
$`{\displaystyle }mc{}_{(1)}{}^{}c{}_{(2)}{}^{}+{\displaystyle }m\pi (c{}_{(1)}{}^{}c{}_{(2)}{}^{})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }m{}_{(0)}{}^{}\gamma (m{}_{(1)}{}^{}c{}_{(1)}{}^{})c_{(2)}`$
$`{\displaystyle }m{}_{(0)}{}^{}\gamma (m{}_{(1)}{}^{}c{}_{(1)}{}^{})c{}_{(2)}{}^{}+mc`$
$`=`$ $`mc,`$
where we used the colinearity of a cointegral. This implies that $`\mathrm{ker}\varrho _M\mathrm{Im}\lambda `$, i.e., the above sequence is exact as required. $``$$``$

As an example of a coseparable coring one can take the canonical Sweedler coring associated to a split ring extension $`BA`$. In this case the product in $`A_BA`$ comes out as

$$(aa^{})(a^{\prime \prime }a^{\prime \prime \prime })=aE(a^{}a^{\prime \prime })a^{\prime \prime \prime },a,a^{},a^{\prime \prime },a^{\prime \prime \prime }A$$

where $`E`$ is a splitting map. This is known as the $`E`$-multiplication. Since a comodule of the canonical coring is a descent datum for a ring extension $`BA`$, Proposition 2.7 implies that every descent datum is a firm module of the $`A`$-ring $`A_BA`$ with the $`E`$-multiplication.

Theorem 2.6 has the following (part-) converse.

###### Proposition 2.8.

Let $`B`$ be a separable $`A`$-ring. Then $`B`$ is a coseparable non-counital coring.

Proof.  Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }:BB_AB`$ be a $`(B,B)`$-bimodule map splitting the product $`\mu `$ in $`B`$. The $`B`$-linearity of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ implies that the following diagram

is commutative. For all $`bB`$ we write $`(\mathrm{\Delta }I_B)\mathrm{\Delta }(b)=b{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{}b{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}b_{(2)}`$ and $`(I_B\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Delta }(b)=b{}_{(1)}{}^{}b{}_{(2)}{}^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{}b{}_{(2)}{}^{}_{(2)}`$, and use the above diagram to obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }(b)=(\mathrm{\Delta }\mu \mathrm{\Delta })(b)& =(I_B\mu )(\mathrm{\Delta }I_B)\mathrm{\Delta }(b)=b{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{}\mu (b{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}b{}_{(2)}{}^{})\hfill \\ & =(\mu I_B)(I_B\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Delta }(b)=\mu (b{}_{(1)}{}^{}b{}_{(2)}{}^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{})b{}_{(2)}{}^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Using these identities we can compute

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (I_B\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Delta }(b)& =b{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mu )(b{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}b{}_{(2)}{}^{})\hfill \\ & =b{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{}((\mu I_B)(I_B\mathrm{\Delta }))(b{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}b{}_{(2)}{}^{})\hfill \\ & =b{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{}\mu (b{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}b{}_{(2)}{}^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{})b{}_{(2)}{}^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{},\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (\mathrm{\Delta }I_B)\mathrm{\Delta }(b)& =(\mathrm{\Delta }\mu )(b{}_{(1)}{}^{}b{}_{(2)}{}^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{})b{}_{(2)}{}^{}_{(2)}\hfill \\ & =((I_B\mu )(\mathrm{\Delta }I_B))(b{}_{(1)}{}^{}b{}_{(2)}{}^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{})b{}_{(2)}{}^{}_{(2)}\hfill \\ & =b{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{}\mu (b{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}b{}_{(2)}{}^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{})b{}_{(2)}{}^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{},\hfill \end{array}$$

i.e., $`(\mathrm{\Delta }I_B)\mathrm{\Delta }=(I_B\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This proves that $`B`$ is a non-counital $`A`$-coring with coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Next note that the above diagram can also be understood as a statement that $`\mu `$ is a $`(B,B)`$-bicomodule map. Since $`\mu `$ is a retraction for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`B`$ is a coseparable non-counital coring as required. This completes the proof. $``$$``$

## 3. Morita contexts for coseparable corings

Although the Morita theory is usually developed for rings with unit, it can be extended to firm rings without units (cf. \[4, Exercise 4.1.4\]). Recall that a right module $`M`$ of a non-unital ring $`R`$ is said to be firm if the map $`M_RRM`$ induced from the $`R`$-product in $`M`$ is an $`R`$-module isomorphism. Similarly one defines left firm modules. A non-unital ring is a firm ring if it is firm as a left and right $`R`$-module.

###### Definition 3.1.

Given a pair of firm non-unital rings $`R,S`$, a Morita context consists of a firm $`(R,S)`$-bimodule $`V`$ and a firm $`(S,R)`$-bimodule $`W`$ and a pair of bimodule maps

$$\sigma :W_RVS,\tau :V_SWR,$$

such that the following diagrams

commute. A Morita context is denoted by $`(R,S,V,W,\tau ,\sigma )`$. A Morita context is said to be strict provided $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau `$ are isomorphisms.

The Morita theory for non-unital rings can be developed along the same lines as the usual Morita theory . The aim of this section is to show that there is a Morita context associated to any coseparable coring with a grouplike element. To construct such a context we employ techniques developed in recent papers , .

First recall that an element $`g`$ of an $`A`$-coring $`𝒞`$ is said to be a grouplike element, provided $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞(g)=gg`$ and $`ϵ_𝒞(g)=1`$. Obviously, not every coring has grouplike elements. The results of this section are contained in the following

###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $`𝒞`$ be a coseparable $`A`$-coring with a cointegral $`\gamma `$ and a grouplike element $`g`$. View $`𝒞`$ as a separable $`A`$-ring as in Theorem 2.6 and let $`𝐌_𝒞`$ denote the category of firm right modules of the $`A`$-ring $`𝒞`$ (cf. Definition 2.3). For any $`M𝐌_𝒞`$ define

$$M_{g,\gamma }^𝒞=\{mM|c𝒞,mc=m\gamma (gc)\}.$$

Then:

* $`B=A_{g,\gamma }^𝒞=\{bA|c𝒞,\gamma (gbc)=b\gamma (gc)\}`$, is a subring of $`A`$.
* The assignment $`()_{g,\gamma }^𝒞:𝐌_𝒞𝐌_B`$, $`MM_{g,\gamma }^𝒞`$ is a covariant functor which has a left adjoint $`_BA:𝐌_B𝐌_𝒞`$.
* $`Q=𝒞_{g,\gamma }^𝒞`$ is a firm left ideal in $`𝒞`$ and hence a $`(𝒞,B)`$-bimodule.
* For every $`M𝐌_𝒞`$, the additive map

$$\omega _M:M_𝒞QM_{g,\gamma }^𝒞,mqmq,$$

is bijective.
* Define two maps

$$\sigma :Q_BA𝒞,qaqa\text{and}\tau :A_𝒞QB,aq\gamma (gaq).$$

Then $`(B,𝒞,A,Q,\tau ,\sigma )`$ is a Morita context, in which $`\tau `$ is surjective (hence an isomorphism).

Proof.

(1) First note that $`A`$ is a right $`𝒞`$-comodule with the coaction $`a1_Aga`$. Thus by Proposition 2.7, $`A`$ is a firm $`𝒞`$-module with the action $`ac=\gamma (gac)`$, for all $`aA`$ and $`c𝒞`$. Therefore the definition of $`B`$ makes sense and takes the form stated. Obviously $`1_AB`$. Furthermore for all $`b,b^{}B`$ and $`c𝒞`$ we have

$$\gamma (gbb^{}c)=\gamma (gbb^{}c)=b\gamma (gb^{}c)=bb^{}\gamma (gc),$$

so that $`bb^{}B`$ as required. Alternatively, we note that $`B\mathrm{End}_𝒞(A)`$ and is therefore a ring.

(2) We note that $`M_{g,\gamma }^𝒞\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞(A,M)`$ via $`ff(1_A)`$ has the left adjoint $`_BA`$. In more detail, take any $`M𝐌_𝒞`$, $`mM_{g,\gamma }^𝒞`$, $`bB`$ and $`c𝒞`$, and use the definitions of $`B`$ and $`M_{g,\gamma }^𝒞`$ to compute

$$(mb)c=m(bc)=m\gamma (gbc)=mb\gamma (gc).$$

This shows that $`M_{g,\gamma }^𝒞`$ is a right $`B`$-module, hence $`()_{g,\gamma }^𝒞`$ is a functor as stated. In the opposite direction, for any right $`B`$-module $`N`$, $`N_BA`$ is a firm right $`𝒞`$-module with the action $`(na)c=n\gamma (gac)`$. Note that this action is well-defined by the construction of $`B`$. More precisely, $`A`$ is a left $`B`$-module and a firm right $`𝒞`$-module (since it is a right $`𝒞`$-comodule). It is a $`(B,𝒞)`$-bimodule, since for every $`bB`$, $`aA`$ and $`c𝒞`$ we have

$$(ba)c=\gamma (gbac)=\gamma (gbac)=b\gamma (gac)=b(ac),$$

by (1). The above action is simply induced from the action of $`𝒞`$ on $`A`$ and thus well-defined. Therefore we have a functor as required. Now, one can easily check that the unit and counit of the adjunction are given by

$$\eta _N:N(N_BA)_{g,\gamma }^𝒞,nn1_A,$$

$$ϵ_M:M_{g,\gamma }^𝒞_BAM,mama,$$

for all $`N𝐌_B`$ and $`M𝐌_𝒞`$.

(3) Note that $`Q\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞(A,𝒞)`$ and is therefore a natural $`(𝒞,B)`$-bimodule. In more detail, we have $`(cq)c^{}=c(qc^{})=cq\gamma (gc^{})`$ for any $`c,c^{}𝒞`$ and $`qQ`$ , so $`cq`$ is an element of $`Q`$, hence $`Q`$ is a left $`𝒞`$-ideal. By (2) $`Q`$ is also a right $`B`$-module, and since the product in $`𝒞`$ is an $`(A,A)`$-bimodule map, $`Q`$ is a $`(𝒞,B)`$-bimodule. We only need to show that $`Q`$ is firm as a left $`𝒞`$-module. This can be shown by the same technique as in the proof of Proposition 2.7. $`𝒞_𝒞Q`$ is defined as a cokernel of the following left $`𝒞`$-linear map

$$\lambda :𝒞_A𝒞_AQ𝒞_AQ,\lambda =I_𝒞\pi \pi I_Q,$$

where $`\pi `$ is the product map in $`𝒞`$ (i.e., the splitting of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞`$) corresponding to the cointegral $`\gamma `$. Observe that the product map $`\pi :𝒞_AQQ`$ is a surjection. Indeed, first note that since for all $`c𝒞`$, $`\pi (gc)=g\gamma (gc)`$ by the relationship between $`\pi `$ and $`\gamma `$, the grouplike element $`g`$ is in $`Q`$. For any $`qQ`$ take $`qg𝒞_AQ`$. Then $`\pi (qg)=q\gamma (gg)=q`$, by the properties of the cointegral $`\gamma `$. Thus $`\pi `$ is a surjection as claimed.

We have the following sequence of left $`𝒞`$-module maps

We need to show that this sequence is exact. Clearly the associativity of $`\pi `$ implies that $`\pi \lambda =0`$, so that $`\mathrm{Im}\lambda \mathrm{ker}\pi `$. Furthermore, we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞\pi \lambda (\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞I_Q)=(I_𝒞\pi )(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞I_Q)(I_𝒞\pi )(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞I_Q)+(\pi \mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞)I_Q=I_𝒞I_Q,$$

where we used the colinearity of $`\pi `$ and the fact that $`\pi `$ is a splitting of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞`$. This implies that $`\mathrm{ker}\pi \mathrm{Im}\lambda `$, i.e., the above sequence is exact as required.

(4) Note that $`\omega _M`$ is the natural map $`M_𝒞\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞(A,𝒞)\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞(A,M)M_{g,\gamma }^𝒞`$, $`mf[af(1)m]`$, and hence it is well-defined. Explicitly, for all $`mM`$, $`qQ`$ and $`c𝒞`$ we have $`(mq)c=m(qc)=mq\gamma (gc)`$, as required. We need to show that $`\omega _M`$ is bijective. Consider a map

$$\theta _M:M_{g,\gamma }^𝒞M_𝒞Q,mmg.$$

This is well-defined, since as shown in the proof of (3), $`gQ`$. Take any $`mM_{g,\gamma }^𝒞`$. Then

$$\omega _M(\theta _M(m))=mg=m\gamma (gg)=m,$$

by the definition of $`M_{g,\gamma }^𝒞`$ and properties of a cointegral. Conversely, for any simple tensor $`mqM_𝒞Q`$ we have

$$\theta _M(\omega _M(mq))=mqg=mqg=mq\gamma (gg)=mq,$$

again by the definition of $`Q`$ and properties of cointegrals.

(5) Note that $`\sigma `$ is the evaluation mapping $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞(A,𝒞)_BA𝒞`$, while $`\tau `$ is the canonical map $`A_𝒞\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞(A,𝒞)\mathrm{End}_𝒞(A)`$. In more detail, we show that the maps $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau `$ are well-defined as bimodule maps. Obviously, $`\sigma `$ is left $`𝒞`$-linear. Take any $`qQ`$, $`aA`$ and $`c𝒞`$ and compute

$$\sigma (qac)=q\gamma (gac)=q\gamma (gac)=\pi (qac)=\pi (qac)=(qa)c.$$

This shows that $`\sigma `$ is $`(𝒞,𝒞)`$-bilinear as required. Note that $`\tau =\omega _A`$, and since $`B=A_{g,\gamma }^𝒞`$ it is well defined and surjective. Clearly $`\tau `$ is right $`B`$-linear. An easy computation which involves the definition of $`B`$ confirms that $`\tau `$ is $`(B,B)`$-bilinear. Next we need to check the commutativity of diagrams in Definition 3.1. The commutativity of the second diagram follows immediately from $`A`$-linearity of the cointegral. Now take any $`aA`$, and $`q,q^{}Q`$ and compute

$$\sigma (qa)q^{}=(qa)q^{}=q(aq^{})=q\gamma (gaq^{})=q\tau (aq^{}),$$

where the definition of $`Q`$ was used to derive the third equality. Thus we have a Morita context as required. A standard argument in Morita theory confirms that $`\tau `$ is an isomorphism (cf. \[2, II (3.4) Theorem\]). $``$$``$

###### Corollary 3.3.

With the assumptions and notation as in Theorem 3.2 we have:

* $`Q`$ is a subring of $`𝒞`$ with a right unit $`g`$.
* The functor $`_BA:𝐌_B𝐌_𝒞`$ is fully faithful, i.e., the unit of adjunction $`\eta `$ is an isomorphism.
* $`A_𝒞`$ and $`{}_{𝒞}{}^{}Q`$ are direct summands of $`𝒞^n`$ for some (finite) $`n`$.
* $`A`$ and $`Q`$ are generators as left resp. right $`B`$-modules.

Proof.  (1) follows immediately from the proof of Theorem 3.2(3), while (2)-(4) follow from Morita theory with surjective $`\tau `$, and can be proven by the same methods as in the unital case (cf. \[2, Ch. II.3\]). In particular, in the case of (3) the “dual bases” of $`A`$ and $`Q`$ can be constructed as follows. Let $`\{a_iA,q^iQ\}_{i=1,\mathrm{},n}`$ be such that $`1_B=_i\tau (a_iq^i)`$. Define $`\sigma ^i=\sigma (q^i)\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞(A,𝒞)`$. Then for every $`aA`$ we have

$$\underset{i}{}a_i\sigma ^i(a)=\underset{i}{}a_i\sigma (q^ia)=\underset{i}{}\tau (a_iq^i)a=a,$$

so that $`\{a_i,\sigma ^i\}_{i=1,\mathrm{},n}`$ is a dual basis for $`A_𝒞`$. Similarly a dual basis for $`{}_{𝒞}{}^{}Q`$ can be constructed as $`\{q^i,\sigma _i\}`$ with $`\sigma _i=\sigma (a_i)`$. $``$$``$

One can easily find a sufficient condition for the Morita context of Theorem 3.2 to be strict.

###### Proposition 3.4.

Let $`𝒞`$ be a coseparable $`A`$-coring with a grouplike element $`g`$. Then the Morita context $`(B,𝒞,A,Q,\tau ,\sigma )`$ associated in Theorem 3.2 is strict, provided $`g`$ is a left unit in $`𝒞`$.

Proof.  In this case $`\gamma (gc)=ϵ_𝒞(c)`$, hence $`B`$ and $`Q`$ are characterised by relations $`ϵ_𝒞(bc)=bϵ_𝒞(c)`$ and $`qc=qϵ_𝒞(c)`$, respectively, for all $`c𝒞`$. We need to show that $`\sigma `$ is an isomorphism. For any $`c𝒞`$, $`\sigma (gϵ_𝒞(c))=gϵ_𝒞(c)=gc=c`$, since $`gQ`$. Thus $`\sigma `$ is surjective. Suppose now that $`_iq_ia_i\mathrm{ker}\sigma `$, i.e., $`_iq_ia_i=0`$. This implies that $`_iϵ_𝒞(q_i)a_i=0`$, so that

$$0=g_B\underset{i}{}ϵ_𝒞(q_i)a_i=\underset{i}{}gϵ_𝒞(q_i)a_i=\underset{i}{}gq_ia_i=\underset{i}{}q_ia_i.$$

Here we used that for all $`qQ`$, $`ϵ_𝒞(q)=\gamma (gq)B`$, the fact that $`gQ`$ and that $`g`$ is a left unit in $`𝒞`$. This completes the proof. $``$$``$

Finally, we consider two examples of Theorem 3.2.

###### Example 3.5.

Consider a split extension $`\overline{B}\stackrel{\iota }{}A`$ with splitting map $`E:A\overline{B}`$. Then the canonical Sweedler coring $`𝒞=A_{\overline{B}}A`$ is an $`A`$-ring with the $`E`$-multiplication, $`1_A1_A𝒞`$ is a grouplike element, and the Morita context constructed in Theorem 3.2 comes out as follows. The ring $`B`$ is just

$$B=\iota (\overline{B}),$$

while the $`(𝒞,B)`$-bimodule $`QA_BA`$ is

$$QA$$

via $`aa1_A`$ and the left module action of the $`A`$-ring $`𝒞`$ on $`A`$ given by $`ca=c^1E(c^2a)`$ (suppressing a possible summation in $`c=c^1c^2A_BA`$). The module $`A_𝒞`$ is similarly given by $`ac=E(ac^1)c^2`$ for each $`aA,c𝒞`$. The Morita maps read $`\sigma (aa^{})=aa^{}`$ and $`\tau (aa^{})=E(aa^{})`$. This context is obviously strict.

The proof of this involves applying the theorem, noting that

$$B=\{bA|aA,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}_AE(ba)=bE(a)\}=\iota (\overline{B})\}$$

since $``$ is clear and $``$ follows from letting $`a=1_A`$. Next one notes that

$$Q=\{q=\underset{i}{}q_i\overline{q}_iA_{\overline{B}}A|aA,\underset{i}{}q_iE(\overline{q}_ia)1_A=qE(a)\}=A1_A$$

since $``$ is clear and $``$ follows from taking $`a=1_A`$.

###### Example 3.6.

Hopf algebroids over a noncommutative base $`k`$-algebra $`A`$, where $`k`$ is a commutative ring, provide examples of $`A`$-corings with grouplike elements; in particular, the canonical bialgebroids $`\text{End}_kA`$ and $`A_kA^{\mathrm{op}}`$ do (cf.   for the definition and examples of Hopf algebroids). They can be extended to ring extensions via an algebraic formulation of depth two for subfactors : a ring extension $`BA`$ is of depth two (D2) if $`A_BA`$ is isomorphic to a direct summand of $`A\mathrm{}A`$ as a $`(B,A)`$-bimodule, and similarly as an $`(A,B)`$-bimodule. The two conditions are equivalent respectively to the existence of finitely many elements $`c_j,b_i(A_BA)^B`$ and $`\gamma _j,\beta _i{}_{B}{}^{}\mathrm{End}_{B}^{}(A)`$ such that for all $`a,a^{}A`$,

(3.1)
$$aa^{}=\underset{i}{}b_i\beta _i(a)a^{}=\underset{j}{}a\gamma _j(a^{})c_j.$$

Denoting the centraliser $`A^B`$ of a D2 extension $`BA`$ by $`R`$, the following $`R`$-coring structure for $`𝒞:={}_{B}{}^{}\mathrm{End}_{B}^{}(A)`$ is considered in . The $`(R,R)`$-bimodule structure is $`r\alpha r^{}=r\alpha ()r^{}`$ ($`\alpha 𝒞`$). The coproduct is given most simply by noting \[13, 3.10\]: $`𝒞_R𝒞{}_{B}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}_{B}^{}(A_BA,A)`$ via

$$\alpha \beta [aa^{}\alpha (a)\beta (a^{})].$$

Then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞(\alpha )(aa^{})=\alpha (aa^{}),$$

with counit

$$ϵ_𝒞(\alpha )=\alpha (1_A).$$

We also have the alternative formulae for the coproduct \[13, Eqs. (66), (68)\]:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞(\alpha )=\underset{j}{}\gamma _j_Rc_j^1\alpha (c_j^2)=\underset{i}{}\alpha (b_i^1)b_i^2_R\beta _i,$$

where $`c_j=c_j^1c_j^2`$ and $`b_i=b_i^1b_i^2`$ is a notation suppressing a possible summation index. We note the grouplike element $`I_A`$.

Suppose the D2 extension $`BA`$ is separable with separability element $`e=e^1e^2A_BA`$ (summation index suppressed). Then the $`R`$-coring $`𝒞`$ is coseparable with cointegral $`\gamma :𝒞_R𝒞R`$ given by $`\gamma (\alpha \beta )=\alpha (e^1)\beta (e^2)`$. The corresponding $`R`$-ring structure on $`𝒞`$ is given by ($`xA`$)

$$(\alpha \beta )(x)=\alpha (xe^1)\beta (e^2)=\alpha (e^1)\beta (e^2x)$$

with the $`R`$-bimodule structure above.

The Morita context in the theorem applied to $`𝒞`$ turns out as follows:

###### Proposition 3.7.

The centre $`Z`$ of $`A`$ and the non-unital ring $`(𝒞,)`$ are related by the Morita context $`(Z,𝒞,{}_{Z}{}^{}R_{𝒞}^{},{}_{𝒞}{}^{}R_{Z}^{},\tau ,\sigma )`$ where $`{}_{Z}{}^{}R_{𝒞}^{}`$ is given by $`zr\alpha =ze^1r\alpha (e^2)`$, $`{}_{𝒞}{}^{}R_{Z}^{}`$ by $`\alpha rz=\alpha (e^1)re^2z`$,

$$\sigma :R_ZR𝒞,rr^{}\lambda (r)\rho (r^{})=\rho (r^{})\lambda (r),$$

where $`\lambda (r),\rho (r)𝒞`$ denote left and right multiplication by $`rR`$, respectively, and

$$\tau :R_𝒞R\stackrel{}{}𝒞,rr^{}e^1rr^{}e^2.$$

The Morita context is strict if $`BA`$ is H-separable.

Proof.  We check that $`\gamma `$ is a cointegral. Take any $`\alpha 𝒞`$ and compute

$$\gamma (\alpha {}_{(1)}{}^{}\alpha {}_{(2)}{}^{})=\alpha (e^1e^2)=ϵ_𝒞(\alpha ).$$

Thus $`\gamma `$ is normalised. Furthermore, for all $`\alpha ,\beta 𝒞`$,

$$\gamma (\alpha \beta {}_{(1)}{}^{})\beta {}_{(2)}{}^{}=\underset{i}{}\alpha (e^1)\beta (e^2b_i^1)b_i^2\beta _i=\alpha (e^1)\beta (e^2).$$

On the other hand

$$\alpha {}_{(1)}{}^{}\gamma (\alpha {}_{(2)}{}^{}\beta )=\underset{j}{}\gamma _j()c_j^1\alpha (c_j^2e^1)\beta (e^2)=\alpha (e^1)\beta (e^2),$$

so that $`\gamma `$ is colinear and hence a cointegral.

The subring of $`R`$ in Theorem 3.2 is

$$R_{I_A,\gamma }^𝒞=\{rR|aA,e^1r\alpha (e^2)=re^1\alpha (e^2)\}=Z,$$

since $``$ is clear, and $``$ follows from taking $`\alpha =I_A`$ and observing $`e^1re^2Z`$. The Morita context bimodule

$$Q=\{q𝒞|\alpha 𝒞,q(e^1)\alpha (e^2)=q()e^1\alpha (e^2)\}=\lambda (R),$$

since $``$ is clear, and $``$ follows from taking $`\alpha =I_A`$, whence $`q=q(e^1)e^2=\lambda (q(e^1)e^2)\lambda (R)`$.

That $`(Z,𝒞,Q,R,\sigma ,\tau )`$ is a Morita context is now straightforward; $`\tau `$ being epi by an old lemma of Hirata and Sugano .

Recall that $`BA`$ is H-separable (after Hirata) if there are (Casimir) elements $`e_i(A_BA)^A`$ and $`r_iR`$ (the centraliser) such that $`1_A1_A=_ie_ir_i(=_ir_ie_i)`$ (a very strong version of Eqs. (3.1) above). It is well-known that $`A`$ is a separable extension of $`B`$. Moreover,

$$R_ZR^{\mathrm{op}}\stackrel{}{}{}_{B}{}^{}\mathrm{End}_{B}^{}(A),$$

via $`rr^{}\lambda (r)\rho (r^{})`$ with inverse $`\alpha _i\alpha (e_i^1)e_i^2r_i`$. Whence $`\sigma `$ is an isomorphism if we begin with an H-separable extension. $``$$``$

If $`A`$ is a separable algebra over a (commutative) ground ring $`B`$, then the proposition shows that the center $`Z`$ and $`\mathrm{End}_B(A)`$ (with the exotic multiplication above) are related by a Morita context, which is strict if $`Z=B1_A`$, i.e. $`A`$ is Azumaya.

As a third example, we may instead work with the dual bialgebroid in  and prove that a split D2 extension $`BA`$ has a coseparable $`R`$-coring structure on $`(A_BA)^B`$ which is essentially a restriction of $`𝒞`$ in Example 3.5.

## 4. Are biseparable corings Frobenius?

In this section we will show that a one-sided, slightly stronger version of the problem in  is equivalent to the problem if cosplit, coseparable corings with a condition of finite projectivity are Frobenius. Given the techniques developed for corings and the many examples coming from entwined structures , we expect this equivalence to be useful in solving this problem.

As recalled in Section 2, an $`A`$-coring $`𝒞`$ is coseparable if the forgetful functor $`F:𝐌^𝒞𝐌_A`$ is separable (cf.  for the definition of a separable functor). Dually, we say that $`𝒞`$ is cosplit if the functor $`_A𝒞`$ is a separable functor from the category of right $`A`$-modules $`𝐌_A`$ into the category of right $`𝒞`$-comodules $`𝐌^𝒞`$. (Recall that $`F`$ is the left adjoint of $`_A𝒞`$ .)

An $`A`$-coring $`𝒞`$ determines two ring extensions $`\iota ^{}:A𝒞^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}\iota :A{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ where $`𝒞^{}:=\mathrm{Hom}_A(𝒞,A)`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞:={}_{A}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(𝒞,A)`$, i.e., the right and left duals of $`𝒞`$. The ring structure on $`𝒞^{}`$ is given by $`(\xi \xi ^{})(c)=\xi (\xi ^{}(c{}_{(1)}{}^{})c{}_{(2)}{}^{})`$ ($`\xi ,\xi ^{}𝒞^{},c𝒞`$) with unity $`ϵ_𝒞`$ and the natural Abelian group structure, while the ring structure on $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ is given by $`(\xi \xi ^{})(c)=\xi ^{}(c{}_{(1)}{}^{}\xi (c{}_{(2)}{}^{}))`$. The mappings $`\iota ^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}\iota `$ are given by $`\iota ^{}(a)=ϵ_𝒞(a)(=aϵ_𝒞)`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}\iota (a)=ϵ_𝒞(a)`$. We note by short calculations that the induced $`(A,A)`$-bimodule structures on $`𝒞^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ coincide with the usual structures, which we recall are given by $`(a\xi a^{})(c):=a\xi (a^{}c)`$ for $`\xi 𝒞^{}`$ and $`a,a^{}A`$ and $`(a\xi a^{})(c)=\xi (ca)a^{}`$ for $`\xi {}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$. Also note that $`{}_{}{}^{}\iota `$ and $`\iota ^{}`$ are monomorphisms if $`ϵ_𝒞:𝒞A`$ is surjective.

Recall from  that a ring extension $`BA`$ is biseparable if it is split, separable and the natural modules $`A_B`$ and $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ are finitely generated projective. We will say that $`BA`$ is left or right biseparable if $`BA`$ is split, separable but only one of $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ or $`A_B`$, respectively, need be finitely generated projective. This motivates the following

###### Definition 4.1.

An $`A`$-coring $`𝒞`$ is said to be biseparable if $`𝒞_A`$ and $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ are finitely generated projective and $`𝒞`$ is cosplit as well as coseparable.

###### Proposition 4.2.

If $`BA`$ is a biseparable extension, then the canonical Sweedler $`A`$-coring $`𝒞:=A_BA`$ is a biseparable coring.

Proof.  Since $`BA`$ is separable, the induction functor $`_A𝒞`$ from $`𝐌_A`$ into $`𝐌^𝒞`$ is separable by \[5, Corollary 3.4\]. Since $`BA`$ is split, and $`A_B`$ is a projective generator (therefore faithfully flat), the forgetful functor $`F:𝐌^𝒞𝐌_A`$ is a separable functor by \[5, Corollary 3.7\]. It follows by definition that the canonical coring $`𝒞`$ is cosplit and coseparable.

Finally we note that $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ finitely generated projective implies $`{}_{A}{}^{}A_BA`$ finitely generated projective. Similarly, $`𝒞_A`$ is finitely generated projective, and we conclude that $`𝒞`$ is biseparable. $``$$``$

Recall that an $`A`$-coring $`𝒞`$ is said to be Frobenius if the forgetful functor $`F:𝐌^𝒞𝐌_A`$ is a Frobenius functor (has the same left and right adjoint), i.e. $`_A𝒞`$ is also a left adjoint of $`F`$ . Motivated by the question in  let us make

###### Conjecture 4.1.

A biseparable $`A`$-coring $`𝒞`$ is Frobenius.

###### Proposition 4.3.

If Conjecture 4.1 is true, then biseparable extensions are Frobenius.

Proof.  Given a biseparable extension $`BA`$, its canonical coring $`𝒞=A_BA`$ is biseparable by the previous proposition. If $`𝒞`$ is then a Frobenius coring by hypothesis, it follows from \[6, Theorem 2.7\] that $`BA`$ is a Frobenius extension, since $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is faithfully flat. $``$$``$

We now proceed to establish a converse to this proposition.

###### Proposition 4.4.

If $`𝒞`$ is a cosplit $`A`$-coring, then $`\iota ^{}:A𝒞^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}\iota :A{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ are both split extensions.

Proof.  By \[5, Theorem 3.3\], $`𝒞`$ is cosplit iff there is $`e𝒞^A`$ such that $`ϵ_𝒞(e)=1`$. (In other words, $`ϵ_𝒞:𝒞A`$ is a split $`(A,A)`$-epimorphism.) We now define a “conditional expectation” or bimodule projection $`E^{}:𝒞^{}A`$, respectively $`{}_{}{}^{}E:{}_{}{}^{}𝒞A`$ simply by

$$E^{}(\xi )=\xi (e),{}_{}{}^{}E(\xi ^{})=\xi ^{}(e)(\xi 𝒞^{},\xi ^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝒞).$$

Note that $`E^{}(ϵ_𝒞)=1_A={}_{}{}^{}E(1_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞)`$ and

$$E^{}(a\xi a^{})=a\xi (a^{}e)=a\xi (ea^{})=a\xi (e)a^{}=aE^{}(\xi )a^{}$$

for $`a,a^{}A`$, whence $`E^{}`$ and similarly $`{}_{}{}^{}E`$ give $`(A,A)`$-bimodule splittings of $`\iota ^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}\iota `$. $``$$``$

For example, the canonical Sweedler coring $`𝒞`$ of a ring extension $`BA`$ is cosplit if and only if $`BA`$ is a separable extension. Now $`𝒞^{}\mathrm{End}_B(A)`$ as rings via $`\xi \xi (1)`$ with inverse

$$f[aa^{}f(a)a^{}].$$

Since $`\iota ^{}`$ corresponds to the left regular representation $`\lambda :A\mathrm{End}_B(A)`$, we recover results by Müller and Sugano that $`\lambda `$ is a split extension if $`BA`$ is separable.

###### Proposition 4.5.

Let $`𝒞`$ be an $`A`$-coring. If $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ is finitely generated projective, then $`𝒞`$ is coseparable if and only if $`{}_{}{}^{}\iota :A{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ is a separable extension. If $`𝒞_A`$ is finitely generated projective, then $`𝒞`$ is a coseparable $`A`$-coring if and only if $`\iota ^{}:A𝒞^{}`$ is a separable extension.

Proof.  We will prove the first statement, the second follows similarly. The category of right comodules $`𝐌^𝒞`$ is isomorphic to the category $`𝐌_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ of right modules over $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ \[5, Lemma 4.3\]. Recall that given a coaction $`\varrho ^M:M_AM_A𝒞`$, we define an action of $`\xi {}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ on $`mM𝐌^𝒞`$ by $`m\xi =m{}_{(0)}{}^{}\xi (m{}_{(1)}{}^{})`$. It is trivial to check that $`(M,)𝐌_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$. Inversely, given dual bases $`\{\xi _i{}_{}{}^{}𝒞\}`$ and $`\{c_i𝒞\}`$ such that $`c=_i\xi _i(c)c_i`$ for each $`c𝒞`$, and right action of $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ on $`M𝐌_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$, we define a coaction

$$\varrho ^M(m)=\underset{i}{}m\xi _i_Ac_i.$$

It is easily checked that $`(M,\varrho ^M)𝐌^𝒞`$, and that the two operations are natural and inverses to one another, so that $`𝐌_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞𝐌^𝒞`$.

Now $`𝒞`$ is coseparable if and only if the forgetful functor $`F:𝐌^𝒞𝐌_A`$ is a separable functor. Since

$$m{}_{}{}^{}\iota (a)=m{}_{(0)}{}^{}ϵ_{𝒞}^{}(m{}_{(1)}{}^{})a=ma$$

for each $`aA,mM𝐌^𝒞`$, $`F`$ corresponds under the isomorphism of categories above to the forgetful functor $`G:𝐌_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞𝐌_A`$ induced by $`{}_{}{}^{}\iota :A{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$. But $`G`$ is a separable functor if and only if $`{}_{}{}^{}\iota `$ is a separable extension . $``$$``$

###### Proposition 4.6.

Suppose $`𝒞`$ is an $`A`$-coring which is reflexive as a left and right $`A`$-module. Then $`𝒞`$ is a Frobenius coring if and only if $`{}_{}{}^{}\iota :A{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ is a Frobenius extension if and only if $`\iota ^{}:A𝒞^{}`$ is a Frobenius extension.

Proof.  The proof is quite similar to the proof of Proposition 4.5 (cf. \[5, Theorem 4.1\]). If $`{}_{}{}^{}\iota `$ is Frobenius, it follows that $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞_{A}^{}`$ is finitely generated projective, so $`{}_{A}{}^{}({}_{}{}^{}𝒞)_{}^{}`$ is finitely generated projective, whence by reflexivity $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ is finitely generated projective. Then the categories $`𝐌_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ and $`𝐌^𝒞`$ are isomorphic. But the forgetful functor $`G:𝐌_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞𝐌_A`$ has equal left and right adjoint if $`{}_{}{}^{}\iota `$ is Frobenius, in which case $`F`$ is Frobenius and $`𝒞`$ is a Frobenius coring. The other case is entirely similar. Conversely, if $`𝒞`$ is a Frobenius $`A`$-coring, then both $`𝒞_A`$ and $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ are finitely generated projective \[6, Corollary 2.3\]. The rest follows from the functorial definitions of Frobenius extension and coring applied to either isomorphism of left or right module and comodule categories . $``$$``$

###### Theorem 4.7.

Biseparable corings are Frobenius if and only if left or right biseparable extensions are Frobenius.

Proof.  Without one-sidedness, we saw $``$ in Proposition 4.3. ($``$) Suppose $`𝒞`$ is a biseparable $`A`$-coring. Then $`{}_{}{}^{}\iota :A{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ and $`\iota ^{}:A𝒞^{}`$ are split, separable extensions by Propositions 4.4 and 4.5. Since $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ and $`𝒞_A`$ are finitely generated projective, it follows that $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞_{A}^{}`$ and $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞_{}^{}`$ are finitely generated projective. If either left or right biseparable extensions are Frobenius, then either $`\iota ^{}`$ or $`{}_{}{}^{}\iota `$ is a Frobenius extension. In either case, Proposition 4.6 shows $`𝒞`$ to be a Frobenius coring. $``$$``$

We note the following special “depth one” case for which there is a solution to our conjecture. If $`𝒞`$ is a centrally projective $`A`$-bimodule, i.e., as $`A`$-$`A`$-bimodules $`𝒞W^nA`$ for some $`(A,A)`$-bimodule $`W`$, and $`𝒞`$ is moreover biseparable, then $`𝒞`$ is Frobenius by a classical result of Sugano:

###### Proposition 4.8.

If $`𝒞`$ is a centrally projective, cosplit, coseparable $`A`$-coring, then $`𝒞`$ is Frobenius.

Proof.  We easily obtain $`𝒞^{}W^{}^nA`$ as $`A`$-$`A`$-bimodules, whence $`\iota ^{}:A𝒞^{}`$ is a centrally projective separable extension by Proposition 4.5, and monomorphism since $`ϵ_𝒞`$ is surjective. By \[19, Theorem 2\] $`\iota ^{}`$ is a Frobenius extension. Then by Proposition 4.6, $`𝒞`$ is a Frobenius coring. $``$$``$

## Acknowledgements

Tomasz Brzeziński would like to thank the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council for an Advanced Fellowship. Lars Kadison thanks Dmitri Nikshych and the University of New Hampshire Department of Mathematics and Statistics for their generosity.